Agricultural Marketing Service
Forest Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Air Force Department
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureau
Coast Guard
Customs and Border Protection Bureau
Transportation Security Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Transportation Statistics Bureau
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.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule increases the assessment rate established for the California Date Administrative Committee (committee) for the 2004-05 and subsequent crop years from $0.75 to $0.85 per hundredweight of dates handled. The committee locally administers the marketing order which regulates the handling of dates produced or packed in Riverside County, California. Authorization to assess date handlers enables the committee to incur expenses that are reasonable and necessary to administer the program. The committee recommended increasing the assessment rate because additional revenues are needed to fund program operations. The crop year begins October 1 and ends September 30. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Toni Sasselli, Program Analyst, California Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey St., suite 102B, Fresno, CA 93721; telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906; or George Kelhart, Technical Advisor, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938.
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or E-mail:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 127 and Marketing Order No. 987, both as amended (7 CFR part 987), regulating the handling of domestic dates produced or packed in Riverside County, California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The marketing agreement and order are effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, California date handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable dates beginning on October 1, 2004, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule increases the assessment rate established for the committee for the 2004-05 and subsequent crop years from $0.75 to $0.85 per hundredweight of assessable dates handled.
The California date marketing order provides authority for the committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the committee are producers and producer-handlers of California dates in the production area and are familiar with the committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area. As such, they are in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed at a public meeting, and all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate in the deliberations and provide input.
For the 2003-04 and subsequent crop years, the committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from crop year to crop year unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the committee or other information available to USDA.
The committee met on June 30, 2004, and unanimously recommended 2004-05 crop year expenditures of $223,000 and an assessment rate of $0.85 per hundredweight of dates handled. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $225,365. The recommended assessment rate of $0.85 is $0.10 higher than the rate currently in effect. The increase in the assessment rate is needed to fund the committee's current budget, and maintain its financial operating reserve at about $36,000, a level which the committee deems satisfactory.
The budgeted administrative expenses for the 2004-05 crop year include $90,427 for labor and office expenses. This compares to $123,710 in budgeted expenses in 2003-04. In addition, $112,499 has been budgeted for marketing and promotion under the program for the 2004-05 crop year. This compares to $101,655 in budgeted marketing and promotion expenses for the 2003-04 crop year. A total of
The committee administers a surplus account wherein the proceeds from sales of cull dates are deposited for subsequent use by the committee in covering the surplus pool share of the committee's expenses. Handlers may also dispose of cull dates of their own production within their own livestock-feeding operation; otherwise, such cull dates must be shipped or delivered to the committee for sale to non-human food product outlets. For the 2004-05 crop year, the committee voted to use $2,000 from the surplus account to help fund the committee's budget of $223,000.
The assessment rate of $0.85 per hundredweight of assessable dates was derived by applying the following formula where:
A = Cull Surplus Fund ($2,000);
B = 2004-05 expected shipments (260,000 hundredweight);
C = 2004-05 expenses ($223,000);
(C−A) B = $0.85 per hundredweight.
Estimated shipments should provide $221,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments and $2,000 from the cull surplus fund would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the financial operating reserve are expected to total about $35,700 by September 30, 2005, and therefore will be less than the maximum permitted by the order (not to exceed 50 percent of the average of expenses incurred during the most recent five preceding crop years as required under § 987.72(c)).
The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the committee will continue to meet prior to or during each crop year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of committee meetings are available from the committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The committee's 2004-05 budget and those for subsequent crop years will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 124 producers of dates in the production area and approximately 10 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. The Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) defines small agricultural service firms as those having annual receipts of less than $5,000,000, and defines small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000.
An industry profile shows that four of the 10 handlers (40 percent) shipped over $5,000,000 of dates and could be considered large handlers by the Small Business Administration. Six of the 10 handlers (60 percent) shipped under $5,000,000 of dates and could be considered small handlers. An estimated 7 producers, or less than 6 percent, of the 124 total producers, would be considered large producers with annual incomes over $750,000. The majority of handlers and producers of California dates may be classified as small entities.
This rule increases the assessment rate established for the committee and collected from handlers for the 2004-05 and subsequent crop years from $0.75 to $0.85 per hundredweight of assessable dates handled. The committee unanimously recommended 2004-05 expenditures of $223,000 and the $0.85 per hundredweight assessment rate at their meeting on June 30, 2004. The assessment rate of $0.85 is $0.10 higher than the rate currently in effect. The quantity of assessable dates for the 2004-05 crop year is estimated at 260,000 hundredweight. Thus, the $0.85 per hundredweight rate should provide $221,000 in assessment income. This, along with approximately $2,000 from the surplus account, would be adequate to meet the committee's 2004-05 crop year expenses.
The budgeted administrative expenses for the 2004-05 crop year include $90,427 for labor and office expenses. This compares to $123,710 in budgeted expenses in 2003-04. In addition, $112,499 has been budgeted for marketing and promotion under the marketing order for the 2004-05 crop year. This compares to $101,655 in budgeted marketing and promotion expenses for the 2003-04 crop year. A total of $20,074 is budgeted as a contingency reserve. A contingency reserve totaling $10,000 was budgeted last year.
The committee administers a surplus account wherein the proceeds from sales of cull dates are deposited for subsequent use by the committee in covering the surplus pool share of the committee's expenses. For the 2004-05 crop year, the committee voted to use $2,000 from the surplus account to help fund the committee's budget of $223,000.
The committee reviewed and unanimously recommended 2004-05 expenditures of $223,000 which include marketing and promotion programs. Prior to arriving at this budget, the committee considered alternative expenditure levels and alternative assessment levels. The committee agreed that the increased assessment rate was appropriate to cover expenses and maintain its financial operating reserve at a satisfactory level ($35,700). The assessment rate of $0.85 per hundredweight of assessable dates was then determined by applying the following formula where:
A = Cull Surplus Fund ($2,000);
B = 2004-05 expected shipments (260,000 hundredweight);
C = 2004-05 expenses ($223,000);
(C − A) B = $0.85 per hundredweight.
Estimated shipments should provide $221,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments and $2,000 from the cull surplus fund would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the financial operating reserve are expected to total about $35,700 by September 30, 2005, and therefore will be less than the maximum permitted by the order (not to exceed 50 percent of the average of expenses incurred during the most recent five preceding crop years as required under § 987.72(c)).
A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming crop year indicates that the grower price for the 2004-05 season could range between $40 and $120 per hundredweight of dates. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the
This action increases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers under the Federal marketing order. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs would be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California date industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in committee deliberations on all issues. Like all committee meetings, the June 30, 2004, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.
This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California date handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it also found and determined that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of the rule until 30 days after publication in the
Dates, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after October 1, 2004, an assessment rate of $0.85 per hundredweight is established for California dates.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Valentin GmbH & Co. Taifun 17E sailplanes. This AD requires you to do an operational check of the front wing-locking mechanism left and right, inspect stop key movement, inspect wing and fuselage side root ribs, inspect the wing side shear force fittings, and take any corrective actions that may be required. This AD is the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for Germany. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct malfunction of wing-locking mechanism, which could result in failure of the wing-locking mechanism disengagement. This failure could lead to unlocking of wing in flight and consequent loss of control of the sailplane.
This AD becomes effective on November 24, 2004.
As of November 24, 2004, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulation.
You may get the service information identified in this AD from KORFF + CO.KG, Dieselstrasse 5, D-63128 Dietzenbach, Germany.
You may view the AD docket at FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003-CE-56-AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Office hours are 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Gregory M. Davison, Aerospace Engineer, Small Airplane Directorate, ACE-112, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: 816-329-4130; facsimile: 816-329-4090.
What is FAA's final determination on this issue? We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections:
We estimate the following costs to accomplish replacement of the stop key F1-1300 that will be required based on the results of the inspections. We have no way of determining the number of sailplanes that may need the stop key F1-1300 replaced or the number of sailplanes that may need additional repair because of abrasion. We also do not know the cost that will be associated with any abrasion repair:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective on November 24, 2004.
(b) None.
(c) This AD affects the following sailplane models and serial numbers that are certificated in any category: Valentin GmbH & Co. Taifun 17E, all serial numbers are affected except those where Service Bulletin 23-818 has been complied with.
(d) This AD is the result of an incorrectly locked shear force fitting, which may have caused wing-locking mechanism disengagement. The actions specified in this AD are intended to detect and correct malfunction of the wing-locking mechanism, which could result in failure of the wing attachment assembly. This failure could lead to unlocking of wing in flight and subsequent loss of control of the sailplane.
(e) To address this problem, you must do the following:
We recommend that you make the “Flight Manual” and “Instructions for Continued Airworthiness” changes that are listed under Actions: 5. of Korff + CO.KG Service Bulletin SB-KOCO 03/818, dated December 12, 2002 (German LBA approved December 20, 2002).
(f) You may request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD by following the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, send your request to your principal inspector. The principal inspector may add comments and will send your request to the Manager, Standards Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on any already approved alternative methods of compliance, contact Gregory M. Davison, Aerospace Engineer, Small Airplane Directorate, ACE-112, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: 816-329-4130; facsimile: 816-329-4090.
(g) You must do the actions required by this AD following the instructions in Korff + CO.KG Service Bulletin SB-KOCO 03/818, dated December 12, 2002 (German LBA approved December 20, 2002). The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service bulletin in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may get a copy from KORFF + CO.KG, Dieselstrasse 5, D-63128 Dietzenbach, Germany. You may review copies at FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 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:
(h) LBA airworthiness directive 2003-051, dated January 29, 2003; and
Korff + CO.KG Service Bulletin SB-KOCO 03/818, dated December 20, 2002, also address the subject of this AD.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is superseding an existing AD for certain Hartzell Propeller Inc. (formerly Hartzell Propeller Products Division) Model HC-B5MP-3( )/M10282A( )+6 five bladed propellers. That AD currently requires initial and repetitive torque check inspections on the attach bolts on certain model Hartzell HC-B5MP-3 five bladed propellers, and replacement of attach bolts if necessary. This AD requires the same inspections, but reduces compliance time for the initial inspection on certain Short Brothers Ltd. Model SD3-30 airplanes to before further flight and within 100 hours time-in-service for propellers installed on certain Aerospatiale (Nord) Model 262A airplanes. This AD also requires repetitive torque check inspections at reduced intervals on SD3-30 airplanes, and requires additional visual inspections of mounting flanges, and threads in hub bolt holes, and replacement of attach bolts and hubs, if necessary. This AD results from four reports in the last 12 months of eleven cracked or failed propeller attach bolts on Short Brothers Model SD3-30 airplanes. We are issuing this AD to prevent propeller separation from the airplane.
Effective October 19, 2004. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of October 19, 2004.
We must receive any comments on this AD by December 13, 2004.
Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this AD:
• By mail: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 86-ANE-7, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299.
• By fax: (781) 238-7055.
• By e-mail:
You can get the service information referenced in this AD from Hartzell Propeller Inc. Technical Publications Department, One Propeller Place, Piqua, OH 45356; telephone (937) 778-4200; fax (937) 778-4391.
You may examine the AD docket, by appointment, at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. You may examine the service information, by appointment, at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; 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:
Tomaso DiPaolo, Aerospace Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018; telephone: (847) 294-7031; fax: (847) 294-7834.
On March 7, 1986, the FAA issued AD 86-06-02, Amendment 39-5259 (51 FR 10613, March 28, 1986). That AD requires initial and repetitive torque check inspections on the attach bolts on certain model Hartzell HC-B5MP-3 five bladed propellers installed on Aerospatiale (Nord) Model 262A airplanes modified by Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA2369SW, and Short Brothers Ltd. Model SD3-30 airplanes. Some SD3-30 airplanes are military surplus C23-A Sherpas airplanes. That AD was the result of investigations that revealed fretting wear between the engine and propeller mating flanges. The fretting wear results in loss of attach bolt preload, causing failure of the attach bolts. That condition, if not corrected, could result in propeller separation from the airplane.
Since February 2004, we received four reports of failed propeller attach bolts, part number (P/N) B-3339:
• In February 2004, an operator reported a cracked Hartzell propeller attach bolt. The operator discarded the bolt and we could not perform a metallurgical investigation on the bolt.
• In June of 2004, another operator reported two broken propeller attach bolts. Both bolts were examined and one was selected for metallurgical investigation. This bolt was found to meet type design.
• In September of 2004, the Milwaukee Flight Standards District Office informed us that they received an operator's report of seven cracked or failed propeller attach bolts. All seven bolts were installed on the same propeller, and were found after a pilot reported problems with engine controls. We contacted Hartzell for assistance in investigating the bolt failure. The propeller hub and engine flange are being investigated for fretting, flatness, and thread damage.
• In late September of 2004, during the review of the maintenance history of one of the above propellers, we found a fourth event of a cracked propeller attach bolt.
We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of Hartzell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) A203A, dated January 5, 1995, that describes procedures for performing initial and repetitive inspections of attach bolts and if necessary, visual inspections of propeller mounting flanges.
Although Hartzell ASB A203A, dated January 5, 1995, requires an initial torque check inspection within the next 100 hours TIS from the effective date of the original bulletin (dated September 2, 1994) for Short Brothers Ltd. Model SD3-30 airplanes, this AD requires an initial torque check inspection before further flight for SD3-30 airplanes. Also, although that ASB requires an initial torque check inspection within the next 120 hours TIS from the effective date of the original bulletin (September 2, 1994) for Aerospatiale (Nord) Model 262A airplanes, this AD requires an initial torque check inspection within 100 hours TIS for 262A airplanes.
The unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other Model HC-B5MP-3( )/M10282A( )+6 five bladed propellers of the same type design installed on Aerospatiale (Nord) Model 262A airplanes modified by STC SA2369SW, and Short Brothers Ltd. Model SD3-30 airplanes. We are issuing this AD to prevent propeller separation from the airplane. This AD requires the following:
• Before further flight, performing an initial torque check inspection of the propeller attach bolts on Short Brothers Ltd. Model SD3-30 airplanes unless already done within the last 120 hours TIS before the effective date of this AD; and
• Repetitive torque check inspections of the propeller attach bolts within 120 hours TIS from the last inspection.
• Within 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, performing an initial torque check inspection of the propeller attach bolts on Aerospatiale (Nord) Model 262A airplanes; and
• Repetitive torque check inspections of the propeller attach bolts within 100 hours TIS from the last inspection.
• If the bolts fail the torque check, then visually inspect threads in hub bolt holes, and replace attach bolts and hub if necessary.
Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we have found that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
These actions are interim actions and we may take further rulemaking actions in the future.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
We are reviewing the writing style we currently use in regulatory documents. We are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document is clear, and your suggestions to improve the clarity of our communications with you. You may get more information about plain language at
You may examine the AD Docket (including any comments and service information), by appointment, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. See
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 the regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. 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 summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October 19, 2004.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 86-06-02.
(c) This AD applies to Hartzell Propeller Inc. (formerly Hartzell Propeller Products Division) Model HC-B5MP-3( )/M10282A( )+6 five-bladed propellers installed on, Aerospatiale (Nord) Model 262A airplanes modified by Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA2369SW, and Short Brothers Ltd. Model SD3-30 airplanes.
(d) This AD results from four reports in the last 8 months of eleven cracked or failed Hartzell propeller attach bolts, part number (P/N) B-3339, on Short Brothers Model SD3-
(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) Before further flight, for propellers installed on Short Brothers Ltd. Model SD3-30 airplanes, do the following:
(1) Perform an initial torque check inspection of the Hartzell propeller attach bolts, P/N B-3339, unless already done within 120 hours time-in-service (TIS) before the effective date of this AD, and thereafter, within 120 hour TIS intervals since the last inspection. Use Procedure #1 “Mounting Bolt Torque Check” of Hartzell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) A203A, dated January 5, 1995, to do the inspections.
(2) If the torque check fails, remove the propeller and go to paragraph (h) of this AD.
(g) For propellers installed on Aerospatiale (Nord) Model 262A airplanes modified by STC SA2369SW, do the following:
(1) Perform an initial torque check inspection of the Hartzell propeller attach bolts, P/N B-3339, within 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter, within 100 hour TIS intervals since the last inspection. Use Procedure #1 “Mounting Bolt Torque Check” of Hartzell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) A203A, dated January 5, 1995, to do the inspections.
(2) If the torque check fails, remove the propeller and go to paragraph (h) of this AD.
(h) When the propeller is removed due to failing the torque check in Procedure #1 of Hartzell ASB A203A, dated January 5, 1995, inspect and rework if necessary, the engine and propeller mounting flange surfaces. Use Procedure #2 “Engine/Propeller Mounting Flanges” of Hartzell ASB A203A, dated January 5, 1995, to do the inspections and rework. Also inspect the hub mounting bolt holes as follows:
(1) Clean bolt holes using Stoddard solvent or equivalent and a soft bristle brush.
(2) Visually inspect the area around the bolt holes. No deformations, evidence of rework, depressions, or protrusions around bolt holes are permitted, except for an edge chamfer of the bolt hole up to 0.030 inch.
(3) Using a 10X magnification, and an appropriate light source, visually inspect threads for chipping, missing material, deformation, and scratches. No damage is permitted.
(4) Using a new P/N B-3339 bolt, check threads by threading bolt by hand into the bolt hole. The bolt must thread in easily with no binding.
(5) Any hub with a bolt hole showing one or more of the prohibited conditions specified in paragraphs (h)(2) through (h(4) must be removed from service.
(i) Before installing any Hartzell propeller attach bolt P/N B-3339, apply anti-seize compound MIL-PRF-83483, to the threaded surfaces of the attach bolt. Do not use any other anti-seize compound on attach bolts.
(j) Before installing a Hartzell HC-B5MP-3( )/M10282A( )+6 propeller, the propeller mounting flange and engine flange must be clean and dry. Do not use anti-fretting compounds on the flanges. You may install an FAA-approved Pratt & Whitney shim between the propeller mount flange and engine flange.
(k) The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(l) Under 14 CFR part 39.23, special flight permits are prohibited.
(m) You must use Hartzell Alert Service Bulletin A203A, dated January 5, 1995, to perform the procedures referenced by this AD. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service bulletin in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You can get a copy from Hartzell Propeller Inc. Technical Publications Department, One Propeller Place, Piqua, OH 45356; telephone (937) 778-4200; fax (937) 778-4391. You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; 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:
(n) Information on propeller removal and installation procedures can be found in Hartzell Propeller Inc. Service Instruction 140A.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Przedsiebiorstwo Doswiadczalno-Produkcyjne Szybownictwa “PZL-Bielsko” (PZL-Bielsko) Model SZD-50-3 “Puchacz” sailplanes. This AD requires you to repetitively inspect the front and back of the fuselage front bulkhead attachment fitting for cracks and replace the attachment fitting if any cracks are found. This AD is the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for Poland. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the fuselage front bulkhead attachment fitting, which could result in structural failure of the bulkhead. This failure could lead to loss of control of the sailplane.
This AD becomes effective on November 29, 2004.
As of November 29, 2004, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulation.
You may get the service information identified in this AD from Przedsiebiorstwo Doświadczalno-Produkcyjne Szybownictwa PZL-Bielsko, ul. Cieszyńska 325, 43-300 Bielsko-Biala: telephone: +48 033 812 50 21; facsimile: +48 033 812 37 39.
You may view the AD docket at FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003-CE-68-AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Office hours are 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4130; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.
We estimate the following costs to accomplish any necessary replacement that will be required based on the results of this inspection. We have no way of determining the number of sailplanes that may need such a replacement:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective on November 29, 2004.
(b) None.
(c) This AD affects Model SZD-50-3 “Puchacz” sailplanes, all serial numbers, that are certificated in any category.
(d) This AD is the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for Poland. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the fuselage front bulkhead attachment fitting, which could result in structural failure of the bulkhead. This failure could lead to loss of control of the sailplane.
(e) To address this problem, you must do the following:
(f) You may request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD by following the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, send your request to your principal inspector. The principal inspector may add comments and will send your request to the Manager, Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA. For information on any already approved alternative methods of compliance, contact Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4130; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.
(g) You must do the actions required by this AD following the instructions in Przedsiebiorstwo Doświadczalno-Produkcyjne Szybownictwa PZL-Bielsko (PDPS “PZL-Bielsko”) Mandatory Bulletin No. BE-048/SZD-50-3/2000 “Puchacz”, dated June 6, 2000; and Przedsiebiorstwo Doświadczalno-Produkcyjne Szybownictwa PZL-Bielsko (PDPS “PZL-Bielsko”) Mandatory Bulletin No. BE-049/SZD-50-3/2000 “Puchacz”, dated September 14, 2000. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service bulletin in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may get a copy from Przedsiebiorstwo Doświadczalno-Produkcyjne Szybownictwa PZL-Bielsko, ul. Cieszyńska 325, 43-300 Bielsko-Biala: telephone: +48 033 812 50 21; facsimile: +48 033 812 37 39. You may review copies at FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 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:
(h) Republic of Poland AD Number SP-0059-2000-A, dated June 5, 2000, and AD Number SP-0094-2000-A, dated September 18, 2000, also address the subject of this AD.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Jonesville, VA. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is needed to contain aircraft operating into Lee County Airport, Jonesville, VA, under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR).
Effective 0901 UTC January 20, 2005.
Mr. Francis Jordan, airspace Specialist, Airspace Branch, Eastern Terminal Service Unit, Federal Aviation Administration, 1 Aviation Plaza, Jamaica, New York 11434-4809, telephone: (718) 553-4521.
On August 11, 2004, a notice proposing to amend Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by establishing a Class E airspace area at Jonesville, VA, was published in the
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. Class E airspace area designations for airspace extending upward from the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9M, dated August 30, 2004, and effective September 16, 2004, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published in the Order.
This amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) provides controlled Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for aircraft conducting IFR operations within an 8-mile radius of Lee County Airport, Jonesville, VA.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an establish body of technical regulations for which frequent and rountine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; EO 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9M, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 30, 2004, and effective September 16, 2004, is amended as follows:
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Final rule; delay of implementation.
On July 19, 2004, the Bureau of Indian affairs published a Final Rule in the
Implementation of the Final Rule published at 69 FR 43090 will be delayed until November 13, 2004.
LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., MS 320 SIB, Washington, DC 20240, Telephone 202-513-7711 or Fax 202-208-4696.
Forest Service, Agriculture; Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
This final rule clarifies the membership qualifications for Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils established under Subsistence Management Regulations. The rulemaking is necessary because of an order entered by the U.S. District Court for Alaska. The final rule also removes the definition of “regulatory year” from Subpart A and places it in Subpart D of the regulations.
This final rule is effective November 15, 2004.
Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o
Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111-3126) requires that the Secretaries implement a program to grant a preference for subsistence uses of fish and wildlife resources on public lands, unless the State of Alaska enacts and implements laws of general applicability that are consistent with ANILCA and that provide for the subsistence definition, preference, and participation specified in Sections 803, 804, and 805 of ANILCA. The State implemented a program that the Department of the Interior previously found to be consistent with ANILCA. However, in December 1989, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in
As a result of the
Consistent with Subparts A, B, and C of these regulations, as revised January 8, 1999 (64 FR 1276), the Departments established a Federal Subsistence Board (Board) to administer the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The Board's composition consists of a Chair appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture; the Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Alaska Regional Director, U.S. National Park Service; the Alaska State Director, U.S. Bureau of Land Management; the Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs; and the Alaska Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service. Through the Board, these agencies participate in the development of Federal Subsistence Management Regulations (Subparts A, B, C, and D).
The Board has reviewed this rule. Because this rule relates to public lands managed by an agency or agencies in both the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, identical text will be incorporated into 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100.
Subparts A, B, and C (unless otherwise amended) of the Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, 50 CFR 100.1 to 100.24 and 36 CFR 242.1 to 242.24, remain effective and apply to this rule. Therefore, all definitions located at 50 CFR 100.4 and 36 CFR 242.4 will apply to regulations found in this subpart.
Pursuant to the Record of Decision, Subsistence Management Regulations for Federal Public Lands in Alaska, April 6, 1992, and the Subsistence Management Regulations for Federal Public Lands in Alaska, 36 CFR 242.11 (1999) and 50 CFR 100.11 (1999), and for the purposes identified therein, Alaska is divided into 10 subsistence resource regions, each of which is represented by a Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Council. The Regional Councils provide a forum for rural residents with personal knowledge of local conditions and resource requirements to have a meaningful role in the subsistence management of fish and wildlife on Alaska public lands.
The Board reviews applications for membership on the Councils and makes recommendations to the Secretaries on the appointments to the Councils. The appointments are actually made by the Secretary of the Interior with the concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture. The Regional Council members represent varied geographical areas, cultures, interests, and resource users within each region. A Regional Council member must be a resident of the region in which he or she is appointed and be knowledgeable about the region and subsistence uses of the public lands therein.
In 1998, Safari Club International and others filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska. This suit, as ultimately ruled upon, challenged the Board's customary and traditional use determination process, specific customary and traditional use determinations, and the balance of membership on the Regional Councils required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972, Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770 (
The Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government et al. were permitted to intervene in the Safari Club case and to challenge the 70/30 ratio representational goals established by the Secretaries. In January 2004, the U.S. District Court for Alaska entered an order dismissing the first two of Safari Club's claims and staying proceedings on the balance of Regional Council membership. The court did note in part with respect to the Regional Councils “that a council comprised of only subsistence users is not fairly balanced. Subsistence users are not the only persons directly affected by regional advisory council recommendations and subsistence users are not the only persons who might be interested in the management of fish and wildlife on federal lands * * * Non-subsistence users of fish and wildlife are directly affected by management of fish and wildlife for subsistence uses and have a legitimate interest in the proper scientific management of same * * *. While
In ruling on a cross-claim of the Native Village of Venetie, the Court invalidated the Secretaries' policy of a goal of a 70/30 (subsistence users/sport and commercial users) membership ratio for failure to procedurally comply with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act found at 5 U.S.C. 553, and found that the policy should have been put before the public for comment in a rulemaking process. The District Court also ordered that the Secretaries promptly initiate and conclude a rulemaking to promulgate an appropriate Regional Council regulation consistent with FACA after compliance with 5 U.S.C. 553. The Secretaries initiated action with a proposed rule published on April 15, 2004, (69 FR 19964) and received testimony on the proposed rule at a May 2004 public hearing.
The underlying purpose of the change to §_.11(b), while complying with the District Court's order, is to ensure continued compliance with both the fairly balanced representational requirements of FACA and the requirements and purposes of Title VIII of ANILCA in the appointments to the Regional Councils. In the change, the Secretaries recognize that some persons with interests other than subsistence uses are entitled under FACA to be represented on the Regional Councils, while recognizing that Congress intended in Title VIII for rural Alaska residents “who have personal knowledge of local conditions and requirements * * * to have a meaningful role in the management of fish and wildlife and of subsistence uses on public lands in Alaska,” and that Congress also intended that “large urban population centers” not be allowed to dominate the Regional Council system. The 70/30 representational goals of the change to §_.11(b) assures the appropriate representation and meaningful majority role for rural Alaska residents, while providing an appropriate representation for the interests of nonrural residents and nonsubsistence users.
The change to §_.11(b) establishes representational goals only in recognition that the actual appointments are dependent on the receipt of applications and nominations of highly qualified individuals. The change also requires the Board to identify to the Secretaries the interests that the applicant would represent. The Secretaries retain their role in making the appointments to the Regional Councils. They also approve the Regional Council charters, wherein the size of each Regional Council is set. This is reflected in a change to identify the Secretaries as establishing the number of members for each Council. These changes to §_.11(b) are consistent with FACA and ANILCA.
Additionally, we modified the definition of “regulatory year” for fish and shellfish fisheries to mean April 1 through March 31 and shifted the placement of this definition from §_.4 to §_.25. This change in dates allows more opportunity for development of public booklets informing subsistence users of regulatory changes, and the shift in placement of the definition within the regulations allows the Board more flexibility to make adjustments in the future.
In addition to comments from the Regional Councils, we received written comments and/or oral testimony from 11 individuals or organizations. Their comments and the responses are summarized below.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for developing a Federal Subsistence Management Program was distributed for public comment on October 7, 1991. That document described the major issues associated with Federal subsistence management as identified through public meetings, written comments, and staff analysis, and examined the environmental consequences of four alternatives. Proposed regulations (Subparts A, B, and C) that would implement the preferred alternative were included in the DEIS as an appendix. The DEIS and the proposed administrative regulations presented a framework for an annual regulatory cycle regarding subsistence hunting and fishing regulations (Subpart D). The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published on February 28, 1992.
Based on the public comment received, the analysis contained in the FEIS, and the recommendations of the Federal Subsistence Board and the Department of the Interior's Subsistence Policy Group, the Secretary of the Interior, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture, through the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, implemented Alternative IV as identified in the DEIS and FEIS (Record of Decision on Subsistence Management for Federal Public Lands in Alaska (ROD), signed April 6, 1992). The DEIS and the selected alternative in the FEIS defined the administrative framework of an annual regulatory cycle for subsistence hunting and fishing regulations. The final rule for Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, Subparts A, B, and C (57 FR 22940, published May 29, 1992, and amended January 8, 1999, 64 FR 1276; June 12, 2001, 66 FR 31533; May 7, 2002, 67 FR 30559; and February 18, 2003, 68 FR 7703) implemented the Federal Subsistence Management Program and included a framework for an annual cycle for subsistence hunting and fishing regulations.
The intent of all Federal subsistence regulations is to accord subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on public lands a priority over the taking of fish and wildlife on such lands for other purposes, unless restriction is necessary to conserve healthy fish and wildlife populations. A Section 810 analysis was completed as part of the FEIS process. The final Section 810 analysis determination appeared in the April 6, 1992, ROD, which concluded that the Federal Subsistence Management Program may have some local impacts on subsistence uses, but the program is not likely to significantly restrict subsistence uses.
There is nothing in this rulemaking that affects the prior NEPA or Section 810 analysis and so no additional analysis is required for this rulemaking.
These changes do not contain information collection requirements subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. We may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, an information collection request unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Economic Effects—This rule is not a significant rule subject to OMB review under Executive Order 12866. This rulemaking will impose no significant costs on small entities; this rule is administrative in nature only and does not restrict any existing sport or commercial fishery on the public lands, and subsistence fisheries will continue at essentially the same levels as they presently occur. The number of businesses and the amount of trade that will result from this Federal land related activity is unknown but expected to be insignificant.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
Title VIII of ANILCA requires the Secretaries to administer a subsistence priority on public lands. The scope of this program is limited by definition to certain public lands. Likewise, these regulations have no potential takings of private property implications as defined by Executive Order 12630.
The Secretaries have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502
The Secretaries have determined that these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 regarding civil justice reform.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Title VIII of ANILCA precludes the State from exercising subsistence management authority over fish and wildlife resources on Federal lands unless their program meets certain requirements.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or use. This Executive Order requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 13211, affecting energy supply, distribution, or use, this action is not a significant action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
William Knauer drafted these regulations under the guidance of Thomas H. Boyd of the Office of Subsistence Management, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Taylor Brelsford, Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land Management; Greg Bos, Carl Jack, and Rod Simmons, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Sandy Rabinowitch and Bob Gerhard, Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service; Warren Eastland and Dr. Glenn Chen, Alaska Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs; and Steve Kessler, USDA-Forest Service, provided additional guidance.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
16 U.S.C. 3, 472, 551, 668dd, 3101-3126; 18 U.S.C. 3551-3586; 43 U.S.C. 1733.
(a) * * *
(b)
(a) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from glass coating operations. We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
This rule is effective on December 13, 2004, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 15, 2004. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Send comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, or e-mail to
You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revision, EPA's technical support document (TSD), and other materials relevant to this action at our Region IX office during normal business hours by appointment. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revision by appointment at the following locations:
A copy of the rule may also be available via the Internet at
Francisco Dóñez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3956,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
Table 1 lists the rule we are approving with the dates that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
On June 30, 2004, this rule submittal was found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
We approved a version of Rule 4610 into the SIP on September 16, 2003 (see 68 FR 54167). The SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on April 17, 2003 and CARB submitted them to us on June 3, 2004.
VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. The submitted rule revisions delay by six months the implementation date for additional VOC emission reductions for mirror backing operations. This delay is to allow time for the single mirror coating operation in the district to implement a powder coating line to substitute for its previous high-VOC coating operation. Powder coat application reduces VOC emissions for the coating process from 63 tons per year to essentially zero. The TSD has more information about this rule.
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(b)(2)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD regulates an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 4610 must fulfill RACT.
Guidance and policy documents that we use to help evaluate specific enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the following:
1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.
2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The submitted rule makes a minor revision to the SIP-approved Rule 4610, which EPA determined to fulfill RACT. See 68 FR 54167 (September 16, 2003) and the associated TSD. The submitted rule's emission limits are consistent with other California air district rules regulating glass coating operations. The rule contains adequate record keeping and test methods provisions for monitoring the compliance of regulated facilities. The submitted rule grants a six month extension for the implementation of additional VOC emission reductions for mirror backing operations, but this short compliance delay does not interfere with RACT or with relevant attainment or reasonable further progress (RFP) requirements. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.
EPA has no recommended changes for future revisions of Rule 4610.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 13, 2004. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(331) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were submitted on June 3, 2004, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Immediate final rule.
Florida has applied to EPA for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for Final authorization, and is authorizing the State's changes through this immediate final action. EPA is publishing this rule to authorize the changes without a prior proposal because we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. Unless we get written comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the decision to authorize Florida's changes to their hazardous waste program will take effect. If we get comments that oppose this action, we will publish a document in the
This Final authorization will become effective on December 13, 2004, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by November 15, 2004. If EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal of this immediate final rule in the
Send written comments to Audrey E. Baker, Florida Authorizations Coordinator, RCRA Programs Branch, Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Sam Nunn Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960; (404) 562-8483. You may also e-mail your comments to
Audrey E. Baker, Florida Authorizations Coordinator, RCRA Programs Branch, Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Sam Nunn Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960; (404) 562-8483.
States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.
We conclude that Florida's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Florida Final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Florida has responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Florida, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.
The effect of this decision is that a facility in Florida subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Florida has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:
• Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports
• Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits
• Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions
This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Florida is being authorized by today's action are already effective, and are not changed by today's action.
EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we view this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of today's
If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the
If we receive comments that oppose only the authorization of a particular change to the State hazardous waste program, we will withdraw that part of this rule but the authorization of the program changes that the comments do not oppose will become effective on the date specified above. The
Florida initially received Final authorization on January 29, 1985, effective February 12, 1985 (50 FR 3908), to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. We granted authorization for changes to their program on December 1, 1987, effective March 3, 1988 (52 FR 45634), December 16, 1988, effective January 3, 1989 (53 FR 50529), December 14, 1990, effective February 12, 1991 (55 FR 51416), February 5, 1992, effective April 6, 1992 (57 FR 4371), February 7, 1992, effective April 7, 1992 (57 FR 4738), May 20, 1992, effective July 20, 1992 (57 FR 21351), November 9, 1993, effective January 10, 1994, (58 FR 59367), July 11, 1994, effective September 9, 1994 (59 FR 35266), August 16, 1994, effective October 17, 1994 (59 41979), October 26, 1994, effective December 27, 1994 (59 FR 53753), April 1, 1997, effective June 2, 1997 (62 FR 15407), August 23, 2001, effective October 22, 2001 (66 FR 44307), August 20, 2002, effective October 21, 2002 (67 FR 53886 and 67 FR 53889). The authorized Florida program, through RCRA Cluster IV, was incorporated by reference into the CFR on January 20, 1998, effective March 23, 1998 (63 FR 2896). Florida received corrective action authority on September 18, 2000, effective November 18, 2000 (65 FR 56256).
Florida has submitted final complete program revision applications on seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. Florida's revision consists of provisions promulgated July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998 (RCRA Cluster VIII), July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999 (RCRA IX), and July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000, otherwise known as RCRA Cluster X. The rule adoption for RCRA Cluster VIII was effective on February 4, 2000. The rule adoption for RCRA Clusters IX and X was effective on December 20, 2000. Florida Statutes Chapter 403 allows the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to administer the rules
Florida did not follow the April 9, 1999, vacatur issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia as it relates to the listing of organobromine production wastes at 40 CFR 268.40/Table “Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes” and 268.48(a)/Table Universal Treatment Standards (UTS). The State adopted the federal regulations as published in the May 26, 1998, rule in tables 40 CFR 268.40 and 268.48.
Florida will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which we issued prior to the effective date of this authorization until they expire or are terminated. We will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table above after the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Florida is not yet authorized.
Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. We do this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This action is issued under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Corrections.
The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council are issuing corrections to the Introduction and Technical Amendments (Item V) documents in FAC 2001-25, published in the
Effective October 14, 2004.
Ms. Laurie Duarte at (202) 501-4755, General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat, Washington, DC 20405.
In the final and interim rule documents appearing in the issue of October 5, 2004:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Final rule.
This rule adopts as final without change, the proposed rule published in the
Effective October 14, 2004.
Celeste Dalton, NASA, Office of Procurement, Contract Management Division (Code HK); (202) 358-1645; e-mail:
Currently the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) contains information to implement or supplement the FAR. This information contains NASA's policies, procedures, contract clauses, solicitation provisions, and forms that govern the contracting process or otherwise control the relationship between NASA and contractors or prospective contractors. The NFS also contains information that consists of internal Agency administrative procedures and guidance that does not control the relationship between NASA and contractors or prospective contractors. Regardless of the nature of the information, as a policy, NASA has submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and published in the
This final rule modifies the existing practice by only publishing those regulations which may have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the Agency or have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors.
The NFS will continue to integrate into a single document both regulations subject to public comments and internal Agency guidance and procedures that do not require public comment. Those portions of the NFS that require public comment will continue to be amended by publishing changes in the
This change will result in savings in terms of the number of rules subject to publication in the
NASA published a proposed rule in the
NASA certifies that this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities with the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements which require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government Procurement.
42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Denial of petition for rulemaking.
On September 26, 2003, NHTSA received a petition for rulemaking from Mr. Warren Howard requesting that the agency amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
For non-legal issues: Mr. John Lee, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NVS-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone (202) 366-2264. Fax: (202) 493-2290.
For legal issues: Mr. Chris Calamita, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Fax: (202) 366-3820.
On September 26, 2003, Mr. Warren Howard submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting that NHTSA amend S7.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, “Occupant crash protection,” to allow for “the installation and standard feature” of his patented device. The patented device would prevent the radio or sound system of a vehicle from emitting any sound or power unless the occupants of all designated seating positions have their seat belts fastened. According to the petitioner, the Audio System Seat Belt Safety Device would be installed in the seat and connected to the audio system of the vehicle. The system would sense when a person was seated and the audio system would not have power until the seat belt for that seated person was engaged. Once the seat belt was engaged, power would then be applied to the audio system. The petitioner further noted that this system could be installed on all seats within the same vehicle and not interfere with the audible and visual warning system required in FMVSS No. 208. The petitioner believed that such a device would encourage people to wear their safety belts and save thousands of lives each year, and billions of dollars in insurance costs.
NHTSA has denied petitions for rulemaking in the past that were very similar in nature to that of Mr. Howard's petition. On November 5, 1999 (64 FR 60625), the agency denied a petition for rulemaking submitted by Mr. Carl Nash and Mr. Donald Friedman. The petitioners requested an amendment to FMVSS No. 208 to “require effective belt use inducement.” The petitioners stated that the inducements could include, among other things, a disruption of electrical power to such “non-essential” accessories as the radio, tape or CD player, and air conditioning. The petitioners argued that a safety belt use inducement would have the potential to save a minimum of 7,000 additional lives per year. In denying the petition, the agency stated it considered whether the new requirements would (1) likely result in additional safety benefits, (2) be acceptable to the public, and (3) be within our statutory authority. NHTSA stated that none of the petitioners' recommended inducements met all of these criteria.
In response to the denial, Mr. Nash and Mr. Friedman resubmitted their petition request to the agency. The agency denied the second request in the preamble to the Advanced Air Bag Final Rule, published May 12, 2000 (65 FR 30680, 30733). The agency stated its belief that we do not have the statutory authority to require such devices; however we also stated that we would continue to monitor the level of public acceptance and effectiveness of systems that manufacturers are placing in their vehicles to encourage safety belt use. We stated that if it appeared that these systems were working, it might be appropriate to seek to have the 1974 amendment to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, that prohibits NHTSA from requiring interlocks, either changed or repealed.
In the House Report, 107-108, to the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 2002 (Pub. L. 107-87), Congress directed a study to examine the potential benefits of technologies to increase safety belt use, determine how drivers view the acceptability of the technologies, and consider whether legislative or regulatory actions were necessary to enable their installation on passenger vehicles.
Among their conclusions, the NAS report found that “entertainment interlocks” (e.g., devices that render the sound system inoperable until the driver buckles up) are “perceived to be effective,” but fewer than half of the respondents found them “acceptable.” The report also noted that some people might not experience an entertainment interlock (i.e., older people who do not use the radio, drivers on short trips, etc.), and it also noted that such interlocks could be circumvented (e.g., by installing an aftermarket stereo). The NAS study found that other less-intrusive technologies, such as non-interlock systems, present greater opportunities for increasing safety belt use without the negative public reaction of interlocks. For entertainment interlock systems, such as that provided by Mr. Howard, the NAS report concluded that they would be most effective for younger drivers and not very effective at increasing belt use among hard-core nonusers and other high-risk groups. NHTSA generally concurs with this assessment.
We note that a device that would disable a vehicle's radio or sound system if occupants are not belted is currently allowed to be installed in motor vehicles in addition to, but not in place of, the warning system required by S7.3 of FMVSS No. 208. Motor vehicle manufacturers may offer the device as optional or standard equipment at their discretion. In an April 11, 2003 letter to Mr. Howard, the agency stated that such a device may be offered either as an original equipment option or an aftermarket item, but it must be configured such that it can be differentiated from the warning system required by S7.3. A copy of this letter was included in Mr. Howard's petition. (See docket for this notice).
The agency has denied similar petitions for rulemaking on entertainment interlocks within the past five years. With regard to Mr. Howard's device, the agency has provided the petitioner with a legal interpretation letter that stated that the voluntary installation of his specific patented device discussed in this petition is permitted. Given the agency's lack of authority to mandate interlock systems as a means of compliance with FMVSS No. 208 and the conclusions of the NAS report regarding public acceptability and effectiveness of these systems, the agency concludes that there is no basis for further rulemaking action on this issue nor any basis for considering seeking authority to require these interlock systems. This completes the agency's review of the petition for rulemaking. Accordingly, the petition for rulemaking is denied.
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30162; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
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 610 of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) for 24 hours. This action is necessary to fully use the 2004 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock specified for Statistical Area 610.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), October 10, 2004, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., October 11, 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 610 of the GOA under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on October 6, 2004 (filed for public inspection with the Office of the Federal Register on October 6, 2004, and is scheduled for publication in the
NMFS has determined that approximately 1,100 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 610. 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 610, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is reopening directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance will be reached after 24 hours. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA effective 1200 hrs, A.l.t., October 11, 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 610.
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
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98-15-13, which applies to certain Raytheon Aircraft Company 90, 100, 200, and 300 series airplanes. This proposed supersedure adds the Raytheon Beech 99 series to the applicability listed in AD 98-15-13. No change in the compliance action is proposed for those aircraft originally affected by AD 98-15-13. AD 98-15-13 currently requires you to check the airplane maintenance records from January 1, 1994, up to and including the effective date of that AD, for any MIL-H-6000B fuel hose replacements on the affected airplanes; inspecting any replaced rubber fuel hose for a spiral or diagonal external wrap with a red or orange-red stripe along the length of the hose with 94519 printed along the stripe; and replacing any MIL-H-6000B rubber fuel hose matching this description with an FAA-approved hose having a criss-cross or braided external wrap. We are issuing this proposed AD to prevent fuel flow interruption, which could lead to uncommanded loss of engine power and loss of control of the airplane.
We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by November 18, 2004.
Use one of the following to submit comments on this proposed AD:
•
•
•
•
•
To get the service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Raytheon Aircraft Company, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201-0085; telephone: (800) 625-7043.
To view the comments to this proposed AD, go to
Jeffrey A. Pretz, Aerospace Engineer, ACE-116W, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4153; facsimile: (316) 946-4407.
What would be the cost impact of this proposed AD on owners/operators of the affected airplanes? We estimate the following costs to accomplish this proposed inspection:
Raytheon Aircraft Company will provide warranty credit for parts and replacement as specified in the service information.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
98-15-13, Amendment 39-10664 (63 FR 38295-98, July 16, 1998), and by adding a new AD to read as follows:
(a) We must receive comments on this proposed airworthiness directive (AD) by November 18, 2004.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 98-15-13, Amendment 39-10664.
(c) This AD affects the following airplane models and serial numbers that are certificated in any category:
(d) This AD is the result of blockage of fuel hose due to hose delamination. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent fuel flow interruption, which could lead to uncommanded loss of engine power and loss of control of the airplane.
(e) To address this problem, you must do the following:
(f) You may request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD by following the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, send your request to your principal inspector. The principal inspector may add comments and will send your request to the Manager, Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA. For information on any already approved alternative methods of compliance, contact Jeffrey A. Pretz, Aerospace Engineer, ACE-116W, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4153; facsimile: (316) 946-4407.
(g) To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, contact Raytheon Aircraft Company, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201-0085; telephone: (800) 625-7043. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from glass coating operations. We are proposing to approve a local rule to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
Any comments on this proposal must arrive by November 15, 2004.
Send comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, or e-mail to
You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revision, EPA's technical support document (TSD), and other materials relevant to this action at our Region IX office during normal business hours by appointment. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revisions by appointment at the following locations:
A copy of the rule may also be available via the Internet at
Francisco Do
This proposal addresses the following local rule: SJVUAPCD 4610. In the Rules and Regulations section of this
We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Florida has applied to EPA for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final authorization to Florida. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Send your written comments by November 15, 2004.
Send written comments to Audrey E. Baker, Florida Authorizations Coordinator, RCRA Programs Branch, Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960; (404) 562-8483. You may also e-mail your comments to
Audrey E. Baker, Florida Authorizations Coordinator, RCRA Programs Branch, Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960; (404) 562-8483.
For additional information, please see the immediate final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to address the environmental effects and necessary mitigation measures for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the Angoon Hydroelectric Project on Admiralty Island, in Southeast Alaska.
The City of Angoon is the only permanent community on Admiralty Island; it is approximately 60 air miles southwest of Juneau, Alaska. The project are includes the lower 8,500 feet of Thayer Creek and the area between Thayer Creek and the City of Angoon, located approximately 6 miles to the south. In addition, the project area includes an underwater crossing of Kootznoowoo Inlet for a transmission line. All project facilities, except for the underwater transmission line crossing Kootznoowoo Inlet and the terminus in Angoon, would be located on National Forest System lands. The project area includes portions of Cooper River Meridian. T.49S, R67E, and T.50S, R67E.
Comments will be accepted throughout the EIS process; to be most useful during the analysis, however, comments should be received in writing on or before December 3, 2004. The draft environmental impact statement is expected in May 2005, and the final environmental impact statement is expected in August 2005.
Send written comments to Susan Marthaller, District Ranger, Admiralty National Monument, 8461 Old Dairy Road, Juneau, Alaska, 99801 or email to
Susan Marthaller, District Ranger, Admiralty National Monument, 8461 Old Dairy Road, Juneau, Alaska, 99801; phone 907-790-7472; fax 907-586-8795 or email to
The City of Angoon has some of the highest electric rates in Alaska. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) section 506(a)(3)(B) granted Kootznoowoo, Inc., the village corporation of Angoon, “the right to develop hydroelectric resources on Admiralty Island within township 49 south, range 67 east, and township 50 south, range 67 east, Cooper River Base and Meridian, subject to such conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture shall prescribe for the protection of water, fishery, wildlife, recreational, and scenic values of Admiralty Island.” ANILCA also recognized the economic and cultural needs and expectations associated with Kootznoowoo, Inc., (ANILCA Sec. 506(a)(3)(B).
Consultants for Kootznoowoo, Inc. completed the Angoon Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Evaluation Report in march 2000 (HDR Alaska 2000). The proposed operations are subject to approval of a Plan of Operations under 36 CFR, part 228, which is intended to ensure that adverse environmental effects on National Forest System lands and resources are minimized.
The purpose and need for the Angoon Hydroelectric Project EIS is to determine how to develop the project while protecting the resources of Admiralty Island National Monument. ANILCA granted Kootznoowoo, INC the right to develop the hydroelectric project subject to mitigations prescribed by the Forest Service for protection of water, fishery, wildlife, recreational and scenic values of Admiralty Island.
Kootznoowoo, Inc., sent a letter to the Regional Forester on November 19, 2003, requesting that the Forest Service begin the NEPA work for the Angoon Hydroelectric Project. More recently, on April 21, 2004, Kootznoowoo, Inc., submitted an application asking for Forest Service authorization for the project.
Kootznoowoo, Inc., the City of Angoon, and the Angoon Community Association are pursuing funding to develop this hydroelectric project with the expectation that it would reduce the cost of power generation in Angoon and result in lower electric rates for Angoon residents. The project is expected to benefit the local economy by creating construction jobs and providing sufficient power for future growth of the community.
The Forest Service Proposed Action is to authorize, through special use permits and easements, the construction and operation of a run-of-river hydroelectric facility on Thayer Creek. “Run-of-river” refers to operations in which the hydroelectric power facility uses only the water that is available in the natural flow of the river. Under normal conditions, run-of-river facilities involve little or not water storage, and power generation fluctuates with the stream flow. Major improvements associated with the 1,000-kilowatt hydroelectric power facility include the following:
1. Port facilities located 1.8 miles south of the outlet of Thayer Creek consisting of mooring buoys and a garage for operation and maintenance vehicles.
2. A diversion dam, approximately 10 feet high, on Thayer Creek, about 1.6 miles up from the outlet.
3. An intake structure at the diversion dam.
4. A pipeline, approximately 1.2 miles long, from the intake structure to the powerhouse.
5. A penstock, about 510 feet long, from the pipeline to the powerhouse.
6. A surge tank near the junction of the pipeline and penstock.
7. A power plant structure, about 30 feet by 68 feet and 25 feet high, to house two generating units.
8. Three access roads including a 1.9-mile road from the port facilities to the power plant, a 1.4-mile road from near the powerhouse to the diversion dam/
9. A transmission line consisting of two overhead segments, 1.9 miles and 4.2 miles, and one submarine crossing, approximately 0.9 mile. The three segments would extend from the powerhouse to the port facilities, from the port facilities to Kootznoowoo Inlet, and last, from the northern shore of Kootznoowoo Inlet to the City of Angoon, on the opposite shore.
In addition, various temporary facilities, including a barge landing, staging areas, and a construction camp, would be needed during project construction. The Feasibility Evaluation Report describes existing Angoon electrical loads and resources and includes the development schedule and an economic analysis.
The facilities, roads, and transmission lines would be designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines with an emphasis on:
1. Scenic visibility standards
2. Minimium impact to beach fringe and wetlands
A plan, subject to approval by the Forest Service and agencies with permitting jurisdiction, would be required before implementation to set performance criteria for achieving objectives related to beach fringe and estuary, scenery, and heritage resources.
In addition to the Proposed Action and No Action, alternatives currently under consideration for analysis in the EIS include: subterranean/submarine transmission line between Thayer Creek and Angoon.
Forrest Cole, Forest Supervisor, Tongass National Forest, 648 Mission Street, Federal Building, Ketchikan, AK 99901-6591.
The decision to be made by the Forest Supervisor of the Tongass National Forest is under what terms and conditions to authorize, through special use permits and easements, the construction and operation of a hydroelectric facility on Thayer Creek as described above. The Forest Supervisor will also decide what mitigations, if any, would be necessary to implement the action.
Public scoping meetings are planned in Angoon at the Community Services Building from 6 p.m. until 9 p.m. on Thursday, October 14, 2004, and in Juneau at Centennial Hall from 7 p.m. until 9 p.m. on Friday, October 15, 2004.
Potentially significant issues identified to date include potential effects on the following: (1) Consistency with wilderness management objectives, (2) visual resources.
In an order issued January 23, 2001, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) found that a license would not be required for this project. FERC concluded that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to issue a license for the proposed project due to its location in a National Monument within the National Forest System. Because of this, the Forest Service is the lead agency for this project, and a Forest Service special use permit would be the primary agency authorization for the project. Permits from other federal and state agencies would also be required for specific portions of the project. Additional permits or licenses may include the following:
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement.
A draft environmental impact statement (Management Bulletin number R10-MB-528) will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement.
Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. No. 106-393) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Davy Crockett National Forest Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) meeting will meet on November 4, 2004.
The Davy Crockett National Forest RAC meeting will be held on November 4, 2004.
The Davy Crockett National Forest RAC meeting will be held at the Davy Crockett Ranger Station located on State Highway 7, approximately one-quarter mile west of FM 227 in Houston County, Texas. The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 9 p.m. A public comment period will be at 8:45 p.m.
Raoul Gagne, District Ranger, Davy Crockett National Forest, Rt. 1, Box 55 FS, Kennard, Texas 75847: Telephone: 936-655-2299 or e-mail at:
The Davy Crockett National Forest RAC proposes projects and funding to the Secretary of Agriculture under section 203 of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000. The purpose of the November 4, 2004 meeting is to review and approve project proposals to submit to the Forest Supervisor for National Forests and Grasslands in Texas. These meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the RAC. Each formal RAC meeting will also have time, as identified above, 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.
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 Kootenai National Forests' Lincoln County Resource Advisory Committee will meet on Wednesday November 3, at 6 p.m. at the Supervisors Office in Libby, Montana for a business meeting. The meeting is open to the public.
November 3, 2004.
Kootenai National Forest, Supervisor's Office, 1101 U.S. Hwy 2 West, Libby, Montana.
Barbara Edgmon, Committee Coordinator, Kootenai National Forest at (406) 293-6211, or e-mail
Agenda topics include status of approved projects, prepare for the re-application process, and receiving public comment. If the meeting date or location is changed, notice will be posted in the local newspapers, including the Daily Interlake based in Kalispell, Montana.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Southwest Washington Provincial Advisory Committee will meet on Wednesday, October 27, 2004, at the Ward Road Fire Hall #88 in Orchards/Vancouver, WA, 6701 NE 147th Ave., Vancouver, WA 98682. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and continue until 3 p.m.
The purpose of the meeting is to share information on the following programs: An update on current activity at Mount St. Helens; a Washington State Department Ecology assessment of Gifford Pinchot National Forest stream temperatures; the Western Washington Sustainable Harvest Environmental Impact Statement for State lands; an update on the Forest Service Region 6 invasive species Environmental Impact Statement, and to share information among members.
All Southwest Washington Province Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend. The “open forum” is scheduled to occur at 1 p.m. Interested speakers will need to register prior to the open forum period. The committee welcomes the public's written comments on committee business at any time.
Direct questions regarding this meeting to Tom Knappenbeger, Public Affairs Officer, at (360) 891-5005, or write Forest Headquarters Office, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, 10600 NE 51st Circle, Vancouver, WA 98682.
DOC has submitted to the Office for Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.
The Applications and Questionnaires are utilized by SABIT staff to evaluate and select the most qualified intern candidates and host companies to participate in the Grant and Group programs. In addition, staff is able to implement changes and measure the effectiveness of the program by the responses collected.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; E-mail:
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be e-mailed to
Proposed collection; comment request.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before December 13, 2004.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork, Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Request for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to: Foreign-Trade Zones Staff, FCB—Suite 4100W, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230; Phone Number: (202) 482-2862, and fax number (202) 482-0002.
The Foreign Trade Zones Application is the vehicle by which individual firms or organizations apply for foreign-trade zone (FTZ) status, for subzone status, for manufacturing authority (including temporary/interim authority), or for expansion of an existing zone. The FTZ Act and Regulations require that an application with a description of the proposed project be made to the FTZ Board (19 U.S.C. 81b and 81f; 15 CFR 400.24-26) before a license can be issued or a zone can be expanded. The Act and Regulations require that applications contain detailed information on facilities, financing, operational plans, proposed manufacturing operations, need, and economic impact. Manufacturing activity in zones, which is primarily conducted in subzones, can involve issues related to domestic industry and trade policy impact. Such applications must include specific information on the Customs-tariff related savings that result from zone procedures and the economic consequences of permitting such savings. The FTZ Board needs complete and accurate information on the proposed operation and its economic effects because the Act and Regulations authorize the Board to restrict or prohibit operations that are detrimental to the public interest.
U.S. firms or organizations submit applications to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Proposed collection; comment request.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before December 13, 2004.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork, Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 or via the Internet at
Request for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to: Foreign-Trade Zones Staff, FCB—Suite 4100W, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230; Phone Number: (202) 482-2862, and fax number (202) 482-0002.
The Foreign-Trade Zone Annual Report is the vehicle by which Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) grantees report annually to the Foreign Trade Zones Board, pursuant to the requirements of the Foreign Trade Zones Act (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u). The annual reports submitted by grantees are the only complete source of compiled information on FTZ's. The data and information contained in the reports relates to international trade activity in FTZ's. The reports are used by the Congress and the Department to determine the economic effect of the FTZ program. The reports are also used by the FTZ Board and other trade policy officials to determine whether zone activity is consistent with U.S. international trade policy, and whether it is in the public interest. The public uses the information regarding activities carried on in FTZ's to evaluate their effect on industry sectors. The information contained in annual reports also helps zone grantees in their marketing efforts.
FTZ grantees submit annual reports to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
October 14, 2004.
Daniel J. Alexy, Stephen Cho, or Audrey Twyman, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1540, (202) 482-3798, or (202) 482-3534, respectively
We determine that hand trucks and certain parts thereof (“hand trucks”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) are being sold, or are likely to be sold, in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice.
The preliminary determination in this investigation was issued on May 17, 2004.
Since the
On July 30, 2004, Huatian and Taifa submitted revised U.S. sales and factors of production (“FOP”) databases incorporating minor error corrections reported to the Department at the opening of each company's verification. Taifa's July 30, 2004, submission contained corrections related to the so-called “allocated inputs” in addition to its minor error corrections. On September 3, 2004, the Department rejected Taifa's July 30, 2004, submission, on the grounds that the additional corrections were unsolicited new factual information.
In a September 8, 2004, meeting with Department officials, Taifa's counsel argued that Taifa's July 30, 2004, submission did not contain any new factual information.
On September 10, 2004, the petitioners and their counsel submitted on the record affidavits pertaining to “certain information revealed in and corroborated by” the Department's verification of Taifa. On September 16, 2004, the Department rejected that submission as untimely, unsolicited new factual information.
We received comments from interested parties on the
For the purpose of this investigation, the product covered consists of hand trucks manufactured from any material, whether assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, suitable for any use, and certain parts thereof, namely the vertical frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, and any combination thereof.
A complete or fully assembled hand truck is a hand-propelled barrow consisting of a vertically disposed frame having a handle or more than one handle at or near the upper section of the vertical frame; at least two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame; and a horizontal projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, perpendicular or angled to the vertical frame, at or near the lower section of the vertical frame. The projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, slides under a load for purposes of lifting and/or moving the load.
That the vertical frame can be converted from a vertical setting to a horizontal setting, then operated in that horizontal setting as a platform, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of this petition. That the vertical frame, handling area, wheels, projecting edges or other parts of the hand truck can be collapsed or folded is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition. That other wheels may be connected to the vertical frame, handling area, projecting edges, or other parts of the hand truck, in addition to the two or more wheels located at or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition. Finally, that the hand truck may exhibit physical characteristics in addition to the vertical frame, the handling area, the projecting edges or toe plate, and the two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition.
Examples of names commonly used to reference hand trucks are hand truck, convertible hand truck, appliance hand truck, cylinder hand truck, bag truck, dolly, or hand trolley. They are typically imported under heading 8716.80.50.10 of the
Excluded from the scope are small two-wheel or four-wheel utility carts specifically designed for carrying loads like personal bags or luggage in which the frame is made from telescoping tubular material measuring less than
The Department received scope exclusion/clarification comments from ten parties requesting that the Department determine whether certain products produced by these parties are covered by the scope of the investigation. The Department has addressed these requests in the following memoranda: “Scope Exclusion/Clarification Requests: Angelus Manufacturing; Custom Carts LLC; Illinois Tool Works, Inc.; Qingdao Huatian Hand Truck Co., Ltd; WelCom Products Inc.; and LL King Corporation” from Susan Kuhbach to Jeffrey May (September 3, 2004) and “Scope Exclusion/Clarification Requests: Alton Industries, Inc.; Safco Products Company; A. J. Wholesale Distributors, Inc.; and Wilmar Corporation” from Susan Kuhbach to Jeffrey May (October 6, 2004). On September 27, 2004, Total Trolley, LLC requested that its horizontal trolley be excluded from the scope of this investigation. We did not receive this request in time for the final determination. Therefore, we will address this scope request after the final determination.
The period of investigation (“POI”) is April 1, 2003, through September 30, 2003, which corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (
The Department has treated the PRC as a nonmarket economy (“NME”) country in all past antidumping investigations.
In our
For our final determination, consistent with our
For purposes of the final determination, we continue to find that India is the appropriate primary surrogate country for the PRC. For further discussion and analysis regarding the surrogate country selection for the PRC,
Sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), and (D) of the Act provide that the Department shall use facts available when a party withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority under this subtitle; does not provide the Department with information by the established deadline or in the form and manner requested by the Department; significantly impedes a proceeding; or provides such information but the information cannot be verified. In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of that party as facts otherwise available in selecting from among the facts available. Such adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from: (1) The petition; (2) a final determination in the investigation under this title; (3) any previous review under section 751 or determination under 753; or (4) any other information placed on the record.
On the basis of our findings in this investigation, which are detailed below, we have determined that the use of facts otherwise available is appropriate for the PRC-wide entity, Taifa and Xinghua because they have not provided certain information in the form or manner requested.
As explained in the Department's
Moreover, we continue to find that because the exporters comprising the PRC-wide entity failed to respond to our requests for information, they have failed to cooperate to the best of their ability.
As adverse facts available, we are assigning as the PRC-wide rate the higher of: (1) The highest margin listed in the notice of initiation; or (2) the margin calculated for any respondent in this investigation.
In the
On July 30, 2004, Taifa submitted its revised U.S. sales and FOP response which included updated data reflecting its minor corrections and revised data for the allocated inputs, which Taifa claimed was based on the corrected allocation formula. As explained above in the “Case History” section, the Department solicited comments from the parties on whether the revised data for allocated inputs should be considered unsolicited, new factual information.
Upon review of Taifa's July 30, 2004, submission and the parties' comments, we have determined that the revised values for the allocated inputs constitute unsolicited, new factual information. Although Taifa informed the Department at verification that the per-unit amounts of the reported allocated inputs had been miscalculated due to an error in the allocation formula, Taifa was not able to provide corrected data at the time of verification. As the Department stated in the verification report: “* * *because of inaccuracies in the data for the allocated inputs in the electronic spreadsheets provided by Taifa, we were unable to verify the allocation of these inputs into the second and third level spreadsheets, and the reported per-unit consumption of these inputs for any of the selected models.”
Taifa has argued that it is incumbent upon the Department to accept the
(1) The error in question must be demonstrated to be a clerical error, not a methodological error, an error in judgement, or a substantive error; (2) the Department must be satisfied that the corrective documentation provided in support of the clerical error allegation is reliable; (3) the respondent must have availed itself of the earliest reasonable opportunity to correct the error; (4) the clerical error allegation, and any corrective documentation, must be submitted to the Department no later than the due date for the respondent's administrative case brief; (5) the clerical error must not entail a substantial revision of the response; and (6) the respondent's corrective documentation must not contradict information previously determined to be accurate at verification.
In order for the Department to accept a clerical error late in the proceeding, all of the six conditions must be met. We determine that Taifa's allocation error does not meet two of the six conditions.
Under this test, the Department must be satisfied that the corrective documentation provided in support of the clerical error allegation is reliable. As the Department noted in Taifa's verification report, the Department was unable to verify the reliability of the error with source documentation. Specifically, the Department stated in the verification report that “* * *because of inaccuracies in the data for the allocated inputs in the electronic spreadsheets provided by Taifa, we were unable to verify the allocation of these inputs into the second and third level spreadsheets, and the reported per-unit consumption of these inputs for any of the selected models.”
In addition, the error submitted by Taifa fails the fifth prong of the Department's test,
Therefore, we have not accepted this correction as a clerical error or minor correction, nor have we relied on this data contained in the July 30, 2004, submission.
The allocated input data submitted in Taifa's July 2, 2004, response is the data that the Department sought to verify. As explained by Taifa at verification, the allocated input amounts in that response were incorrect. Because Taifa failed to provide the Department with information in the form or manner requested, and the July 2, 2004, data could not be verified, we determine that the usage rates for the allocated inputs must be based on facts otherwise available, in accordance with section 776(a)(2).
We further determine that Taifa failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability. Specifically, Taifa was not fully prepared for the verification of its FOP database as was evidenced by the fact that Taifa did not discover the error in its allocation formula until the last day of its verification. Moreover, Taifa did not present the Department with documentation for verification of this error. If Taifa had been fully prepared, it would have detected the allocation error during the preparation for verification, rather than the last day of verification. Thus, in accordance with section 776(b), we have applied an adverse inference in selecting the usage information for the allocated inputs.
Because we could not verify the reported amounts of allocated inputs by model in Taifa's July 2, 2004, submission, we have selected the highest amount of the allocated inputs, as follows. In our questionnaire in this investigation, we requested Taifa to assign each hand truck model/part into one of 12 designated weight range categories based on the shipping weight of the hand truck/part. As adverse facts available, we have selected the highest reported amount for each allocated input for hand trucks/parts within a given weight range reported in Taifa's July 2, 2004, response and assigned that value to all hand trucks/parts in that weight range.
In the
The Department submitted its verification outline to Xinghua on June 24, 2004, approximately one month prior to the commencement of verification, thereby giving Xinghua sufficient time to prepare for verification.
Xinghua was unprepared for verification and its unpreparedness significantly impeded the verification
Furthermore, numerous discrepancies were found in verifying Xinghua's reported U.S. sales data.
Pursuant to section 776(a)(2) of the Act, the Department must use facts otherwise available because Xinghua withheld certain information that had been requested by the Department, failed to provide certain information by the Department's statutory deadlines and in the form and manner requested, and failed to provide certain information that could be verified. We further determine that an adverse inference is warranted in selecting from among the facts available because Xinghua failed to cooperate to the best of its ability at verification. Specifically, Xinghua was not able to explain discrepancies in its reported sales data nor to provide source documentation for or explain the reported FOP for its hand trucks.
Because the Department was unable to verify Xinghua's FOP and sales data, we have no reliable data to calculate a margin for the final determination. In accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), and (D), as well as section 776(b) of the Act, we are applying total adverse facts available to Xinghua. As adverse facts available, we are assigning Xinghua the rate of 386.75 percent which is also the PRC-wide rate, and the highest margin listed in the notice of initiation, as corroborated by the Department.
As stated above in the “Case History” section, both Huatian and Taifa submitted revised U.S. sales and FOP databases on July 30, 2004. Taifa's July 30, 2004, submission included minor error corrections presented to the Department at the beginning of verification, revised usage data for allocated inputs (discussed above in the “Use of Facts Otherwise Available” section), and other changes unrelated to the minor error corrections or allocated inputs. Huatian's July 30, 2004, submission included minor error corrections presented to the Department at the beginning of verification and certain other changes unrelated to the minor error corrections.
For both companies, we are treating these other changes as untimely filed, unsolicited factual information.
Under 19 CFR 351.302(d), the Department normally would reject Huatian's and Taifa's July 30, 2004, submissions in their entirety and request the companies resubmit their revised FOP responses without the new information. However, due to time constraints and the pending final determination in this investigation, it was not feasible for the Department to reject and return Huatian's and Taifa's July 30, 2004, submissions, request revised submissions, and still be able to issue a final determination by the statutory deadline of October 6, 2004. As such, the Department has retained Huatian's and Taifa's July 30, 2004, submissions in their entirety. Although we have retained these responses, we have not considered the untimely filed, unsolicited information in making our final determination.
All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations. For a discussion of these changes,
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by the respondents for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondents.
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 24, 2004, the date of publication of our
The dumping margins are provided below:
The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject merchandise except for entries from exporters/producers that are identified individually above.
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. As our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will, within 45 days, determine whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing the CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Comment 1: The Department Should Apply Facts Available to Huatian, Taifa, True Potential, and Xinghua.
Comment 2: The Department Should Revise Huatian's FOP Data to Account for Purchased Bearings.
Comment 3: The Department Should Assign an Appropriate Surrogate Value for Axle Rods for Huatian.
Comment 4: The Department Should Apply Facts Available to Value Steel Plate for Huatian.
Comment 5: The Department Should Treat Huatian's Hand Truck Samples as a Quantity Discount.
Comment 6: The Department Should Not Adjust Huatian's Sales Transactions with a Negative Net United States Price.
Comment 7: The Department Should Accept Taifa's July 30, 2004, Submission.
Comment 8: The Department Should Disregard Taifa's Market Economy Purchases.
Comment 9: The Department Should Consider the Role Played by Taifa Import & Export Company in Calculating the SG&A Expenses for Taifa.
Comment 10: The Department Should Adjust Taifa's Sales Database to Reflect Customer Discounts.
Comment 11: The Department Should Revise Taifa's FOP Database to Account for Packing Materials.
Comment 12: The Department Should Add Trading Company Factors for SG&A and Profit in Calculating True Potential's Normal Value.
Comment 13: The Department Should Deny Separate-Rates Treatment for All Respondents.
Comment 14: The Department Should Not Calculate a Separate Rate for True Potential.
Comment 15: The Department Should Calculate a Separate Rate for Zhenhua.
Comment 16: The Department Should Not Calculate Separate Rates for Future Tool and Shangdong.
Comment 17: The Department Should Not Use the Indian Electricity Tariff Because it is Aberrational.
Comment 18: The Department Miscalculated SG&A and Profit Amounts.
Comment 19: The Department Should Not Use Aberrational Financial Data to Value Factory Overhead, SG&A Expenses, and Profit.
Comment 20: The Department Should Include the Cost of Packing Materials and Labor in Calculating Factory Overhead and SG&A.
Comment 21: The Department Should Include Financial Data from an Indian Hand Truck Producer in Calculating Financial Ratios.
Comment 22: The Department Should Revise the Profit Rate for the Final Calculation.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of meeting cancellation.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will cancel the previously scheduled SEDAR Red Snapper Review Workshop. See
The meeting was scheduled to take place October 25-29, 2004.
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 3018 U.S. Highway 301, North, Suite 1000, Tampa, FL 33619.
Mr. Wayne Swingle, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 228-2815.
The notice was published in the
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the SEDAR process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR includes three workshops: (1) data workshop, (2) assessment workshop, and (3) review workshop. The SEDAR Red Snapper review workshop is being postponed until a second assessment workshop can be conducted in December. The new dates for the SEDAR Review Workshop will be released as soon as they become available.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene a public meeting of its Standing and Special Mackerel and Reef Fish Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs).
The meeting will be convened by conference call at 10 a.m. EST on November 1, 2004.
See
Richard L. Leard, Deputy Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 228-2815.
Persons wishing to listen to the call may do so at the following locations:
1. NMFS Panama City Laboratory, 3500 Delwood Beach Road, Panama City, FL, Contact: Gary Fitzhugh at 850-234-6541, extension 214.
2. NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 9721 North Executive Center Drive, St. Petersburg, FL, Contact: Peter Hood at 727-570-5728.
3. NMFS Pascagoula Laboratory, 3209 Frederic Street, Pascagoula, MS, Contact: Cheryl Hinkel at 228-762-4591.
4. NMFS Galveston Laboratory, 4700 Avenue U, Galveston, TX, Contact: Rhonda O'Toole at 409-766-3500.
The Council will convene its SSCs to review public hearing drafts of Amendment 15 to the Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and Amendment 24 to the Reef Fish FMP. Each of these amendments contain alternatives to allow the existing commercial permit moratoria to expire, extend the moratoria for 5 or 10 years, or replace the moratoria with permanent limited access systems that would, in essence, maintain the cap on the number of permits indefinitely, or until replaced or eliminated by additional actions by the Council.
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agendas may be discussed by the SSCs, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions of the SSCs will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Dawn Aring at the Council office by September 24, 2004.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a 2-day public meeting of its Joint Scallop Plan Development Team (PDT) and Advisory Panel in October, 2004. Recommendations from the panels will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
The meeting will held on Thursday, October 28, 2004 at 9 a.m. and Friday, October 29, 2004 at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn Express, 110 Middle Street, Fairhaven, MA 02719; telephone: (508) 997-1281.
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council (978) 465-0492.
In preparation for the development of a Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report for 2005, a Joint PDT and Advisory Panel meeting will conduct initial discussions to focus on identification of: problems and issues that the SAFE Report should analyze; SAFE Report document structure and organization; data and analytic requirements; timing when data become available for analysis and how various analyses interrelate; delegation and responsibility for conducting analyses and preparing written reports; other issues related to the 2005 SAFE Report, as needed.
The SAFE Report will be used as a baseline in Framework Adjustment 18 for measures to be implemented in the 2006 fishing year.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Application for scientific research permit 1499.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received a scientific research permit application relating to Pacific salmon. The proposed research is intended to increase knowledge of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to help guide management and conservation efforts.
Comments or requests for a public hearing on the application must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
Written comments on the application should be sent to Protected Resources Division, NMFS, F/NWO3, 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737. Comments may also be sent via fax to 503-230-5435 or by e-mail to
Garth Griffin, Portland, OR (ph.: 503-231-2005, Fax: 503-230-5435, e-mail:
The following listed species (evolutionarily significant unit) is covered in this notice:
Chinook salmon (
Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see
The Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory (BMSL) is requesting a 1-year research permit to annually capture, handle, and release adult and juvenile PS chinook salmon. The research would take place in Puget Sound, Washington. The purpose of the research is to develop a more comprehensive understanding of salmon behavior and movement near large overwater structures. The BMSL intends to determine juvenile fish movement, residence time, activity pattern, and migration routes along unshaded shoreline and adjacent to and under ferry structures. The research would benefit the fish by determining fish behavior near ferry terminals and providing information to be used in reducing the impact the structures have on listed fish. The BMSL proposes to capture the fish using enclosure nets. Most of the captured fish would be anesthetized, identified, counted, checked for tags and marks, allowed to recover, and released. A portion of the juvenile salmonids would be measured, implanted with acoustic tags, released, and tracked remotely. The BMSL does not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small percentage may die as an unintended result of the activities.
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Issuance of 21 scientific research permits and permit modifications.
Between June 2, 2004 and July 30, 2004, NMFS' Northwest Region issued 21 permits and permit modifications allowing endangered and threatened species of Pacific salmon and steelhead to be taken for scientific research purposes under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. The research actions and the species they affect are listed in the
The permits, permit applications, and related documents are available for review during business hours by appointment at NMFS' Protected Resources Division, F/NWO3, 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737 (ph: 503-230-5400, fax: 503-230-5435).
Garth Griffin, Portland, OR (phone: 503-231-2005, fax: 503-230-5435, e-mail:
Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
The listed species/evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) covered by this notice are listed below and identified in the subsequent table by the numbers (in parentheses) that precede them.
(1) Threatened Puget Sound chinook salmon (
(2) Threatened Lower Columbia River (LCR) chinook salmon (
(3) Threatened Snake River (SR) spring/summer chinook salmon (
(4) Threatened SR fall chinook salmon (
(5) Endangered Upper Columbia River (UCR) spring-run chinook salmon (
(6) Threatened Upper Willamette River (UWR) chinook salmon (
(7) Threatened Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon (
(8) Threatened Columbia River chum salmon (
(9) Threatened LCR steelhead (
(10) Threatened Middle Columbia River steelhead (
(11) Threatened SR steelhead (
(12) Endangered UCR steelhead (
(13) Threatened Upper Willamette (UWR) Steelhead (
(14) Threatened Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts coho salmon (
(15) Threatened (at the time of issuance) Oregon Coast coho salmon (
(16) Endangered SR sockeye salmon (
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
5 CFR 430.310 requires agencies to publish notice of Performance Review Board appointees in the
Darlene Haywood, International Trade Administration, Office of Human Resources Management, at (202) 482-2850, Room 7060, Washington, DC 20230.
The purpose of the Performance Review Board is to review and make recommendations to the appointing authority on performance management issues such as appraisals, bonuses, pay level increases, and Presidential Rank Awards for members of the Senior Executive Service.
The Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, Michael D. Gallagher, has named the following members of the National Telecommunications and Information Performance Review Board:
1. Frederick R. Wentland, Associate Administrator for Spectrum Management (Chairperson).
2. Bernadette McGuirre-Rivera, Associate Administrator for Telecommunications and Information Applications.
3. Alan W. Vincent, Associate Administrator for Telecommunication Sciences and Director, Institute for Telecommunications Sciences.
4. Robin R. Layton, Associate Administrator for International Affairs.
5. Michael J. Crison, Director, Requirements, Planning and Systems Integration Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (outside reviewer).
6. Darlene F. Haywood, Executive Secretary, ITA Office of Human Resources Management at (202) 482-2850.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before November 12, 2004.
David Van Wagner at CFTC, (202) 418-5481; FAX: (202) 418-5536; e-mail:
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 the CFTC's regulations were published on December 30, 1981. See 46 FR 63035 (Dec. 30, 1981). The Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on August 5, 2004 (69 FR 47419-01).
Send comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the addresses listed below. Please refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0022 in any correspondence.
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 15, 2004.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Zeiher at the Officer 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.
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 15, 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
Department of the Air Force, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the United States Air Force Academy, Office of Admissions, announces the proposed reinstatement of a public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 13, 2004.
Written comments and recommendation on the proposed information collection should be sent to United States Air Force Academy, Office of Admissions, 2304 Cadet Drive, Suite 236, USAFA, CO 80840.
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposed and associated collection instruments, please write to above address, or call United States Air Force Academy, Office of Admissions (719) 333-7291.
The information collected on this form is required by 10 U.S.C. 9346. The respondents are students who are applying for admission to the United States Air Force Academy. Each student's background and aptitude is reviewed to determine eligibility. If the Information on this form is not collected the individual cannot be considered for admittance to the Air Force Academy.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
Notice.
This notice announces the membership of the updated Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board. It also announces the DNFSB senior executives who are available to serve on the SES performance review boards of other small, independent Federal commissions, committees and boards.
September 20, 2004.
Send comments concerning this notice to: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2001.
Deborah Biscieglia by telephone at (202) 694-7041 or by e-mail at
5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(1) through (5) requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more Senior Executive Service performance review boards. The board shall review and evaluate the initial summary rating of the senior executive's performance, the executive's response, and the higher level official's comments on the initial summary rating. The DNFSB is a small, independent Federal agency; therefore, the members of the DNFSB SES Performance Review Board listed in this notice are drawn from the SES ranks of other agencies. This notice updates the membership of DNFSB's SES Performance Review Board as it was last published at 66 FR 49169 (September 26, 2001).
The following persons comprise a standing roster to serve as members of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board SES Performance Review Board:
The following DNFSB SES members comprise a standing roster to serve on the performance review boards of other small, independent Federal commissions, committees and boards:
National Advisory Council on Indian Education (NACIE), U.S. Department of Education.
Notice of meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of an upcoming meeting of the National Advisory Council on Indian Education (the Council) and is intended to notify
Bernard Garcia, Group Leader, Office of Indian Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: 202-260-1454. Fax: 202-260-7779.
The Council advises the Secretary of Education concerning the funding and administration (including the development of regulations, and administrative policies and practices) of any program, including any program established under Title VII, Part A of the ESEA, with respect to which the Secretary has jurisdiction and that includes Indian children or adults as participants or that may benefit Indian children or adults. The Council submits to the Congress, not later than June 30 of each year, a report on the activities of the Council, including any recommendations that the Council considers appropriate for the improvement of Federal education programs that include Indian children or adults as participations or that may benefit Indian children or adults, and recommendations concerning the funding of any such program. The Council also makes recommendations to the Secretary for filling the position of the Director of Indian Education whenever a vacancy occurs.
The purpose of E.O. 13336, dated April 30, 2004, is to assist American Indian and Alaska Native students in meeting the challenging student academic standards of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110) in a manner that is consistent with tribal traditions, languages, and cultures. The E.O. establishes a Federal Interagency Working Group on American Indian and Alaska Native Education (Working Group) to oversee the implementation and the Working Group may consult with representatives of NACIE.
The general public is welcome to attend the October 26, 2004 meeting. Individuals who need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (
A summary of the activities of the meeting and other related materials that are informative to the public will be available to the public within 14 days after the meeting. Records are kept of all Council proceedings and are available for public inspection at the Office of Indian Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 5C141, Washington, DC 20202.
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, Department of Education.
The purpose of this notice is to announce the public meeting of the National Advisory Committee and invite third-party oral presentations before the Committee. This notice also presents the proposed agenda and informs the public of its opportunity to attend this meeting. The notice of this meeting is required under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
We will hold the public meeting on December 13, 2004 from 8:30 a.m. until approximately 5 p.m., on December 14, 2004 from 8:30 a.m. until approximately 5 p.m., and on December 15, 2004 from 8:30 a.m. until approximately 1 p.m. in Salon I at the Ritz Carlton Hotel at Pentagon City, 1250 South Hayes Street, Arlington, Virginia 22202. You may call the hotel on (703) 415-5000 to inquire about rooms.
The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. If you will need an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting (
Please contact Ms. Bonnie LeBold, the Executive Director of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, if you have questions about the meeting. You may contact her at the U.S. Department of Education, room 7007, MS 7592, 1990 K St., NW., Washington, DC 20006, telephone: (202) 219-7009, fax: (202) 219-7008, e-mail:
The National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity is established under Section 114 of the Higher Education Act (HEA) as amended, 20 U.S.C. 1011c.
The Committee advises the Secretary of Education about:
• The establishment and enforcement of the criteria for recognition of accrediting agencies or associations under subpart 2 of part H of Title IV, HEA.
• The recognition of specific accrediting agencies or associations.
• The preparation and publication of the list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies and associations.
• The eligibility and certification process for institutions of higher education under Title IV, HEA.
• The development of standards and criteria for specific categories of vocational training institutions and institutions of higher education for which there are no recognized accrediting agencies, associations, or
• The relationship between: (1) accreditation of institutions of higher education and the certification and eligibility of such institutions, and (2) state licensing responsibilities with respect to such institutions.
• Any other advisory functions relating to accreditation and institutional eligibility that the Secretary may prescribe.
Agenda topics will include the review of agencies that have submitted petitions for renewal of recognition, agencies that have submitted interim reports, an agency that has submitted a progress report and requested an expansion of scope of recognition, and a Federal agency seeking degree-granting authority.
Please note that the agencies listed below, which were originally scheduled for review during the National Advisory Committee's June 2004 meeting, were deferred and will be reviewed at the December 2004 meeting.
• Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools.
• American Academy for Liberal Education.
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology.
• National Association of Schools of Art and Design, Commission on Accreditation.
• National Association of Schools of Dance, Commission on Accreditation.
• National Association of Schools of Music, Commission on Accreditation, Commission on Non-Degree-Granting Accreditation, Commission on Community/Junior College Accreditation.
• National Association of Schools of Theatre, Commission on Accreditation.
• New England Association of Schools and Colleges, Commission on Institutions of Higher Education.
• New England Association of Schools and Colleges, Commission on Technical and Career Institutions.
• Puerto Rico State Agency for the Approval of Public Postsecondary Vocational, Technical Institutions and Programs.
Any requests for third-party oral presentations regarding these agencies that were received by May 21, 2004, in accordance with the
The following agencies will be reviewed during the December 2004 meeting of the Advisory Committee:
1. Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools (Current scope of recognition: the accreditation of private, postsecondary allied health education institutions and institutions that offer predominantly allied health programs, private medical assistant programs, and public and private medical laboratory technician programs leading to the Associate of Applied Science and the Associate of Occupational Science degrees.) (Requested scope of recognition: The accreditation of private, postsecondary institutions in the United States offering predominantly allied health education programs, and the programmatic accreditation of allied health programs, leading to a certificate, diploma, or the Associate of Applied Science and Associate of Occupational Science degrees, including those offered via distance education.)
2. Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology (Current scope of recognition: The accreditation of private, postsecondary, non-degree-granting institutions and degree-granting institutions, including those granting associate and baccalaureate degrees, that are predominantly organized to educate students for occupational, trade and technical careers, and including institutions that offer programs via distance education.) (Requested scope of recognition: the accreditation of private, postsecondary, non-degree-granting institutions and degree-granting institutions in the United States, including those granting associate and baccalaureate degrees, that are predominantly organized to educate students for occupational, trade and technical careers, and including institutions that offer programs via distance education.)
3. American Psychological Association, Committee on Accreditation (Current scope of recognition: The accreditation of doctoral programs in clinical, counseling, school and combined professional-scientific psychology; predoctoral internship programs in professional psychology; and postdoctoral residency programs in professional psychology.) (Requested scope of recognition: The accreditation in the United States of doctoral programs in clinical, counseling, school and combined professional-scientific psychology; predoctoral internship programs in professional psychology; and postdoctoral residency programs in professional psychology.)
4. National Accrediting Commission of Cosmetology Arts and Sciences (Current scope of recognition: The accreditation of postsecondary schools and departments of cosmetology arts and sciences and massage therapy.) (Requested scope of recognition: The accreditation of postsecondary schools and departments of cosmetology arts and sciences and massage therapy in the United States.)
5. Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, Accreditation Commission (Current scope of recognition: the accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidate” status) of postsecondary institutions that offer certificates, diplomas, and associate, baccalaureate, and graduate degrees, including institutions that offer distance education.) (Requested scope of recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidate” status) of postsecondary institutions in the United States that offer certificates, diplomas, and associate, baccalaureate, and graduate degrees, including institutions that offer distance education.)
6. Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Accrediting Commission for Schools (Current and requested scope of recognition: the accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidate for Accreditation”) of adult and postsecondary schools that offer programs below the degree level in California, Hawaii, the United States territories of Guam and American Samoa, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.)
(A petition for an expansion of scope and a progress report on the agency's experience with its new method and system to assess its institutions' success with respect to student achievement.)
1. Distance Education and Training Council, Accrediting Commission (Current scope of recognition: The accreditation of postsecondary institutions in the United States offering programs primarily by the distance
(An interim report is a follow-up report on an accrediting agency's compliance with specific criteria for recognition that was requested by the Secretary when the Secretary granted renewed recognition to the agency.)
1. American Academy for Liberal Education.
2. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology.
3. Commission on English Language Program Accreditation.
4. Montessori Accreditation Council for Teacher Education, Commission on Accreditation.
5. National Association of Schools of Art and Design, Commission on Accreditation.
6. National Association of Schools of Dance, Commission on Accreditation.
7. National Association of Schools of Music, Commission on Accreditation, Commission on Non-Degree-Granting Accreditation, Commission on Community/Junior College Accreditation.
8. National Association of Schools of Theatre, Commission on Accreditation.
9. New England Association of Schools and Colleges, Commission on Institutions of Higher Education.
10. New England Association of Schools and Colleges, Commission on Technical and Career Institutions.
11. Teacher Education Accreditation Council, Accreditation Committee.
1. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education.
2. Puerto Rico State Agency for the Approval of Public Postsecondary Vocational, Technical Institutions and Programs.
1. Missouri State Board of Education.
In accordance with the Federal policy governing the granting of academic degrees by Federal agencies (approved by a letter from the Director, Bureau of the Budget, to the Secretary, Health, Education, and Welfare, dated December 23, 1954), the Secretary is required to establish a review committee to advise the Secretary concerning any legislation that may be proposed that would authorize the granting of degrees by a Federal agency. The review committee forwards its recommendation concerning a Federal agency's proposed degree-granting authority to the Secretary, who then forwards the committee's recommendation and the Secretary's recommendation to the Office of Management and Budget for review and transmittal to the Congress. The Secretary uses the Advisory Committee as the review committee required for this purpose. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee will review the following institution at this meeting:
1. National Defense University, Joint Forces Staff College, Joint Advanced Warfighting School, Norfolk, VA (request to award a Master's in Science (M.S.) degree in Joint Campaign Planning and Strategy).
We invite you to make a third-party oral presentation before the National Advisory Committee concerning the recognition of any agency published in this notice.
You must submit a written request to make an oral presentation concerning an agency listed in this notice to the contact person
1. The names, addresses, phone and fax numbers, and e-mail addresses of all persons seeking an appearance,
2. The organization they represent, and
3. A brief summary of the principal points to be made during the oral presentation.
If you wish, you may attach documents illustrating the main points of your oral testimony. Please keep in mind, however, that
This notice requests third-party oral testimony, not written comment. Requests for written comments on agencies that are being reviewed during this meeting were published in the
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Committee, at its discretion, may invite attendees to address the Committee briefly on issues pertaining to the functions of the Committee, which are listed earlier in this notice. If you are interested in making such comments, you should inform Ms. LeBold before or during the meeting.
We will record the meeting and make a transcript available for public inspection at the U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K St., NW., Washington, DC 20006 between the
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, Department of Education (The Advisory Committee).
On August 11, 2004, we published a notice in the
1. Distance Education and Training Council, Accrediting Commission (Current scope of recognition: The accreditation of postsecondary institutions in the United States offering programs primarily by the distance education method up through the first professional degree level. Title IV Note: Accreditation by this agency does not enable the entities it accredits to establish eligibility to participate in Title IV programs.) (Requested scope of recognition: The accreditation of postsecondary institutions in the United States that offer degree programs primarily by the distance education method up through the first professional degree level, and are specifically certified by the agency as accredited for Title IV purposes; and the accreditation of postsecondary institutions in the United States not participating in Title IV that offer programs primarily by the distance education method up through the first professional degree level. Title IV Note: Accreditation by this agency does not enable the entities it accredits to establish eligibility to participate in Title IV programs, other than to permit degree-granting schools certified by DETC as accredited for Title IV purposes to establish eligibility to participate in the Distance Education Demonstration Program.)
Please submit your written comments by November 15, 2004 to Carol Griffiths, Accrediting Agency Evaluation, Accreditation and State Liaison. You may contact her at the U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., 7th Floor, Room 7105, Washington, DC 20006-8509, telephone: (202) 219-7011. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
The National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity is established under Section 114 of the Higher Education Act (HEA), as amended, 20 U.S.C. 1011c. One of the purposes of the Advisory Committee is to advise the Secretary of Education on the recognition of accrediting agencies and State approval agencies.
Yes, this notice announces the only opportunity you will have to submit written comments. However, another
We will review your comments, in response to this notice, as part of our evaluation of the Distance Education and Training Council's compliance with the Secretary's Criteria for Recognition of Accrediting Agencies. The Criteria are regulations found in 34 CFR Part 602 (for accrediting agencies).
We will also respond to your comments, as appropriate, in the staff analysis we present to the Advisory Committee at its December 2004 meeting. Therefore, in order for us to give full consideration to your comments, it is important that we receive them by November 15, 2004. In all instances, your comments regarding the Distance Education and Training Council must relate to the Criteria for Recognition.
We will review any comments received after the deadline. If such comments, upon investigation, reveal that the accrediting agency is not acting in accordance with the Criteria for Recognition, we will take action either before or after the meeting, as appropriate.
Subject to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 522, petitions, interim reports, and those third-party comments received in advance of the meeting, will, upon written request, be made available, by appointment, for inspection and copying at the U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., 7th Floor, Room 7105, Washington, DC 20006-8509, telephone (202) 219-7011 until November 17, 2004. They will be available again after the December 13-15 Advisory Committee meeting.
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free
The official version of this document is the document published in the
5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice regarding waiver of federal preemption.
EPA today, pursuant to section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 7543(b), is granting California its request for a waiver of federal preemption for its regulations controlling emissions from off-cycle aggressive driving and air-conditioning usage for motor vehicles under 8,501 pounds gross vehicle weight rating. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) requested that EPA grant California a waiver of federal preemption for its regulations which incorporate EPA's two supplemental federal test procedures (SFTP) and associated certification standards.
The Agency's Decision Document, containing an explanation of the Assistant Administrator's decision, as well as all documents relied upon in making that decision, including those submitted to EPA by CARB, are available at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket at EPA's Docket Center. The Docket Center is open from 8:30 to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, at EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The reference number for this docket is OAR-2003-0187.
Electronic copies of this Notice and the accompanying Decision Document are available via the Internet on the Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) Web site (
Please note that due to differences between the software used to develop the documents and the software into which the documents may be downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc., may occur.
David J. Dickinson, Certification and Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue (6405J), NW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 343-9256. E-Mail address:
I have decided to grant California a waiver of Federal preemption pursuant to section 209(b) of the Act for amendments to its motor vehicle pollution control program regarding emissions from off-cycle aggressive driving (US06) and air-conditioning (SC03) as set forth at 13 California Code of Regulations 1960.1, 2062, and 2101 and the incorporated “California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 1988 and Subsequent Model Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks and Medium-Duty Vehicles,” “California New vehicle Compliance Test Procedure,” and “California Assembly-Line Test Procedures for 1988 and Subsequent Model Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks and Medium-Duty Vehicles.”
Section 209(b) of the Act provides that, if certain criteria are met, the Administrator shall waive Federal preemption for California to enforce new motor vehicle emission standards and accompanying enforcement procedures. The criteria include consideration of whether California arbitrarily and capriciously determined that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as the applicable Federal standards; whether California needs State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; and whether California's amendments are consistent with section 202(a) of the Act.
CARB determined that its off-cycle aggressive driving and air-conditioning usage standards and accompanying enforcement procedures do not cause California's standards, in the aggregate, to be less protective of public health and welfare than the applicable Federal standards. EPA received no comments that questioned CARB's determination. EPA cannot make a finding that CARB's determination, that its requirements are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare, is arbitrary and capricious.
CARB has continually demonstrated the existence of compelling and extraordinary conditions justifying the need for its own motor vehicle pollution control program, which includes the subject standards and procedures. No information has been submitted to demonstrate that California no longer has a compelling and extraordinary need for its own program. Therefore, I agree that California continues to have compelling and extraordinary conditions which require its own program, and, thus, I cannot deny the waiver on the basis of the lack of compelling and extraordinary conditions.
CARB has submitted information that the requirements of its emission standards and test procedures are technologically feasible and present no inconsistency with federal requirements and are, therefore, consistent with section 202(a) of the Act. No information has been presented to demonstrate that CARB's requirements are inconsistent with section 202(a) of the Act, nor does EPA have any other reason to believe that CARB's requirements are inconsistent with section 202(a). Thus, I cannot find that California's requirements will be inconsistent with section 202(a) of the Act. Accordingly, I hereby grant the waiver requested by California.
My decision will affect not only persons in California but also the manufacturers outside the State who must comply with California's requirements in order to produce motor vehicles for sale in California. For this reason, I hereby determine and find that this is a final action of national applicability.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this final action may be sought only in the United States Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review must be filed by December 13, 2004. Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, judicial review of this final action may not be obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings.
As with past waiver decisions, this action is not a rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is
In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of this action on small business entities.
Finally, the Administrator has delegated the authority to make determinations regarding waivers of Federal preemption under section 209(b) of the Act to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public meeting of the Ecological Effects Subcommittee (EES) of the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (Council). The EES will discuss charge questions related to ecological issues as found in the Office of Air and Radiation's Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, Revised Analytic Plan for EPA's Second Prospective Analysis, 1990-2020.
The public meeting of the Council EES will be held on November 5, 2004 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern time). The meeting will be held at the SAB Conference Center, 1025 F Street, NW., Suite 3700, Washington, DC.
Any member of the public wishing further information regarding the SAB or the Council EES may contact Dr. Holly Stallworth, Designated Federal Officer, at telephone/voice mail: (202) 343-9867 or via e-mail at:
EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) conducts periodic, scientifically-reviewed studies to assess the costs and benefits of regulations promulgated under the Clean Air Act. The Council is an outside body of recognized experts charged with reviewing the data, methods and cost-benefit analyses conducted by OAR for implementing its programs. The EES is one of the Council's three subcommittees.
EPA has thus far issued one retrospective analysis of the Clean Air Act covering the 1970-1990 time period and one prospective analysis covering the 1990-2010 time period. EPA is planning a second prospective analysis covering the 1990-2020 time period and has issued two analytic blueprints for this analysis. The Council provided advice on these analytic blueprints in 2001 and 2004, but deferred three charge questions pertaining to ecological effects to the EES. The Council's reports may be found at:
The November 5, 2004 meeting will provide the Council EES an opportunity to address the Agency's three charge questions pertaining to ecological issues and Clean Air Act regulations. These three charge questions (numbers 18-20) may be found at:
It is the policy of the EPA SAB to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The SAB Staff Office expects that public statements presented at the EES meeting will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements. Oral Comments: In general, each individual or group requesting an oral presentation at a face-to-face meeting will be limited to a total time of ten minutes (unless otherwise indicated). Interested parties should contact the DFO in writing (e-mail, fax or mail—see contact information above) by close of business October 29, 2004, in order to be placed on the public speaker list for the meeting. Speakers should bring at least 35 copies of their comments and presentation slides for distribution to the participants and public at the meeting. Written Comments: Although the SAB Staff Office accepts written comments until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated), written comments should be received in the SAB Staff Office at least seven business days prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the panel for their consideration. Comments should be supplied to the DFO at the address/contact information noted above in the following formats: one hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat, WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format). Those providing written comments and who attend the meeting are also asked to bring 35 copies of their comments for public distribution.
Individuals requiring special accommodation to access the public meetings listed above should contact the DFO at least five business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) Illegal Competitive Advantage (ICA) Economic Benefit (EB) Advisory Panel will hold a public teleconference to finalize its draft advisory report to the Agency on economic methods related to assessing economic benefits attributed to non-compliance with EPA regulations.
The SAB ICA EB Advisory Panel will meet on November 4, 2004, via
The public teleconference will take place via teleconference only.
Any member of the public who wishes to obtain the teleconference call-in numbers and access codes, would like to submit written or brief oral comments (3 minutes or less), or who wants further information concerning this public teleconference meeting should contact Dr. Jack Kooyoomjian, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA SAB, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. (MC 1400F), Washington, DC 20460; via telephone/voice mail: (202) 343-9984; fax: (202) 233-0643; or e-mail at:
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, the SAB Staff Office hereby gives notice of a public teleconference of the SAB ICA EB Advisory Panel. The Panel has conducted two public teleconference calls and a public meeting to provide advice regarding EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) White Paper entitled, “Identifying and Calculating Economic Benefit That Goes Beyond Avoided and/or Delayed Costs.” These public meetings were noticed in the
The purpose of this public teleconference is to finalize the advisory report.
Copies of the agenda for the public teleconference described in this notice and the SAB draft advisory report will be posted on the SAB Web site at:
It is the policy of the SAB Staff Office to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments wherever possible. The SAB Staff Office expects the public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously-submitted oral or written statements.
This is a meeting by teleconference. Individuals requiring special accommodation for this meeting should contact the DFO at least five business days prior to the meeting, so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of revised system of records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Office of Executive Secretariat (OEX) is giving notice that it proposes to publish a revised system of records notice for the Correspondence Management System. This system of records is designed to track, route, and store incoming and outgoing Agency correspondence from and to members of the public, private, and government sectors.
The revised notice will be effective November 23, 2004.
Questions regarding this notice should be addressed to the Director, Office of Executive Secretariat, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., MC-1105A, Washington, DC 20460.
Brian Hope, at (202) 564-7311, or at
The EPA Correspondence Management System is designed to track, route, and store incoming and outgoing Agency correspondence from and to members of the public, private, and governmental sectors. This new system changes only the software used to track information and does not change the types of records that are tracked or alter levels of access to that information. Access to the system is restricted to authorized users (EPA employees and on-site contractors that are cleared to handle such information. All information is maintained in a secure, password protected computer system located in secure areas and buildings with physical access controls and environmental controls. The system is maintained by the Office of Executive Secretariat in the Office of Administrator.
EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OEI-2004-0003. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the OEI Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets (
Correspondence Management System.
None.
National Computer Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Main Campus, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709.
Individuals who write to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or any of its employees in their official capacity; all individuals to whom correspondence is addressed by EPA or any of its employees in their official capacity; and individuals whose correspondence is referred to EPA by the President, the Vice President, or another federal agency. (
Correspondence generated by anyone in the public, private, or government sectors and addressed to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or any of its employees in their official capacity. Correspondence generated by any employee of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in his or her official capacity. Complete records
5 U.S.C. 301.
To track, route, and store incoming and outgoing Agency correspondence from and to members of the public, private, and governmental sectors.
The following General Routine Uses of EPA Systems of Records apply to this application:
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K
Records may also be disclosed to a federal, state, or local governmental agency when it is determined that a response by that agency is more appropriate than a response by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Computer database and paper files (until the Agency implements a National Archives and Records Administration-certified electronic records management system).
All CMS records are full-text indexed and are searchable by any data element.
CMS resides on servers located in a secure, access-controlled room at the EPA National Computer Center at the main EPA campus in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. No unauthorized individuals may access the physical equipment on which the system resides.
Electronic access to CMS is available only through the EPA intranet via a Single Socket Layer-encrypted connection. All users must have a password-protected account that defines their level of access to data stored in the system. Accounts can only be created by the System Administrator or Assistant System Administrators.
Paper records are maintained in lockable file cabinets in secure, access-controlled rooms, areas, or buildings.
Paper and electronic record copies are retained and disposed of according to National Archives and Records Administration guidelines and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Records Control Schedule.
Director, Office of the Executive Secretariat, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; Correspondence Management System Administrator, Office of the Executive Secretariat, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Any individual, or his or her duly authorized representative, who (1) is desirous of knowing if information of any kind about him or her is maintained in the Correspondence Management System; (2) wishes to access the information, if any, maintained about him or her in the Correspondence Management System; or (3) wants to formally contest the contents of a record maintained in the Correspondence Management System, should make his or her request in writing to the System Manager(s).
At a minimum, requestors will be required to provide adequate identification (
Individuals requesting correction of or amendment to records must reasonably and accurately identify the record in question, specify the information they are contesting, and detail the corrective action sought. Complete U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Privacy Act procedures are set out in 40 CFR Part 16.
Sources include individuals who address correspondence to the Agency or any of its employees in their official capacities; Agency employees preparing responses to incoming correspondence or who generate original correspondence in their official capacities; and the White House and other federal agencies (referrals to the Agency).
None.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of settlement.
Under section 122(h) (1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has entered into an Agreement for Recovery of Past Cost (Agreement) at the Forty-Third Street Bay Drum Superfund Site (Site) located in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, with twenty-nine (29) parties. EPA will consider public comments on the Agreement until November 15, 2004. EPA may withdraw from or modify the Agreement should such comments disclose facts or considerations which indicate the Agreement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. Copies of the Agreement are available from: Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Waste Management Division, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562-8887,
Written comment may be submitted to Ms. Batchelor at the above address within 30 days of the date of publication.
Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank).
Notice and request for comments.
The Export-Import Bank, as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of the survey is to fulfill a statutory mandate (The Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 635) which directs Ex-Im Bank to report annually to the U.S. Congress any action taken toward providing export credit programs that are competitive with those offered by official foreign export credit agencies. The Act further stipulates that the annual report on competitiveness should include the results of a survey of U.S. exporters and U.S. commercial lending institutions which provide export credit to determine their experience in meeting financial competition from other countries whose exporters compete with U.S. exporters.
Accordingly, Ex-Im Bank is requesting that the proposed survey (EIB No. 00-02) be sent to approximately 200 applicants of Ex-Im Bank's medium- and long-term programs. The revised survey is similar to the previous survey, as it asks bankers and exporters to evaluate the competitiveness of Ex-Im Bank's programs vis-á-vis foreign export credit agencies. However, it has been modified in order to account for newer policies and to capture enough information to provide a better analysis of our competitiveness. In addition, the survey will be available on Ex-Im Bank's Web site,
Written comments should be received on or before December 13, 2004 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all requests for additional information to Alan Jensen, Export-Import Bank of the U.S., 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Room 1279, Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3767.
With respect to the proposed collection of information, Ex-Im Bank invites comments as to:
The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Thursday, October 14, 2004, which is scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. in Room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC.
Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from Audrey Spivack or David Fiske, Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1 (888) 835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live over the Internet from the FCC's Audio/Video Events Web page at
For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services call (703) 993-3100 or go to
Copies of materials adopted at this meeting can be purchased from the FCC's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (202) 488-5300; Fax (202) 488-5563; TTY (202) 488-5562. These copies are available in paper format and alternative media, including large print/type; digital disk; and audio tape. Best Copy and Printing, Inc. may be reached by e-mail at
Tuesday, October 19, 2004 at 10 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Thursday, October 21, 2004 at 10 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth floor).
This meeting will be opened to the public.
Mr. Robert Biersack, Acting Press Officer, Telephone (202) 694-1220.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may obtain copies of agreements by contacting the Commission's Office of Agreements at 202-523-5793 or via e-mail at
Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR, part 515).
Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 27, 2004.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 7, 2004.
The Advisory Council on Government Auditing Standards will meet Monday, November 8, 2004, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., in room 7C13 of the Government Accountability Office building, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC.
The Advisory Council on Government Auditing Standards will hold a meeting to discuss issues that may impact government auditing standards. The meeting is open to the public. Council discussions and reviews are open to the public. Members of the public will be provided an opportunity to address the Council with a brief (five minute) presentation on Monday afternoon.
Any interested person who plans to attend the meeting as an observer must contact Sharon Chase, Council Assistant, 202-512-6428. A form of picture identification must be presented to the GAO Security Desk on the day of the meeting to obtain access to the GAO Building. For further information, please contact Ms. Chase. Please check the Government Auditing Standards Web page (
Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of public meeting.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is announcing a public meeting to weigh new ideas and promote new solutions to encourage innovation in health care and to speed the development of effective new medical technologies, such as drug and biological products and medical devices. A high level task force has been formed within HHS and is charged with issuing a report this year on appropriate steps that can be taken across HHS to speed the development and availability of new medical technologies. The purpose of this public meeting is to obtain input from interested persons on what steps HHS can take to create or enhance coordination across HHS agencies in order to stimulate the development of new technologies. HHS will consider presentations made at the public meeting and comments submitted to the docket before and after the meeting when developing the report.
During the past decade, an increased awareness of medical technology innovation and its promise and progress has revealed critical problems in the path from discovery through development to delivery. This spring, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy G. Thompson appointed a top-level task force to present new ideas on how HHS can coordinate its efforts to help stimulate medical innovation. The task force members include: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Director, Julie Gerberding; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, Administrator, Mark B. McClellan; Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Lester M. Crawford; and National Institutes of Health, Director, Elias A. Zerhouni. Commissioner Crawford will serve as the task force's Chair.
Secretary Thompson asked the task force to look for opportunities across HHS to promote speedier access to new innovative medical technologies that can improve people's health and save lives. He asked the task force to report to him by the end of the year on ways that better coordination across HHS could streamline the way we do business and make safe, effective medical technologies more quickly and readily available to Americans.
On May 24, 2004, a
Comments have been received and are being evaluated and condensed into material suitable for a report. On November 8, 2004, we will not only focus on opportunities presented at the public meeting, but those promising ideas that HHS has already received and plans to highlight. The ideas will be posted 1 week before the public meeting in the electronic docket (Docket No. 2004S-0233) located at
Registration is required to attend the meeting. Seating is limited to 120 people and will be on a first come, first served basis. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please inform Nancy L. Stanisic by October 29, 2004.
If you wish to present information at the public meeting, submit your electronic request and an abstract of your presentation by close of business on October 29, 2004, to Nancy Stanisic (see
The request to participate should contain the following information: (1) Presenter's name; (2) address; (3) telephone number; (4) e-mail address; (5) affiliation, if any; (6) abstract of the presentation; and (7) approximate amount of time requested for the presentation.
We request that persons and groups having similar interests consolidate their comments and present them through a single representative. We will allocate the time available for the meeting among the persons who request to present. Because of limited time, we will accept only one presenter per organization. We reserve the right to deny requests if the proposed topic is not germane. After reviewing the requests to present and the abstracts, we will schedule each appearance and notify each participant by e-mail or telephone of the time allotted to the person and the approximate time the person's presentation is scheduled to begin. Presenters planning to use electronic presentation in Microsoft PowerPoint, Microsoft Word, or Adobe Acrobat (pdf) must send them to us by close of business on November 4, 2004. Presenters who do not meet this deadline may provide handouts of their presentations at the meeting.
After the meeting, the schedule and presentations will be placed on file in the Division of Dockets Management (see
Interested persons may submit written or electronic comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Approximately 30 days after the public meeting, you can examine a transcript of the meeting on the Internet at
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 498-1210 or send an e-mail to
Surveillance for Ciguatera Fish Poisoning in Recreational Fishers Utilizing Texas Gulf Coast Oil Rigs—New—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
This public health surveillance activity will quantify the scope of ciguatera poisonings in the recreational fishing community of coastal Texas. The Texas Department of Health has received reports of ciguatera-toxic fish caught around Texas offshore oil rigs, but anecdotal reports to researchers at the University of Texas suggest that the incidence of ciguatera fish poisoning is
A questionnaire will be administered over a one-year period to recreational spear-fishers and to hook-and-line anglers who have consumed fish caught on the reef ecosystems off the Texas Gulf Coast. There are no costs to respondents. The annualized burden is estimated to be 230 hours.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 498-1210 or send an e-mail to
Application Form and Related Forms for the Operation of the National Death Index, (0920-0215)—Extension—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The National Death Index (NDI) is a national data base containing identifying death record information submitted annually to NCHS by all the state vital statistics offices, beginning with deaths in 1979. Searches against the NDI file provide the states with dates of death, and the death certificate numbers of deceased study subjects. Since the implementation of the NDI Plus service, researchers have the option of also receiving cause of death information for deceased subjects, thus reducing the need to request copies of death certificates from the states. The NDI Plus option currently provides the ICD codes for the underlying and multiple causes of death for the years 1979-2002. Health researchers must complete five administrative forms in order to apply for NDI services, and submit records of study subjects for computer matching against the NDI file. While there are five forms, it is rare for an NDI user to complete more than one of each per year; therefore, the burden table addresses respondents and not forms. There are no costs to respondents except for their time. The estimated annualized burden is 228 hours.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting:
2:45 p.m.-5:30 p.m., November 1, 2004 (closed).
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit written and electronic comments on the collection of information by December 13, 2004.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to:
Peggy Robbins, Office of Management Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Section 210 of FDAMA established section 523 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360m), directing FDA to accredit persons in the private sector to review certain premarket applications and notifications. Participation in this third party review program by accredited persons is entirely voluntary. A third party wishing to participate will submit a request for accreditation to FDA. Accredited third-party reviewers have the ability to review a manufacturer's submission under section 510(k) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) for selected devices. After reviewing a submission, the reviewer will forward a copy of the 510(k) submission, along with the reviewer's documented review and recommendation to FDA. Third-party reviews should maintain records of their 510(k) reviews and a copy of the 510(k) for a reasonable period of time, usually a period of 3 years. This information collection will allow FDA to continue to implement the accredited person review program established by FDAMA and improve the efficiency of 510(k) review for low-to-moderate risk devices.
The third-party program under the U.S/E.C. MRA is intended to implement that part of the U.S./E.C. MRA that covers the exchange of quality system evaluation reports for all medical devices and premarket evaluation reports for selected low-to-moderate risk devices. Under the MRA, firms may apply to become designated as a U.S. conformity assessment body (CAB). Firms who are designated will be qualified to conduct quality system evaluations for all classes of devices and product type evaluations and verifications for selected devices based on European Union (EU) requirements under the voluntary third-party program authorized by MRA. Firms designated as EU CABs could conduct quality system evaluations for all classes of devices and premarket 510(k) evaluations for selected devices based on FDA's requirements. Under the voluntary third-party program, reports of these evaluations would be submitted by the EU CABs to FDA. The EU CABs would also be required to maintain copies of their evaluation reports for a period of no less than 3 years.
Respondents to this information collection are businesses or other for-profit organizations.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The burdens are explained as follows:
Under the agency's third-party review pilot program, the agency received 37 applications for recognition as third-party reviewers, of which the agency recognized 7. In the past 3 years, however, the agency has averaged receipt of 15 applications for recognition of third-party review accredited persons, and 9 EU CABS. The agency has accredited 15 of the applicants to conduct third-party reviews, and 9 EU CABs.
In the 18 months under the third-party review pilot program, FDA received only 22 total 510(k)s that requested and were eligible for review by third parties. Because the third-party review program is not as limited in time as the pilot program, and is expanded in scope, the agency anticipates that the number of 510(k)s submitted for third-party review will remain the same as they were during the last OMB approval in 2001. The agency has experienced that the number of 510(k)s submitted by accredited persons for third-party review since the last OMB approval in 2001 has been approximately 210 annually, which is 14 annual reviews per each of the estimated 15 accredited reviewers.
Under this program, EU CABs will be able to perform third-party evaluations for certain products produced in Europe for export to the United States. EU CABs would be required to submit to FDA reports of their evaluations. Based upon
Under this program, EU CABs will be able to perform third-party evaluations of the quality systems established by manufacturers of European products produced for export to the United States. EU CABs would be required to submit to FDA reports of their evaluations. Based upon information gathered during the negotiation of the U.S./E.C. MRA and actual experience since the collection was last approved by OMB in 2001, the agency anticipates that European manufacturers will request third-party audits for approximately 36 medical device products annually. The agency estimates that 9 EU CABs will perform these evaluations.
Third-party reviewers are required to keep records of their review of each submission. The agency anticipates approximately 210 annual submissions of 510(k)s for third-party review.
As stated previously, firms designated as EU CABs will be able to perform third-party evaluations of quality systems and premarket submissions for certain products produced for export to the United States. Such review will be conducted consistent with FDA's regulatory requirements, and FDA will require the reviewers to keep, in their records, a copy of the report that they submit to FDA for each review. The agency anticipates that 45 premarket reports and 36 quality system reports will be generated and required to be maintained by EU CABs annually. The agency further estimates that each reviewer will require no more than 10 hours (2 hours per recordkeeping per report) for each to maintain such records annually.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that the proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA).
Fax written comments on the collection of information by November 15, 2004.
OMB is still experiencing significant delays in the regular mail, including first class and express mail, and messenger deliveries are not being accepted. To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Fumie Yokota, Desk Officer for FDA, FAX 202-395-6974.
Denver Presley, Office of Management Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 4B-41, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1472.
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Enacted on November 18, 2003, the Animal Drug User Fee Act (ADUFA), (Public Law 108-130) amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) and requires FDA to assess and collect user fees for certain applications, products, establishments, and sponsors. It also requires the agency to grant a waiver from, or a reduction of those fees in certain circumstances. Thus, to implement this statutory provision of ADUFA, FDA developed a guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry: Animal Drug User Fees and Fee Waivers and Reductions.” This document provides guidance on the types of fees FDA is authorized to collect under ADUFA, and how to request waivers and reductions from FDA's animal drug user fees. Further, this guidance also describes the types of fees and fee waivers and reductions; what information FDA recommends be submitted in support of a request for a fee waiver or reduction; how to submit such a request; and FDA's process for reviewing requests. Respondents to this collection of information are new animal drug sponsors. Requests for waivers or reductions may be submitted by a person paying any of the animal drug user fees assessed—application fees, product fees, establishment fees, or sponsor fees.
In the
FDA estimates the burden for this collection of information as follows:
Based on FDA's database system, there are an estimated 250 sponsors of products subject to ADUFA. However, not all sponsors will have any submissions in a given year and some may have multiple submissions. The total number of waiver requests is based on the number of submissions types received by FDA in fiscal year 2003. The Center for Veterinary Medicine estimates 30 waiver requests that include the following: 5 significant barriers to innovation, 1 fee exceed cost, 5 free choice feeds, 10 minor use or minor species, 2 small business waiver requests, 5 requests for reconsideration of a decision, and 2 requests for user fee appeal officers. The estimated hours per response are based on past FDA experience with the various waiver requests in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. The hours per response are based on the average of these estimates.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by November 15, 2004.
OMB is still experiencing significant delays in the regular mail, including first class and express mail, and messenger deliveries are not being accepted. To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Fumie Yokota, Desk Officer for FDA, FAX 202-395-6974.
Denver Presley, Office of Management Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 4B-41, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1472.
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance:
Under section 740 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), as amended by the Animal Drug User Fee Act (ADUFA) (21 U.S.C. 379j-12), FDA has the authority to assess and collect certain animal drug user fees. Because the submission of user fees concurrently with applications and supplements is required, review of an application cannot begin until the fee is submitted. Under the new statutory provisions (section 740(e) of the act, as amended by ADUFA), animal drug applications and supplemental animal drug applications for which the required fee has not been paid are considered incomplete and are not to be accepted for review by the agency. The types of fees that require a cover sheet are certain animal drug application fees and certain supplemental animal drug application fees. The cover sheet, FDA Form 3546, is designed to provide the minimum necessary information to determine whether a fee is required for the review of an application or supplement, to determine the amount of the fee required, and to assure that each animal drug user fee payment and each animal drug application for which payment is made, is appropriately linked to the payment that is made. The form, when completed electronically, will result in the generation of a unique payment identification number used in tracking the payment. FDA will use the information collected, to initiate administrative screening of new animal drug applications and supplements to determine if payment has been received. Inability to collect this information would delay the review process and would also delay receipt of revenue that is to be used to fund the review of animal drug applications during the current fiscal year. Respondents to this collection of information are new animal drug applicants or manufacturers.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Based on FDA's database system, there are an estimated 140 manufacturers of products or sponsors of new animal drugs potentially subject to ADUFA. However, not all manufacturers or sponsors will have any submissions in a given year and some may have multiple submissions. The total number of annual responses is based on the number of submissions received by FDA in the fiscal year 2003. FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine, estimates 69 annual responses that include the following: 28 new animal drug premarket approval applications and 41 supplements. The estimated hours per response are based on past FDA experience with the various submissions and range from 30 minutes to 1 hour. The hours per response are based on the average of these estimates.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (section 3506(c) (2) of Title 44, United States Code, as amended by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects being developed for submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans, call the HRSA Reports Clearance Officer on (301) 443-1129.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques of other forms of information technology.
A survey of 800 safety net providers will be performed to provide essential information not otherwise available for the national evaluation of the Healthy Communities Access Program (Sect. 340, Pub. L. 107-251, Oct. 26, 2002). A preliminary review indicates that this sample of providers provides an adequate representation of provider types of most interest. The survey results will be considered along with information from other quantitative and qualitative data sources (including national, State and local data and information from grantee consortia leaders and clients) in order to develop a Report to Congress in September 2005 and a program evaluation report by September 2006. The survey will collect data for key evaluation goals including coordination and integration of safety net services, capacity and access issues, health care delivery, quality of care, cost savings, sustainability, and provider and patient satisfaction.
The survey of the provider institution's administrator will be multi-modal using mail, telephone, and internet modes of data collection. Mail or internet responses will be requested, with telephone follow-up or survey administration. The key types of providers to be surveyed are those specified in the law as required consortia members (
Send comments to Susan G. Queen, Ph.D., HRSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 14-33, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Written comments should be received with 60 days of this notice.
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
General notice.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces the availability of funds in the fiscal year (FY) 2005 HRSA Preview. The HRSA Preview is a comprehensive review of HRSA's fiscal year 2005 competitive programs. The purpose of the HRSA Preview is to provide the general public with a single source of program and application information related to the Agency's competitive grant offerings. The HRSA Preview is designed to replace the multiple
It should be noted that additional program initiatives responsive to new or emerging issues in the health care area and unanticipated at the time of publication of the HRSA Preview may be announced through the
HRSA continues to accept grant applications online. Please refer to the HRSA Web site at
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the seventh meeting of the Advisory Committee on Organ Transplantation (ACOT), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The meeting will be held from approximately 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on November 4, 2004, and from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on November 5, 2004, at the Rockville DoubleTree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The meeting will be open to the public; however, seating is limited and pre-registration is encouraged (see below).
Under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, and 42 CFR 121.12 (2000), ACOT was established to assist the Secretary in enhancing organ donation, ensuring that the system of organ transplantation is grounded in the best available medical science, and assuring the public that the system is as effective and equitable as possible, and, thereby, increasing public confidence in the integrity and effectiveness of the transplantation system. ACOT is composed of up to 25 members, including the Chair. Members are serving as Special Government Employees and have diverse backgrounds in fields such as organ donation, health care public policy, transplantation medicine and surgery, critical care medicine and other medical specialties involved in the identification and referral of donors, non-physician transplant professions, nursing, epidemiology, immunology, law and bioethics, behavioral sciences, economics and statistics, as well as representatives of transplant candidates, transplant recipients, organ donors, and family members.
ACOT will hear and discuss reports from the following ACOT subcommittees: Valuable Consideration Subcommittee, Fair Treatment Subcommittee, and Wait List Subcommittee.
The draft meeting agenda will be available on October 18 on the Department's donation Web site at
A registration form will be available on October 4 on the Department's donation Web site at
After the presentation of the subcommittee reports, members of the public will have an opportunity to provide comments on the subcommittee reports. Because of the Committee's full agenda and the timeframe in which to cover the agenda topics, public comment will be limited. All public comments will be included in the record of the ACOT meeting.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Director's Council of Public Representatives.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the committee may notify the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations may submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a short description of the oral presentation. Only one representative of an organization may be allowed to present oral comments and if accepted by the committee, presentations may be limited to five minutes. Both printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding their statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance into the building by non-government employees. Persons without a government I.D. will need to show a photo I.D. and sign-in at the security desk upon entering the building.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer Institute Board of Scientific Advisors.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer Institute Director's Consumer Liaison Group.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant application and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 522b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 522b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 522b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 522b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the Molecular Genetics A Study Section, October 21, 2004, 8 a.m. to October 22, 2004, 4 p.m., Four Points by Sheraton Bethesda, 8400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, which was published in the
The meeting is cancelled due to lack of a quorum.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. the grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
The mission of SAMHSA is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of substance abuse and mental health treatment and prevention services across the United States. All of SAMHSA's activities are designed to ultimately reduce the gap in the availability of substance abuse and mental health services and to improve their effectiveness and efficiency.
Data currently are collected from all SAMHSA knowledge application and targeted capacity expansion grants and contracts where client outcomes are to be assessed at intake (or initial contact), 6 and 12 months post admission or post-intervention. SAMHSA-funded projects are required to submit these data as a contingency of their award. The analysis of the data will also help determine whether the goal of reducing health and social costs of drug use to the public is being achieved.
The primary purpose of this data collection activity is to meet the
The following is the estimated annual response burden for this collection.
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 7-1045, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20850. Written comments should be received by December 13, 2004.
Notice; 60-day notice request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) invites the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on new information collection request (ICR), DHS Individual Complaint of Employment Discrimination form (DHS Form 3090-1). As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) DHS is soliciting comments for the new information collection request.
Written comments should be received on or before December 13, 2004 to be assured consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2004-0003, by
• EPA Federal Partner EDOCKET Web site:
The Department of Homeland Security has joined the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) online public docket and comment system on its Partner Electronic Docket System (Partner EDOCKET). The Department of Homeland Security and its agencies (excluding the United States Coast Guard and Transportation Security Administration) will use the EPA Federal Partner EDOCKET system. The USCG and TSA [legacy Department of Transportation (DOT) agencies] will continue to use the DOT Docket Management System until full migration to the electronic rulemaking federal docket management system in 2005.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• E-mail:
• Fax: (202) 772-9860
• Mail: Department of Homeland Security, Attention: Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Anacostia Naval Annex, 245 Murray Drive, Building 410, Washington, DC 20528.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Department of Homeland Security, Attention: Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Anacostia Naval Annex, 245 Murray Drive, Building 410, Washington, DC 20528.
Mary McGoldrick, (202) 772-9921 (this is not a toll free number).
Direct all written comments to both the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the addresses listed in this notice. A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the contact listed above.
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:
(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 burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice of information collection under review: application to adjust status from temporary to permanent resident.
The Department Homeland Security, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until December 13, 2004.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please contact Richard A. Sloan 202-616-7600, Director, Regulatory Management Division, Department of Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20529. Additionally, comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time may also be directed to Mr. Richard A. Sloan.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of meeting.
The Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee (LMRWSAC) will meet to discuss various issues relating to navigational safety on the Lower Mississippi River and related waterways. The meeting will be open to the public.
The next meeting of LMRWSAC will be held on Tuesday, November 16, 2004, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. This meeting may adjourn early if all business is finished. Requests to make oral presentations or submit written materials for distribution at the meeting should reach the Coast Guard on or before November 9, 2004. Requests to have a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee in
The meeting will be held in the Crescent City Room, Suite 1830 at the World Trade Center Building, 2 Canal Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. This notice is available on the Internet at
Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Michael McKean, Committee Administrator, telephone (504) 589-4222, fax (504) 589-4241.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770, as amended).
(1) Introductions.
(2) Opening Remarks.
(3) Approval of the May 18, 2004 minutes.
(4) Old Business:
(a) Captain of the Port status report.
(b) VTS update report.
(c) Subcommittee / Working Group update reports.
(5) New Business.
(6) Adjournment.
The meeting is open to the public. Please note that the meeting may close early if all business is finished. At the Chair's discretion, members of the public may make oral presentations during the meeting. If you would like to make an oral presentation at the meeting, please notify the Committee Administrator no later than November 9, 2004. Written material for distribution at the meeting should reach the Coast Guard no later than November 9, 2004. If you would like a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee in advance of the meeting, please submit 25 copies to the Committee Administrator no later than November 2, 2004.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact the Committee Administrator at the location indicated under Addresses as soon as possible.
Request OMB approval: screening requirements of carriers; OMB-16-1651-0122.
The Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until November 15, 2004. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for Homeland Security, Office of Management and Budget Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503; telephone 202-395-7316. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please contact Richard A. Sloan 202-616-7600, Director, Regulatory Management Division, Department of Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20529. Additionally, comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time may also be directed to Mr. Richard A. Sloan.
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), DHS.
Notice.
TSA invites public comment on a currently approved information collection requirement abstracted below that will be submitted to OMB for renewal in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Send your comments by December 13, 2004.
Comments may be mailed or delivered to Lisa Dean, Privacy Officer, Office of Transportation Security Policy, TSA-9, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-4220.
Lisa Dean at the above address or by telephone (571) 227-3947 or facsimile (571) 227-2555.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
TSA intends to continue testing and evaluating certain new and emerging biometric and other technologies through the Airport Access Control Pilot Program (AACPP), which is currently being conducted under OMB control number 1652-0020. TSA will gather biometric information, demographic information, and airport user identification from a select group of participants at 22 locations to test the use of emerging technologies for airport access control and then evaluate those technologies using two satisfaction instruments. The first instrument will be a survey given to a representative sample of airport users and the second instrument will be an interview conducted with the lead stakeholder at each site and a small percentage of persons participating in the project. Surveys and interviews will be voluntary. TSA estimates the total annual number of respondents for this collection to be 2,620 individuals and the total annual burden to be 780 hours. There is no cost burden to any of the respondents.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of Approved Amendment to Tribal-State Compact.
This notice publishes an approved Amendment to the Class III Tribal-State Gaming Compact between the Puyallup Tribe of Indians and the State of Washington. Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, the Secretary of the Interior is required to publish notice in the
October 14, 2004.
George T. Skibine, Director, Office of Indian Gaming Management, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.
Under Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the
The Memorandum of Incorporation of Most Favored Nation Amendments to the Tribal-State Compact between the Puyallup Tribe of Indians and the State of Washington will permit the Tribe to increase the number of Class III gaming machines it operates in one of its gaming facilities from 1,500 to 2,000. Through delegated authority, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs (Management) is publishing notice that the Memorandum of Incorporation of Most Favored Nation Amendments is now in effect.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of temporary closure.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Redding Field Office is temporarily closing portions of public lands to motorized and mechanized vehicle use, and prohibiting or restricting certain other uses on public lands managed by the Redding Field Office. This closure is needed to protect public health and safety, cultural and natural resources and stabilization treatments as recommended in the Department of the Interior's Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (BAER) Plan for the French Fire in Shasta and Trinity counties.
This closure is in effect from September 13, 2004 until December 31, 2005. The closure may be lifted sooner if BLM determines that road repairs, revegetation, and stabilization efforts have reduce safety hazards and significant resource concerns.
Copies of and map of the closed areas can be obtained at the BLM, Redding Field Office, 355 Hemsted Drive, Redding, CA 96002, (530) 224-2100. BLM will also announce the
Steven W. Anderson, Field Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Redding Field Office, 355 Hemsted Drive, Redding, CA 96002 or Francis Berg, BLM, phone (530) 224-2100 or by e-mail at
The public lands affected by the French Fire and addressed in the BAER Plan are closed to travel by horseback, motorized and mechanized vehicle use (
The following paragraphs explain the background for BLM's management of the closed lands, and the reason for the closure and restriction.
These lands and roads are temporarily closed to vehicles to protect public health and safety from rockslides, timber deadfall and slope failure due to loss of vegetation and falling trees in the areas affected by the fire, and to allow for post-fire road reconstruction and maintenance. The treat of increased vehicle use may increase due to the lack of vegetation and other physical barriers that previously blocked access. There is also the increased potential for the introduction of invasive/non-native plants in the burdened areas from motorized and mechanized vehicles, and the potential for collection or lotting of cultural and historical artifacts now revealed due to the loss of vegetation. This closure and restriction order applies to approximately 7,153 acres of public lands affected by the French Fire of August 2004.
This closure affects all of the public lands and roads, subject to the exceptions in Section 2, located within the French Fire perimeter. Public lands in the following described tracts are closed to travel by horseback, motorized and mechanized vehicles:
A total of approximately 7,153 acres
These closures and restrictions do not apply to the following roads: Trinity Mountain Road, Hoadley Peak Road, North County Line Road, Highland Ridge Road, Tom Green Mine Road, Lewiston Turnpike and French Gulch Road. The closures and restrictions do not apply to authorized emergency vehicles, rescue vehicles, BLM operation and maintenance vehicles, resource management and recovery activities, use by fire and law enforcement vehicles. In addition, access to mining claims and private property by property owners may be authorized by the BLM Field Manager or the acting Field Manager. Nothing in this closure is intended to affect legal hunting as consistent with California Department of Fish and Game regulations.
Under section 303(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1733(a) and 43 CFR 8360-7, if you violate these closures or restrictions on public lands within the boundaries established, you may be tried before a United States Magistrate and fined no more than $1,000 or imprisoned for no more than 12 months, or both. Such violations may also be subject to the enhanced fines provided for by 18 U.S.C. 3571.
Soil stabilization, revegetation, road repairs, and treatments to control invasive species will be considered successful, and the area may be returned to preclosure travel designations and opened sooner than December 31, 2005, if and when the following occur:
a. All culverts, road safety signs, fencing, and gates have been replaced or repaired.
b. Slopes and soils within the French Fire perimeter show signs of stabilization and have not experienced slope failure through at least one winter season and at least two major rain events.
c. Regrowth of vegetation has sufficiently obscured cultural sites previously exposed by the fire.
d. Seeding treatments on areas or natural revegetation (identified in BAER Plan for French Fire) have resulted in at least 30% regeneration of native species, or have been deemed unsuccessful after at least one full growing season.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of realty action.
Lands in San Juan County, New Mexico are being considered for direct sale to San Juan County utilizing non-competitive procedures at the appraised fair market value.
Authority for the sale is Section 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).
The lands are described as follows:
The lands contain 1.26 acres, more or less, located south of the San Juan County Fair grounds. This parcel of land, situated in San Juan County, is being considered for a direct sale to San Juan County, the adjacent property owner. The sale price will not be less than the fair market value of $30,000.00. This land is not required for any federal purposes. The sale is consistent with current Bureau planning for this area, and a direct sale to the County would be in the public interest. A sale will settle a trespass and allow expansion of existing rodeo grounds. In the event of a sale, the conveyance will be of surface interests only. Any patent, when issued, will contain the following reservations to the United States:
1. Patent Reservations:
A. All valid existing rights (including rights-of-ways).
B. Reserve a right for the Federal Government to construct ditches and canals.
C. Reserve all minerals to the Federal Government.
On October 14, 2004, the public lands described above are segregated from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws until July 11, 2005. The segregative
Interested parties may submit comments on the proposed sale to the Field Manager, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Farmington Field Office, 1235 La Plata Highway, Suite A, Farmington, New Mexico 87401 until November 29, 2004. Any Adverse comments will be reviewed by the State Director who may sustain, vacate, or modify this notice of realty action. The BLM may withdraw any land or interest in the land from sale if, in the opinion of the authorized officer, consummation of the sale would not be fully consistent with FLPMA or other applicable laws. The lands will not be sold before December 13, 2004.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Realty Action.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering for sale two parcels of land in Klamath County, Oregon, at not less than their respective appraised fair market value. A 520-acre parcel is proposed to be sold through competitive bidding. An adjoining 40-acre parcel is proposed to be sold through modified competitive bidding, whereby the adjacent land owner, will be given the opportunity to meet the highest bid.
All comments must be received in writing by BLM on or before bid dates, and are stated below in this notice.
Send all written comments concerning the proposed sales to Jon Raby, BLM, Klamath Falls Resource Area Field Manager, Klamath Falls Field Office, 2795 Anderson Ave., Building 25, Klamath Falls, Oregon 97603. Electronic format submittals will not be accepted.
Linda Younger, Realty Specialist, at (541) 883-6916.
In accordance with the applicable provisions of 43 CFR part 2710, the following described public lands in Klamath County, Oregon, are proposed to be sold pursuant to sections 203 and 209 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, (43 U.S.C. 1713 and 1719). Both of the parcels described herein are difficult and uneconomic to manage as a part of the public lands and are not suitable for management by another Federal agency. No significant resource values will be affected by their disposal. The parcels proposed for sale are identified as suitable for disposal in the Klamath Falls Resource Area Resource Management Plan, dated June 2, 1995.
The parcels described below are hereby segregated from appropriation under the public land laws including the mining laws until July 11, 2005. The segregative effect on these parcels imposed by publication of this notice will terminate on July 11, 2005, upon issuance of patents for the described properties, or publication of a notice in the
The area described contains 520 acres, more or less. The appraised market value for Parcel I is $182,000.00.
Sealed bids for Parcel I will be opened to determine the high bidder at 10 a.m. PST, December 15, 2004, at the BLM Klamath Falls Field Office (address stated above).
Offers to purchase Parcel I will be made only by sealed bids. All bids must be received at the BLM, Klamath Falls Field Office, 2795 Anderson Ave., Building 25, Klamath Falls, Oregon, 97603, not later than 4:30 p.m. PST, December 14, 2004.
The outside of bid envelopes for Parcel I must be clearly marked on the front lower left-hand corner with “BLM Land Sale OR 53188,” and the bid opening date. Bids must be for not less than the appraised market value of $182,000.00. Each sealed bid shall be accompanied by a certified check, postal money order, bank draft, or cashier's check made payable in U.S. Currency to the order of the Bureau of Land Management, for not less than 20 percent of the amount bid.
The bid envelope must also contain a statement showing the total amount bid and the name, mailing address, and phone number of the entity making the bid.
The area described contains 40 acres, more or less. The appraised fair market value for this parcel is $5,000.00.
Offers to purchase Parcel II will be made only by sealed bid. All bids must be received at the BLM, Klamath Falls Field Office, 2795 Anderson Ave., Building 25, Klamath Falls, Oregon, 97603, not later than 4:30 p.m. PST, on December 14, 2004.
Sealed bids for Parcel II will be opened to determine the apparent high bidder at 9 a.m. PST, on December 15, 2004, at the BLM, Klamath Falls Field Office (address stated above).
The outside of the sealed bid envelopes for Parcel II, must be clearly marked on the front lower left-hand corner with “BLM Land Sale, OR 59445” and the bid opening date. Bids must be for not less than the appraised market value of $5,000.00. Each sealed bid shall be accompanied by a certified check, money order, bank draft, or cashiers check made payable in U.S. currency to the order of the Bureau of Land Management, for not less that 20 percent of the amount bid.
The bid envelope must also contain a statement showing the total amount bid and the name, mailing address, and phone number of the entity making the bid.
Under modified competitive sale procedures, the apparent high bidder and the designated bidder (Mr. Randall Turner) will be notified. Mr. Turner shall have 30 days from the bid opening date to exercise his right to meet the high bid. Refusal or failure for any reason to meet the highest bid shall constitute a waiver of Mr. Turner's preferential consideration and the apparent high bidder shall be declared the high bidder.
Prospective purchasers will be allowed 180 days to submit the balance of the purchase price. Failure to meet this timeframe shall cause the deposit to be forfeited to the BLM. The parcel will then be offered to the next lowest qualified bidder, or if no other bids were received, the parcel will be declared unsold.
Federal law requires that public land may be sold only to either (1) Citizens of the United States 18 years of age or older; (2) corporations subject to the laws of any State and of the United
The following rights, reservations, and conditions will be included in the patent that may be issued as to each of the above described parcels of land:
1. A reservation to the United States for a right-of-way for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States. Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945).
2. A reservation to the United States for all oil, gas and geothermal resources in the land in accordance with section 209 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1719).
3. The patent will include a notice and indemnification statement under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. All parcels are subject to the requirements of section 120(h) (42 U.S.C. section 9620) holding the United States harmless from any release of hazardous materials that may have occurred as a result of the unauthorized use of the property by other parties. No Warranty of any kind, express or implied, is given by the United States as to the title, physical condition or potential uses of the parcel of land proposed for sale.
4. The parcel is subject to valid existing rights.
The mineral interests being offered for conveyance have no known mineral value. A successful bid constitutes an application for conveyance of the mineral interest. In addition to the full purchase price, a nonrefundable fee of $50 will be required by the successful bidder for purchase of the mineral interests to be conveyed simultaneously with the sale of the land, with the exception of all leaseables, including oil, gas and geothermal interests, which will be reserved to the United States in accordance with section 209 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1719).
The lands described herein are hereby segregated from appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws, pending disposition of this action or 270 days from the date of publication of this notice, whichever occurs first.
Detailed information concerning these proposed land sales, including the reservations, sale procedures and conditions, appraisals, planning and environmental documents, and mineral report is available for review at the Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls Field Office, 2795 Anderson Ave., Building 25, Klamath Falls, Oregon 97603.
Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the Manager of the BLM, Lakeview, Oregon, District Office, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of any such comments, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior.
Comments, including names, street addresses, and other contact information of respondents, will be available for public review. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish to request that BLM consider withholding your name, street address, and other contact information (such as: Internet address, FAX or phone number) from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. BLM will honor requests for confidentiality on a case-by-case basis to the extent allowed by law. BLM will make available for public inspection in their entirety all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of extension of comment period for the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft RMP/Draft EIS) for the Clear Creek Management Area, Hollister Field Office, California.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces an extension of the comment period on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS for the Clear Creek Management Area. The Original Notice of Availability issued July 19, 2004 (69FR43011) provided for a comment period to end on October 15, 2004. BLM is extending the comment period to November 15, 2004 to allow agencies and the public additional time to provide comments on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS.
Comments on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS must be received no later than November 15, 2004 at the address listed below.
Written comments should be sent to CCMA RMP Team, Bureau of Land Management, Hollister Field Office, 20 Hamilton Court, Hollister, CA 95023. Comments may also be sent by e-mail to
George E. Hill, Assistant Field Manager, at the above address, telephone number (831) 630-5036, or e-mail:
United States International Trade Commission.
Termination of five-year review.
The subject five-year review was initiated in July 2004 to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on aspirin from Turkey would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and of material injury to a domestic industry. On October 1, 2004, the Department of Commerce published notice that it was revoking the order effective August 20, 2004 because “the domestic interested parties did not participate in this sunset review” (69 FR 58891). Accordingly, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), the subject review is terminated.
August 20, 2004.
Mary Messer (202) 205-3193, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
This review is being terminated under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.69 of the Commission's rules (19 CFR 207.69).
By order of the Commission.
In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, 38 FR 19029, notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in
The proposed Consent Decree provides that the City will construct an improved treatment system using chlorination to treat the effluent and meet specified operation and maintenance requirements. Additionally, the City will pay a civil penalty of $20,000 for the violations of the Clean Water Act and will perform a supplemental environmental project (“SEP”) which consists of hooking up 29 residences that are currently on septic tanks to sewer lines.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on September 30, 2004, a proposed Consent Decree in
In this action the United States sought injunctive relief and a civil penalty to address violations of Section 112(r) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412(r), (prevention of accidental chemical releases); 40 CFR Part 68, Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions; and 40 CFR Part 60, New Source Performance Standards related to the Pasadena Plastics Complex, a chemical manufacturing facility owned and operated by Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP (“Chevron Phillips”) in Pasadena, Texas.
Under the proposed Consent Decree, Chevron Phillips has agreed to pay a $1.8 million civil penalty. In addition, Chevron Phillips will perform two Supplemental Environmental Projects (“SEPs”) at a cost of at least $1.2 million. The first project requires Chevron Phillips to buy and arrange for the installation of a fuel cell to provide electricity for the operation of Moody Gardens, located in the Houston/Galveston non-attainment area. The second project requires Chevron Phillips to supply hazardous material equipment and training to the Pasadena Volunteer Fire Department. The settlement also requires Chevron Phillips to satisfy a number of work practice requirements designed to help reduce the chances of accidental releases of hazardous chemicals from the facility.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The Consent Decree may be examined during the public comment period on the following Department of Justice Web site:
Notice of hereby given that on September 22, 2004 a proposed Consent
In this action, the United States sought the recovery of costs incurred and to be incurred by the United States in response to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances at and from the Eureka Mills NPL Site located in Eureka, Utah (the “Site”). The United States alleged that the Chief Consolidated Mining Company (“Chief ”) was liable under CERCLA Section 107(a)(1) and (2), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(1) and (2), as a past owner and operator of a portion of the Site at the time of disposal and as a present owner of a portion of the Site upon which hazardous substances have been released, for those response costs set forth in CERCLA Section 107(a)(4)(A)-(D), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(4)(A)-(D).
The Chief settlement is based on the company's limited financial resources and contains a confession of judgment in favor of EPA in the amount of sixty million dollars ($60,000,000.00) which may be satisfied through the sale of Chief real estate holdings together with future profits, if any, and the proceeds from any insurance recovery. Additionally, the Chief Decree provides for various in-kind contributions of materials like clean water and soil necessary to implement the clean up and allows EPA to construct permanent repositories to contain contaminated soils on Chief's property.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The Consent Decree may be examined at U.S. EPA Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado, 80202. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree, may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
In accordance with Department policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in
The proposed Consent Decree concerns injunctive relief and civil penalties against the City of Clyde, Ohio (“Clyde”), for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act (“the Act”), 33 U.S.C. 1251
In addition to resolving the allegations in the federal and state Complaints, the proposed Consent Decree provides for injunctive relief which includes Clyde coming into compliance with the current NPDES Permit and preparing a long term control plan for the regulating agencies. Installation of a compliance control screen, monitoring of Clyde's outfall, and reporting requirements are also included. Clyde will also pay a $35,000 penalty.
The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611; and reference
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, Four Seagate, Suite 308, Toledo, OH 43604, and at the Region 5 office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 7th Floor, Chicago, IL 60604. During the public comment period, the proposed Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
Notice is hereby given that on September 30, 2004, a proposed consent decree in
The proposed consent decree will settle the United States' claims for natural resource damages under the Oil Pollution Act, 33 U.S.C. 2701,
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to
The proposed consent decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, District of New Jersey, 970 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102. During the public comment period, the proposed consent decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on September 20, 2004, a proposed consent decree in
In this action the United States sought civil penalties and injunctive relief with respect to violations of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401,
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The consent decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Southern District of Iowa, U.S. Courthouse Annex, Southern District of Iowa, U.S. Courthouse Annex, Suite 286, 110 E. Court Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa 50309, and at U.S. EPA Region 7, 901 No. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. During the public comment period, the consent decree, may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on September 30, 2004, a proposed Consent Decree in
In this action the United States sought civil penalties and injunctive relief for violations of Sections 301, 309 and 402 of the Clean Water Act (“the Act”), 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1319, and 1342, and for violations of the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit for the City's publicly owned wastewater treatment works (“POTW”), located in Plainview, Texas. The Consent Decree settles the claims that the city violated the Act and its NPDES permit by: (1) Discharging pollutants in excess of the effluent limitations specified in its NPDES permit; (2) failing to comply with the final effluent limitations specified for Ammonia-Nitrogen by March 1, 2000; and (3) failing to operate and maintain its POTW as required by the permit. The Consent Decree requires that the City pay a $75,000 civil penalty to the federal government. The Consent Decree also requires that the City implement and comply with a comprehensive Management, Operation and Preventative Maintenance Program for its POTW during the term of the Consent Decree, and provide quarterly and annual reports to the EPA with copies to the State of Texas.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30 days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Northern District of Texas,
Notice is hereby given that on October 8, 2004, a proposed Stipulated Order was lodged with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in
The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the Stipulated Order for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The Stipulated Order may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, 211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001, Detroit, Michigan, and at the Region 5 Office of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois. During the public comment period, the Stipulated Order may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(i), the Attorney General shall, prior to issuing a registration under this Section to a bulk manufacturer of a controlled substance in Schedule I or II and prior to issuing a regulation under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2)(b) authorizing the importation of such a substance, provide manufacturers holding registrations for the bulk manufacture of the substance an opportunity for a hearing.
Therefore, in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on May 24, 2004, Cambrex North Brunswick, Inc., Technology Center of New Jersey, 661 Highway One, North Brunswick, New Jersey 08902, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as an importer of Phenylacetone (8501), a basic class of controlled substance listed in Schedule II.
The company plans to import the controlled substance to manufacture amphetamine.
Any manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic class of controlled substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
Any such comments or objections or requests for hearing 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 November 15, 2004.
This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with and independent of the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the
Pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on July 6, 2004, Cerilliant Corporation, 811 Paloma Drive, Suite A, Round Rock, Texas 78664, 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 small quantities of the listed controlled substances to make reference standards for distribution to their 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
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(i), the Attorney General shall, prior to issuing a registration under this Section to a bulk manufacturer of a controlled substance in Schedule I or II and prior to issuing a regulation under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2)(B) authorizing the importation of such a substance, provide manufacturers holding registrations for the bulk manufacture of the substance an opportunity for a hearing.
Therefore, in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on June 29, 2004, Cerilliant Corporation, 811 Paloma Drive, Suite A, Round Rock, Texas 78664, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed below:
The company plans to import small quantities of the listed controlled substances for the manufacture of analytical reference standards.
Any manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic classes of controlled substances may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
Any such comments or objections or requests for hearing 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
This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with and independent of the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e) and (f).
As noted in a previous notice published in the
By Notice dated March 29, 2004, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture the product in bulk to distribute to its customers.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Cody Laboratories, Inc. to manufacture the basic class of controlled substance listed is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Cody Laboratories, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated April 9, 2004, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture bulk controlled substances and non-controlled substance flavor extracts.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Penick Corporation to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Penick Corporation to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
Notice dated June 1, 2004, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substance for
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Siegfried (USA), Inc. to manufacture the basic class of controlled substance listed is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Siegfried (USA), Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Department of Labor (DOL). To obtain documentation, contact Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail:
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202-395-7316 (this is not a toll-free number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The survey will collect data from a sample of employers. These data will consist of information about the duties, responsibilities, and compensation (earnings and benefits) for a sample of occupations for each sampled employer.
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor.
Notice; correction.
The Department of Labor published a document in the
Gerald Lindrew, 202-693-8410.
In the
Written comments must be submitted on or before December 13, 2004.
And, in the
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of this ICR will expire on November 30, 2004. After considering comments received in response to this notice, the Department intends to submit the ICR to OMB for continuing approval. No change to the existing ICR is proposed or made at this time.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(2)A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment and Training Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the report for the Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages, Form ETA 586.
A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice.
Submit comments on or before December 13, 2004.
Send comments to Mary E. Montgomery, Office of Workforce Security, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-4516, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone number (202) 693-3217 (
Mary E. Montgomery, Office of Workforce Security, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-4516, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone number (202) 693-3217 (
Section 3304(a)(9)(B), of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) of 1986, requires states to participate in an arrangement for combining employment and wages covered under the different state laws for the purpose of determining unemployed workers' entitlement to unemployment compensation. The Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages for combined wage claims (CWC), promulgated at 20 CFR part 616, requires the prompt transfer of all available employment and wages between states upon request. The Benefit Payment Promptness Standard, 20 CFR 640, requires the prompt payment of unemployment compensation including benefits paid under the CWC arrangement. The ETA 586 report provides the ETA/Office of Workforce Security with information necessary to measure the scope and effect of the CWC program and monitor the performance of each state in responding to wage transfer requests and the payment of benefits.
Currently, the Department of Labor is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the report for the Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages, ETA 586. The Department is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed above in the address section of this notice.
This information is necessary in order for ETA to analyze program performance, know when corrective action plans are needed and to target technical assistance resources. Without this report, it would be impossible for the ETA to identify claims and benefit activity under the CWC program and carry out the Secretary's responsibility for program oversight.
Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a forthcoming meeting of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC), Education Advisory Committee (EAC).
Monday, October 25, 2004, 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.; and Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Monday, October 25 at NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA, Tuesday, October 26 at Ritz Carlton, 1401 South Oak Knoll, Pasadena, CA
Dr. Katie Blanding, Office of Education, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-0402.
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. All visitors must bring a driver's license or government identification to the Visitor Lobby of JPL. Foreign visitors must bring their passport, alien registration number, and their date and place of birth. Additionally, the general public will need to be escorted to the meeting room. The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors to the meeting will be requested to sign a visitor's register.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Submit, by December 13, 2004, comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site:
Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda Jo. Shelton (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by Internet electronic mail to
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of opportunity for public comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to issue a regulatory issue summary (RIS) to provide the guidance for licensees on establishing and maintaining a Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE): that is, an environment in which employees are encouraged to raise safety concerns both to their own management and to the NRC without fear of retaliation. The agency's expectations regarding licensees establishing and maintaining a SCWE are described in the 1996 NRC Policy Statement, “Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety Concerns Without Fear of Retaliation.”
In a March 26, 2003 staff requirements memorandum, the Commission directed the staff to develop further guidance, in consultation with stakeholders, that identifies “best practices” to encourage a SCWE. The guidance document is based on the existing guidance provided in the 1996 Policy Statement, including the elements and attributes described therein of a healthy SCWE, and expands the guidance or adds new guidance where additional information would help describe practices to meet the intent of each SCWE attribute. In addition, the NRC staff held a public workshop to discuss the draft guidance document, on February 19, 2004.
On February 12, 2004, the NRC staff published an outline of this guidance document for public comment. The Commission received input from the public, in response to the
The February 12, 2004,
Comments on the guidance document may be submitted on or before November 15, 2004. Since: (1) A detailed outline of the guidance document has previously been published for comment; (2) the NRC staff has evaluated and responded to these comments below; and (3) the Commission approved, in an August 30, 2004, Staff Requirements Memorandum, issuance of the guidance, the staff requests that any comments provided in response to this
Submit written comments to: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays. Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, Room O-1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Publically available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at
You may also e-mail comments to
Lisamarie Jarriel, Agency Allegations Advisor, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, (301)-415-8529, email
The NRC received 17 submittals providing comments suggesting changes or expressing concerns in response to the outline of the proposed industry guidance for establishing and maintaining a SCWE published in the
In addition to the above comments which generally related to the appropriateness of the NRC staff issuing a guidance document on establishing and maintaining a SCWE, the following comments were received:
The following two comments were received regarding a concern that the NRC guidance related to a review of lessons learned/case studies may involve privacy and attorney-client privilege information:
The comments are available in their entirety on the Office of Enforcement's Web page at:
All U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensees, applicants for licenses, holders of certificates of compliance, and their contractors.
Although not required by regulation, licensees and other employers subject to NRC authority are expected to establish and maintain a safety conscious work environment (SCWE, pronounced “squee”). The NRC is issuing this regulatory issue summary (RIS) to supplement guidance for fulfilling this expectation. The guidance describes a number of practices that may facilitate the efforts of licensees and others in developing and maintaining a SCWE. The NRC recognizes that some of the practices described in this document may not be practical for every licensee, depending on the existing work environment and/or the size, complexity, and hazards of the licensed activities. Although this RIS requires no action or written response, all NRC addressees are encouraged to review and consider the contents of this RIS when evaluating whether a SCWE exists at their facility.
In April 2000, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Executive Director of Operations chartered the Discrimination Task Group (DTG) to evaluate issues associated with matters covered by the NRC's employee protection standards, including SCWE. The DTG recommendations were provided to the Commission in September 2002 in SECY-02-0166. In a March 26, 2003, staff requirements memorandum (SRM) for SECY-02-0166, the Commission directed the staff to take certain actions in the area of SCWE and safety culture, including providing the guidance herein. Regarding these two terms, SCWE and safety culture, there has been some confusion historically. Many use the terms interchangeably. They are, in fact, distinct, but related concepts. In the Commission's January 24, 1989 “Policy Statement on the Conduct of Nuclear Power Operations,” safety culture is described as “the necessary full attention to safety matters” and “the personal dedication and accountability of all individuals engaged in any activity which has a bearing on the safety of nuclear power plants.” A strong safety culture is also often described as having a “safety-first focus.” Attributes include the principles of safety-over-production, procedural adherence, and conservative decisionmaking. The willingness of employees to identify safety concerns,
In July 1993, the agency reassessed the NRC's program for protecting allegers against retaliation. Retaliation is prohibited by NRC regulations in Parts 19, 30, 40, 50, 60, 61, 63, 70, 72, 76, and 150. It was recommended that an agency policy be developed to emphasize that licensees and their contractors are responsible for achieving and maintaining a work environment which is conducive to the reporting of concerns without fear of retaliation. In May 1996, the NRC issued such a policy, “Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry To Raise Safety Concerns Without Fear of Retaliation (61 FR 24336 or
In SRM-SECY-02-0166 the Commission directed the staff to develop further guidance, in consultation with stakeholders, that would identify “best practices” for encouraging a SCWE. The Commission indicated that the proposed guidance should emphasize training of managers on their obligations under the employee protection regulations and should make
An environment where employees feel free to raise safety concerns may contribute to a reduced risk associated with licensed activities and the use of radioactive materials. Attachment 1, “Establishing & Maintaining a Safety Conscious Work Environment,” is provided as guidance to licensees, applicants, and contractors on developing and maintaining a SCWE in response to the Commission's March 2003 directive. Current industry guidance, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 97-05, “Nuclear Power Plant Personnel—Employee Concerns Program—Process Tools In a Safety Conscious Work Environment”
The NRC recognizes that some of the practices outlined in this guidance may not be practicable or appropriate for every NRC licensee or contractor, depending on the existing work environment, and/or the size or complexity, and the hazards of the licensed activities. In addition, practices not included in this guidance may be equally effective in establishing and maintaining a SCWE. The NRC staff emphasizes that licensees are responsible for establishing and maintaining a SCWE and that implementation of the guidance may not improve a SCWE without additional efforts by site management. However, the NRC believes that the elements in this guidance could be helpful to NRC licensees, applicants, and their contractors.
The guidance in Attachment 1 is intended to supplement existing information that was communicated in the 1996 policy statement. The supplemental elements of a SCWE summarized in this attachment were developed utilizing information obtained from reactive inspections of problematic licensee programs, as well as reviews of successful progressive SCWE programs, and insights obtained during discussions with nuclear industry professionals in this field.
The attached document provides guidance with respect to (1) encouraging employees to raise safety concerns, including incentive programs and communication tools, (2) SCWE training content and periodicity, (3) ECP and ombudsman programs, (4) tools to assess the SCWE, including performance indicators, behavioral observations, and surveys, (5) contractor awareness of SCWE principles and expectations, and (6) processes to help detect and prevent discrimination, or mitigate perceptions of discrimination.
This RIS requires no action or written response and is, therefore, not a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, or 76.76. Consequently, the staff did not perform a backfit analysis.
A notice of opportunity for public comment on this RIS was published in the
The NRC has determined that this action is not subject to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
This RIS does not request information collections and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
In July 1993, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Executive Director for Operations directed that a team reassess the NRC's program for protecting allegers against retaliation. The team evaluated the process that was in place in 1993 and sought comments from other NRC offices, other Federal agencies, licensees, former allegers and the public. One recommendation from the 1993 effort was the development of an agency policy to emphasize that licensees and their contractors are expected to achieve and maintain a work environment which is conducive to the reporting of concerns without fear of retaliation.
On May 14, 1996, the NRC issued a policy statement
In April 2000, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Executive Director for Operations chartered the Discrimination Task Group (DTG) to evaluate issues associated with matters covered by the NRC's employee protection standards, including SCWE and SCWE training for managers—the subject of a petition for rulemaking, PRM-30-62, submitted on August 13, 1999. The DTG
The guidance in this document is intended to supplement existing information that was communicated in the 1996 policy statement. The supplemental elements of a SCWE summarized in this document were developed using information obtained from reactive inspections of problematic licensee programs, reviews of successful progressive SCWE programs, and insights obtained during discussions with nuclear industry professionals, including individuals who provide training to the industry on the subject and attorneys who have represented licensees and whistleblowers in proceedings.
The NRC recognizes that some of the practices outlined in this guidance may not be practicable or appropriate for every NRC licensee or contractor, depending on the existing work environment and/or the size, complexity, and hazards of the licensed activities. In addition, practices not included in this guidance may be effective in establishing and maintaining a SCWE. The NRC staff emphasizes that licensees are responsible for establishing and maintaining a SCWE and that implementation of this guidance may not improve a SCWE without additional efforts by site management. However, the NRC believes that the elements in this guidance could be helpful to NRC licensees and their contractors when developing or enhancing existing SCWE programs, or when attempting to identify and correct potential problems in a program.
Effective processes for problem identification and resolution are essential to ensuring the safe use of nuclear materials and operation of facilities. The following guidance discusses attributes of the work environment that encourage individuals to look for and articulate safety concerns and effectively and efficiently address and resolve the concerns. The approach taken to develop the SCWE and to implement the appropriate processes described below will depend on several factors, including the size of the licensee, applicant, or contractor.
• A statement that, to the extent appropriate, employees are allowed and encouraged to use work hours to report concerns;
• Sanctions for retaliation by supervisors, managers, or peers;
• Expectations for management behavior that fosters employee confidence in raising concerns;
• Information on the various avenues available for raising concerns;
• The rights of employees to raise concerns externally; and
• A commitment to provide SCWE training.
• Managers and employees should know what “protected activities” are, besides raising safety concerns.
The term “protected activity” has been broadly interpreted by the Department of Labor and the U.S. Courts. A protected activity is defined by NRC regulation as including, but not limited to:
○ Providing the Commission or employer information about alleged or possible violations of the Atomic Energy Act, the Energy Reorganization Act, or requirements imposed under either statute;
○ Refusing to engage in any practice made unlawful under either statute or the requirements, if the employee has identified the alleged illegality to the employer;
○ Requesting the Commission to institute action against the employer for the administration or enforcement of these requirements;
○ Testifying in any Commission proceeding, or before Congress, or at any Federal or State proceeding regarding a provision of either statute;
○ Assisting or participating in, or being about to assist or participate in, these activities.
• Managers and employees should also know what an “adverse action” is. An “adverse action” is generally defined as an adverse change of the terms, conditions, or benefits of the employee's work. Adverse employment actions may include changes in employment status, regardless of whether the individual's pay is affected, and threats to employment.
• They also need to know the meaning of “retaliation” under the NRC's regulations.
An adverse action is deemed retaliatory if it is taken because the individual was engaged in a protected activity.
The training given should also include the consequences for deviations from applicable laws, regulations, and policies underlying SCWE expectations.
The training should identify appropriate gateways for employees and contractors to identify concerns (manager, quality assurance programs, corrective action programs, appeal processes, alternative processes for raising concerns such as a licensee Employee Concerns Programs or an ombudsman program, NRC, and DOL). The training should include a description of how each program works, and the role of the manager in each program.
The training should include expectations for management behavior. For example, managers should be expected to make themselves available to the workforce by various means, including an “open-door” policy in the office and when managers are in the field. Managers also need to be sensitive to employees' potential reluctance to raise concerns and may need to protect employees' identity or the identity of others involved. Basic listening skills, effective ways to seek input, and
Managers who model positive traits of availability, receptiveness, sensitivity, encouraging communications, timeliness, and responsiveness associated with a SCWE will promote employee confidence in identifying and resolving concerns. Managers who have exhibited success in this area should consider training or mentoring other mangers in an effort to duplicate the success.
Similarly, expectations for employees' behavior should also be included in the employees' training. Consider emphasizing the following employee behaviors during training:
• Individual responsibility for reporting concerns;
• Clear communication of the concern and confirmation of understanding with the person receiving the concern;
• Willingness to suggest resolutions to concerns and participate to in their resolution;
• Followup to ensure the concern is adequately addressed;
• Need for every employee to demonstrate respect for others who identify concerns.
Initial training of recently hired employees or recently promoted managers should be conducted as soon as practicable and refresher training for existing staff should be conducted annually or more frequently, as determined by the needs and complexity of the organization. Annual refresher training for employees and managers should review key points from initial training and include lessons learned, as appropriate, from successes and/or problem areas.
Employee errors can have a detrimental effect on safety and efforts should be made to reduce the frequency and significance of errors. An environment that is conducive to the self-reporting of errors will allow errors to be identified more quickly and can reduce the potential significance of some errors. While it is important to hold employees accountable for their errors, licensee personnel management practices, to the extent practicable, should consider that actions against personnel who self-report errors can, in some circumstances, discourage employees from raising concerns, near misses, etc. Consider using self-identification and prompt, effective corrective actions as mitigating circumstances for consideration when addressing personnel matters involving self-identified errors.
Aside from the practices discussed above concerning policies, training, and incentive programs designed to create a work environment where employees feel free to raise safety concerns without fear of retaliation, there are other behaviors and processes which may help employees promptly identify and notify management of concerns. Employees and management that demonstrate an open and questioning attitude by asking “why” and “what if” type questions help to ensure concerns are promptly identified. Processes for identifying concerns should be accessible and user-friendly. A corrective action program which is flexible in its use of paper forms and/or terminals, conveniently placed throughout the facility, also helps ensure prompt notification of safety concerns. An accessible and approachable management team further motivates employees to report concerns, including communications that ensure an understanding of the concerns prior to their proposed resolution and inspection. As appropriate, employees should be allowed and encouraged to spend needed work hours to report concerns.
Safety should be a primary factor in the concern prioritization scheme and in determining the breadth and depth of the evaluation. Effective communication plans should ensure the sharing of information between affected departments so that the potential impact of the identified concerns on safety can be appropriately assessed. In addition, management and employees should develop expectations concerning timeliness to complete the evaluation and resolution of issues. The process for screening issues should include a review for operability and reportability as applicable. For significant conditions adverse to quality, the evaluation should be sufficient to identify the root and contributing causes of the issue. In addition, the root cause analysis should address both the extent of the condition and the cause of the issue.
Timeliness of the corrective actions should be commensurate with the safety significance of the issue. Processes should be in place to ensure that appropriate actions are taken in response to all conditions adverse to quality. For significant conditions adverse to quality, corrective actions should be taken to address the root causes, contributing causes, and the extent of the condition caused by the identified concern.
Timely feedback should be provided at appropriate points during the concern resolution process. The individual receiving the information may need to discuss the concern with the employee raising the concern in order to understand the issue and its safety significance. Additional feedback may be necessary during the evaluation when it is apparent that resolution may take longer than anticipated. When the evaluation is complete, it is important to followup with the concerned employee to share proposed actions to address the issue, if appropriate. The most effective feedback process is one which is sufficiently flexible to permit a concerned employee who wants anonymity to obtain feedback.
An appeal process to ensure that issues were thoroughly addressed (e.g., differing professional opinion or alternative dispute resolution processes) can provide added assurance that concerns are appropriately resolved.
It is a good practice to periodically evaluate the adequacy and timeliness of responses, as well as the satisfaction of the concerned individual with the response and process. In addition, a self-assessment should address whether employees feel free to raise issues using the various processes employed by the licensee and whether these processes are viewed as effective, and why or why not. An assessment should include an appraisal of the effectiveness of the root cause analyses for significant issues and the effectiveness of associated corrective actions. Management should have a plan to promptly review the findings of such self-assessments and implement appropriate corrective actions.
To address the situation where an individual wishes to raise a concern to someone other than their management or through the corrective action program, an alternative process, such as an employee concerns program, can be useful. Given the nature of many of the issues one may wish to raise outside of line management, such a process should ensure identity protection and/or anonymity to the extent appropriate. Such an alternative process should be accessible in multiple ways (
Information gathered from the following tools should be considered for program enhancements, training enhancements, coaching and counseling opportunities, organizational changes, and survey topic suggestions. As with the processes for problem identification and resolution, discussed above, the choice of tools and their usefulness will depend on several factors, including the size of the licensee, applicant, or contractor, and the complexity and hazards of the licensed activities.
It may be useful to periodically evaluate information from pertinent organizations and processes which may contribute to or negatively affect the SCWE to identify enhancements or adjustments to the organizations and processes. The organizations and processes with pertinent information may include the primary process for raising concerns (
Participation in applicable industry forums or peer-group assessments of other SCWE programs where ideas and practices are exchanged and various SCWE elements compared can also provide valuable insights.
Parameters that help indicate the effectiveness of the SCWE training and problem identification and resolution processes should be identified and monitored. For example, the number and trend of NRC allegations
Licensee effectiveness in preventing retaliation claims may be indicated by the number and trend of NRC retaliation allegations (available only for large licensees) compared to the number and trend of internally raised retaliation concerns.
The percent of employees with a questioning attitude and a willingness and ability to raise safety concerns may be indicated by comparing the number of risk-significant concerns that are self-revealed, self-identified, or externally identified by INPO, NRC, OSHA, etc., to the total number of concerns.
Finally, the backlog and age of concerns may indicate the effectiveness of processes for resolving concerns.
No single indicator is sufficient in itself to identify weaknesses in the SCWE, nor are there absolute measurements that indicate an unhealthy environment. Nonetheless, monitoring the trends in various characteristics of the SCWE with performance indicators like those mentioned above may provide insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the SCWE at a site.
Survey instruments and interview questionnaires implemented by organizations independent of the groups being surveyed or interviewed can be useful tools and complement other tools used to assess the SCWE.
Pre-survey or pre-interview communications are a very important part of such tools. Communications with the workforce prior to the implementation of the survey or interview should include a request for participation, a statement of the need for input, a promise to protect participants' identity, the intended use of the gathered information, and a promise to share the results with the workforce.
Regular employee business hours should be made available to conduct surveys or interviews.
The scope of SCWE surveys should include the following:
• Awareness of company policies and practices with regard to raising safety concerns and avenues available for raising concerns;
• Management behaviors encouraging the workforce to raise safety concerns;
• Workers' willingness to raise safety concerns;
• Effectiveness of the processes available (normal and alternative) for raising concerns;
• Management's ability to detect and prevent retaliation for raising safety concerns.
Space should be provided on surveys for written comments.
Survey or interview follow-up action plans should be developed to address findings that are specific to work groups or generic to the facility. In addition, management should commit to share the results with the workforce and share action plans to address findings. The results of surveys or interviews may indicate employee beliefs, attitudes, and satisfaction with key SCWE attributes, as well as ways to improve the SCWE.
Direct observations of individuals' behavior provides information regarding the effectiveness of any SCWE training. Management behaviors observed may indicate whether a supervisor is receptive to concerns and supports and rewards employees for raising concerns. Direct observation of employees in the work environment can provide valuable insights into the employees' questioning attitude and willingness to challenge perceived unsafe behavior.
Exit interviews and surveys, conducted to facilitate the identification of safety issues from exiting employees, provide an opportunity to capture concerns an individual may not have been comfortable raising while working at the facility. These activities should include follow-up mechanisms for exiting employees who want to be informed of the resolution of their concerns. Employees' identities should be protected.
Consideration should be given to the implementation of a “360-degree” appraisal program, where employees are asked to provide feedback on manager SCWE behavior.
The Commission's longstanding policy is to hold its licensees responsible for compliance with NRC requirements, even if licensees use contractors for products or services related to NRC-regulated activities. Thus, licensees are responsible for ensuring that their contractors maintain an environment in which contractor employees are free to raise concerns without fear of retaliation. In considering whether enforcement action should be taken against licensees for the actions of their contractor, the NRC considers, among other things, the extent and effectiveness of the licensee's involvement with and oversight of the contractor's environment for raising concerns.
Licensee SCWE expectations of contractor responsibilities as they relate to creating and maintaining a SCWE should be communicated to contractors providing components, equipment, materials, or other goods and services related to NRC-regulated activities. It should be the licensee's expectation that the contractors and their subcontractors are aware of applicable regulations. Furthermore, a licensee may want to communicate to its contractors and subcontractors that the licensee expects them to demonstrate that either an effective program exists that prohibits discrimination against contractor employees for engaging in protected activity and fosters a SCWE, or they adopt and comply with the licensee's SCWE program for their employees.
Aside from communicating its SCWE-related expectations to their contractors, licensees may wish to oversee contractor SCWE-related activities. Such oversight may include:
• Reviewing contractor programs and processes to prohibit discrimination and foster a SCWE;
• Assessing the contractor management's commitment to SCWE principles through document review or behavioral observations;
• Reviewing contractor training, both for content and for effectiveness;
• Monitoring the contractor's actions to address concerns, such as reviewing contractor investigations to determine the need to conduct independent licensee investigations;
• Evaluating actions, if any, the contractor takes to mitigate the potential impact of employment decisions or organizational changes on the SCWE.
Given that the SCWE is most challenged when changes are made to the employment conditions of the workforce, it can be very beneficial to licensees to monitor such changes when proposed or executed by the contractor. Licensee oversight in this area might include evaluating contractor processes for making changes to employment conditions, such as disciplinary policies or reduction-in-force plans, to ensure the processes are well-defined, defensible, and communicated to the workforce in advance of their implementation.
Furthermore, licensee management should evaluate contractor-proposed changes to employment conditions to ensure the proposed changes follow defined processes and are nonretaliatory. The licensee can also assess whether the contractor has taken into consideration the potential effect that their actions might have on the SCWE, and, if appropriate, actions to mitigate the impact.
Finally, contractor changes to employment conditions that are alleged to be or are likely to be perceived as retaliatory should be reviewed to ensure the changes are not retaliatory or would otherwise effect the SCWE adversely.
Contractor SCWE training can be provided by the contractor or licensee. As with the training given to licensee employees, the contractor training should cover the laws, regulations, and policies underlying the licensee's SCWE expectations; the licensee's governing SCWE policy; the avenues available to contractor staff to raise concerns; and the licensee's expectations for contractor management and employee behavior regarding raising safety concerns. The contractor training should also include an explanation of licensee contractual rights to oversee the contractor's SCWE. Training should be conducted during business hours.
Management should ensure that programs and processes involving changes to employment conditions, such as disciplinary policies or reductions-in-force plans, are well-defined, defensible, and communicated to the workforce prior to their implementation. An effective way for senior licensee management to prevent retaliatory actions by their supervisory staff is to review proposed employment
The factors of retaliation are as follows:
• Protected activity—Has the individual against whom the action is being taken engaged in a protected activity?
• Adverse action—Is an adverse employment action being proposed?
• Licensee or contractor knowledge of protected activity—Such knowledge can be attributed to other than the individual's direct supervisor.
• Relationship between the adverse action and the protected activity—Is there evidence that the adverse action is being proposed because of the protected activity?
Senior management review of such employment actions should ensure that programs or processes are being followed to ensure actions are well-founded and nonretaliatory. In addition, the review should ensure that the proposed action comports with normal practice within the limits allowed by the defined process and is consistent with actions taken previously. The review should assess whether the supervisor requesting the action exhibits any sign of unnecessary urgency. The employee's prior performance assessments and the proposed action should be consistent or inconsistencies should be justified and documented.
Finally, an assessment should be done to determine what, if any, effect the employment action may have on the SCWE. If management determines that the action, despite its legitimacy, could be perceived as retaliatory by the workforce, mitigating actions should be considered to minimize potential chilling effects on raising safety issues.
Such mitigating actions may include (1) the use of holding periods during which the proposed employment action is held in abeyance while further evaluations are completed; (2) communicating with the workforce about the action being taken, with appropriate consideration of privacy rights; (3) reiterating the SCWE policy; and (4) explaining the action to the affected employee(s) and clearly articulating the nonretaliatory basis for the action. After an employment action is taken, management should initiate a review of the facts and, if warranted, reconsider the action that was taken. If retaliation is alleged, the licensee should assure that the appropriate level of senior management is involved in efforts to minimize a potential chilling effect that the employment action may have on raising safety issues.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget requests for extension and approval of the existing collection of information discussed below.
Rule 17a-8 [17 CFR 270.17a-8] under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) is entitled “Mergers of affiliated companies.” Rule 17a-8 exempts certain mergers and similar business combinations (“mergers”) of affiliated registered investment companies (“funds”) from section 17(a) prohibitions on purchases and sales between a fund and its affiliates. The rule requires fund directors to consider certain issues and to record their findings in board minutes. The rule requires the directors of any fund merging with an unregistered entity to approve procedures for the valuation of assets received from that entity. These procedures must provide for the preparation of a report by an independent evaluator that sets forth the fair value of each such asset for which market quotations are not readily available. The rule also requires a fund being acquired to obtain approval of the merger transaction by a majority of its outstanding voting securities, except in certain situations, and requires any surviving fund to preserve written records describing the merger and its
The average annual burden of meeting the requirements of rule 17a-8 is estimated to be 7 hours for each fund. The Commission staff estimates that each year approximately 600 funds rely on the rule. The estimated total average annual burden for all respondents therefore is 4,200 hours.
This estimate represents an increase of 3,600 hours from the prior estimate of 600 hours. The increase results from an increase in the estimated average annual hour burden of meeting the requirements of 17a-8.
The average cost burden of preparing a report by an independent evaluator in a merger with an unregistered entity is estimated to be $15,000. The average net cost burden of obtaining approval of a merger transaction by a majority of a fund's outstanding voting securities is estimated to be $50,000. The Commission staff estimates that each year approximately 10 mergers with unregistered entities occur and approximately 15 funds hold shareholder votes that would not otherwise have held a shareholder vote to comply with state law. The total annual cost burden of meeting these requirements is estimated to be $900,000.
The estimates of average burden hours and average cost burdens are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study. 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.
General comments regarding the above information to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; or e-mail to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension and approval of the collection of information discussed below.
Section 17(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”)
The Commission adopted rule 17f-4 in 1978 to reflect the custody practice and commercial law of that time. In particular, the rule was designed to be compatible with the 1978 revisions to Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) (“Prior Article 8”).
On February 13, 2003, the Commission adopted amendments to reflect the recent changes in custody practices and commercial law.
The Commission staff estimates that 4,866 respondents (including 4,711 active registered investment companies, 130 custodians, and 25 possible securities depositories) are subject to the requirements in rule 17f-4. The rule is
The Commission staff estimates that, on an annual basis, about 471 funds
Rule 17f-4 requires that a custodian, upon request, provide a fund with any available reports on its internal accounting controls and financial strength. The Commission staff estimates that 130 custodians spend 12 hours annually in transmitting such reports to funds. In addition, approximately 47 funds (
If a fund deals directly with a securities depository, rule 17f-4 requires that the fund implement internal control systems reasonably designed to prevent unauthorized officer's instructions (by providing at least for the form, content, and means of giving, recording, and reviewing all officer's instructions). The Commission staff estimates that 47 funds spend 10 hours annually implementing systems to prevent unauthorized officer's instructions, resulting in 470 burden hours for this requirement under rule 17f-4.
Based on the foregoing, the Commission staff estimates that the total annual hour burden of the rule's paperwork requirement is 3,536 hours.
The estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. These estimates are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
General comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or e-mail to:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 11Ac1-4 (17 CFR 240.11Ac1-4) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires specialists and market makers to publicly display a customer limit order when that limit order is priced superior to the quote that is currently being displayed by the specialist or market maker. Customer limit orders that match the bid or offer being displayed by the specialist or market maker must also be displayed if the limit order price matches the national best bid or offer. It is estimated that approximately 585 broker and dealer respondents incur an aggregate burden of 228,735 hours per year to comply with this rule.
Rule 11Ac1-4 does not contain record retention requirements. Compliance with the rule is mandatory. Responses are not confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
General comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the SEC, by sending an e-mail to
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice of application for amended order pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act” or “Act”) granting exemptions from the provisions of Sections 2(a)(32), 22(c) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder to permit, under specified circumstances, the recapture of certain credit enhancements (“Credit Enhancements”).
Security Benefit Life Insurance Company (“Security Benefit”); First Security Benefit Life Insurance and Annuity Company of New York (“First Security Benefit,” and collectively with Security Benefit, the “SBL Insurers”); SBL Variable Annuity Account XVII (“Variable Account XVII”); and Security Distributors, Inc. (“SDI”).
On December 11, 2001, the Commission issued an order pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 1940 Act granting exemptions from Sections 2(a)(32), 22(c), and 27(i)(2)(A) of the 1940 Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder to permit, under specified circumstances, the recapture of certain Credit Enhancements applied to the contract value of contractholders under certain contracts (the “Current Order”).
The application was filed on August 3, 2004, and amended and restated on September 10, 2004, and September 28, 2004.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Secretary of the Commission and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m., on November 1, 2004, and should be accompanied by proof of service on Applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. Applicants, c/o Amy J. Lee, Esq., Associate General Counsel, Security Benefit Life Insurance Company, One Security Benefit Place, Topeka, Kansas 66636-0001.
Sonny Oh, Staff Attorney, or Zandra Y. Bailes, Branch Chief, Office of Insurance Products, Division of Investment Management, at (202) 942-0670.
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the SEC's Public Reference Branch at 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (telephone (202) 942-8090).
1. Security Benefit is a life insurance company organized under the laws of the State of Kansas. Security Benefit offers life insurance policies and annuity contracts, as well as financial and retirement services. It is authorized to conduct life insurance and annuity business in the District of Columbia and all states except New York. Together with its subsidiaries, Security Benefit has total funds under management of approximately $12.5 billion.
2. First Security Benefit is a stock life insurance company organized under the laws of the State of New York on November 8, 1994. First Security Benefit offers variable annuity contracts in New York and is admitted to do business in that state. First Security Benefit is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Security Benefit Group, Inc., a financial services holding company that is ultimately controlled by Security Benefit Mutual Holding Company.
3. Variable Account XVII was established on November 24, 2003, as a segregated asset account of Security Benefit. Variable Account XVII is registered with the Commission as a unit investment trust (File No. 811-21481). Security Benefit is the legal owner of the assets in such Separate Account. Variable Account XVII is currently divided into 29 subaccounts (“Subaccounts”). Each Subaccount invests exclusively in shares of a corresponding open-end management investment company (“Series”), certain of which Series are managed by Security Management Company, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Security Benefit. Variable Account XVII funds the variable benefits available under the New Contract. Security Benefit has filed a registration statement on Form N-4 under the 1940 Act and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “1933 Act”) to register interests in Variable Account XVII under the New Contract (File No. 333-111589).
4. SDI serves as the principal underwriter for variable annuity contracts currently funded by the Separate Accounts (each a “Contract” and collectively, the “Contracts”) issued by the SBL Insurers, including the New Contract, but does not serve as principal underwriter for Contracts funded by the T. Rowe Price Variable Annuity Account of each of the SBL Insurers. SDI is registered as a broker/dealer with the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Security Benefit Group, Inc., a financial services holding company, which is ultimately controlled by Security Benefit Mutual Holding Company.
5. Contractholders may allocate amounts paid to Security Benefit as consideration for the New Contract (“Purchase Payments”) to each of the Subaccounts. Amounts allocated to the Subaccounts will increase or decrease in dollar value depending on the investment performance of the underlying mutual fund in which such Subaccount invests. Contractholders bear the investment risk for amounts allocated to a Subaccount. A contractholder's initial Purchase Payment must be at least $25,000. Thereafter, the contractholder may choose the amount and frequency of Purchase Payments, except that the minimum subsequent Purchase Payment is $25.
6. A contractholder may transfer Contract Value among the Subaccounts, subject to certain restrictions as described in the New Contract prospectus. At any time before the date when annuity payments are to begin (“Annuity Start Date”), a contractholder may surrender the New Contract for its Contract Value less any applicable withdrawal charges and any uncollected premium taxes (“Withdrawal Value”). A contractholder may also make partial withdrawals, including systematic withdrawals, from Contract Value, subject to certain restrictions described in the New Contract prospectus. The New Contract provides for several annuity options on either a variable basis, a fixed basis, or both.
7. A contractholder may return the New Contract within the “Free-Look Period,” which is generally a ten-day period beginning when the contractholder receives the New Contract. In this event, Security Benefit will refund any Contract Value allocated to the Subaccounts, plus any charges deducted from such Contract Value, less the then current value of any Initial Credit Enhancements (as defined herein). Contractholders will also receive a refund of any amounts that may have been deducted to pay for state premium taxes and/or other taxes. Security Benefit will refund Purchase Payments allocated to the Subaccounts
8. If the contractholder dies prior to the Annuity Start Date while the New Contract is in force, Security Benefit will pay the death benefit proceeds, less any uncollected premium tax, to the beneficiary designated by the contractholder (“Designated Beneficiary”) upon receipt of due proof of the contractholder's death and instructions regarding payment to the Designated Beneficiary.
9. Security Benefit does not deduct sales load from Purchase Payments before allocating them to a contractholder's Contract Value. If a contractholder withdraws Contract Value, Security Benefit may deduct a contingent deferred sales charge (which may also be referred to as a withdrawal charge), which varies depending on how long a contractholder's Purchase Payment has been held under the New Contract. The withdrawal charge will be waived on withdrawals to the extent that total withdrawals in any 12-month period, measured from the Contract Date (as defined in the New Contract prospectus) including systematic withdrawals, do not exceed the Free Withdrawal amount. The Free Withdrawal amount is equal in the first Contract Year, to 10 percent of Purchase Payments made during the year and, in any subsequent Contract Year, to 10 percent of Contract Value as of the first day of that Contract Year. The withdrawal charge applies to the portion of any withdrawal, consisting of Purchase Payments that exceeds the Free Withdrawal amount.
10. The withdrawal charge under a New Contract is calculated according to the following schedule:
11. Security Benefit deducts a daily charge for mortality and expense risks assumed by Security Benefit under the New Contract equal to 0.85% on an annual basis, of each Subaccount's average daily net assets. During the Annuity Period, the mortality and expense risk charge may increase to 1.25% under certain annuity options. Security Benefit deducts a daily charge for the risks it assumes under the applicable rider equal to an annual rate of 0.95% of each Subaccount's average daily net assets. Security Benefit will deduct the rider charge for the life of the New Contract beginning on the Contract Date and ending on the Annuity Start Date if one of Annuity Options 1 through 4, 7 or 8 is elected. Security Benefit will deduct the rider charge for the life of the New Contract if Annuity Option 5 or 6 is elected. Security Benefit deducts a daily administration charge under the New Contract equal to an annual rate of 0.15% of each Subaccount's average daily net assets to compensate for the expenses associated with administration of the New Contract and operation of the Subaccounts. Because various states and municipalities impose a tax on premiums on annuity contracts received by insurance companies, Security Benefit assesses a premium tax charge to reimburse itself for premium taxes that it incurs in connection with a New Contract.
12. The New Contract makes available three riders as follows: (1) The Recurring Rewards Rider; (2) the Future Rewards Rider; and (3) the Flexible Rewards Rider (collectively, the “Credit Enhancement Riders”). Each Credit Enhancement Rider makes available a Credit Enhancement, which is an amount added to Contract Value by Security Benefit. A Contractholder may purchase one such Rider only at issue. When purchased, a Credit Enhancement will be added to Contract Value for each Purchase Payment made in the first Contract Year (an “Initial Credit Enhancement”) in an amount equal to 2% of such Purchase Payments for the Recurring Rewards Rider; 5% of such Purchase Payments for the Future Rewards Rider; and 4% of such Purchase Payments for the Flexible Rewards Rider. Any Initial Credit Enhancement will be allocated among the Subaccounts in the same proportion as the Purchase Payment is allocated.
13. After the Initial Credit Enhancement, each Credit Enhancement Rider provides an additional Credit Enhancement, which is a percentage of Contract Value on the date applied (“Additional Credit Enhancement”). Additional Credit Enhancements will be allocated among the Subaccounts in the same proportion as Contract Value on the date of receipt of the Additional Credit Enhancement. There is no vesting schedule attached to the Additional Credit Enhancements, which vest immediately. As a result, there is no recapture of Additional Credit Enhancements in the event of a full or partial withdrawal or payment of a death benefit under the New Contract.
14. The Recurring Rewards Rider provides a 2% Additional Credit Enhancement at every third Contract anniversary that occurs prior to the Annuity Start Date on the basis of the Contract Value at that time, as long as the New Contract is in force. The Future Rewards Rider provides a 2% Additional Credit Enhancement on the tenth Contract anniversary and on every second Contract anniversary thereafter that occurs prior to the Annuity Start Date on the basis of the Contract Value at that time, as long as the New Contract is in force (a “Future Credit Enhancement”). The amount of the Future Credit Enhancement will be paid on the tenth, 12th, and 14th Contract anniversaries, and so on; provided that any such anniversary occurs prior to the Annuity Start Date. The Flexible Rewards Rider provides a one-time Additional Credit Enhancement (the “Flexible Credit Enhancement”) on the “Election Date.” The “Election Date” is the date in which an Owner's request to elect the Flexible Credit Enhancement is received by Security Benefit. The Election Date must be after the fifth Contract anniversary and prior to the Annuity Start Date while the New Contract is in force. Security Benefit will add the Flexible Credit Enhancement on the Election Date in an amount equal to 4% of Contract Value on that date.
15. Security Benefit will recapture Initial Credit Enhancements on withdrawals only to the extent that total withdrawals in a Contract Year, including systematic withdrawals, exceed the Free Withdrawal amount for that Contract Year. As a result, a contractholder may withdraw up to the Free Withdrawal amount during each Contract Year without any recapture of Initial Credit Enhancements that have not yet vested. Also, the Free Withdrawal amount will reduce the percentage of unvested Initial Credit Enhancements that is recaptured in the
16. In the event of a full or partial withdrawal, Security Benefit will recapture all or part of any Initial Credit Enhancement that has not yet vested. An amount equal to 1/7 of the Initial Credit Enhancement will vest as of each anniversary of the New Contract's date of issue and the Initial Credit Enhancement will be fully vested at the end of seven years from that date. The percentage of Initial Credit Enhancements that has vested as of each Contract anniversary is set forth below:
The amount to be forfeited in the event of a withdrawal is equal to a percentage of the Initial Credit Enhancement that has not yet vested. The percentage is determined for each withdrawal as of the date of the withdrawal by dividing: (i) The amount of the withdrawal, including any withdrawal charges, less any Free Withdrawal amount, by (ii) the Contract Value immediately prior to the withdrawal. If a contractholder exercises the right to return the New Contract during the Free-Look period, Contract Value will be reduced by the then current value of any Initial Credit Enhancements applied. Additionally, death benefit proceeds will exclude any Initial Credit Enhancements applied during the 12 months prior to the date of the contractholder's death.
17. The New Contract provides for a death benefit upon the death of the contractholder prior to the Annuity Start Date. The death benefit proceeds will be the death benefit reduced by any uncollected premium tax. If a contractholder dies before the Annuity Start Date, the amount of the death benefit will be the greater of: (1) The sum of all Purchase Payments (not including Initial or Additional Credit Enhancements), less any reductions caused by previous withdrawals, including withdrawal charges (“Purchase Payment Death Benefit”); or (2) the Contract Value on the date due proof of death and instructions regarding payment are received by Security Benefit (less the amount of any Initial Credit Enhancements applied during the 12 months prior to the date of the contractholder's death) (“Contract Value Death Benefit”). If a contractholder dies prior to the Annuity Start Date and due proof of death and instructions regarding payment are not received by Security Benefit at its Home Office within six months of the date of the contractholder's death, the death benefit will be the Contract Value Death Benefit. Only Initial Credit Enhancements applied during the 12 months prior to the date of the contractholder's death are subject to recapture in the event of the contractholder's death. In addition, if a contractholder dies prior to the Annuity Start Date and after the fifth Contract anniversary and no Flexible Credit Enhancement has been applied, Security Benefit will apply the Flexible Credit Enhancement to Contract Value as of the date that the death benefit is processed.
18. The relief sought in the application is intended to permit the SBL Insurers to: (i) Deduct from any full or partial withdrawal a proportionate amount of any Initial Credit Enhancement that has not yet vested; and (ii) deduct from any death benefit, except the Purchase Payment Death Benefit, the amount of any Initial Credit Enhancement applied during the 12 months prior to the date of the contractholder's death. The requested relief would also apply to any Future Contract funded by the Separate Accounts or Future Accounts that recapture Initial Credit Enhancements; provided that any such Future Contract is substantially similar in all material respects to the New Contract.
1. Applicants seek exemptive relief pursuant to Section 6(c) from Sections 2(a)(32), 22(c), and 27(i)(2)(A) of the 1940 Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder to the extent deemed necessary to permit the SBL Insurers to recapture under the New Contract or under Future Contracts that are substantially similar in all material respects to the New Contract: (1) the amount of any Initial Credit Enhancement that has not yet vested from the amount of any full or partial withdrawal during the first seven Contract Years; and (2) the amount of any Initial Credit Enhancement applied during the 12 months prior to the date of the contractholder's death from the amount of any death benefit, except the Purchase Payment Death Benefit.
2. Subsection (i) of Section 27 of the 1940 Act provides that Section 27 does not apply to any registered separate account funding variable insurance contracts, or to the sponsoring insurance company and principal underwriter of such separate account, except as provided in paragraph (2) of that subsection. Paragraph (2) provides that it shall be unlawful for such a separate account or sponsoring insurance company to sell a contract funded by the registered separate account unless “(A) such contract is a redeemable security.”
3. Section 2(a)(32) of the 1940 Act defines “redeemable security” as any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of which the holder, upon presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately his or her proportionate shares of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent thereof.
4. Applicants state that the amount paid in the event of a full or partial withdrawal excludes a proportionate amount of any Initial Credit Enhancement conditionally applied to the contractholder's New Contract in the seven years prior to the date of the full or partial withdrawal. The amount of any death benefit, which is based upon Contract Value, does not include the amount of any Initial Credit Enhancement conditionally applied to the contractholder's New Contract in the 12 months prior to the date of the contractholder's death. In each instance, the contractholder arguably is not receiving his or her proportionate share of the applicable Separate Account's then-current net assets. Applicants submit, however, that the recapture of the amount of any Initial Credit Enhancement conditionally applied to the contractholder's New Contract during the seven-year period beginning on the New Contract's date of issue or the 12-month period prior to the date of the contractholder's death, as described in the application, would not deprive a contractholder of his or her proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets. Until or unless the Initial Credit Enhancement is vested, Security Benefit retains a right and interest in the Initial Credit
5. Applicants submit that annuity contracts, unlike life insurance contracts, are not intended to insure against the risk of the premature death of the insured. Instead, annuity contracts are intended to provide an income stream to the contractholder or a named beneficiary, for the life of the annuitant or for a period of years. The risk to an insurer under an annuity contract typically is that the annuitant lives longer than the insurer's prediction.
6. According to the Applicants, if Initial Credit Enhancements are applied unconditionally to the death benefit under an annuity contract before a minimum period of time has elapsed from the time that an Initial Credit Enhancement has been credited, the insurer runs the risk of anti-selection. “Anti-selection” can generally be described as a risk that persons obtained coverage based on knowledge that a contingency that triggers the payment of an insurance benefit is likely to occur, or is to occur shortly. The insurer runs the risk that, for example, a terminally ill contractholder will make a large Purchase Payment in order to leverage the amount of money he or she is able to transfer to the beneficiary. The Applicants believe that requiring a year to elapse before an Initial Credit Enhancement may be included in a death benefit is an appropriate means to ensure that the New Contract is not used as a risk-free vehicle for persons to leverage the amount of money they wish to transfer to a beneficiary.
7. Section 22(c) of the 1940 Act authorizes the Commission to make rules and regulations applicable to registered investment companies and to principal underwriters of, and dealers in, the redeemable securities of any registered investment company to accomplish the same purposes as contemplated by Section 22(a). Rule 22c-1 thereunder prohibits a registered investment company issuing a redeemable security, a person designated in such issuer's prospectus as authorized to consummate transactions in such security, and a principal underwriter of, or dealer in, such security, from selling, redeeming, or repurchasing any such security except at a price based on the current net asset value of such security which is next computed after receipt of a tender of such security for redemption or of an order to purchase or sell such security.
8. Applicants state that Security Benefit's recapture of the Initial Credit Enhancement (or portion thereof) with respect to the New Contract in instances in which: (i) A withdrawal is made and fewer than seven years have elapsed since the issue date of the New Contract, or (ii) a death benefit is paid, other than a Purchase Payment Death Benefit, and fewer than 12 months have elapsed between the time that the Initial Credit Enhancement has been applied to the New Contract and the death of the contractholder, might arguably be viewed as resulting in the redemption of redeemable securities for a price other than one based on the current net asset value of the applicable Subaccount of a Separate Account. In other words, because any such Initial Credit Enhancement paid by Security Benefit is immediately added, on a conditional basis, to the Contract Value of certain contractholders, and further because these amounts are allocated to certain Subaccounts for the benefit of the participating contractholder, the net asset value of each Subaccount arguably is affected by these credits.
9. Applicants contend, however, that the recapture of the Initial Credit Enhancement under the circumstances described in the application should not be deemed to be a violation of Section 22(c) and Rule 22c-1. To the extent that the recapture practices described in the application are considered to be technical violations of these provisions, Applicants request relief from Section 22(c) and Rule 22c-1 in order to recapture Initial Credit Enhancements as discussed above for the New Contract and substantially similar Future Contracts to the extent that a SBL Insurer has provided Initial Credit Enhancements to a Contractholder within (i) seven years of a full or partial withdrawal; or (ii) 12 months of the Contractholder's death before the Annuity Start Date where the death benefit is not a Purchase Payment Death Benefit.
10. Applicants represent that it is not administratively feasible to track the Initial Credit Enhancements in the Separate Accounts after the Initial Credit Enhancements are applied. Accordingly, the asset-based charges applicable to the Separate Accounts will be assessed against the entire amounts held in the Separate Accounts, including any Initial Credit Enhancements. As a result, the aggregate asset-based charges assessed will be higher than those that would be charged if the contractholder's Contract Value did not include any Initial Credit Enhancement. Security Benefit nonetheless represents that the New Contract's fees and charges, in the aggregate, are reasonable in relation to services rendered, the expenses expected to be incurred, and the risks assumed by Security Benefit.
11. Applicants assert that the recapture of the Initial Credit Enhancement does not involve either of the practices that Rule 22c-1 was intended to eliminate or reduce as far as reasonably practicable, namely: (i) The dilution of the value of outstanding redeemable securities of registered investment companies through their sale at a price below net asset value or their redemption or repurchase at a price above it, and (ii) other unfair results, including speculative trading practices.
12. Applicants submit that the proposed recapture of the Initial Credit Enhancement poses no such threat of dilution. To effect a recapture of an Initial Credit Enhancement, Security Benefit redeems (and First Security Benefit will redeem) interests in a contractholder's Subaccount(s) at a price determined on the basis of the current accumulation unit value of each of the Subaccounts of the Separate Account in which the contractholder's Contract Value is allocated. The amount recaptured in the event of a full or partial withdrawal or death benefit, will be equal to the amount of the Initial Credit Enhancement paid out of the General Account assets of Security Benefit. That amount will be redeemed at the current accumulation unit value of the applicable Subaccount(s) as of the date of receipt of the death claim, or withdrawal request, in proper order. Thus, no dilution will occur upon the recapture of an Initial Credit Enhancement.
13. Applicants also submit that the second practice that Rule 22c-1 was designed to address, namely, speculative trading practices calculated to take advantage of backward pricing, will not occur as a result of the recapture of the Credit Enhancement.
14. Applicants submit that their request for an order for the exemptive relief described above is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the 1940 Act. An order that would be applicable to Future Accounts created by SBL Insurers would reduce administrative expenses and maximize the efficient use of Applicants' resources. Investors would not receive any benefit or additional protection by requiring Applicants to repeatedly seek exemptive relief that would present no issue under the 1940 Act that has not already been addressed in the application. Having Applicants file additional exemptive applications would impair Applicants' ability to effectively take advantage of business opportunities that may arise. Further, Applicants undertake that Future Contracts funded by the Separate Accounts, or by Future Accounts, which seek to rely on the order issued pursuant to the application will be substantially similar in all material respects to the New Contract.
15. Applicants further submit, for the reasons stated herein, that their exemptive request meets the standards set out in Section 6(c) of the Act, namely, that the exemptions requested are necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that the following filing(s) has/have been made with the Commission pursuant to provisions of the Act and rules promulgated under the Act. All interested persons are referred to the application(s) and/or declaration(s) for complete statements of the proposed transaction(s) summarized below. The application(s) and/or declaration(s) and any amendment(s) is/are available for public inspection through the Commission's Branch of Public Reference.
Interested persons wishing to comment or request a hearing on the application(s) and/or declaration(s) should submit their views in writing by October 28, 2004, to the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC 20549-0609, and serve a copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/or declarant(s) at the address(es) specified below. Proof of service (by affidavit or, in the case of an attorney at law, by certificate) should be filed with the request. Any request for hearing should identify specifically the issues of facts or law that are disputed. A person who so requests will be notified of any hearing, if ordered, and will receive a copy of any notice or order issued in the matter. After October 28, 2004, the application(s) and/or declaration(s), as filed or as amended, may be granted and/or permitted to become effective.
Portland General Electric Company (“Portland General”), 121 SW Salmon Street, Portland, Oregon 97204, a wholly owned electric utility company subsidiary of Enron Corp. (“Enron”), a registered holding company, has filed an application under sections 9(a)(1) and 10 of the Act.
Portland General proposes to purchase (“Purchase”) the coal handling facility (“Facility”) located at its Boardman Coal Plant (“Boardman Plant”) in eastern Oregon. Portland General, an Oregon corporation, is an integrated electric utility engaged in the generation, purchase, transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the State of Oregon. Portland General also sells electricity and natural gas in the wholesale market to utilities and power marketers located throughout the western United States. Portland General's service area is located entirely within Oregon and includes 51 incorporated cities, of which Portland and Salem are the largest, within a state-approved service area allocation of approximately 4,000 square miles. Portland General estimates that at the end of 2003 its service area population was approximately 1.5 million, comprising about 43% of the state's population. At December 31, 2003, Portland General served approximately 754,000 retail customers. Portland General has approximately 26,085 miles of electric transmission and distribution lines and owns 1,957 MW of generating capacity. Portland General also has long-term power purchase contracts for 510 MW from four hydroelectric projects on the mid-Columbia River and power purchase contracts of one to twenty-six years for another 740 MW from Bonneville Power Administration, other Pacific Northwest utilities, and certain Native American tribes. As of December 31, 2003, Portland General's total firm resource capacity, including short-term purchase agreements, was approximately 3,883 MW (net of short-term sales agreements of 3,910 MW). Portland General's peak load in 2003 was 3,351 MW.
Portland General is a reporting company under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and it files annual, quarterly and periodic reports with the Commission. As of and for the year ended December 31, 2003, Portland General and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis had operating revenues of $1,752 million, net income of $58 million, retained earnings of $545 million, and assets of $3,372 million.
Portland General is regulated by the Oregon Public Utility Commission (“OPUC”) with regard to its rates, terms of service, financings, affiliate transactions and other aspects of its business. Additionally, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates the company's activities in the interstate wholesale power markets.
The Boardman Plant is a coal-fueled plant located in Boardman, Oregon with capacity of 600 MW. Portland General owns a 65% undivided interest in the Boardman Plant and is the operator of the plant. The remaining 35% is owned by Idaho Power Company, Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative, and General Electric Credit Corporation through Bank of New York (the successor to J Henry Schroeder Bank & Trust Company) (collectively, “Boardman Plant Co-Owners”), none of whom are affiliated with Portland General.
Portland General requests authority to acquire the Facility, consisting of the machinery, equipment, mechanical and electrical equipment, fixtures, tangible personal property and other property, real and personal, constructed and installed for the unloading, transfer, storage, handling and crushing of coal for the Boardman Plant. Currently, Portland General is the sole lessee of the Facility under a lease agreement (“Lease Agreement”) under a leverage financing transaction (“Financing Transaction”) entered into in 1979. The Facility is owned by a trust (“Trust”), the trustee of which is Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (“Owner-Trustee”) and the beneficiary of which is ICON/Boardman Facility LLC (“Owner Participant”), a participant in the Financing Transaction. Under the Lease
In January 2004, Portland General extended the Lease Agreement through 2010. More recently, the company and Owner Participant negotiated a purchase price for the Facility, assuming that the transaction closes by October 29, 2004. The purchase price would be between $20 million and $35 million. If the closing is delayed but takes place on or before November 30, 2004, the purchase price will be increased for each day after October 29, 2004 that closing is delayed based on the 90-day London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) determined two days before the closing. The closing may be delayed beyond November 30, 2004 only upon mutual agreement, including agreement on a new purchase price. The funds to be used to purchase the Facility would come from Portland General's internally generated cash.
There are no fees, commissions or other remuneration to be paid by Portland General to the Owner Trustee, the Owner Participant or any other party in connection with the purchase of the Facility. The Owner Participant is responsible for all of its costs and expenses related to the purchase of the Facility and the termination of the Financing Transaction. Portland General would pay the usual and customary costs and expenses of the Owner Trustee, the indenture trustee and the loan participant, the other parties to the Financing Transaction, incurred by them in connection with termination of the Financing Transaction.
Following the Purchase, Portland General would continue to operate and maintain the Facility for the benefit of the Boardman Plant Co-Owners, and the Boardman Plant Co-Owners would continue to pay their
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Department of State.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julianne Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, (telephone: 202/619-6529). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.
Members of the public will be admitted to the extent that seating is available, and may join in the discussions, subject to the instructions of the Chair. Those desiring to attend the meeting who are not on this list may request the information from the Secretariat at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of availability.
This notice announces the availability of AC 187-1A.
AC 187-1A transmits an updated schedule of charges for services of FAA Flight Standards aviation safety inspectors outside the United States. The AC has been updated in accordance with the procedures listed in 14 CFR Part 187, Appendix A.
Emily A. White, Federal Aviation Administration, Flight Standards Service, AFS-50, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, by e-mail at
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of issuance of advisory circular.
This notice announces the issuance of Advisory Circular (AC) 23.629-1B. This advisory circular presents information and guidance to provide one means, but not the only means of complying with § 23.629, Flutter (including divergence, and control reversal) of part 23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. Accordingly, this material is neither mandatory nor regulatory in nature.
The complexity of flutter analysis has historically prompted endeavors to find simplified methods of flutter substantiation. The advent of electronic computers has de-emphasized the need to make drastic assumptions previously necessary to enable mathematical treatment of the flutter phenomenon. However, there remains a need to simplify flutter solution as much as possible consistent with safety in order to minimize the cost and effort required to show freedom from flutter. Past experiences gained by the necessity to judiciously choose degrees of freedom, and by the need to make essential parametric studies has resulted in a generally recognized set of good practices. These good practices form the basis for this advisory circular.
The draft advisory circular was issued for Public Comment on February 25, 2004 (69 FR 8728). When possible, comments received were used to modify the draft advisory circular.
We received some comments regarding the general layout of the advisory circular. We will consider reorganizing the content for the next revision. Any suggestions for the reorganization will be considered. For more information, or to make recommendations for the improvement of this advisory circular, contact Mark James, Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, telephone (816) 329-4137, fax (816) 329-4090,
Advisory Circular (AC) 23-629-1B was issued by the Manager, Small Airplane Directorate on September 28, 2004.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of issuance of advisory circular.
This advisory circular (AC) provides guidance and acceptable methods, but not the only methods, that may be used to demonstrate that redesigned parts for reciprocating engines comply with the requirements of § 33.19 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This AC addresses major type design changes, parts manufacturing approvals (PMA), and supplemental type certificates (STC) for drive system or structural parts in reciprocating engines.
The Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, issued Advisory Circular 33.19-1 on September 27, 2004.
The Federal Aviation Administration, Attn: Mark Rumizen, Engine and Propeller Standards Staff, ANE-110, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone: (781) 238-7113; fax: (781) 238-7199; e-mail:
We have filed in the docket all substantive comments received, and a report summarizing them. If you wish to review the docket in person, you may go to the above address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you wish to contact the above individual directly, you can use the above telephone number or e-mail address provided.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of issuance of advisory circular.
This notice announces the issuance of Advisory Circular (AC) 33.27-1, Turbine Rotor Strength Requirements of 14 CFR 33.27. This AC sets forth acceptable methods of compliance with the provisions of the rotor strength (overspeed) requirements of 14 CFR 33.27.
Advisory Circular 33.27-1 was issued by the Engine and Propeller Directorate, ANE-110, on September 27, 2004.
The Federal Aviation Administration, Attn: Timoleon Mouzakis, Engine and Propeller Standards Staff, ANE-110, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone: (781) 238-7114; fax: (781) 238-7199; e-mail:
We have filed in the docket all substantive comments received, and a report summarizing them. If you wish to review the docket in person, you may go to the above address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you wish to contact the above individual directly, you can use the above telephone number or e-mail address provided.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. section 47153(d), notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the Dare County Airport Authority to waive the requirement that a 1.123 acre parcel of surplus property, located at the Manteo Airport, be used for aeronautical purposes.
Comments must be received on or before November 15, 2004.
Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Campus Building, Suite 2-260, College Park, GA 30337.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Ms. Norma Mills, Dare County Attorney, at the following address: County of Dare, P.O. Box 1000, Manteo, NC 27954.
Rusty Nealis, Program Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbus Ave., Campus Bldg., Suite 2-260, College Park, GA 30337, (404) 305-7142. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA is reviewing a request by Dare County Airport Authority to release 1.123 acres of surplus property at the Manteo Airport. The property will be exchanged for private property which is needed for the expansion of the Manteo Elementary School. The Dare County Board of Commissioners will provide funds equivalent to the fair market value of the land to the Dare County Airport Authority. These funds will be used for airport purposes only. The property fronts Driftwood Drive and is adjacent to existing Dare County facilities.
Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of Availability of a Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for Installation of Category II/III Approaches at O'Hare International Airport at Chicago, Illinois.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is issuing this notice to advise the public that the FAA has prepared, and approved on October 1, 2004, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)/Record of Decision (ROD) based on the Final Environmental Assessment (Final EA) for Installation of Category II/III Approaches at O'Hare International Airport at Chicago, IL. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) prepared the Final EA in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Aviation Administration's regulations and guidelines for environmental documents. The Final EA was reviewed and evaluated by FAA, and was accepted on October 1, 2004 as a Federal document by the FAA's Responsible Federal Official.
Ms. Virginia Marcks, Environmental Engineer, ANI-430, Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018. Telephone number: (847) 294-7494.
The proposed action includes: The upgrade of Runways 27L and 27R from a category I approach to a Category II/III approach, the installation of an Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashing Lights (ALSF-2) system to Runways 27L and 27R, the construction of localizer buildings and associated equipment including removal of the existing buildings, installation of 1,000-gallon underground storage tanks at the localizer buildings, the replacement and re-cabling of threshold light fixtures on Runway 27L and 27R, the replacement or potential relocation of the localizer antennae on Runway 27R, the installation of an Inner Marker and Far Field Monitor on Runways 27L and 27R, the removal of existing Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (MALSR) systems from Runway 27L and 27R, the removal of the Runways 27L and 27R Middle Marker, shelter, and antenna, the removal of the Outer Marker, shelter and antenna from Runway 27R, the replacement of the glide slope antenna and equipment for Runway 27R, the installation of taxiway centerline lights in the apron north of Gates B-17 through B-22, the installation of Runway Guard Lights (RGLs) at connecting taxiways to Runways 27L and 27R, the expansion of lease areas, by the FAA, from the City of Chicago on airport property, the development of
The Final EA has been prepared in accordance with the National “Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, FAA Order 1050.IE, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,'' and FAA Order 5050.4A, Airport Environmental Handbook.'' The proposed development action is consistent with the National Airspace System Plan prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
A Final Environmental Assessment and the finding of No Significant Impact Record of Decision (FONSI/ROD) is available for public viewing during normal business hours at the following locations:
The Final EA and FONSI/ROD will be available through November 16, 2004.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces a public meeting of the FAA's Aging Transport Systems Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ATSRAC).
The ATSRAC will meet October 21, 2004, from 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. PDT.
The FAA will conduct the meeting by teleconference and by Webex. The instructions for both are indicated below under the heading “Meeting Instructions.”
Shirley Stroman, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-208, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-7470; fax (202) 267-5075; or e-mail
This notice announces a meeting of the Aging Transport Systems Rulemaking Advisory Committee. The meeting topics are listed under the “Meeting Agenda” heading of this notice. The meeting is open to the public; however, participation will be limited to the number of persons the meeting arrangements can accommodate.
The public may present written statements to the Committee by providing 20 copies to the Committee's Executive Director. Public statements at the meeting will be considered if time allows. You may contact the individual under the
The agenda topics will include—
• Review and approval of the July 7-8, 2004 ATSRAC meeting minutes.
• Discussion of ATSRAC members' comments to Harmonization Working Group-11's interim report.
If you have questions about the meeting instructions, you may contact the individual listed under 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 use the revenue from a PFC at Bradford Regional Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Public Law
Comments must be received on or before November 15, 2004.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Lori Ledebohm, PFC Contact, Harrisburg Airports District Office, 3905 Hartzdale Drive, Suite 508, Camp Hill, PA 17011.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Thomas C. Frungillo, Airport Manager of the Bradford Regional Airport Authority at the following address: Bradford Regional Airport, 212 Airport Road, Suite E, Lewis Run, Pennsylvania 16738
Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written comments previously provided to the Bradford Regional Airport Authority under section 158.23 of Part 158.
Ms. Lori Ledebohm, PFC Contact, Harrisburg Airports District Office, 3905 Hartzdale Dr. Suite 508, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011, (717) 730-2835. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to use the revenue from a PFC at Bradford Regional Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Public Law 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).
On August 9, 2004, the FAA determined that the application to use the revenue from a PFC submitted by Bradford Regional Airport Authority was substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of Part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than December 7, 2004.
The following is a brief overview of the application.
Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Bradford Regional Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of final policy.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces the availability of final policy on the process used by design approval holders to develop instructions for maintenance and inspection of the fuel tank systems of certain transport category airplanes, as required by Special Federal Aviation Regulation Number 88 (SFAR 88).
This final policy was issued by the Transport Airplane Directorate on October 6, 2004.
Michael Collins, Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Transport Standards Staff, Safety Management Branch, ANM-112, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2689; fax (425) 227-1149; e-mail:
A notice of proposed policy was published in the
This policy provides guidance for complying with the requirements in Special Federal Aviation Regulation Number 88 (SFAR 88) for the preparation of instructions for maintenance and inspection of fuel tank systems in certain transport category airplanes. Paragraph 2(a) of SFAR 88 requires certain holders of Type Certificates (TCs) and Supplemental Type Certificates (STCs) of large transport airplanes to conduct a safety review of the fuel tank systems. The purpose of the safety review is to identify design features which may provide ignition sources in the fuel tank systems. Corrective actions, such as design changes, operational procedures, or maintenance may be necessary to eliminate those ignition sources.
The policy relates to Paragraphs 2(b) and 2(c)(2) of SFAR 88 which require that, based upon the safety review, the TC and STC holders develop instructions for maintenance and inspection of the fuel tank systems in order to maintain design features which preclude the existence or the development of an ignition source. The FAA intends that operators use those instructions to propose changes in their maintenance programs in order to maintain those design features for the operational life of the airplane.
The final policy is available on the Internet at the following address:
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before November 15, 2004.
Michael Ferris, Maritime Administration, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-2324; FAX: 202-366-9580; or e-mail:
Maritime Administration (MARAD).
Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention MARAD Desk Officer.
49 CFR 1.66.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice, request for comments.
The primary purpose of the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) is to provide consumers with a measure of the relative safety of vehicles to aid them in their purchasing decisions. Since 1978, the testing procedures used for the frontal program have remained relatively unchanged. The frontal NCAP test procedure has been almost identical to the frontal barrier test procedure used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, except vehicles in frontal NCAP tests are tested at a speed 5 mph (8 km/h) faster than the belted test speed in FMVSS No. 208. The higher test speed allows us to observe differences in frontal crashworthiness performance more readily. However, recent amendments to FMVSS No. 208 will require vehicles manufactured after September 1, 2007, to meet the injury criteria of that standard at an increased test speed of 35 mph (56 km/h) for the belted 50th percentile male dummy, the same test speed as the current frontal NCAP test. Because the NCAP test would no longer be a higher test speed than the FMVSS test, the agency has been considering possible changes to NCAP. This document introduces and requests comments on some alternatives to the future of the frontal NCAP.
You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than December 13, 2004.
Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For technical issues surrounding the information in this document, please contact Mr. Nathaniel Beuse at (202) 366-1740. For legal issues surrounding this document, please contact Mr. Stephen Wood at (202) 366-4992. Both of these individuals may be reached by mail at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St. SW., Washington, DC 20590.
In 1978, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) to provide consumers with comparative crashworthiness information on new vehicles. Years of developmental work led to the creation of a frontal crash test procedure designed to do this. The agency published the first set of NCAP results based on this test for 1979 model year (MY) vehicles.
Since the beginning of the program, the frontal NCAP test procedure has been almost identical to NHTSA's Compliance program, which follows the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection. Like the FMVSS No. 208 test, vehicles subjected to an NCAP test are towed head-on into a fixed, rigid barrier. However, for frontal NCAP, the vehicles are tested at a speed of 35 mph (56 km/h). This is 5 mph (8 km/h) greater than the speed for the belted test under the FMVSS No. 208 standard.
In a frontal NCAP test, the vehicle carries two instrumented Hybrid III test dummies that represent 50th percentile adult males. The dummies are located in the driver and front passenger seats and are restrained by the vehicle's seat belts and air bags (if available in earlier years). During the crash, forces and accelerations are recorded and then used to indicate the likelihood of serious injury and, in turn, the relative crashworthiness of the vehicle in a severe frontal impact. Originally, this frontal NCAP data was presented to the public in the form of numerical scores for Head Injury Criterion (HIC), chest acceleration (measured in Gs), and femur forces.
Beginning with the 1994 model year (MY), NHTSA adopted a simplified nonnumeric format, the “star rating”, for presenting the test results. The star rating is based on the combined effect of injury to the head and chest. Injury risk curves were developed that related HIC and chest accelerations to injury probability (P). The combined probability of serious injury is then calculated from the equation:
Each model year, the agency is able to provide safety information in frontal crashes on approximately 80-85% of new model entries to the vehicle fleet. The agency widely distributes the results of its crash tests through media events, brochure circulation, and promotion of its Web site. Consumer interest in this type of information can be measured in a number of ways. The number of visitors to the NCAP section of NHTSA's Web site has grown from an average of 3,000 weekly in 1997 to an average of more than 43,000 weekly in 2004. The results of a 1997 Customer Satisfaction Survey conducted by NHTSA suggest that safety does sell. In fact, 74% of the survey respondents considered safety a “very important” factor in their purchase decision. Another 21% deemed safety as being “somewhat important.” Given this level of consumer interest in vehicle safety, it is no surprise that ads touting star ratings from NCAP's crash tests are used to market today's vehicles.
Not only is the program popular with consumers, it has also resulted in measurable improvements in the passenger vehicle fleet. Manufacturers use NCAP results to evaluate and improve their vehicles. For example, in the 1979 MY, only one of the vehicles tested had a 5-star rating for the driver (assuming the results had been presented in that way). In the 2003 MY, 65 of the vehicles tested received a 5-star rating for the driver. A similar trend has been seen for the right front seat passenger. The rise in NCAP ratings has been accompanied by a corresponding decrease in the fatality rate in motor vehicle crashes.
Real world data shows that frontal crashes still account for the largest portion of crash fatalities for belted occupants in the United States. A recent analysis of 2002 FARS data for belted occupant fatalities showed that 40% of fatalities were attributed to frontal impacts, while 33% were a result of side impact, 22% from rollover, and 5% were rear end crashes and unknowns. The same analysis also found that the major areas subject to injury (AIS 3 or greater) in frontal crashes were the head (22%) and chest (26%). In addition, the next largest percentage of injury (24%) was attributed to the victims' lower limbs and pelvis. This real world data suggests that there continues to be merit in providing consumer information about the relative frontal impact occupant protection provided by various vehicles.
As previously mentioned, the frontal NCAP test procedure is largely based on the FMVSS No. 208 crash test. However in 2000, FMVSS No. 208 was upgraded
Beginning with vehicles manufactured on September 1, 2003, additional testing using the 5th percentile female dummy was introduced to the FMVSS No. 208 requirements. Also, beginning with vehicles manufactured on September 1, 2007, vehicles must meet the FMVSS No. 208 requirements when tested with a belted 50th percentile male dummy at 35 mph (56 km/h), (
The European New Car Assessment Program (EuroNCAP) was established and began rating vehicles in 1997. Five European governments, the European Commission, and various motoring and consumer organizations throughout Europe currently back and provide funding for EuroNCAP.
The frontal test performed by Euro NCAP uses a speed of 40 mph (64 km/h), wherein a vehicle collides head-on with a fixed aluminum honeycomb barrier at a 40% overlap on the driver's side.
Once a vehicle is crashed, occupant response data is linked with a sliding scale to assign points to different body regions.
The results of the driver and passenger body regions are later combined with the side impact evaluation to give a final crashworthiness star rating for the vehicle. No star rating for the frontal crash is given. Additional safety features can also add points, called “modifiers,” to a vehicle's score used to establish the final star rating. A struck star (a star with a line through it) is used to indicate when a serious safety concern exists for a vehicle, which EuroNCAP considers to be cases when the head, chest, abdomen, or pelvis of an occupant's body receives a score of zero. Currently, Euro NCAP does not note other safety concerns such as fuel leakages and door openings.
The Japanese New Car Assessment Program (Japan NCAP) testing is conducted by the National Agency for Automotive Safety and Victim's Aid (NASVA) in conjunction with the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport.
The full-frontal and offset frontal tests are used, along with a side impact test, to establish an overall rating.
In the frontal collision tests, Japan NCAP assigns points to injury readings recorded from each dummy's head, neck, chest, and legs. The vehicle is checked for certain types of damage and deformation that may detract from the frontal scores received. After the final number of points is assigned, the scores from each region are weighted and tallied to arrive at the total score for each vehicle occupant. Each vehicle is assigned a “level” from one to five (five being the highest) for the occupant in each configuration.
For the driver, the scores from both frontal tests are combined with the scores from the side collision test to obtain an overall score. For the front passenger, only the scores from the full-frontal test are used. The passenger results are combined with the driver's side impact score to determine an overall score for the passenger. Based on these overall scores, a sliding point scale is used to rate each occupant of the vehicle from one to six stars. Safety concerns such as doors opening and fuel leaks are also noted.
The Australian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) is a program supported by the New Zealand and Australian governments as well as a host of automobile clubs and traffic authorities in both of those countries.
One major aspect of ANCAP that differs from the EuroNCAP program is the way that safety concerns are reported. Instead of a struck star, ANCAP adds a warning note to the overall score indicating if a score of zero was recorded for the head, chest, abdomen, or pelvis. Another difference is that ANCAP does not rate vehicles for child protection.
In 1999, the Korean Automotive Testing and Research Institute (KATRI) initiated crash testing as part of the
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) is a nonprofit research and communications organization funded by the auto insurance industry in the United States.
The IIHS examines three areas of performance when assigning ratings to a vehicle: structure/safety cage, dummy injury measures, and restraints/dummy kinematics.
NHTSA is considering several options regarding possible changes to the NCAP frontal crash test program. While listed individually, NHTSA recognizes that there may be merit in combining one or more of these options in the final form of the frontal program. NHTSA anticipates implementing any changes to the frontal test procedure beginning with the MY 2008 program in order to coincide with the initial phase-in for the 35 mph (56 km/h) belted requirement of FMVSS No. 208. In considering the options, NHTSA is striving to keep the basic philosophy of NCAP in mind—to provide consumers with meaningful comparative safety information for their purchase decisions and to provide a market incentive for manufacturers to build safer motor vehicles.
For each of the options described herein, a number of the agency's observations surrounding each are also briefly discussed. NHTSA will be evaluating options on their potential to provide continued meaningful information to consumers. In addition, some of the factors the agency will also consider will include maintaining the largest market coverage possible and the potential to distinguish superior occupant protection systems in a frontal crash.
Since MY 1979, the basic test procedure used for frontal NCAP testing has remained unchanged. Furthermore, since 1994, NCAP has used the same star rating scheme to rate vehicles and provide test results to consumers. The agency believes that this constant method of conducting tests and rating vehicles has led to vast improvements in vehicle restraint design. In MY 2003, 88% of tested vehicles received a four-or five-star driver rating compared to only 30% of MY 1979 vehicles that received these ratings.
The real world data indicates that the current frontal test represents around 20% of all fatal frontal crashes and 38% of MAIS 3+ injuries among belted occupants in airbag-equipped vehicles.
With this option, NCAP test results could be used for compliance with FMVSS No. 208 and vice-versa, thereby maintaining or perhaps increasing the amount of consumer information provided by the agency. Compliance test results could be used to assign star ratings to additional vehicles tested by NCAP that the agency could have otherwise not tested. Also, keeping the program test procedure unchanged would eliminate the transition period to another test, and consequently, the results for newly tested vehicles would remain comparable to previous years. In addition, this test is already demanding on restraint systems, thereby continuing to spur market incentives for their improvement.
However, under this choice, only a portion of three-star ratings and the current four- and five-star ratings would equate to a vehicle compliant with the FMVSS No. 208 requirements beginning in MY 2008. The current limits for HIC and chest acceleration in FMVSS No. 208 are 700 (HIC 15) and 60 (g's), respectively. Although NCAP currently uses HIC 36 as part of the star rating calculation as shown in Appendix A, scaling the risk curve to HIC 15 would produce basically the same result. That is, the compliance limit would still represent the current star band separating the three- and two-star bands.
As mentioned previously, the frontal NCAP test procedure involves towing a vehicle into a fixed rigid barrier at 35 mph (56 km/h). Two belted instrumented Hybrid III dummies are seated in the driver and front passenger seats; forces and accelerations measured during the test are recorded. Changes to the test speed, dummies used, and barrier type/configuration could result in additional information being provided to consumers. In addition, other crash modes and injuries could be addressed.
One option for revising the NCAP frontal test program would be to increase the test speed to 40 mph (64 km/h). This would mean that the frontal NCAP test would again be conducted 5mph (8 km/h) faster than the FMVSS No. 208 test.
This option allows for a simple transition from the current test. No changes to the test procedure would have to be made except for the increase in vehicle speed. In addition, the frontal
Instead of using only 50th percentile male dummies in the driver and front passenger seat during each frontal NCAP test, two possible alternatives are being considered. One option would be to have the 5th percentile adult female dummy occupy both front seating positions. NHTSA has recently proposed changes to FMVSS No. 208 to require testing with the 5th percentile female dummy at 35 mph (56 km/h), instead of 30 mph (48 km/h), similar to the requirements for the 50th percentile male dummy. If this provision were not adopted as a final rule in FMVSS No. 208, one alternative would be to change the NCAP procedure to test with the 5th female percentile dummy.
Another option would be to vary the dummy used in the front seating positions as well as placing dummies in the rear seating positions. The 50th percentile male dummy could be placed in the driver seating position and the 5th percentile female dummy could be placed in the passenger seating position or vice-versa. Additionally, rear seat occupants could include the twelve-month-old CRABI or the three-, six-, and ten-year-old Hybrid III child dummies restrained in appropriate child seats. The test would still be a 35 mph (56 km/h) frontal crash, but would instead evaluate how well the vehicle protects a range of occupant sizes. Currently, the agency is evaluating the merits of adding child dummies to the rear seat of frontal NCAP tests as part of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act (Pub. L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800). The agency is considering the option of adding child dummies to the frontal program in response to TREAD, as well as here.
If the two different adult dummies mentioned were used, testing could lead to improved protection for many sizes of occupants; manufacturers would have an incentive to improve safety for a greater range of occupant sizes. If child dummies were used, it could also lead to improved rear seat and child occupant protection. Furthermore, all dummy scores could be combined to develop an overall frontal rating.
The offset frontal test is a crashworthiness test conducted by four of the six major consumer information programs around the world. In this test, a vehicle is crashed into a deformable honeycomb barrier across 40% of the vehicle's front end. Testing by other programs has most commonly been conducted at a speed of 40 mph (64 km/h). While the full-frontal test is very demanding on a vehicle's restraint system, the offset frontal test tends to evaluate the structure of the vehicle. On February 3, 2004, the agency published a notice (69 FR 5108) requesting comments on agency test results and the possibility of incorporating high speed offset frontal test requirements into FMVSS No. 208.
Incorporation of an offset test requirement could be done either in conjunction with the FMVSS No. 208 35 mph (56 km/h) requirements, or as a replacement of the full frontal test. The agency is currently evaluating the merits of this high speed test procedure for incorporation into FMVSS No. 208. A new rating system would need to be developed if the offset frontal test is used.
One of the unique features of the frontal NCAP is that vehicles are assigned ratings based on occupant injury risk curves. These risk curves equate readings obtained from a test dummy to injuries a human could experience. In the frontal program, HIC and chest acceleration results are combined to predict a combined probability of serious injury to the head and chest. If no changes are made to the frontal test procedure, changes could be made to the rating system to adjust the probability limits or include additional injury criteria. In effect, a five-star rating could become more difficult to attain. Two alternatives to change the rating system are being considered.
Redefining each of the five star rating probability limits could mean using the same head and chest injury risk curves currently used for the rating, but adjusting the current five-star rating bands. For example, rather than using a 10% or less chance of serious injury to the head and chest to establish a five star performance, a 5% or less chance of serious injury to the head and chest could be used as a basis for five stars. The result would be that achieving a five-star rating would be more difficult.
For this option, there would be no change to the test procedure. Additionally, occupant injury risk curves that have already been established could be used to calculate ratings from both the frontal NCAP tests and the upgraded frontal compliance tests. A basis for choosing the new probability limits would have to be devised.
Recent changes to FMVSS No. 208 have added injury criteria for neck loading (Nij) and chest deflection. Both of these injury metrics are currently measured in the NCAP test but are not used to compute the star rating. NCAP also records femur and tibia loads, but these readings are not incorporated into the star rating calculation. In biomechanical literature, there are risk curves for each one of the aforementioned injury metrics.
The primary goal of NCAP is provide consumers with a measure of the relative safety potential of vehicles to aid them in purchasing decisions and provide a market incentive for manufacturers to increase the safety potential of their vehicles. NHTSA asks commenters to keep this goal in mind when responding to this Notice.
Comments are sought on the options discussed herein and the agency's initial
In addition to comments on these options, NHTSA requests that commenters address the issue of timing the changes to the frontal NCAP program. Given that many of the updates to FMVSS No. 208 will be phased in over a number of years, NHTSA requests comments on whether frontal NCAP should make changes at the beginning of the FMVSS No. 208 phase-in, the 2008 MY, or wait until the end of the phase-in, which is the 2011 MY. Commenters should keep in mind that most of the options under consideration involve differences in test modes and/or assessment methods that will preclude comparison between vehicles tested under the current frontal NCAP program and vehicles tested under the revised program. Therefore, a phase-in of the new frontal NCAP program is not under current consideration. In particular, commenters should discuss any concerns with testing a vehicle under a revised NCAP program prior to its certification to the new FMVSS No. 208 requirements.
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must be no longer than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). We establish this limit to encourage the preparation of comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit to the length of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given at the beginning of this document under
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given under
We will consider all comments that are received by Docket Management before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
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
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under
You may also review the comments on the Internet. To access the comments on the Internet, take the following steps:
1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) web page of the Department of Transportation (
2. On that page, click on “Search”
3. On the next page (
4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You can download the comments.
Please note that even after the comment closing date we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Patrick D. Broe (Mr. Broe) and OmniTRAX, Inc. (OmniTRAX) (collectively, applicants) have filed a verified notice of exemption to continue in control of Fulton County Railway, LLC (FCR), upon FCR's becoming a Class III rail carrier.
The transaction is scheduled to be consummated on or shortly after October 15, 2004.
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in STB Finance Docket No. 34542,
Mr. Broe is a noncarrier individual who directly controls OmniTRAX, a noncarrier company. OmniTRAX currently controls nine Class III rail carriers operating in seven states: Chicago Rail Link, LLC (CRL); Georgia Woodlands Railroad, LLC (GWRC); Great Western Railway of Colorado, LLC (GWR); Great Western Railway of Iowa LLC (CBGR); Manufacturers' Junction Railway, LLC (MJ); Newburgh & South Shore Railroad Limited (NSR); Northern Ohio & Western Railway, LLC (NOW); Panhandle Northern Railroad, LLC (PNR); and Alliance Terminal Railroad, LLC (ATR).
Applicants state that: (1) The rail lines operated by CRL, GWRC, GWR, CBGR, MJ, NSR, NOW, PNR and ATR do not connect with the rail lines being leased by FCR; (2) the continuance in control is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that would connect the rail lines being leased by FCR with any railroad in the OmniTRAX corporate family; and (3) neither FCR nor any of the carriers controlled by OmniTRAX are Class I rail carriers. Therefore, the transaction is exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323.
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. Section 11326(c), however, does not provide for labor protection for transactions under sections 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not impose labor protective conditions here, because all of the carriers involved are Class III carriers.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34543, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Karl Morell, Of Counsel, Ball Janik LLP, 1455 F Street, NW., Suite 225, Washington, DC 20005.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Fulton County Railway, LLC (FCR), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to lease from CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), and operate approximately 55 miles of rail lines located in Atlanta, GA. The rail lines extend from: (1) Milepost ANO 855.06, V.S. 3+30, at Fulco Junction, westerly to milepost ANO 858.72, V.S. 196+31; (2) milepost ANO 858.72, V.S. 196+31 northeasterly to milepost ANO 860.75, V.S. 304+70, at the northeast end of the line; and (3) V.S. 196+31 = V.S. 0+00 southwesterly to V.S. 208+94, at the southwest end of the line, through the Fulco Industrial Park, including the track in the Fulco Yard, and the appurtenant sidings, and industrial tracks.
This transaction is related to STB Finance Docket No. 34543,
FCR certifies that its projected revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in FCR's becoming a Class II or Class I rail carrier, and further certifies that its projected annual revenues will not exceed $5 million.
The transaction is expected to be consummated on or shortly after October 15, 2004.
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34542, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Karl Morell, Of Counsel, Ball Janik, LLP, 1455 F
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics invites the general public, industry and other governmental parties to comment on the continuing need for and usefulness of DOT requiring large certificated air carriers to file “On-Time Flight Performance Reports” and “Mishandled-Baggage Reports” pursuant to 14 CFR 234.4 and 234.6. These reports are used to monitor the quality of air service that major air carriers are providing the flying public.
Written comments should be submitted by December 13, 2004.
Comments should be directed to: Office of Airline Information, K-14, Room 4125, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, FAX NO. 366-3383 or E-MAIL
Bernie Stankus Office of Airline Information, K-14, Room 4125, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4387.
Part 234 gives air travelers information concerning their chances of on-time flights and the rate of mishandled baggage by the eleven largest scheduled domestic passenger carriers.
The Federal Aviation Administration uses Part 234 data to pinpoint and analyze air traffic delays. Wheels-up and wheels-down times are used in conjunction with departure and arrival times to show the extent of ground delays. Actual elapsed flight time, wheels-down minus wheels-up time, is compared to scheduled elapsed flight time to identify airborne delays. The reporting of aircraft tail number allows the FAA to track an aircraft through the air network, which enables the FAA to study the ripple effects of delays at hub airports. The data can be analyzed for airport design changes, new equipment purchases, the planning of new runways or airports based on current and projected airport delays, and traffic levels. The identification of the reason for delays allows the FAA, airport operators, and air carriers to pinpoint delays under their control.
The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires a statistical agency to clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes. BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the information it collects under this OMB approval for non-statistical purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both Respondent's identity and its data, submission of the information to agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in regulatory and other administrative matters.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), DOT.
Notice.
At a September 15, 2004, joint meeting, representative Alaskan air carriers, the United States Postal Service (USPS), and the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and Office of Secretary, agreed to develop a pilot program for collecting weekly T-100 data, in an effort to reduce air carrier reporting burden.
Currently, air carriers transporting non-priority bypass mail pursuant to the Rural service Improvement act (RSIA) are required to submit monthly T-100 traffic reports to BTS and daily activity reports to USPS, which uses the daily report to monitor air carrier compliance with RSIA's requirements that air carriers provide service at least three days a week and exhibit adherence to those scheduled flights. Some carriers hired additional staff to complete the daily activity reports. If BTS adds two new data elements to the T-100 report and requires weekly submissions (due within 7 days after weeks end), both DOT's and USPS” data needs can be met. The two new data elements are: (1) Actual Day of Flight: the numeric day of the month in which the flight was flown; and (2) Aircraft Certification: A code to identify the type of mail operation, i.e., Bush Part 121, Bush Part 135, Bush Amphibious or Mainline.
The pilot program will start on November 1, 2004. The carriers that participate in the pilot program will be relieved of the requirement to submit daily activity reports to USPS. If all parties are satisfied with the new data reporting, the pilot program will end with respect to data for December 31, 2004, and thereafter all Alaskan air carriers will be required to submit the weekly T-100 reports in lieu of the USPS daily activity reports.
A representative sample of Alaskan air carriers (anticipated to comprise no more than nine) will be selected from those who volunteer. Carriers may volunteer for the program by contacting Ms. Jennifer Fabrizi at
Written comments on the pilot program should be submitted by November 15, 2004.
Comments should be directed to: Office of Airline Information, K-25, Room 4125, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, FAX NO. (202) 366-3383 or EMAIL
Bernie Stankus Office of Airline Information, K-25, Room 4125, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4387.
Alaskan air carriers, who carry non priority bypass mail for the U.S. Postal Service, which currently report “daily” to the USPS, will have one submission requirement to the USDOT/BTS/Office of Airline Information; “Daily” Carrier data submissions to USPS will no longer be required. BTS believes that there may be several advantages to weekly reporting. First, for the air carriers, the total reporting burden will be reduced as carriers will not be required to submit daily data to the USPS and second, for USPS, the agency will be to cease its air carrier data collections and it will have more timely data for mail tender. In addition to collecting data and transmitting it to the USPS on a weekly basis, BTS will combine the weekly data submissions to produce the standard T-100 monthly traffic reports in the format currently being released today. The new data items, date of flight and certification code, will not be included in the BTS products, on the BTS web page and publications sold to the general public. The air carriers requested that BTS share the additional data only with the USPS because the data is viewed as competitive sensitive.
Alaskan Air Carriers, who carry non priority bypass mail for the U.S. Postal Service, will submit T-100 Market and T-100 Segment records, weekly, to USDOT/BTS/Office of Airline Information (OAI)—covering a 7-day period, defined as Saturday through Friday. The T-100 Data will be due in to BTS/OAI, 7 days after the end of the period. BTS is establishing a secure password protected line for submitting pilot program data. Additional data elements will be added to the T-100 data formats:
• Actual Date of Flight field to Segment records.
• Actual Date of Flight field to Market records.
• Aircraft Certification Code field to Segment records.
Aircraft Certification Code values:
For purposes of monitoring carrier flight performance, the USPS will receive weekly Carrier Segment reports containing all scheduled service records, from the BTS/OAI, within 4 days after initial carrier submissions are due (i.e. 7 days of flight performance reported to BTS/OAI within 7 days after the end of the period, and subsequently forwarded to USPS within the next 4 days). BTS/OAI will process the weekly reports as they are received and confer with carriers concerning suspect or erroneous data and any needed re-submissions. BTS/OAI will consolidate the weekly reports into the monthly final “Products” for release to the public and to the USPS for calculation of mail tender in accordance with RSIA. Market shares will continue to be calculated monthly for “re-casting” of RSIA air carrier mail pools.
Administrative actions for not submitting weekly reports on a timely basis will be defined by BTS/USPS and could include USPS withholding of mail tender until the air carrier corrects the reporting situation. Administrative actions for not reporting corrected data to BTS in a timely manner will be defined by BTS and could include BTS withholding carrier data from final monthly release of statistics to USPS.
The new reports will start on a trial basis with a group selected from volunteer Alaskan air carriers while BTS confers with OMB on paperwork burden and other information collection issues. BTS will identify an initial group of Alaskan air carriers to begin testing from the group of carriers who have volunteered to participate in the pilot program as described in the Summary. Beginning with November 2004 data, the selected Alaskan air carriers will report T-100 Market and Segment data to the Office of Airline Information (OAI)
OAI will compile all Segment data, for all of the Carriers, on that next Monday (except for Federal holidays) and transmit the Segment Data to USPS through the process currently used for sending the Monthly USPS T-100 Market and Segment Products to USPS.
It should be noted that all Alaskan air carriers, including carriers selected for the pilot program, must report their October 2004 T-100 data to OAI by November 30th, per the current reporting requirements. Until the new T-100 reporting is fully implemented for ALL Alaskan air carriers who carry non priority bypass mail, the USPS will continue to receive its “Monthly Products” per the current schedule.
The Segment File naming convention is “CC_SegCCYY_MM_DD.csv” where:
(
NC_Seg2004_11_05.csv =
The first “record” listed below indicates each of the fields in the records that follow. There are sixteen (16) data records in the sample file below. Each data value is separated by a comma.
The Market File naming convention is “CC_Mkt_MM_DD.csv” where:
NC_Mkt2004_11_05.csv =
The first “record” listed below indicates each of the fields in the records that follow. There are eight (8) data records in the sample file below. Each data value is separated by a comma.
Comments are requested concerning whether (a) the continuation of T-100 is necessary for DOT to carry out its mission of promoting air transportation; (b) BTS is accurately estimating the reporting burden; (c) are there other ways to enhance the quality, use and clarity of the data collected; and (d) are there additional ways to minimize reporting burden, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires a statistical agency to clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes. BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the T-100 traffic information it collects for non-statistical purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both Respondent's identity and its data, submission of the information to USPS and other agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in regulatory and other administrative matters.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 2004-59; Offer to Resolve Issues Arising from Certain Tax, Withholding, and Reporting Obligations of U.S. Withholding Agents with Respect to Payments to Foreign Persons.
Written comments should be received on or before December 13, 2004 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Paul H. Finger, Internal Revenue Service, room 6512, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW. Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the revenue procedure should be directed to Carol Savage at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3945, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
a. Persons in Vietnam
b. Persons in Cuba
c. Persons in the former Soviet Union
d. In exceptional circumstances, persons identified by a U.S. Embassy in and location
In notice document 04-22259 beginning on page 59231 in the issue of Monday, October 4, 2004, make the following correction:
On page 59237, in the first column, in the second and third lines, “(770) 448-5035” should read, “(770) 488-5035”.
In rule document 04-22234 beginning on page 60090 in the issue of Thursday, October 7, 2004, make the following correction:
On page 60090, in 501.1(a), in the sixth line, “Postage”” should read “Postage®”.
State Justice Institute.
Proposed grant Guideline.
This Guideline sets forth the administrative, programmatic, and financial requirements attendant to Fiscal Year 2005 State Justice Institute grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.
The Institute invites public comment on the Guideline until November 15, 2004.
Comments should be mailed to the State Justice Institute, 1650 King St. (Suite 600), Alexandria, VA 22314 or e-mailed to
David I. Tevelin, Executive Director, or Kathy Schwartz, Deputy Director, State Justice Institute, 1650 King St. (Suite 600), Alexandria, VA 22314, (703) 684-6100.
Pursuant to the State Justice Institute Act of 1984, 42 U.S.C. 10701
Pending appropriations legislation passed by the House (HR 4754) would appropriate $2.227 million to SJI in FY 2005; the Senate Appropriations Committee proposes to appropriate $3 million. An Interagency Agreement (IAA) with the Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women will provide up to $420,000 to support projects aimed at educating judges about rape and sexual assault. Other sources of funds available to SJI in FY 2005 are expected to include an IAA with the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance, under which up to $4 million may be transferred to SJI to support several specific projects, and amounts deobligated from expired grants, which are not expected to exceed $100,000.
After deducting the Institute's modest administrative expenses, and amounts allocated for SJI's three small grant programs—Technical Assistance ($300,000), Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance ($100,000) and Scholarships ($200,000)—SJI anticipates that little, if any, money will be available in FY 2005 to support Project Grants other than those within the scope of the IAA's noted above and continuations of existing Project Grants. As a result, the Institute's Board of Directors proposes to dedicate the amount available for Project Grants this fiscal year to continuing the most important Project Grants currently assisting courts nationwide. To the extent that additional funding becomes available over the course of the fiscal year, the Board of Directors may identify other projects of interest and invite selected applicants to apply for grants to carry them out. If additional funding does not become available, SJI proposes to award no new Project Grants in FY 2005 other than those that may be awarded within the scope of the Interagency Agreements noted above.
The Board of Directors invites comment on this approach as well as other possible approaches that would maximize the potential benefit of the limited grant funds available to SJI.
SJI proposes to offer four types of grants in FY 2005: Continuation Grants, Technical Assistance (TA) Grants, Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance (JBE TA) grants, and Scholarships. As noted above, to the extent sufficient additional funding becomes available, the Institute may also offer selected applicants the opportunity to apply for new Project Grants.
Letters of application for a Technical Assistance Grant may be submitted at any time. Applicants submitting letters by January 7, 2005, will be notified by April 8, 2005; those submitting letters between January 8 and February 25, 2005, will be notified by June 10, 2005; those submitting letters between February 26 and June 3, 2005, will be notified by August 19, 2005; and those submitting letters between June 4 and September 23, 2005, will be notified of the Board's decision by December 2, 2005.
Letters requesting JBE TA Grants may be submitted at any time. The grant cycles for JBE TA Grants are the same as the grant cycles for TA Grants:
Applicants submitting letters by January 7, 2005, will be notified by April 8, 2005; those submitting letters between January 8 and February 25, 2005, will be notified by June 10, 2005; those submitting letters between February 26 and June 3, 2005, will be notified by August 19, 2005; and those submitting letters between June 4 and September 23, 2005, will be notified of the Board's decision by December 2, 2005.
Scholarships for eligible applicants are approved largely on a “first come, first served” basis, although the Institute may approve or disapprove scholarship requests in order to achieve appropriate balances on the basis of geography, program provider, and type of court or applicant (
The Proposed Guideline would also limit recipients to no more than one scholarship in a three-year period.
Applicants interested in obtaining a scholarship for a program beginning between January 1 and March 31, 2005, must submit their applications and documents between October 4 and
With the exception of JBE TA grantees, other grantees that can demonstrate a financial hardship, and scholarship recipients, all grantees must provide match, including cash match, for any Institute grant. The matching requirements are summarized in sections III.L. and VIII.A.8. of the Guideline.
The following Grant Guideline is proposed by the State Justice Institute for FY 2005:
The Institute was established by Pub. L. 98-620 to improve the administration of justice in the State courts of the United States. Incorporated in the State of Virginia as a private, nonprofit corporation, the Institute is charged, by statute, with the responsibility to:
• Direct a national program of financial assistance designed to assure that each citizen of the United States is provided ready access to a fair and effective system of justice;
• Foster coordination and cooperation with the Federal judiciary;
• Promote recognition of the importance of the separation of powers doctrine to an independent judiciary; and
• Encourage education for judges and support personnel of State court systems through national and State organizations, including universities.
To accomplish these broad objectives, the Institute is authorized to provide funds to State courts, national organizations which support and are supported by State courts, national judicial education organizations, and other organizations that can assist in improving the quality of justice in the State courts.
The Institute is supervised by a Board of Directors appointed by the President, with the consent of the Senate. The Board is statutorily composed of six judges; a State court administrator; and four members of the public, no more than two of whom can be of the same political party.
Through the award of grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements, the Institute is authorized to perform the following activities:
A. Support research, demonstrations, special projects, technical assistance, and training to improve the administration of justice in the State courts;
B. Provide for the preparation, publication, and dissemination of information regarding State judicial systems;
C. Participate in joint projects with Federal agencies and other private grantors;
D. Evaluate or provide for the evaluation of programs and projects funded by the Institute to determine their impact upon the quality of criminal, civil, and juvenile justice and the extent to which they have contributed to improving the quality of justice in the State courts;
E. Encourage and assist in furthering judicial education;
F. Encourage, assist, and serve in a consulting capacity to State and local justice system agencies in the development, maintenance, and coordination of criminal, civil, and juvenile justice programs and services; and
G. Be responsible for the certification of national programs that are intended to aid and improve State judicial systems.
As set forth in Section I., the Institute is authorized to fund projects addressing a broad range of program areas. However, during FY 2005, the Institute will consider funding only the following:
This category includes critical SJI-supported Project Grants of proven merit to courts nationwide. These projects must have:
1. Developed products, services, and techniques that may be used in States across the country; and
2. Created and disseminated products that effectively transfer the information and ideas developed to relevant audiences in State and local judicial systems, or provide technical assistance to facilitate the adaptation of effective programs and procedures in other State and local jurisdictions.
The application procedures for Continuation Grants may be found in section VI.A.
The Board is reserving up to $300,000 to support the provision of technical assistance to State and local courts and court associations. The program is designed to provide State and local courts with sufficient support to obtain technical assistance to diagnose a problem, develop a response to that problem, and implement any needed changes. The Institute will reserve sufficient funds each quarter to assure the availability of Technical Assistance Grants throughout the year.
Technical Assistance Grants are limited to no more than $30,000 each, and may cover the cost of obtaining the services of expert consultants; travel by a team of officials from one court to examine a practice, program, or facility in another jurisdiction that the applicant court is interested in
Only a State or local court or court association may apply for a Technical Assistance grant. The application procedures may be found in section VI.B.
The Board is reserving up to $100,000 to support technical assistance and on-site consultation in planning, developing, and administering comprehensive and specialized State judicial branch education programs, as well as the adaptation of model curricula previously developed with SJI funds. Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants are limited to no more than $20,000 each.
The goals of the Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Program (JBE TA) in FY 2005 are to:
1. Provide State and local courts and court associations with the opportunity to access expert strategic assistance to enable them to maintain judicial branch education programming during the current budget crisis; and
2. Enable courts and court associations to modify a model curriculum, course module, or conference program developed with SJI funds to meet a particular State's or local jurisdiction's educational needs; train instructors to present portions or all of the curriculum; and pilot-test it to determine its appropriateness, quality, and effectiveness. An illustrative but non-inclusive list of the curricula that may be appropriate for adaptation is contained in Appendix C.
Only State or local courts or court associations may apply for JBE TA funding. Application procedures may be found in section VI.C. Applicants are not required to contribute cash match to JBE TA grants.
The Institute is reserving up to $200,000 to support a scholarship program for State judges and court managers. The purposes of the scholarship program are to:
1. Enhance the skills, knowledge, and abilities of judges and court managers;
2. Enable State court judges and court managers to attend out-of-State educational programs sponsored by national and State providers that they could not otherwise attend because of limited State, local, and personal budgets; and
3. Provide States, judicial educators, and the Institute with evaluative information on a range of judicial and court-related education programs.
Scholarships will be granted to individuals only for the purpose of attending an out-of-State educational program within the United States. Application procedures may be found in Section VI.D.
The following definitions apply for the purposes of this Guideline:
The prominent display of the SJI logo on the front cover of a written product or in the opening frames of a videotape developed with Institute support, and inclusion of a brief statement on the inside front cover or title page of the document or the opening frames of the videotape identifying the grant number. See section VIII.A.11.a.(2) for the precise wording of the statement.
A formal request for an Institute grant. A complete application consists of: Form A—Application; Form B—Certificate of State Approval (for applications from local trial or appellate courts or agencies); Form C—Project Budget/Tabular Format or Form C1—Project Budget/Spreadsheet Format; Form D—Assurances; Disclosure of Lobbying Activities; a detailed description, not to exceed 25 pages, of the need for the project and all related tasks, including the time frame for completion of each task, and staffing requirements; and a detailed budget narrative that provides the basis for all costs. See section VI. for a complete description of application submission requirements. See Appendix D for the application forms.
The process by which the Institute determines that all applicable administrative and financial actions and all required grant work have been completed by both the grantee and the Institute.
A grant lasting no longer than 15 months to permit completion of activities initiated under an existing Institute grant or enhancement of the products or services produced during the prior grant period. See section VI.A. for a complete description of Continuation Grant application requirements.
The materials needed to replicate an education or training program developed with grant funds including, but not limited to: the learning objectives; the presentation methods; a sample agenda or schedule; an outline of presentations and relevant instructors' notes; copies of overhead transparencies or other visual aids; exercises, case studies, hypotheticals, quizzes, and other materials for involving the participants; background materials for participants; evaluation forms; and suggestions for replicating the program, including possible faculty or the preferred qualifications or experience of those selected as faculty.
The office or judicial body which is authorized under State law or by delegation from the State Supreme Court to approve applications for SJI grant funds and to receive, administer, and be accountable for those funds.
A brief statement that must be included at the beginning of a document or in the opening frames of a videotape produced with Institute support that specifies that the points of view expressed in the document or tape do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the Institute. See section VIII.A.11.a.(2) for the precise wording of this statement.
A change in the design or scope of a project from that described in the approved application, acknowledged in writing by the Institute. See section X.A for a list of the types of changes requiring a formal grant adjustment. Ordinarily, changes requiring a Grant Adjustment (including budget reallocations between direct cost categories that individually or cumulatively exceed five percent of the approved original budget) should be requested at least 30 days in advance of the implementation of the requested change.
The organization, entity, or individual to which an award of Institute funds is made. For a grant based on an application from a State or local court,
Individuals who are participants in an experimental procedure or who are asked to provide information about themselves, their attitudes, feelings,
A grant of up to $20,000 awarded to a State or local court or court association to support expert assistance in designing or delivering judicial branch education programming, and/or the adaptation of an education program based on an SJI-supported curriculum that was previously developed and evaluated under an SJI Project Grant. See section VI.C. for a complete description of JBE TA Grant application requirements.
The portion of project costs not borne by the Institute. Match includes both in-kind and cash contributions. Cash match is the direct outlay of funds by the grantee to support the project. Examples of cash match are the dedication of funds to support a new employee or purchase new equipment to carry out the project; that portion of the grantee's Federally approved indirect cost rate that exceeds the Guideline's limit of permitted charges (75% of salaries and benefits); any other reduction in the indirect cost rate to be charged to the grant; and the application of project income (
In-kind match consists of contributions of time and/or services of current staff members, space, supplies, etc., made to the project by the grantee or others (
Under normal circumstances, allowable match may be incurred only during the project period. When appropriate, and with the prior written permission of the Institute, match may be incurred from the date of the Board of Directors' approval of an award. Match does not include the time of participants attending an education program.
See section VIII.A.8. for the Institute's matching requirements.
Tangible materials resulting from funded projects including, but not limited to: Curricula; monographs; reports; books; articles; manuals; handbooks; benchbooks; guidelines; videotapes; audiotapes; computer software; and CD-ROM disks.
An initial grant lasting up to 15 months to support an innovative education, research, demonstration, or technical assistance project that can improve the administration of justice in State courts nationwide. Ordinarily, a project grant may not exceed $150,000 a year; however, a grant in excess of $100,000 is likely to be rare and awarded only to support highly promising projects that will have a significant national impact.
Interest, royalties, registration and tuition fees, proceeds from the sale of products, and other earnings generated as a result of an Institute grant. Registration and tuition fees, and proceeds from the sale of products generated during the grant period may be counted as match. For a more complete description of different types of project-related income, see section IX.G.
A grant of up to $1,500 awarded to a judge or court manager to cover the cost of tuition, transportation, and reasonable lodging to attend an out-of-State educational program within the United States. See section VI.D. for a complete description of scholarship application requirements.
A requirement attached to a grant award that is unique to a particular project.
The highest appellate court in a State, or, for the purposes of the Institute program, a constitutionally or legislatively established judicial council that acts in place of that court. In States having more than one court with final appellate authority,
A State or local court which receives Institute funds through the State Supreme Court.
A grant, lasting up to 12 months, of up to $30,000 to a State or local court or court association to support outside expert assistance in diagnosing a problem and developing and implementing a response to that problem. See section VI.B. for a complete description of Technical Assistance Grant application requirements.
The Institute is authorized by Congress to award grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts to the following entities and types of organizations:
A.
B.
C.
1. The principal purpose or activity of the applicant is to provide education and training to State and local judges and court personnel; and
2. the applicant demonstrates a record of substantial experience in the field of judicial education and training.
D.
1. Provided that the objectives of the project can be served better, the Institute is also authorized to make awards to:
a. Nonprofit organizations with expertise in judicial administration;
b. Institutions of higher education;
c. Individuals, partnerships, firms, corporations (for-profit organizations must waive their fees); and
d. Private agencies with expertise in judicial administration.
2. The Institute may also make awards to State or local agencies and institutions other than courts for services that cannot be adequately provided through nongovernmental arrangements (42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(3)).
E.
The Institute supports the following general types of projects:
1. Education and training;
2. Research and evaluation;
3. Demonstration; and
4. Technical assistance.
In FY 2005, the Institute will support the following types of grants:
See sections II.A., III.D. and VI.A. In FY 2005, the Institute anticipates allocating all of the funds available to support Project Grants to Continuation Grants.
See sections II.B., III.T., and VI.B. In FY 2005, the Institute is reserving up to $300,000 for these grants.
See sections II.C., III.K., and VI.C. In FY 2005, the Institute is reserving up to $100,000 for Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants.
See sections II.D., III.P., and VI.D. In FY 2005, the Institute is reserving up to $200,000 for scholarships for judges and court managers.
1. Applicants for continuation grants may request funding in amounts up to $150,000 for 15 months.
2. Applicants for Technical Assistance Grants may request funding in amounts up to $30,000.
3. Applicants for Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants may request funding in amounts up to $20,000.
4. Applicants for scholarships may request funding in amounts up to $1,500.
1. Grant periods for continuation projects ordinarily may not exceed 15 months. Absent extraordinary circumstances, no grant will continue for more than five years.
2. Grant periods for Technical Assistance Grants and Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants ordinarily may not exceed 12 months.
Continuation grants are intended to support projects that carry out the same type of activities performed under a previous grant. They are intended to maintain or enhance the specific program or service produced or established during the prior grant period.
The award of an initial grant to support a project does not constitute a commitment by the Institute to continue funding. For a project to be considered for continuation funding, the grantee must have completed all project tasks and met all grant requirements and conditions in a timely manner, absent extenuating circumstances or prior Institute approval of changes to the project design. Continuation grants are not intended to provide support for a project for which the grantee has underestimated the amount of time or funds needed to accomplish the project tasks. Absent extraordinary circumstances, no grant will continue for more than five years.
A grantee seeking a continuation grant must inform the Institute, by letter, of its intent to submit an application for such funding as soon as the need for continued funding becomes apparent but no less than 120 days before the end of the current grant period.
a. A letter of intent must be no more than 3 single-spaced pages on 8
b. Within 30 days after receiving a letter of intent, Institute staff will review the proposed activities for the next project period and inform the grantee of specific issues to be addressed in the continuation application and the date by which the application must be submitted.
An application for a continuation grant must include an application form, budget forms (with appropriate documentation), a project abstract, a program narrative, a budget narrative, a Certificate of State Approval—FORM B (if the applicant is a State or local court), a Disclosure of Lobbying Activities form (from applicants other than units of State or local government), and any necessary appendices. See Appendix D for the application forms. A continuation application should not repeat information contained in a previously approved application or other previously submitted materials, but should provide specific references to such materials where appropriate.
For a summary of the application process, visit the Institute's Web site (
The application form requests basic information regarding the proposed project, the applicant, and the total amount of funding requested from the Institute. It also requires the signature of an individual authorized to certify on behalf of the applicant that the information contained in the application is true and complete; that submission of the application has been authorized by the applicant; and that if funding for the proposed project is approved, the applicant will comply with the requirements and conditions of the award, including the assurances set forth in FORM D.
An application from a State or local court must include a copy of FORM B signed by the State's Chief Justice or Chief Judge, the director of the designated agency, or the head of the designated council. The signature denotes that the proposed project has been approved by the State's highest court or the agency or council it has designated. It denotes further that if the Institute approves funding for the project, the court or the specified designee will receive, administer, and be accountable for the awarded funds.
Applicants may submit the proposed project budget either in the tabular format of FORM C or in the spreadsheet format of FORM C1. Applicants requesting $100,000 or more are strongly encouraged to use the spreadsheet format. If the proposed project period is for more than a year, a separate form should be submitted for each year or portion of a year for which grant support is requested, as well as for the total length of the project.
In addition to FORM C or C1, applicants must provide a detailed budget narrative providing an explanation of the basis for the estimates in each budget category. (See section VI.A.4.d. below.)
If funds from other sources are required to conduct the project, either as match or to support other aspects of the project, the source, current status of the request, and anticipated decision date must be provided.
This form lists the statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements with which recipients of Institute funds must comply.
Applicants other than units of State or local government are required to disclose whether they, or another entity that is part of the same organization as the applicant, have advocated a position before Congress on any issue, and to identify the specific subjects of their lobbying efforts. (
The abstract should highlight the purposes, goals, methods, and anticipated benefits of the proposed project. It should not exceed 1 single-spaced page on 8
The program narrative for a continuation grant application may not exceed 25 double-spaced pages on 8
The program narrative should describe the following:
(1) Project Objectives. The applicant should clearly and concisely state what the continuation project is intended to accomplish.
(2) Need for Continuation. The applicant should explain why continuation of the project is necessary to achieve the goals of the project, and how the continuation would benefit the participating courts or the courts community generally, by explaining, for example, how the original goals and objectives of the project would be unfulfilled if it were not continued; or how the value of the project would be enhanced by its continuation.
(3) Report of Current Project Activities. The applicant should discuss the status of all activities conducted during the previous project period. Applicants should identify any activities that were not completed, and explain why.
(4) Evaluation Findings. The applicant should present the key findings, impact, or recommendations resulting from the evaluation of the project, if available, and how they would be addressed during the proposed continuation. If the findings are not yet available, the applicant should provide the date by which they would be submitted to the Institute. Ordinarily, the Board will not consider an application for continuation funding until the Institute has received the evaluator's report.
(5) Tasks, Methods, Staff, and Grantee Capability. The applicant should fully describe any changes in the tasks to be performed, the methods to be used, the products of the project, and how and to whom those products would be disseminated, as well as any changes in the assigned staff or the grantee's organizational capacity. Applicants should include, in addition, the criteria and methods by which the proposed continuation project would be evaluated.
(6) Task Schedule. The applicant should present a detailed task schedule and timeline for the next project period.
(7) Other Sources of Support. The applicant should indicate why other sources of support would be inadequate, inappropriate, or unavailable.
The budget narrative should provide the basis for the computation of all project-related costs. When the proposed project would be partially supported by grants from other funding sources, applicants should make clear what costs would be covered by those other grants. Additional background information or schedules may be attached if they are essential to obtaining a clear understanding of the proposed budget. Numerous and lengthy appendices are strongly discouraged.
The budget narrative should cover the costs of all components of the project and clearly identify costs attributable to the project evaluation. Changes in the funding level from prior years should be discussed in terms of corresponding increases or decreases in the scope of activities or services to be rendered. In addition, the applicant should estimate the amount of grant funds that would remain unobligated at the end of the current grant period.
The applicant should set forth the percentages of time to be devoted by the individuals who would staff the proposed project, the annual salary of each of those persons, and the number of work days per year used for calculating the percentages of time or daily rates of those individuals. The applicant should explain any deviations from current rates or established written organizational policies. If grant funds are requested to pay the salary and related costs for a current employee of a court or other unit of government, the applicant should explain why this would not constitute a supplantation of State or local funds in violation of 42 U.S.C. 10706(d)(1). An acceptable explanation may be that the position to be filled is a new one established in conjunction with the project or that the grant funds would support only the portion of the employee's time that would be dedicated to new or additional duties related to the project.
The applicant should provide a description of the fringe benefits provided to employees. If percentages are used, the authority for such use should be presented, as well as a description of the elements included in the determination of the percentage rate.
The applicant should describe the tasks each consultant would perform, the estimated total amount to be paid to each consultant, the basis for compensation rates (
Transportation costs and per diem rates must comply with the policies of the applicant organization. If the applicant does not have an established travel policy, then travel rates must be consistent with those established by the Institute or the Federal Government. (A copy of the Institute's travel policy is available upon request.) The budget narrative should include an explanation of the rate used, including the components of the per diem rate and the
Grant funds may be used to purchase only the equipment necessary to demonstrate a new technological application in a court or that is otherwise essential to accomplishing the objectives of the project. Equipment purchases to support basic court operations ordinarily will not be approved. The applicant should describe the equipment to be purchased or leased and explain why the acquisition of that equipment is essential to accomplish the project's goals and objectives. The narrative should clearly identify which equipment is to be leased and which is to be purchased. The method of procurement should also be described. Purchases of automated data processing equipment must comply with section IX.I.2.b.
The applicant should provide a general description of the supplies necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives of the grant. In addition, the applicant should provide the basis for the amount requested for this expenditure category.
Construction expenses are prohibited except for the limited purposes set forth in section VIII.A.16.b. Any allowable construction or renovation expense should be described in detail in the budget narrative.
Applicants should include anticipated telephone charges, distinguishing between monthly charges and long distance charges in the budget narrative. Also, applicants should provide the basis used to calculate the monthly and long distance estimates.
Anticipated postage costs for project-related mailings, including distribution of the final product(s), should be described in the budget narrative. The cost of special mailings, such as for a survey or for announcing a workshop, should be distinguished from routine operational mailing costs. The bases for all postage estimates should be included in the budget narrative.
Anticipated costs for printing or photocopying project documents, reports, and publications should be included in the budget narrative, along with the bases used to calculate these estimates.
Recoverable indirect costs are limited to no more than 75% of a grantee's direct personnel costs (salaries plus fringe benefits). Grantees may apply unrecoverable indirect costs to meet their required matching contributions, including the required level of cash match. See sections III.L. and IX.I.4.
Applicants should describe the indirect cost rates applicable to the grant in detail. If costs often included within an indirect cost rate are charged directly (
State and local units of government must provide match equaling at least 50% of the amount provided by the Institute in the first year of the project, 60% in the second year, 75% in the third year, 90% in the fourth year, and 100% in the fifth year.
For example, if the Institute awards a State court $100,000 for the first year of a grant, the court would be required to provide $50,000 in match. If the second-year grant is also $100,000, the court would be required to provide $60,000 in match. A State or local unit of government would have to provide at least 20% of the required match in the form of cash rather than in-kind support (
All other grantees must provide match equaling at least 25% of the amount provided by the Institute in the first year of the project, 30% in the second year, 37.5% in the third year, 45% in the fourth year, and 50% in the fifth year. For example, if the Institute awards a non-profit organization $100,000 for the first year of a grant, the organization would be required to provide $25,000 in match. If the second year grant is also $100,000, the court would be required to provide $30,000 in match. A non-profit organization must provide at least 10% of the required match in the form of cash.
Applicants that do not contemplate making matching contributions continuously throughout the course of the project or on a task-by-task basis must provide a schedule within 30 days after the beginning of the project period indicating at what points during the project period the matching contributions would be made. (
The Institute may waive the match and cash match requirements in certain circumstances.
If the cooperation of courts, organizations, agencies, or individuals other than the applicant is required to conduct the project, the applicant should attach written assurances of cooperation and availability to the application, or send them under separate cover.
Every applicant must submit an original and three copies of the application package consisting of FORM A; FORM B, if the application is from a State or local court, or a Disclosure of Lobbying Form, if the applicant is not a unit of State or local government; the Budget Forms (either FORM C or C-1); the Application Abstract; the Program Narrative; the Budget Narrative; and any necessary appendices.
The Institute will notify applicants of the submission deadline when it responds to their letters of intent. A postmark or courier receipt will constitute evidence of the submission date. Please mark Continuation Application on the application package envelope and send it to: State Justice Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite 600, Alexandria, VA 22314.
Receipt of each application will be acknowledged in writing. Extensions of the deadline for submission of applications will not be granted without good cause.
Technical Assistance Grants are awarded to State and local courts and court associations to obtain the assistance of outside experts in diagnosing, developing, and implementing a response to a particular problem in a jurisdiction.
For a summary of the application procedures for Technical Assistance Grants, visit the Institute's Web site (
In lieu of formal applications, applicants for Technical Assistance Grants may submit, at any time, an
Although there is no prescribed form for the letter, or a minimum or maximum page limit, letters of application should include the following information:
a.
b.
If the consultant has been identified, the applicant should provide a letter from that individual or organization documenting interest in and availability for the project, as well as the consultant's ability to complete the assignment within the proposed time frame and for the proposed cost. The consultant must agree to submit a detailed written report to the court and the Institute upon completion of the technical assistance.
c.
d.
A completed Form E, Line-Item Budget Form (
The budget narrative should provide the basis for all project-related costs, including the basis for determining the estimated consultant costs, if compensation of the consultant is required (
As with other awards to State or local courts, match must be provided in an amount equal to at least 50% of the grant amount requested, and 20% of the match provided must be cash. The Institute may waive the match and cash match requirements in certain circumstances.
Recipients of Technical Assistance Grants do not have to submit an audit report but must maintain appropriate documentation to support expenditures. (
Letters of application may be submitted at any time; however, all of the letters received during a calendar quarter will be considered at one time. Applicants submitting letters by January 7, 2005, will be notified of the Institute's decision by April 8, 2005; those submitting letters between January 8 and February 25, 2005, will be notified by June 10, 2005; those submitting letters between February 26 and June 3, 2005, will be notified by August 19, 2005; and those submitting letters between June 4 and September 23, 2005, will be notified by December 2, 2005.
If the support or cooperation of agencies, funding bodies, organizations, or courts other than the applicant would be needed in order for the consultant to perform the required tasks, written assurances of such support or cooperation should accompany the application letter. Support letters also may be submitted under separate cover; however, to ensure that there is sufficient time to bring them to the attention of the Board's Technical Assistance Grant Committee, letters sent under separate cover must be received not less than three weeks prior to the Board meeting at which the technical assistance requests will be considered (
Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance (JBE TA) Grants are awarded to State and local courts and court associations to support: (1) The provision of expert strategic assistance designed to enable them to present judicial branch education programs; and/or (2) replication or modification of a model training program originally developed with Institute funds. Ordinarily, the Institute will support the adaptation of a specific curriculum once (
JBE TA Grants may support consultant assistance in maintaining or developing systematic or innovative judicial branch educational programming. The assistance might include expert consultation in developing strategic plans to ensure the continued provision of judicial branch education programming despite fiscal constraints; development of improved methods for assessing the need for, and evaluating the quality and impact of, court education programs and their
For a summary of the application procedures for Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants, visit the Institute's Web site (
In lieu of formal applications, applicants should submit an original and three photocopies of a detailed letter.
Although there is no prescribed format for the letter, or a minimum or maximum page limit, letters of application should include the following information:
a. For on-site consultant assistance:
(1)
(2)
If the consultant has been identified, the applicant should provide a letter from that individual or organization documenting interest in and availability for the project, as well as the consultant's ability to complete the assignment within the proposed time frame and for the proposed cost. The consultant must agree to submit a detailed written report to the court and the Institute upon completion of the technical assistance.
(3)
(4)
b. For adaptation of a curriculum:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Applicants should attach a copy of budget Form E (see Appendix E) and a budget narrative (see A.4.d. in this section) that describes the basis for the computation of all project-related costs and the source of the match offered. As with other awards to State or local courts, match must be provided in an amount equal to at least 50% of the grant amount requested. Recipients of JBE TA grants are not required to provide a cash match. The Institute may waive the match requirements in certain circumstances. See section VIII.A.8.b.
Letters of application may be submitted at any time; however, all of the letters received during a calendar quarter will be considered at one time. Applicants submitting letters by January 7, 2005, will be notified of the Institute's decision by April 8, 2005; those submitting letters between January 8 and February 25, 2005, will be notified by June 10, 2005; those submitting letters between February 26 and June 3, 2005, will be notified by August 19, 2005; and those submitting letters between June 4 and September 23, 2005, will be notified by December 2, 2005.
For curriculum adaptation requests, applicants should allow at least 60 days between the notification deadline and
The purposes of the Institute's scholarship program are to enhance the skills, knowledge, and abilities of judges and court managers; enable State court judges and court managers to attend out-of-State educational programs sponsored by national and State providers that they could not otherwise attend because of limited State, local, and personal budgets; and provide States, judicial educators, and the Institute with evaluative information on a range of judicial and court-related education programs.
Scholarships will be granted to individuals only for the purpose of attending an educational program in another State. An applicant may apply for a scholarship for only one educational program during any one application cycle.
Scholarship funds may be used only to cover the costs of tuition, transportation, and reasonable lodging expenses (not to exceed $150 per night, including taxes). Transportation expenses may include round-trip coach airfare or train fare. Scholarship recipients are strongly encouraged to take advantage of excursion or other special airfares (
A scholarship is not transferable to another individual. It may be used only for the course specified in the application unless the applicant's request to attend a different course that meets the eligibility requirements is approved in writing by the Institute. Decisions on such requests will be made within 30 days after the receipt of the request letter.
For a summary of the scholarship award process, visit the Institute's Web site at
a.
b.
Applicants are encouraged not to wait for the decision on a scholarship to register for an educational program they wish to attend.
c.
The Scholarship Application requests basic information about the applicant and the educational program the applicant would like to attend. It also addresses the applicant's commitment to share the skills and knowledge gained with local court colleagues and to submit an evaluation of the program the applicant attends. The Scholarship Application must bear the original signature of the applicant. Faxed or photocopied signatures will not be accepted.
Judges and court managers applying for scholarships must submit the written concurrence of the Chief Justice of the State's Supreme Court (or the Chief Justice's designee) on the Institute's Judicial Education Scholarship Concurrence form (see Appendix F). The signature of the presiding judge of the applicant's court cannot be substituted for that of the Chief Justice or the Chief Justice's designee. Court managers, other than elected clerks of court, also must submit a letter of support from their immediate supervisors.
Scholarship applications must be submitted during the periods specified below:
October 4 and November 29, 2004, for programs beginning between January 1 and March 31, 2005;
January 3 and February 28, 2005, for programs beginning between April 1 and June 30, 2005;
April 1 and May 27, 2005, for programs beginning between July 1 and September 30, 2005;
July 5 and August 29, 2005, for programs beginning between October 1 and December 31, 2005; and
October 3 and November 28, 2005, for programs beginning between January 1 and March 31, 2006.
No exceptions or extensions will be granted. Applications sent prior to the beginning of an application period will be treated as having been sent one week after the beginning of that application period. All the required items must be received for an application to be considered. If the Concurrence form or letter of support is sent separately from the application, the postmark date of the last item to be sent will be used in applying the above criteria.
All applications should be sent by mail or courier (not fax or e-mail) to: Scholarship Program Coordinator, State Justice Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite 600, Alexandria, VA 22314.
The Institute staff will answer inquiries concerning application procedures. The staff contact will be named in the Institute's letter acknowledging receipt of the application.
a. Continuation Grant applications will be rated on the basis of the criteria
(1) The soundness of the methodology;
(2) The demonstration of need for the project;
(3) The appropriateness of the proposed evaluation design;
(4) The key findings and recommendations of the most recent evaluation and the proposed responses to those findings and recommendations;
(5) The applicant's management plan and organizational capabilities;
(6) The qualifications of the project's staff;
(7) The products and benefits resulting from the project, including the extent to which the project will have long-term benefits for State courts across the nation;
(8) The degree to which the findings, procedures, training, technology, or other results of the project can be transferred to other jurisdictions;
(9) The reasonableness of the proposed budget; and
(10) The demonstration of cooperation and support of other agencies that may be affected by the project.
b. In determining which projects to support, the Institute will also consider whether the applicant is a State court, a national court support or education organization, a non-court unit of government, or other type of entity eligible to receive grants under the Institute's enabling legislation (see section IV.); the availability of financial assistance from other sources for the project; the amount and nature (cash and in-kind) of the applicant's match; the extent to which the proposed project would also benefit the Federal courts or help State courts enforce Federal constitutional and legislative requirements; and the level of appropriations available to the Institute in the current year and the amount expected to be available in succeeding fiscal years.
Technical Assistance Grant applications will be rated on the basis of the following criteria:
a. Whether the assistance would address a critical need of the applicant;
b. The soundness of the technical assistance approach to the problem;
c. The qualifications of the consultant(s) to be hired, or the specific criteria that will be used to select the consultant(s);
d. The commitment of the court or association to act on the consultant's recommendations; and
e. The reasonableness of the proposed budget.
The Institute also will consider factors such as the level and nature of the match that would be provided, diversity of subject matter, geographic diversity, the level of appropriations available to the Institute in the current year, and the amount expected to be available in succeeding fiscal years.
Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grant applications will be rated on the basis of the following criteria:
a. For on-site consultant assistance:
(1) Whether the assistance would address a critical need of the court or association;
(2) The soundness of the technical assistance approach to the problem;
(3) The qualifications of the consultant(s) to be hired, or the specific criteria that will be used to select the consultant(s);
(4) The commitment of the court or association to act on the consultant's recommendations; and
(5) The reasonableness of the proposed budget.
b. For curriculum adaptation projects:
(1) The goals and objectives of the proposed project;
(2) The need for outside funding to support the program;
(3) The appropriateness of the approach in achieving the project's educational objectives;
(4) The likelihood of effective implementation and integration of the modified curriculum into ongoing educational programming; and
(5) Expressions of interest by the judges and/or court personnel who would be directly involved in or affected by the project.
The Institute will also consider factors such as the reasonableness of the amount requested, compliance with match requirements, diversity of subject matter, geographic diversity, the level of appropriations available in the current year, and the amount expected to be available in succeeding fiscal years.
Scholarships will be awarded on the basis of:
a. The date on which the application and concurrence (and support letter, if required) were sent;
b. The unavailability of State or local funds to cover the costs of attending the program or scholarship funds from another source;
c. The absence of educational programs in the applicant's State addressing the topic(s) covered by the educational program for which the scholarship is being sought;
d. Geographic balance among the recipients;
e. The balance of scholarships among educational programs;
f. The balance of scholarships among the types of courts represented; and
g. The level of appropriations available to the Institute in the current year and the amount expected to be available in succeeding fiscal years.
The postmark or courier receipt will be used to determine the date on which the application form and other required items were sent.
The Institute's Board of Directors will review the applications competitively. The Institute staff will prepare a narrative summary and a rating sheet assigning points for each relevant selection criterion. The staff will present the narrative summaries and rating sheets to the Board for its review. The Board will review all application summaries and decide which projects it will fund. The decision to fund a project is solely that of the Board of Directors.
The Chairman of the Board will sign approved awards on behalf of the Institute.
The Institute staff will prepare a narrative summary of each application and a rating sheet assigning points for each relevant selection criterion. The Board of Directors has delegated its authority to approve Technical Assistance and Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants to the committee established for each program. The committee will review the applications competitively.
The Chairman of the Board will sign approved awards on behalf of the Institute.
A committee of the Institute's Board of Directors will review scholarship applications quarterly. The Board of Directors has delegated its authority to approve scholarships to the committee established for the program. The committee will review the applications competitively.
The Chairman of the Board will sign approved awards on behalf of the Institute.
Unless a specific request is made, unsuccessful applications will not be returned. Applicants are advised that Institute records are subject to the provisions of the Federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
1. The Institute will send written notice to applicants concerning all Board decisions to approve, defer, or deny their respective applications. For all applications (except scholarships), the Institute also will convey the key issues and questions that arose during the review process. A decision by the Board to deny an application may not be appealed, but it does not prohibit resubmission of a proposal based on that application in a subsequent funding cycle. The Institute will also notify the State court administrator when grants are approved by the Board to support projects that will be conducted by or involve courts in that State.
2. The Institute intends to notify each scholarship applicant of the Board committee's decision within 30 days after the close of the relevant application period.
With the exception of those approved for scholarships, applicants have 30 days from the date of the letter notifying them that the Board has approved their application to respond to any revisions requested by the Board. If the requested revisions (or a reasonable schedule for submitting such revisions) have not been submitted to the Institute within 30 days after notification, the approval may be rescinded and the application presented to the Board for reconsideration.
The State Justice Institute Act contains limitations and conditions on grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements awarded by the Institute. The Board of Directors has approved additional policies governing the use of Institute grant funds. These statutory and policy requirements are set forth below.
No funds made available by the Institute may be used to support or conduct training programs for the purpose of advocating particular nonjudicial public policies or encouraging nonjudicial political activities. 42 U.S.C. 10706(b).
If the qualifications of an employee or consultant assigned to a key project staff position are not described in the application or if there is a change of a person assigned to such a position, the recipient must submit a description of the qualifications of the newly assigned person to the Institute. Prior written approval of the qualifications of the new person assigned to a key staff position must be received from the Institute before the salary or consulting fee of that person and associated costs may be paid or reimbursed from grant funds.
Recipients of project and continuation grants must provide for an annual fiscal audit which includes an opinion on whether the financial statements of the grantee present fairly its financial position and its financial operations are in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. (See section IX.K. of the Guideline for the requirements of such audits.) Scholarship recipients, Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants, and Technical Assistance Grants are not required to submit an audit, but they must maintain appropriate documentation to support all expenditures.
Budget revisions among direct cost categories that (a) transfer grant funds to an unbudgeted cost category or (b) individually or cumulatively exceed five percent of the approved original budget or the most recently approved revised budget require prior Institute approval.
Personnel and other officials connected with Institute-funded programs must adhere to the following requirements:
a. No official or employee of a recipient court or organization shall participate personally through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise in any proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, grant, cooperative agreement, claim, controversy, or other particular matter in which Institute funds are used, where, to his or her knowledge, he or she or his or her immediate family, partners, organization other than a public agency in which he or she is serving as officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee or any person or organization with whom he or she is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a financial interest.
b. In the use of Institute project funds, an official or employee of a recipient court or organization shall avoid any action which might result in or create the appearance of:
(1) Using an official position for private gain; or
(2) affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the integrity of the Institute program.
c. Requests for proposals or invitations for bids issued by a recipient of Institute funds or a subgrantee or subcontractor will provide notice to prospective bidders that the contractors who develop or draft specifications, requirements, statements of work, and/or requests for proposals for a proposed procurement will be excluded from bidding on or submitting a proposal to compete for the award of such procurement.
If any patentable items, patent rights, processes, or inventions are produced in the course of Institute-sponsored work, such fact shall be promptly and fully reported to the Institute. Unless there is a prior agreement between the grantee and the Institute on disposition of such items, the Institute shall determine whether protection of the invention or discovery shall be sought. The Institute will also determine how the rights in the invention or discovery, including rights under any patent issued thereon, shall be allocated and administered in order to protect the public interest consistent with “Government Patent Policy” (President's Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, February 18, 1983, and statement of Government Patent Policy).
a. Funds awarded to recipients by the Institute shall not be used, indirectly or directly, to influence Executive Orders or similar promulgations by Federal, State or local agencies, or to influence the passage or defeat of any legislation by Federal, State or local legislative bodies. 42 U.S.C. 10706(a).
b. It is the policy of the Board of Directors to award funds only to support applications submitted by organizations that would carry out the objectives of their applications in an unbiased manner. Consistent with this policy and the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 10706, the Institute will not knowingly award a grant to an applicant that has, directly or through an entity that is part of the same organization as the applicant, advocated a position before Congress on
All grantees other than scholarship recipients and individuals who receive “think piece” grants are required to provide match. See section III.L. for the definition of match. The amount and nature of required match depends on the type of organization receiving the grant and the duration of the Institute's support.
The grantee is responsible for ensuring that the total amount of match proposed is actually contributed. If a proposed contribution is not fully met, the Institute may reduce the award amount accordingly, in order to maintain the ratio originally provided for in the award agreement (see section IX.E.1.).
The Board of Directors considers the amount and nature of unrequired match contributed by applicants in making grant decisions. Cash match and non-cash match may be provided, subject to the requirements of subsection a. below.
All grantees are required to assume a greater share of project support over time.
(1)
(2)
(1)
(a) The match requirement for State and local units of government may be waived in exceptionally rare circumstances upon the request of the Chief Justice of the highest court in the State and approval by the Board of Directors. 42 U.S.C. 10705(d).
(b) The match requirement for all other grantees required to provide match may be waived in exceptionally rare circumstances upon the request of an appropriate official and approval by the Board of Directors.
(2)
(3) The Board of Directors encourages all applicants to provide the maximum amount of in-kind and cash match possible, even if a waiver is approved. The amount and nature of match are criteria in the grant selection process. See section VII.B.1.b.
No person may, on the basis of race, sex, national origin, disability, color, or creed be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity supported by Institute funds. Recipients of Institute funds must immediately take any measures necessary to effectuate this provision.
No recipient may contribute or make available Institute funds, program personnel, or equipment to any political party or association, or the campaign of any candidate for public or party office. Recipients are also prohibited from using funds in advocating or opposing any ballot measure, initiative, or referendum. Officers and employees of recipients shall not intentionally identify the Institute or recipients with any partisan or nonpartisan political activity associated with a political party or association, or the campaign of any candidate for public or party office. 42 U.S.C. 10706(a).
(1) Recipients of Institute funds must acknowledge prominently on all products developed with grant funds that support was received from the Institute. The “SJI” logo must appear on the front cover of a written product, or in the opening frames of a video product, unless another placement is approved in writing by the Institute. This includes final products printed or otherwise reproduced during the grant period, as well as reprintings or reproductions of those materials following the end of the grant period. A camera-ready logo sheet is available from the Institute upon request.
(2) Recipients also must display the following disclaimer on all grant products: “This [document, film, videotape, etc.] was developed under [grant/cooperative agreement] number SJI-[insert number] from the State Justice Institute. The points of view expressed are those of the [author(s), filmmaker(s), etc.] and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute.”
(1) When Institute funds fully cover the cost of developing, producing, and disseminating a product (
(2) Applicants should disclose their intent to sell grant-related products in the application. Grantees must obtain the written prior approval of the Institute of their plans to recover project costs through the sale of grant products. Written requests to recover costs ordinarily should be received during the grant period and should specify the nature and extent of the costs to be recouped, the reason that such costs were not budgeted (if the rationale was not disclosed in the approved application), the number of copies to be sold, the intended audience for the products to be sold, and the proposed sale price. If the product is to be sold for more than $25, the written request also should include a detailed itemization of costs that will be recovered and a certification that the costs were not supported by either Institute grant funds or grantee matching contributions.
(3) In the event that the sale of grant products results in revenues that exceed the costs to develop, produce, and disseminate the product, the revenue must continue to be used for the authorized purposes of the Institute-funded project or other purposes consistent with the State Justice Institute Act that have been approved by the Institute. See sections III.O. and IX.G. for requirements regarding project-related income realized during the project period.
Except as otherwise provided in the terms and conditions of an Institute award, a recipient is free to copyright any books, publications, or other copyrightable materials developed in the course of an Institute-supported project, but the Institute shall reserve a royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, the materials for purposes consistent with the State Justice Institute Act.
In addition to the distribution specified in the grant application, grantees shall send:
(1) Fifteen (15) copies of each final product developed with grant funds to the Institute, unless the product was developed under either a Technical Assistance or a Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance grant, in which case submission of 2 copies is required;
(2) An electronic version of the product in .html or .pdf format to the Institute; and
(3) One copy of each final product developed with grant funds to the library established in each State to collect materials prepared with Institute support. (A list of the libraries is contained in Appendix A. Labels for these libraries are available on the Institute's Web site,
(4) A press release describing the project and announcing the results to a list of national and State judicial branch organizations provided by the Institute.
No grant funds may be obligated for publication or reproduction of a final product developed with grant funds without the written approval of the Institute. Grantees shall submit a final draft of each written product to the Institute for review and approval. The draft must be submitted at least 30 days before the product is scheduled to be sent for publication or reproduction to permit Institute review and incorporation of any appropriate changes required by the Institute. Grantees must provide for timely reviews by the Institute of videotape or CD-ROM products at the treatment, script, rough cut, and final stages of development or their equivalents.
All products prepared as the result of Institute-supported projects must be originally-developed material unless otherwise specified in the award documents. Material not originally developed that is included in such products must be properly identified, whether the material is in a verbatim or extensive paraphrase format.
No funds made available by the Institute may be used directly or indirectly to support legal assistance to parties in litigation, including cases involving capital punishment.
a. Recipients of Institute funds other than scholarships must submit Quarterly Progress and Financial Status Reports within 30 days of the close of each calendar quarter (that is, no later than January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30). Two copies of each report must be sent. The Quarterly Progress Reports shall include a narrative description of project activities during the calendar quarter, the relationship between those activities and the task schedule and objectives set forth in the approved application or an approved adjustment thereto, any significant problem areas that have developed and how they will be resolved, and the activities scheduled during the next reporting period.
b. The quarterly Financial Status Report must be submitted in accordance with section IX.H.2. of this Guideline. A final project Progress Report and Financial Status Report shall be submitted within 90 days after the end of the grant period in accordance with section IX.L.1. of this Guideline.
Upon request, grantees must make available for secondary analysis a diskette(s) or data tape(s) containing research and evaluation data collected under an Institute grant and the accompanying code manual. Grantees may recover the actual cost of duplicating and mailing or otherwise transmitting the data set and manual from the person or organization requesting the data. Grantees may provide the requested data set in the format in which it was created and analyzed.
Except as provided by Federal law other than the State Justice Institute Act, no recipient of financial assistance from SJI may use or reveal any research or statistical information furnished under the Act by any person and identifiable to any specific private person for any purpose other than the purpose for which the information was obtained. Such information and copies thereof shall be immune from legal process, and shall not, without the consent of the person furnishing such information, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any action, suit, or other judicial, legislative, or administrative proceedings.
All research involving human subjects shall be conducted with the informed consent of those subjects and in a manner that will ensure their privacy and freedom from risk or harm and the protection of persons who are not subjects of the research but would be affected by it, unless such procedures and safeguards would make the research impractical. In such instances, the Institute must approve procedures designed by the grantee to provide human subjects with relevant information about the research after their involvement and to minimize or eliminate risk or harm to those subjects due to their participation.
Each application for funding from a State or local court must be approved, consistent with State law, by the State's Supreme Court, or its designated agency or council. The Supreme Court or its designee shall receive, administer, and be accountable for all funds awarded on the basis of such an application. 42 U.S.C. 10705(b)(4).
To ensure that funds are used to supplement and improve the operation of State courts, rather than to support basic court services, funds shall not be used for the following purposes:
a. To supplant State or local funds supporting a program or activity (such as paying the salary of court employees who would be performing their normal duties as part of the project, or paying rent for space which is part of the court's normal operations);
b. To construct court facilities or structures, except to remodel existing facilities or to demonstrate new architectural or technological techniques, or to provide temporary facilities for new personnel or for personnel involved in a demonstration or experimental program; or
c. Solely to purchase equipment.
After providing a recipient reasonable notice and opportunity to submit written documentation demonstrating why fund termination or suspension should not occur, the Institute may terminate or suspend funding of a project that fails to comply substantially with the Act, the Guideline, or the terms and conditions of the award. 42 U.S.C. 10708(a).
At the conclusion of the project, title to all expendable and nonexpendable personal property purchased with Institute funds shall vest in the recipient court, organization, or individual that purchased the property if certification is made to and approved by the Institute that the property will continue to be used for the authorized purposes of the Institute-funded project or other purposes consistent with the State Justice Institute Act. If such certification is not made or the Institute disapproves such certification, title to all such property with an aggregate or individual value of $1,000 or more shall vest in the Institute, which will direct the disposition of the property.
Recipients of Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance and Technical Assistance Grants must comply with the requirements listed in section VIII.A. (except the requirements pertaining to audits in section VIII.A.3. and product dissemination and approval in section VIII.A.11.d. and e.) and the reporting requirements below:
Recipients of Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grants must submit one copy of the manuals, handbooks, conference packets, or consultant's report developed under the grant at the conclusion of the grant period, along with a final report that includes any evaluation results and explains how the grantee intends to present the educational program in the future and/or implement the consultant's recommendations, as well as two copies of the consultant's report.
Recipients of Technical Assistance Grants must submit to the Institute one copy of a final report that explains how it intends to act on the consultant's recommendations, as well as two copies of the consultant's written report.
1. Scholarship recipients are responsible for disseminating the information received from the course to their court colleagues locally and, if possible, throughout the State (
Recipients also must submit to the Institute a certificate of attendance at the program, an evaluation of the educational program they attended, and a copy of the notice of any scholarship funds received from other sources. A copy of the evaluation must be sent to the Chief Justice of the scholarship recipient's State. A State or local jurisdiction may impose additional requirements on scholarship recipients.
2. To receive the funds authorized by a scholarship award, recipients must submit a Scholarship Payment Voucher (Form S3) together with a tuition statement from the program sponsor, a transportation fare receipt (or statement of the driving mileage to and from the recipient's home to the site of the educational program), and a lodging receipt.
Scholarship Payment Vouchers should be submitted within 90 days after the end of the course which the recipient attended.
3. Scholarship recipients are encouraged to check with their tax advisors to determine whether the scholarship constitutes taxable income under Federal and State law.
The purpose of this section is to establish accounting system requirements and offer guidance on procedures to assist all grantees, subgrantees, contractors, and other organizations in:
1. Complying with the statutory requirements for the award, disbursement, and accounting of funds;
2. Complying with regulatory requirements of the Institute for the financial management and disposition of funds;
3. Generating financial data to be used in planning, managing, and controlling projects; and
4. Facilitating an effective audit of funded programs and projects.
Except where inconsistent with specific provisions of this Guideline, the following circulars are applicable to Institute grants and cooperative agreements under the same terms and conditions that apply to Federal grantees. The circulars supplement the requirements of this section for accounting systems and financial record-keeping and provide additional guidance on how these requirements may be satisfied. (Circulars may be obtained on the OMB Web site at
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
All grantees receiving awards from the Institute are responsible for the management and fiscal control of all funds. Responsibilities include accounting for receipts and expenditures, maintaining adequate financial records, and refunding expenditures disallowed by audits.
a. Each application for funding from a State or local court must be approved, consistent with State law, by the State's Supreme Court, or its designated agency or council. (See section III.F.)
b. The State Supreme Court or its designee shall receive all Institute funds awarded to such courts; be responsible for assuring proper administration of Institute funds; and be responsible for all aspects of the project, including proper accounting and financial record-keeping by the subgrantee. These responsibilities include:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
The grantee is responsible for establishing and maintaining an adequate system of accounting and internal controls and for ensuring that an adequate system exists for each of its subgrantees and contractors. An acceptable and adequate accounting system:
1. Properly accounts for receipt of funds under each grant awarded and the expenditure of funds for each grant by category of expenditure (including matching contributions and project income);
2. Assures that expended funds are applied to the appropriate budget category included within the approved grant;
3. Presents and classifies historical costs of the grant as required for budgetary and evaluation purposes;
4. Provides cost and property controls to assure optimal use of grant funds;
5. Is integrated with a system of internal controls adequate to safeguard the funds and assets covered, check the accuracy and reliability of the accounting data, promote operational efficiency, and assure conformance with any general or special conditions of the grant;
6. Meets the prescribed requirements for periodic financial reporting of operations; and
7. Provides financial data for planning, control, measurement, and evaluation of direct and indirect costs.
Accounting for all funds awarded by the Institute must be structured and executed on a total project cost basis. That is, total project costs, including Institute funds, State and local matching shares, and any other fund sources included in the approved project budget serve as the foundation for fiscal administration and accounting. Grant applications and financial reports require budget and cost estimates on the basis of total costs.
Matching contributions need not be applied at the exact time of the obligation of Institute funds. Ordinarily, the full matching share must be obligated during the award period; however, with the written permission of the Institute, contributions made following approval of the grant by the Institute's Board of Directors but before the beginning of the grant may be counted as match. Grantees that do not contemplate making matching contributions continuously throughout the course of a project, or on a task-by-task basis, are required to submit a schedule within 30 days after the beginning of the project period indicating at what points during the project period the matching contributions will be made. If a proposed cash or in-kind match is not fully met, the Institute may reduce the award amount accordingly to maintain the ratio of grant funds to matching funds stated in the award agreement.
All grantees must maintain records that clearly show the source, amount, and timing of all matching contributions. In addition, if a project has included, within its approved budget, contributions which exceed the required matching portion, the grantee must maintain records of those contributions in the same manner as it does Institute funds and required matching shares. For all grants made to State and local courts, the State Supreme Court has primary responsibility for grantee/subgrantee compliance with the requirements of this section. (See section IX.C.2. above.)
All financial records, including supporting documents, statistical records, and all other information pertinent to grants, subgrants, cooperative agreements, or contracts under grants, must be retained by each organization participating in a project for at least three years for purposes of examination and audit. State Supreme Courts may impose record retention and maintenance requirements in addition to those prescribed in this section.
The retention requirement extends to books of original entry, source documents supporting accounting transactions, the general ledger, subsidiary ledgers, personnel and payroll records, canceled checks, and related documents and records. Source documents include copies of all grant and subgrant awards, applications, and required grantee/subgrantee financial and narrative reports. Personnel and payroll records shall include the time and attendance reports for all individuals reimbursed under a grant, subgrant or contract, whether they are
The three-year retention period starts from the date of the submission of the final expenditure report.
Grantees and subgrantees are expected to see that records of different fiscal years are separately identified and maintained so that requested information can be readily located. Grantees and subgrantees are also obligated to protect records adequately against fire or other damage.
When records are stored away from the grantee's/subgrantee's principal office, a written index of the location of stored records should be on hand, and ready access should be assured.
Grantees and subgrantees must give any authorized representative of the Institute access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, and documents related to an Institute grant.
Records of the receipt and disposition of project-related income must be maintained by the grantee in the same manner as required for the project funds that gave rise to the income and must be reported to the Institute. (See section IX.H.2. below.) The policies governing the disposition of the various types of project-related income are listed below.
A State and any agency or instrumentality of a State, including institutions of higher education and hospitals, shall not be held accountable for interest earned on advances of project funds. When funds are awarded to subgrantees through a State, the subgrantees are not held accountable for interest earned on advances of project funds. Local units of government and nonprofit organizations that are grantees must refund any interest earned. Grantees shall ensure minimum balances in their respective grant cash accounts.
The grantee/subgrantee may retain all royalties received from copyrights or other works developed under projects or from patents and inventions, unless the terms and conditions of the grant provide otherwise.
Registration and tuition fees may be considered as cash match with the prior written approval of the Institute. Estimates of registration and tuition fees, and any expenses to be offset by the fees, should be included in the application budget forms and narrative.
If the sale of products occurs during the project period, the income may be treated as cash match with the prior written approval of the Institute. The costs and income generated by the sales must be reported on the Quarterly Financial Status Reports and documented in an auditable manner. Whenever possible, the intent to sell a product should be disclosed in the application or reported to the Institute in writing once a decision to sell products has been made. The grantee must request approval to recover its product development, reproduction, and dissemination costs as specified in section VIII.A.11.b.
Other project income shall be treated in accordance with disposition instructions set forth in the grant's terms and conditions.
The procedures and regulations set forth below are applicable to all Institute grant funds and grantees.
a.
b.
c.
(1) Demonstrates an unwillingness or inability to attain program or project goals, or to establish procedures that will minimize the time elapsing between cash advances and disbursements, or cannot adhere to guideline requirements or special conditions;
(2) Engages in the improper award and administration of subgrants or contracts; or
(3) Is unable to submit reliable and/or timely reports; the Institute may terminate advance financing and require the grantee organization to finance its operations with its own working capital. Payments to the grantee shall then be made by check to reimburse the grantee for actual cash disbursements. In the event the grantee continues to be deficient, the Institute may suspend reimbursement payments until the deficiencies are corrected.
d.
a.
b. Two copies of the Financial Status Report are required from all grantees, other than scholarship recipients, for each active quarter on a calendar-quarter basis. This report is due within 30 days after the close of the calendar quarter. It is designed to provide financial information relating to Institute funds, State and local matching shares, project income, and any other sources of funds for the project, as well as information on obligations and outlays. A copy of the Financial Status Report, along with instructions for its preparation, is included in each official Institute Award package. If a grantee requests substantial payments for a project prior to the completion of a given quarter, the Institute may request a brief summary of the amount requested, by object class, to support the Request for Advance or Reimbursement.
c.
Failure of the grantee to submit required financial and progress reports may result in suspension or termination of grant payments.
Except as may be otherwise provided in the conditions of a particular grant, cost allowability is determined in accordance with the principles set forth in OMB Circulars A-21, Cost Principles Applicable to Grants and Contracts with Educational Institutions; A-87, Cost Principles for State and Local Governments; and A-122, Cost Principles for Non-profit Organizations. No costs may be recovered to liquidate obligations incurred after the approved grant period. Circulars may be obtained on the OMB Web site at
a.
b.
c.
d.
Transportation and per diem rates must comply with the policies of the grantee. If the grantee does not have an established written travel policy, then travel rates must be consistent with those established by the Institute or the Federal Government. Institute funds may not be used to cover the transportation or per diem costs of a member of a national organization to attend an annual or other regular meeting of that organization.
These are costs of an organization that are not readily assignable to a particular project but are necessary to the operation of the organization and the performance of the project. The cost of operating and maintaining facilities, depreciation, and administrative salaries are examples of the types of costs that are usually treated as indirect costs. Although the Institute's policy requires all costs to be budgeted directly, it will accept indirect costs if a grantee has an indirect cost rate approved by a Federal agency as set forth below. However, recoverable indirect costs are limited to no more than 75% of a grantee's direct personnel costs (salaries plus fringe benefits). Grantees may apply unrecoverable indirect costs to meet their required matching contributions, including the required level of cash match. See sections III.L. and VI.A.4.d.(11).
a.
(2) Where flat rates are accepted in lieu of actual indirect costs, grantees may not also charge expenses normally included in overhead pools,
b.
c.
For State and local governments, the Institute has adopted the standards set forth in Attachment O of OMB Circular A-102. Institutions of higher education, hospitals, and other non-profit organizations will be governed by the standards set forth in Attachment O of OMB Circular A-110.
The property management standards as prescribed in Attachment N of OMB Circulars A-102 and A-110 apply to all Institute grantees and subgrantees except as provided in section VIII.A.18. All grantees/subgrantees are required to be prudent in the acquisition and management of property with grant funds. If suitable property required for the successful execution of projects is already available within the grantee or subgrantee organization, expenditures of grant funds for the acquisition of new property will be considered unnecessary.
Each recipient of a Project or Continuation Grant must provide for an annual fiscal audit. This requirement also applies to a State or local court receiving a subgrant from the State Supreme Court. The audit may be of the entire grantee or subgrantee organization or of the specific project funded by the Institute. Audits conducted in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984 and OMB Circular A-128, or OMB Circular A-133, will satisfy the requirement for an annual fiscal audit. The audit must be conducted by an independent Certified Public Accountant, or a State or local agency authorized to audit government agencies. Grantees must send two copies of the audit report to the Institute. Grantees that receive funds from a Federal agency and satisfy audit requirements of the cognizant Federal agency must submit two copies of the audit report prepared for that Federal agency to the Institute in order to satisfy the provisions of this section.
Timely action on recommendations by responsible management officials is an integral part of the effectiveness of an audit. Each grantee must have policies and procedures for acting on audit recommendations by designating officials responsible for: follow-up; maintaining a record of the actions
Ordinarily, the Institute will not make a subsequent grant award to an applicant that has an unresolved audit report involving Institute awards. Failure of the grantee to resolve audit questions may also result in the suspension or termination of payments for active Institute grants to that organization.
Within 90 days after the end date of the grant or any approved extension thereof (see section IX.L.2. below), the following documents must be submitted to the Institute by grantees (other than scholarship recipients):
a.
b.
These reporting requirements apply at the conclusion of every grant other than a scholarship, even when the project will continue under a Continuation Grant.
Upon the written request of the grantee, the Institute may extend the close-out period to assure completion of the grantee's close-out requirements. Requests for an extension must be submitted at least 14 days before the end of the close-out period and must explain why the extension is necessary and what steps will be taken to assure that all the grantee's responsibilities will be met by the end of the extension period.
All requests for programmatic or budgetary adjustments requiring Institute approval must be submitted by the project director in a timely manner (ordinarily 30 days prior to the implementation of the adjustment being requested). All requests for changes from the approved application will be carefully reviewed for both consistency with this Guideline and the enhancement of grant goals and objectives.
The following grant adjustments require the prior written approval of the Institute:
1. Budget revisions among direct cost categories that (a) transfer grant funds to an unbudgeted cost category or (b) individually or cumulatively exceed five percent (5%) of the approved original budget or the most recently approved revised budget. See section IX.I.2.d.
For Continuation Grants, funds from the original award may be used during the new grant period and funds awarded through a continuation grant may be used to cover project-related expenditures incurred during the original award period, with the prior written approval of the Institute.
2. A change in the scope of work to be performed or the objectives of the project (see D. below in this section).
3. A change in the project site.
4. A change in the project period, such as an extension of the grant period and/or extension of the final financial or progress report deadline (see E. below).
5. Satisfaction of special conditions, if required.
6. A change in or temporary absence of the project director (see F. and G. below).
7. The assignment of an employee or consultant to a key staff position whose qualifications were not described in the application, or a change of a person assigned to a key project staff position (see section VIII.A.2.).
8. A change in or temporary absence of the person responsible for managing and reporting on the grant's finances.
9. A change in the name of the grantee organization.
10. A transfer or contracting out of grant-supported activities (see H. below).
11. A transfer of the grant to another recipient.
12. Preagreement costs (see section IX.I.2.a.).
13. The purchase of automated data processing equipment and software (see section IX.I.2.b.).
14. Consultant rates (see section IX.I.2.c.).
15. A change in the nature or number of the products to be prepared or the manner in which a product would be distributed.
All grantees must promptly notify their SJI program managers, in writing, of events or proposed changes that may require adjustments to the approved project design. In requesting an adjustment, the grantee must set forth the reasons and basis for the proposed adjustment and any other information the program manager determines would help the Institute's review.
If the request is approved, the grantee will be sent a Grant Adjustment signed by the Executive Director or his or her designee. If the request is denied, the grantee will be sent a written explanation of the reasons for the denial.
Major changes in scope, duration, training methodology, or other significant areas must be approved in advance by the Institute. A grantee may make minor changes in methodology, approach, or other aspects of the grant to expedite achievement of the grant's objectives with subsequent notification of the SJI program manager.
A request to change or extend the grant period must be made at least 30 days in advance of the end date of the grant. A revised task plan should accompany a request for a no-cost extension of the grant period, along with a revised budget if shifts among budget categories will be needed. A request to change or extend the deadline for the final financial report or final progress report must be made at least 14 days in advance of the report deadline (see section IX.L.2.).
Whenever an absence of the project director is expected to exceed a continuous period of one month, the plans for the conduct of the project director's duties during such absence must be approved in advance by the Institute. This information must be provided in a letter signed by an authorized representative of the grantee/subgrantee at least 30 days before the departure of the project director, or as soon as it is known that the project director will be absent. The grant may be terminated if arrangements are not approved in advance by the Institute.
If the project director relinquishes or expects to relinquish active direction of the project, the Institute must be notified immediately. In such cases, if the grantee/subgrantee wishes to terminate the project, the Institute will forward procedural instructions upon notification of such intent. If the grantee wishes to continue the project under the direction of another individual, a statement of the candidate's qualifications should be sent to the Institute for review and approval. The grant may be terminated if the qualifications of the proposed individual are not approved in advance by the Institute.
No principal activity of a grant-supported project may be transferred or contracted out to another organization without specific prior approval by the Institute. All such arrangements must be formalized in a contract or other written agreement between the parties involved. Copies of the proposed contract or agreement must be submitted for prior approval of the Institute at the earliest possible time. The contract or agreement must state, at a minimum, the activities to be performed, the time schedule, the policies and procedures to be followed, the dollar limitation of the agreement, and the cost principles to be followed in determining what costs, both direct and indirect, will be allowed. The contract or other written agreement must not affect the grantee's overall responsibility for the direction of the project and accountability to the Institute.
Robert A. Miller, Chairman, Chief Justice (ret.), Supreme Court of South Dakota, Pierre, SD.
Joseph F. Baca, Vice-Chairman, Chief Justice (ret.), New Mexico Supreme Court, Albuquerque, NM.
Sandra A. O'Connor, Secretary, States Attorney of Baltimore County, Towson, MD.
Keith McNamara, Esq., Executive Committee Member, McNamara & McNamara, Columbus, OH.
Terrence B. Adamson, Esq., Executive Vice-President, The National Geographic Society, Washington, DC.
Robert N. Baldwin, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Virginia, Richmond, VA.
Carlos R. Garza, Esq., Administrative Judge (ret.), Round Rock, TX.
Sophia H. Hall, Administrative Presiding Judge, Circuit Court of Cook County, Chicago, IL.
Tommy Jewell, Presiding Children's Court Judge, Albuquerque, NM.
Arthur A. McGiverin, Chief Justice (ret.), Supreme Court of Iowa, Ottumwa, IA.
David I. Tevelin, Executive Director (ex officio).
The following list presents examples of the types of technical assistance for which State and local courts can request Institute funding. Please check with the JERITT project (
The following list includes examples of model SJI-supported curricula that State judicial educators may wish to adapt for presentation in education programs for judges and other court personnel with the assistance of a Judicial Branch Education Technical Assistance Grant.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This proposal would update the designated mountainous areas in the State of Alaska. Regulations currently designating mountainous areas in Alaska were established in 1956. Since that time, we have concluded that areas previously considered non-mountainous should be expanded, and two areas previously designated mountainous should now be considered non-mountainous. The intended effect of this proposal is to enhance safety by allowing aircraft operating in certain non-mountainous areas to fly at lower altitudes when necessary.
Comments must be received on or before November 15, 2004.
You may send comments [identified by Docket Number FAA-2004-19352] using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Richard W. Girard, Flight Standards Division, Technical Standards Branch, AAL-233, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number (907) 271-3578.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this proposal by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposal in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, 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 this proposal. 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 this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this rule, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it to you.
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
(1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket Management System (DMS) Web page
(2) Visiting the Office of Rulemaking's Web page at
(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at
You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number of this rulemaking.
Today, FAA regulations designate a large majority of the State of Alaska as a mountainous area. This designation sets specific minimum altitudes for all aircraft traveling in the area. Five areas of the state are specifically excepted from the mountainous area designation, and aircraft operated in these areas do not need to meet the same minimum altitude requirements. This proposal would expand those five areas that are excepted in the regulations, and add two areas in the vicinity of Fort Yukon and the islands of St. Paul and St. George (also known as the Pribilof Islands) under the exception.
The FAA has designated certain areas within the United States as mountainous areas. These areas are regulated to make sure that pilots maintain certain altitude minimums for a safe flying environment. These designated mountainous areas are specified in 14 CFR part 95, Subpart B. They include areas in the Eastern and Western continental United States, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Alaska.
Designating an area as a mountainous area involves the consideration of:
1. Weather phenomena in the area that are conducive to marked pressure differentials;
2. Bernoulli effect;
3. Precipitous terrain turbulence; and
4. Other factors likely to increase the possibility of altimeter error.
Specifically, § 91.177(a)(2)(i) sets minimum altitude requirements for anyone operating an aircraft under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) over an area designated as a mountainous area
In 1956, when the regulations designating mountainous areas were written, the FAA designated those areas that could be considered either mountainous or non-mountainous as mountainous areas because there were relatively few IFR operations. Since then, the number of IFR operations in the State has significantly increased. Technology and experience have provided the FAA with more accurate information on which areas within the state should receive exception status from the mountainous area designation. These areas meet the current defined requirements for non-mountainous areas, but were not previously identified. Today, IFR operations are prevalent in nearly every portion of the State. Correspondence with pilots operating in Alaska has supported the conclusion that IFR operations are common and that the new designation of mountainous areas is necessary to provide appropriate flexibility for pilots and controllers. Pilots have asserted that the minimum altitude required in designated mountainous areas can force aircraft to fly high enough in certain weather conditions to risk ice buildup on wings and control surfaces. Thus, the risk assessment that led to a mountainous/non-mountainous classification in the 1950's may no longer be appropriate. The FAA believes the existing regulations may expose pilots operating in some parts of Alaska currently classified as mountainous areas to a greater risk than necessary. Additionally, this proposal will enhance safety by improving traffic flow and reducing controller workload.
There are currently five areas outlined in the exceptions section of the regulation as non-mountainous areas. This proposed rule would expand these areas slightly while adding two more areas that would be designated non-mountainous.
Each of the proposed exception areas listed in this proposed rule is an area with homogenous weather characteristics. Weather reporting stations are now more abundant and reliable than when these regulations were written in 1956. These areas are free of precipitous terrain and weather phenomena associated with other designated mountainous areas. Because of these factors, we believe additional operational altitudes are necessary for these areas and these changes will not adversely affect safety.
For purposes of this proposed rule, a map is presented to illustrate the extent of these areas. The map entitled “Designated Mountainous Areas” of the State of Alaska that is currently included in part 95 will be replaced by the new map that includes the revisions and additions to § 95.17(b). See Docket No. FAA-2004-19352 to view the map.
Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal agency to propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. §§ 2531-2533) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act also requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, use them as the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation).
However, for regulations with an expected minimal impact the above-specified analyses are not required. The Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If it is determined that the expected impact is so minimal that the proposal does not warrant a full evaluation, a statement to that effect and the basis for that determination is included in the proposed regulation. Since this proposed rule more accurately identifies mountainous areas in Alaska, and thereby provides greater flexibility in aircraft operations, it is expected to have a minimal cost impact with positive net benefits. The FAA requests comments with supporting justification regarding the FAA determination of minimal impact.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
This proposed rule will affect only the areas in which a plane may fly at a certain altitude. The changes we are proposing should not change how small entities or individuals in Alaska conduct business operations. Consequently, the FAA certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act) is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $120.7 million in lieu of $100 million.
This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements of Title II do not apply.
Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in title 14 of the CFR in manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation, and to establish such regulatory distinctions as he or she considers appropriate. Because this proposed rule would apply to airspace designations specifically in Alaska, it could, if adopted, affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. The FAA therefore specifically requests comments on whether there is justification for the proposed rule.
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312(d) and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
In subsection (a)
The current exception areas that would be revised are:
(1) In the vicinity of Fairbanks, AK, and Nenana, AK. The proposed revision would include areas in the vicinity of Delta Junction, AK, and Minchumina, AK.
(2) In the vicinity of Talkeetna, AK, Anchorage, AK, Kenai, AK, and Homer, AK. The proposed revision would include additional shoreline and coastal areas west of the Cook Inlet.
(3) In the vicinity of King Salmon, AK, and Port Heiden, AK. The proposed revision would include areas in the vicinity of Dillingham, AK, and Iliamna, AK.
(4) In the vicinity of Bethel, AK, and Aniak, AK. The proposed revision would include areas in the vicinity of Anvik, AK, Saint Mary's, AK, Quinhagak, AK, Kipnuk, AK, Hooper Bay, AK, and Nunivak Island, AK.
(5) In the vicinity of Point Barrow, AK, Prudhoe Bay, AK, and Barter Island, AK. The proposed revision would include an area in the vicinity of Umiat, AK, and the coastal area east of Barter Island, AK.
The two additional exceptions that are being proposed include areas:
(1) In the vicinity of Fort Yukon, AK.
(2) The islands of Saint Paul and Saint George, which are also collectively known as the Pribilof Islands.
Air traffic control, Airspace, Alaska, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend Part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 95) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44719, 44721.
2. Section 95.17 is revised to read as follows:
All of the following area excluding those portions specified in the exceptions:
(a)
(b)
(1) Fairbanks—Nenana Area. Beginning at latitude 64°54′ N, longitude 147°00′ W; thence to latitude 64°50′ N, longitude 151°22′ W, thence to latitude 63°50′ N, longitude 152°50′ W; thence to latitude 63°30′ N, longitude 152°30′ W; thence to latitude 63°30′ N, longitude 151°30′ W; thence to latitude 64°05′ N, longitude 150°30′ W; thence to latitude 64°20′ N, longitude 149°00′ W; thence to latitude 64°07′ N, longitude 146°30′ W; thence to latitude 63°53′ N, longitude 146°00′ W; thence to latitude 63°53′ N, longitude 145°00′ W; thence to latitude 64°09′ N, longitude 145°16′ W; thence to latitude 64°12′ N, longitude 146°00′ W; thence to latitude 64°25′ N, longitude 146°37′ W; thence to latitude 64°54′ N, longitude 147°00′ W, point of beginning.
(2) Anchorage—Homer Area. Beginning at latitude 61°50′ N, longitude 151°12′ W; thence to latitude 61°24′ N, longitude 150°28′ W; thence to latitude 61°08′ N, longitude 151°47′ W; thence to latitude 59°49′ N, longitude 152°40′ W; thence to latitude 59°25′ N, longitude 153°10′ W; thence to latitude 59°00′ N, longitude 153°10′ W; thence to latitude 59°33′ N, longitude 151°28′ W; thence to latitude 60°31′ N, longitude 150°43′ W; thence to latitude 61°13′ N, longitude 149°39′ W; thence to latitude 61°37′ N, longitude 149°15′ W; thence to latitude 61°44′ N, longitude 149°48′ W; thence to latitude 62°23′ N, longitude 149°54′ W; thence to latitude 62°23′ N, longitude 150°14′ W; thence to latitude 61°50′ N, longitude 151°12′ W, point of beginning.
(3) King Salmon—Port Heiden Area. Beginning at latitude 58°49′ N, longitude 159°30′ W; thence to latitude 59°40′ N, longitude 157°00′ W; thence to latitude 59°40′ N, longitude 155°30′ W;
(4) Bethel—Aniak Area. Beginning at latitude 63°28′ N, longitude 161°30′ W; thence to latitude 62°40′ N, longitude 163°03′ W; thence to latitude 62°05′ N, longitude 162°38′ W; thence to latitude 61°51′ N, longitude 160°43′ W; thence to latitude 62°55′ N, longitude 160°30′ W; thence to latitude 63°00′ N, longitude 158°00′ W; thence to latitude 61°45′ N, longitude 159°30′ W; thence to latitude 61°34′ N, longitude 159°15′ W; thence to latitude 61°07′ N, longitude 160°20′ W; thence to latitude 60°25′ N, longitude 160°40′ W; thence to latitude 59°36′ N, longitude 161°49′ W; thence along the shoreline to latitude 63°28′ N, longitude 161°30′ W; point of beginning; and Nunivak Island.
(5) North Slope Area. Beginning at a point where latitude 69°30′ N intersects the northwest coast of Alaska and eastward along the 69°30′ parallel to latitude 69°30′ N, longitude 156°00′ W; thence to latitude 69°10′ N, longitude 153°00′ W; thence eastward along the 69°10′ N parallel to latitude 69°10′ N, longitude 149°00′ W; thence to latitude 69°50′ N, longitude 146°00′ W; thence eastward along the 69°50′ N parallel to latitude 69°50′ N, longitude 145°00′ W; thence to latitude 69°35′ N, longitude 141°00′ W; thence northward along the 141°00′ W Meridian to a point where the 141°00′ W Meridian intersects the northeast coastline of Alaska; thence westward along the northern coastline of Alaska to the intersection of latitude 69°30′ N; point of beginning.
(6) Fort Yukon Area. Beginning at latitude 67°20′ N, longitude 144°00′ W; thence to latitude 66°00′ N, longitude 143°00′ W; thence to latitude 66°05′ N, longitude 149°00′ W; thence to latitude 66°45′ N, longitude 148°00′ W; thence to latitude 67°00′ N, longitude 147°00′ W; thence to latitude 67°20′ N, longitude 144°00′ W; point of beginning.
(7) The islands of Saint Paul and Saint George, together known as the Pribilof Islands, in the Bering Sea.