Agricultural Marketing Service
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Economic Development Administration
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Customs and Border Protection Bureau
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Employment and Training Administration
Employment Standards Administration
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which revises Class D and Class E airspace at Salina, KS.
Effective 0901 UTC, January 20, 2005.
Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520C, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2525.
The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which revises Class D and Class E airspace at Grand Island, NE.
Effective 0901 UTC, January 20, 2005.
Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2524.
The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which revises Class E airspace at Burwell, NE.
Effective 0901 UTC, January 20, 2005.
Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2524.
The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which revises Class E airspace at Fremont, NE.
Effective 0901 UTC, January 20, 2005.
Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2524.
The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
In this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security amends the Export Administration Regulations to delete the section that sets forth license requirements for exports and reexports to designated persons identified by the bracketed initials [FRYM]. The Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) used the bracketed initials [FRYM] to identify certain persons on the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons. OFAC discontinued the use of those bracketed initials following the termination of certain national emergencies with respect to Yugoslavia.
This rule is effective November 12, 2004.
Although there is no public comment period, written comments may be sent to Sheila Quarterman, Office of Exporter Services, Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 273, Washington, DC 20044 or to e-mail address
Joan Roberts, Director, Foreign Policy Division, Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 273, Washington, DC 20044; telephone: (202) 482-4252, or e-mail:
This rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by deleting section 744.16 in conformance with the President's Executive Order 13304 of May 29, 2003, which, among other actions, terminated certain national emergencies with respect to Yugoslavia that had been declared in Executive Order 13088 of June 9, 1998, and rescinded Executive Order 13192 of January 17, 2001. Pursuant to these Executive Orders, section 744.16 has required a license for exports and reexports by U.S. persons of any item subject to the EAR to persons identified by the bracketed initials [FRYM] on the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons maintained by the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and found at 31 CFR Chapter V (Specially Designated Nationals List).
Pursuant to Executive Order 13192, restrictions had been imposed on transactions with (a) former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic and his close allies, (b) certain persons under indictment by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, (c) persons attempting to maintain or reestablish illegitimate control over the former Yugoslavia, (d) persons providing support to the persons mentioned above and (e) persons owned or controlled by or acting on behalf of any persons mentioned above. These persons were identified by the bracketed initials [FRYM] on the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons maintained by the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and found at 31 CFR Chapter V (Specially Designated Nationals List).
At the same time that Executive Order 13304 terminated the Yugoslav emergencies, it clarified the scope of and took additional measures concerning a separate national emergency declared with respect to the Western Balkans in Executive Order 13219 of June 26, 2001, pursuant to which restrictions had been placed on transactions with persons threatening the peace or diminishing the stability of the Western Balkans region. Persons subject to the imposition of sanctions under Executive Order 13219, as modified by Executive Order 13304, are identified by the bracketed acronym [BALKANS] on the Specially Designated Nationals List.
Executive Order 13304 extended the restrictions imposed by Executive Order 13219 (relating to stability in the Western Balkans) to include, among others, persons under indictment by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia that were previously included within the scope of the 1998 emergency. As a result, certain persons previously identified by the bracketed initials [FRYM] are now identified by the bracketed acronym [BALKANS] on the Specially Designated Nationals List. Pursuant to Executive Orders 13304 and 13219, OFAC administers a sanctions regime against persons threatening the peace or diminishing the stability of the
This rule also removes a reference to section 744.16 in section 744.1 of the EAR.
Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002)), as extended by the Notice of August 6, 2004 (69 FR 48763, August 10, 2004), continues the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
1. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military and foreign affairs function of the United States (Sec. 5 U.S.C. 553 (a)(1)). Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553 or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is temporarily changing the regulations that govern the operation of the S.R. 74 Bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AICW) mile 283.1, at Wrightsville Beach, NC. The rule allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. on November 27, 2004, to facilitate the Annual Boat Flotilla Parade.
This rule is effective from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. on November 27, 2004.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD05-04-202 and are available for inspection or copying at Commander (obr), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (757) 398-6629. Fifth District maintains the public docket for this rulemaking.
Gary S. Heyer, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398-6629.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as the Annual Boat Flotilla Parade is scheduled for November 27th and immediate action is necessary to minimize the potential danger to the public. The bridge closure is a necessary measure to facilitate public safety that allows for the orderly movement of participants and vehicular traffic after the parade.
Under 5 U.S.C. 533(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for
NCDOT, who owns and operates this drawbridge, requested a temporary change to the operating regulations for the S.R. 74 Bridge at Wrightsville Beach to facilitate the Annual Boat Flotilla Parade. The parade is an annual event, attracting spectators from the surrounding cities and states and the closure of the bridge to vessels will facilitate public safety by allowing for the orderly movement of participants and vehicular traffic after the event.
The existing regulations are outlined at 33 CFR 117.821(a)(5). The bridge has a vertical clearance in the closed position to vessels at approximately 20 feet, at mean high water.
The Coast Guard has informed vessel operators with mast height greater than 20 feet of the closure period for the bridge so that these vessels can arrange their transits to minimize impact after the parade. Vessels with mast heights lower than 20 feet still can transit through the drawbridge and the AICW during this event since the drawbridge is closed, not the waterway.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
This conclusion was based on the fact that this rule will have minimal impact on maritime traffic transiting this area. Since the AICW will remain open to navigation during this event, mariners with mast height less than 20 feet may still transit through the bridge and vessels with mast heights greater than 20 feet can transit after the closed hours.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because even though the rule closes the S.R. 74 Bridge to mariners, those with mast heights less than 20 feet will still be able to transit through the bridge during the closed hours and mariners whose mast heights are greater than 20 feet will be able to transit after the closed hours.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on this action of Federal employee who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation.
Bridges.
33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); § 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
(a) * * *
(7) From 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. on November 27, 2004, the S.R. 74 Bridge mile 283.1 at Wrightsville Beach may remain closed to navigation.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is changing the regulations that govern the operation of the Cape Fear River Memorial Bridge, at mile 26.8, in Wilmington, NC. This rule allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 7:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. on November 14, 2004, to facilitate the 7th Annual Battleship NC Half Marathon.
This rule is effective from 7:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. on November 14, 2004.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD05-04-189 and are available for inspection or copying at Commander (obr), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 4th Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (757) 398-6629. Fifth District maintains the public docket for this rulemaking.
Gary S. Heyer, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398-6629.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as the 7th Annual Battleship North Carolina Half Marathon is scheduled for November 14th and immediate action is necessary to minimize the potential danger to the public. The bridge closure is a necessary measure to facilitate public safety that allows for the orderly movement of participants and vehicular traffic during the marathon.
Under 5 U.S.C. 533(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the
NCDOT, who owns and operates this movable (vertical lift-type) bridge, requested a temporary change to the operating regulations for the Cape Fear River Memorial Bridge in Wilmington NC, to facilitate the 7th Annual Battleship NC Half Marathon. The marathon is an annual event, attracting participants from the surrounding cities and states.
The existing regulations are outlined at 33 CFR 117.5, which requires the bridge to open on signal. The bridge has vertical clearances in the closed and full open positions to vessels of 65 feet and 135 feet at mean high water, respectively.
The Coast Guard has informed vessel operators with mast height greater than 65 feet of the closure period for the bridge so that these vessels can arrange their transits to minimize impact during the marathon. Vessels with mast heights lower than 65 feet still can transit through the drawbridge across Cape Fear River during this event since the drawbridge is closed not the waterway.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
This conclusion was based on the fact that this rule will have minimal impact on maritime traffic transiting this area. Since Cape Fear River will remain open to navigation during this event,
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because even though the rule closes the Cape Fear River Memorial Bridge to mariners, those with mast heights less than 65 feet will still be able to transit through the bridge during the closed hours and mariners whose mast heights are greater than 65 feet will be able to transit after the closed hours.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on this action of Federal employee who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation.
Bridges.
33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33
From 7:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. on November 14, 2004, the Cape Fear River Memorial Bridge, mile 26.8 at Wilmington, may remain closed to navigation.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing temporary security zones around all cruise ships while transiting or moored in the Port of Mobile and Mobile Ship Channel shoreward of the Mobile Sea Buoy. These security zones are needed to ensure the safety and security of these vessels. Entry into these zones is prohibited, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Mobile, or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 8 a.m. (c.s.t.) on October 14, 2004, until 6 p.m. (c.s.t.) on April 14, 2005.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket [COTP Mobile-04-034] and are available for inspection or copying at Marine Safety Office Mobile, Brookley Complex, Bldg 102, South Broad Street, Mobile, AL 36615-1390 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Lieutenant (LT) Maurice York, Operations Department, Marine Safety Office Mobile, at (251) 441-5940.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
This rule is temporary. But because of continued security concerns, the Coast Guard does intend to establish similar permanent security zones. A NPRM will be published in the
On September 11, 2001, both towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked by terrorists. The President has continued the national emergencies he declared following those attacks (69 FR 55313, Sep. 13, 2004) (continuing the emergency declared with respect to terrorist attacks); (69 FR 56923, Sep. 22, 2002) (continuing emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit or support terrorism). The President also has found pursuant to law, including the Magnuson Act (50 U.S.C. 191
The Coast Guard is establishing temporary security zones for the Port of Mobile and Mobile Ship channel. This rule establishes security zones that prohibit movement within 25 yards of all cruise ships while moored in the Port of Mobile, and prohibits movement within 100 yards of any cruise ship while transiting the Mobile Ship Channel or the Port of Mobile. For the purpose of this rule the term “cruise ship” is defined as a passenger vessel over 100 gross tons, carrying more than 12 passengers for hire, making a voyage lasting more than 24 hours any part of which is on the high seas, and for which passengers are embarked or disembarked in the United States or its territories. This definition covers passenger vessels that must comply with 33 CFR parts 120 and 128.
These security zones will be enforced when a cruise ship transiting inbound passes the Mobile Sea Buoy in approximate position 28°07′50″ N, 88°04′12″ W, at all times during transit through the Mobile Ship Channel and Port of Mobile, and while moored in the Port of Mobile. A security zone will exist during each cruise ship's transit outbound the Port of Mobile and the Mobile Ship Channel. Enforcement of the security zone will cease once the cruise ship passes the Mobile Sea Buoy on its outbound voyage.
These security zones are needed to protect the safety of life, property and the environment in the area. All vessels are prohibited from moving within these zones unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Mobile, or a designated representative.
Persons or vessels that desire to enter into one of these security zones for the purpose of passing or overtaking a cruise ship that is in transit on the Mobile Ship Channel or in the Port of Mobile must contact the on-scene Coast Guard representative, request permission to conduct such action, and receive authorization from the on-scene Coast Guard representative prior to initiating such action. The on-scene Coast Guard representative may be contacted on VHF-FM channel 16. All persons and vessels authorized to enter into a security zone must obey any direction or order of the Captain of the Port or designated representative.
The Captain of the Port Mobile or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notice to mariners of the enforcement periods for these security zones.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of
These security zones will only be enforced while cruise ships are located shoreward of the Mobile Sea Buoy, are transiting the Mobile Ship Channel, and are moored in the Port of Mobile. Once a cruise ship is moored in the Port of Mobile, the security zone will be reduced to only 25 yards around the cruise ship. While the cruise ship is moored, other vessels will be able to safely transit around this zone provided they approach no closer than 25 yards. Additionally, while a cruise ship is in transit on the Mobile Ship Channel or in the Port of Mobile, the Captain of the Port or a designated representative may allow other persons or vessels to enter into the security zone for the purpose of passing or overtaking a cruise ship if such persons or vessels obtain permission from the on-scene Coast Guard representative prior to initiating such action.
Notifications of the enforcement periods of these security zones will be made to the marine community through broadcast notice to mariners. The impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons enumerated under the Regulatory Evaluation section of this rule.
If you are a small business entity and are significantly affected by this regulation please contact LT Maurice York, Operations Department, Marine Safety Office Mobile, at (251) 441-5940.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so they may better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency?s responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that Order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because this rule is not expected to result in any significant adverse environmental impact as described in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
A final “Environmental Analysis Checklist” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(1) Within 100 yards of a cruise ship that is transiting shoreward of the Mobile Sea Buoy (located in approximate position 28°07′50″ N, 88°4′12″ W; NAD 83), and
(2) Within 25 yards of a cruise ship that is moored shoreward of the Mobile Sea Buoy.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(2) While a cruise ship is transiting on the Mobile Ship Channel shoreward of the Mobile Sea Buoy, and while transiting in the Port of Mobile, all persons and vessels are prohibited from entering within 100 yards of a cruise ship.
(3) While a cruise ship is moored in the Port of Mobile, all persons and vessels are prohibited from entering within 25 yards of a cruise ship.
(4) Persons or vessels that desire to enter into the security zone for the purpose of passing or overtaking a cruise ship that is in transit on the Mobile Ship Channel or in the Port of Mobile must contact the on-scene Coast Guard representative, request permission to conduct such action, and receive authorization from the on-scene Coast Guard representative prior to initiating such action. The on-scene Coast Guard representative may be contacted on VHF-FM channel 16.
(5) All persons and vessels authorized to enter into this security zone shall obey any direction or order of the Captain of the Port or designated representative. The Captain of the Port Mobile may be contacted by telephone at (251) 441-5976. The on-scene Coast Guard representative may be contacted on VHF-FM channel 16.
(6) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Mobile and designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel. On-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is announcing a revision to the Iowa State implementation plan (SIP) establishing exemptions for equipment that is either used for nonproduction activities or exhausted inside a building, to establish an exemption for manually-operated equipment, and to establish exemptions for emission units that can be classified as small units. The State has determined that air pollution emissions from this equipment are negligible and these exemptions are likely to result in no significant impact on human health or the environment.
This direct final rule will be effective January 11, 2005, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by December 13, 2004. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in EDocket (RME) ID Number R07-OAR-2004-IA-0005, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Heather Hamilton at (913) 551-7039, or by e-mail at
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions:
What Is a SIP?
What Is the Federal Approval Process for a SIP?
What Does Federal Approval of a State Regulation Mean to Me?
What Is Being Addressed in This Document?
Have the Requirements for Approval of a SIP Revision Been Met?
What Action is EPA Taking?
Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires States to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that State air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria pollutants. These pollutants are: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
Each State must submit these regulations and control strategies to us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP.
Each federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be extensive, containing State regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations.
In order for State regulations to be incorporated into the federally-enforceable SIP, States must formally adopt the regulations and control strategies consistent with State and Federal requirements. This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public comment period, and a formal adoption by a State-authorized rulemaking body.
Once a State rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the State submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the State submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by us.
All State regulations and supporting information approved by EPA under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the federally-approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at title 40, part 52, entitled “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans.” The actual State regulations which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR outright but are “incorporated by reference,” which means that we have approved a given State regulation with a specific effective date.
Enforcement of the State regulation before and after it is incorporated into the federally-approved SIP is primarily a State responsibility. However, after the regulation is federally approved, we are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in section 304 of the CAA.
EPA is approving a revision to the SIP for the State of Iowa which establishes exemptions from its construction permitting program for low-emitting equipment that is either used for nonproduction activities or exhausted inside a building, an exemption for manually-operated equipment, and exemptions for emission units that can be classified as small units.
Equipment that is used for nonproduction activities or exhausted inside a building includes carving, cutting, routing, turning, drilling, machining, sawing, surface grinding, sanding, planing, buffing, sandblast cleaning, shot blasting, shot peening, or polishing ceramic artwork, leather, metals (other than beryllium), plastics, concrete, rubber, paper stock, and wood or wood products. (Iowa Administrative Code 567, chapter 22, Controlling Pollution, 22.1(2)u.)
Manually-operated equipment exemptions include equipment used for buffing, polishing, carving, cutting, drilling, machining, routing, sanding, sawing, scarfing, surface grinding, or turning. (Iowa Administrative Code 567, Chapter 22, Controlling Pollution, 22.1(2)v.)
The exemption for small units defines such units as emission units and associated control equipment (if applicable) that emit less than 40 pounds per year of lead and lead compounds expressed as lead; 5 tons per year of sulfur dioxide; 5 tons per year of nitrogen oxides; 5 tons per year of volatile organic compounds; 5 tons per year of carbon monoxide; 5 tons per year of particulate matter; 2.5 tons per year of PM10, and 5 tons per year of hazardous air pollutants. An emission unit that emits hazardous air pollutants is eligible for this exemption provided that the emission unit is not required to be reviewed for compliance with emission standards for hazardous air pollutants, or emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for source categories. An emission unit that emits air pollutants that are not regulated air pollutants as defined in the Iowa rules are not eligible to use this exemption. This exemption applies to both existing and new or modified small units.
An owner or operator that utilizes the small unit exemption must maintain on site an “exemption justification document.” The exemption justification document must document conformance and compliance with the emission rate
The revision addresses the concern that small units may together lead to negative environmental impacts by use of a “substantial small unit” provision. A substantial small unit is defined as a unit that emits 75 percent of the small unit thresholds. The owner or operator of the facility must notify the state within 90 days of the end of a calendar year for which the aggregate emissions from substantial small units at the facility exceed any of the cumulative notice thresholds.
A cumulative notice threshold is the total combined emissions from all substantial small units using the small unit exemption which emit at the facility 0.6 tons per year of lead and lead compounds expressed as lead; 40 tons per year of sulfur dioxide; 40 tons per year of nitrogen oxides; 40 tons per year of volatile organic compounds; 100 tons per year of carbon monoxide; 25 tons per year of particulate matter; 15 tons per year of PM10; or 10 tons per year of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year of any combination of hazardous air pollutants.
In the event that the small unit or substantial small unit thresholds are exceeded, the owner or operator is subject to penalties for violation of the rule and must apply for air construction permits. (Iowa Administrative Code 567, Chapter 22, Controlling Pollution, 22.1(2)w.) Emission units which would be classified as major sources or modifications are not eligible for any of these exemptions.
Iowa adopted the rule revisions after a lengthy stakeholder process. Informational meetings were held in June and July, 2003, and a public hearing was held on October 7, 2003. No comments were received at the public hearing or during the comment period.
The State has reviewed the exemptions to determine whether sources operating under these exemptions might be anticipated to cause any air quality problems with respect to the NAAQS. The State has concluded that emission increases would be insignificant. EPA has concluded that exemption of emission units with such small emissions would not be expected to affect attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS.
The State submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of this document, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.
EPA is revising the SIP for the State of Iowa for the purpose of adding information to establish exemptions for equipment that is either used for nonproduction activities or exhausted inside a building, to establish an exemption for manually-operated equipment, and to establish exemptions for emission units that can be classified as small units. The revision for 567-22.1(2)“u” and 567-22.1(2)“v” was effective October 8, 2003, and the revision for 567-22.1(2)“w” was effective January 14, 2004. This action is being processed as a direct final action because the revisions were made as a result of the state's negotiated rulemaking process and no comments were submitted during the state's public comment and hearing process. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. 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 CAA. 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 CAA. 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 January 11, 2005. 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
On July 29, 2003, Illinois submitted a site-specific sulfur dioxide (SO
This “direct final” rule is effective on January 11, 2005 unless EPA receives adverse written comments by December 13, 2004. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Submit comments, identified by Regional Material in EDocket (RME) ID No. R05-OAR-2004-IL-0003, by one of the following methods:
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.
Mary Portanova, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-5954,
The supplementary information is organized in the following order:
This action applies to a single source, CILCO Edwards Generating Station, in Peoria County, IL.
1. The Regional Office has established an electronic public rulemaking file available for inspection at Regional Material in EDocket (RME) under RME ID No. R05-OAR-2004-IL-0003, and a hard copy file which is available for inspection at the Regional Office. The official public file consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public rulemaking file does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public rulemaking file is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the
2.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at the EPA Regional Office, as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in the official public rulemaking file. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available at the Regional Office for public inspection.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate rulemaking identification number by including the text “Public comment on proposed rulemaking Region 5 Air Docket “R05-OAR-2004-IL-0003” in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
For detailed instructions on submitting public comments and on what to consider as you prepare your comments
EPA is approving a site-specific request to revise Illinois' SO
The regulatory language in 35 IAC 214.561, as published in the Illinois Register on July 25, 2003 (27 IR 12101), is identical to the language which the EPA approved as a SIP revision on April 13, 2000 (65 FR 19838). Therefore, the EPA is relying on the April 13, 2000 action to support its rulemaking action on Illinois' July 29, 2003 request. For further information, please
This SIP revision request simply makes permanent the following SO
The average SO
CILCO Edwards must determine compliance with these limits on a daily basis using the SO
A plantwide SO
EPA is approving the July 29, 2003, site-specific SO
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 the above reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
This action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 11, 2005. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(171) On July 29, 2003, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency submitted a site-specific revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SO
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Removal of immediate final rule.
Because EPA received adverse comment, we are removing the immediate final rule for Adequacy of Minnesota Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Program. We published the immediate final rule on September 10, 2004 (69 FR 54756), approving Minnesota's research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) permit requirements. We stated in the immediate final rule that unless adverse comments were received on or before October 12, 2004, the final determination would be effective on November 9, 2004. We subsequently received adverse comments on October 12, 2004. As a result we are publishing this notice of removal in the
As of November 12, 2004, EPA removes the immediate final rule published on September 10, 2004 (69 FR 54756).
Donna Twickler, mailcode DW-8J, Waste Management Branch, U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone (312) 886-6184,
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission, by this document, denies the petitions for reconsideration filed by Channel 7 of Corpus Christi, Inc. and Minerva L. Lopez of the Report and Order, which substituted DTV channel 8 for DTV channel 47 at Corpus Christi, Texas.
Alan Aronowitz, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order, MM Docket No. 99-277, adopted October 28, 2004, and released November 5, 2004. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 301-816-2820, facsimile 301-816-0169, or via e-mail
This document does not contain [new or modified] information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Pub. L. 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-198,
The Commission will send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion & Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the General Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
Digital television broadcasting, Television.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission, at the request of Paxson Communications Corporation, substitutes DTV channel 18 for TV channel 61 at Mobile, Alabama.
Effective December 20, 2004.
Pam Blumenthal, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 04-281, adopted October 28, 2004, and released November 5, 2004. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (301) 816-2820, facsimile (301) 816-0169, or via e-mail
This document does not contain [new or modified] information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
The Commission will send a copy of this [Report & Order, etc.] in a report to be sent to Congress and the General Accounting Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
Television broadcasting.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission, at the request of Montana State University, allots DTV channel *16 for noncommercial educational use at Billings, Montana.
Effective December 20, 2004.
Pam Blumenthal, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 04-183, adopted October 28, 2004, and released November 5, 2004. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 301-816-2820, facsimile 301-816-0169, or via-e-mail
This document does not contain [new or modified] information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
The Commission will send a copy of this [Report & Order etc.] in a report to be sent to Congress and the General Accounting Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
Digital television broadcasting, Television.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS publishes this final rule to implement the 2004 management measures to prevent overfishing of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) tuna stocks, consistent with recommendations by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) that have been approved by the Department
Effective December 13, 2004 through December 31, 2004.
Copies of the regulatory impact review/regulatory flexibility analysis may be obtained from the Southwest Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90902-4213.
This
J. Allison Routt, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Southwest Region, NMFS, (562) 980-4030.
The United States is a member of the IATTC, which was established under the Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission signed in 1949 (Convention). The IATTC was established to provide an international arrangement to ensure the effective international conservation and management of highly migratory species of fish in the Convention Area. The Convention Area is defined to include the waters of the ETP bounded by the coast of the Americas, the 40° N. and 40° S. parallels, and the 150° W. meridian. The IATTC has maintained a scientific research and fishery monitoring program for many years and annually assesses the status of stocks of tuna and the fisheries to determine appropriate harvest limits or other measures to prevent overexploitation of tuna stocks and promote viable fisheries. Under the Tuna Conventions Act, 16 U.S.C. 951-962, NMFS must publish regulations to carry out IATTC recommendations and resolutions that have been approved by DOS. A proposed rule and request for comments was published in the
At an extraordinary meeting in October 2003, the IATTC adopted a resolution addressing yellowfin, bigeye, and skipjack tuna conservation for 2003 and 2004. The resolution called upon the Parties to the Convention and cooperating non-Parties to prohibit tuna purse seine fishing in a portion of the Convention Area for the month of December 2003 and to close the entire Convention Area for a 6-week period beginning August 1, 2004. The 2003 closure was implemented by separate action last year. At the IATTC June 2004 meeting, the October 2003 resolution was revised. The June 2004 resolution (“revised resolution”) is a multi-annual program on the conservation of tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean for 2004, 2005, and 2006.
The revised resolution offers Parties a choice for closing the purse seine fishery in the Convention Area: either a 6-week closure beginning August 1, 2004, or a 6-week closure beginning November 20, 2004. This closure will target fishing activity that results in high catches of juvenile tuna. Therefore, the closure should result in improved yields from the stocks later in the year or in subsequent years.
The revised resolution also calls upon each Party and cooperating non-Party to take measures necessary to ensure that each nation's longline catch of bigeye tuna in the Convention Area during 2004 will not exceed the total longline catch by the nation in the Convention Area in 2001. The U.S. catch level for 2001 is estimated to have been 150 metric tons in the Convention Area. This is intended to prevent overfishing of the stock, which has declined in recent years while longline fishing effort has greatly expanded.
The IATTC action at the extraordinary meeting in October 2003 came after considering a variety of measures, including the use of quotas and partial fishery closures as implemented in 1999 through 2002 and the full month purse seine closure used in 2003. The revised resolution of June 2004 incorporated flexibility for nations to administer the purse seine closure in accordance with national legislation and national sovereignty. The selected measures should provide protection against overfishing of the stocks in a manner that is fair, equitable, and readily enforceable. The DOS has approved the IATTC recommendations.
The conservation and management measures are based on 2004 assessments of the condition of the tuna stocks in the ETP and historic catch and effort data for different portions of the ETP, as well as records relating to implementation of quotas and closures in prior years. The measures are limited to the Convention Area and are believed by the IATTC scientific staff to be sufficient to reduce the risk of overfishing of tuna stocks, especially when considered in combination with the measures implemented in December 2003. The IATTC met in June 2004 and reviewed new tuna stock assessments and fishery information and considered the new assessment and information. In evaluating possible management measures for 2004 and future years, the IATTC selected a multi-annual time/area approach to conserve and manage the tuna stocks in the Convention Area.
The Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, sent notices October 2003, May 2004, and October 2004 to owners and agents of U.S. fishing vessels of the actions that were recommended by the IATTC and have been approved by the DOS.
This final rule implements the late closure to purse seining in the Convention Area from December 13, 2004 through December 31, 2004. This approach is intended to limit fishing mortality and prevent overfishing in an effort to conserve tuna in a fair, equitable, and readily enforceable manner. This final rule also provides that the U.S. longline fishery for bigeye tuna in the Convention Area will close for the remainder of the calendar year 2004 if the catch reaches 150 metric tons, the catch level of 2001. This means that no bigeye tuna may be taken and retained or possessed after the closure. NMFS will provide notice of closure of the longline fishery in the
During the comment period for the proposed rule, NMFS received comments from tuna industry organizations, environmental organizations, members of the public, and the Western Pacific Fishery
2001 U.S. Longline Catch
Bigeye Longline Quota
The final rule differs from the proposed rule by implementing the late closure alternative provided by the revised resolution. Based on comments received on the proposed rule, the U.S. has chosen the late closure. Also, comments received during the comment period requested that NMFS reevaluate the U.S. longline catch of bigeye tuna in the Convention Area for 2001. NMFS agreed and concluded that the catch in 2001 was 150 metric tons.
One commenter noted that the cite to 50 CFR 200.29 in the Classification section was in error and should be corrected to read 50 CFR 300.29. This has been corrected. The reference described at 50 CFR 300.29(b)(3) as requiring the Southwest Regional Administrator to give direct notice of IATTC actions to owners and operators of ETP purse seine vessels is not correct. Actually, § 300.29(b)(3) requires the Southwest Regional Administrator to give operators and owners of any type of vessel direct notice of closure actions that affect those vessels. The distinction is relevant to this final rule because § 300.29(b)(3) applies to the longline fleet as well as the purse seine fleet. This has been corrected.
This action is implemented under the regulations for the Pacific Tuna Fisheries found at 50 CFR 300.29.
On December 8, 1999, NMFS prepared a biological opinion (BO) assessing the impacts of the fisheries as they would operate under the interim final regulations (65 FR 47, January 3, 2000) implementing the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act (IDCPA). For the final rule (69 FR 176, September 13, 2004) to implement the IDCPA, NMFS amended the incidental take statement included in the December 8, 1999, BO. NMFS concluded that the fishing activities conducted under those regulations are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of NMFS or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. This final rule will not result in any changes in the fisheries such that there would be impacts beyond those considered in that BO. The IATTC has also taken action to reduce sea turtle injury and mortality from interactions in the purse seine fishery so impacts of the fisheries should be lower than in the past. Because this closure does not alter the scope of the fishery management regime analyzed in the IDCPA rule, or the scope of the impacts considered in that consultation, NMFS is relying on that analysis to conclude that this final rule will not likely adversely effect any endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of NMFS or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Therefore, NMFS has determined that additional consultation is not required for this action.
The U.S. ETP tuna purse seine fisheries occasionally interact with a variety of species of dolphin, and dolphin takes are authorized and managed under the IDCPA. These conservation management measures in this final rule do not affect the administration of that program, which is consistent with section 303(a)(2) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the proposed rule for this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule. No comments were received regarding the economic impacts of this action. However, a number of commenters suggested changing the date of the closure to, among other things, ease the economic impacts of the rule. In response, NMFS has done what the commenters asked. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared.
16 U.S.C. 951-962.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would adjust representation on the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board (Board), established under the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 (Act), to reflect changes in cattle inventories and cattle and beef imports that have occurred since the most recent Board reapportionment rule became effective in 2002. These adjustments are required by the Beef Promotion and Research Order (Order) and would result in a decrease in Board membership from 108 to 104, effective with the Department of Agriculture's (Department) appointments for terms beginning early in the year 2006.
Written comments must be received by December 13, 2004.
Send any written comments to Kenneth R. Payne, Chief, Marketing Programs Branch, Room 2638-S, Livestock and Seed Program, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), USDA, STOP 0251, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0251.
Comments may be sent by facsimile to (202) 720-1125 and by electronic mail to
Kenneth R. Payne, Chief, Marketing Programs Branch on (202) 720-1115, fax (202) 720-1125, or by e-mail at
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has waived the review process required by Executive Order 12866 for this action.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect.
Section 11 of the Act provides that nothing in the Act may be construed to preempt or supersede any other program relating to beef promotion organized and operated under the laws of the United States or any State. There are no administrative proceedings that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 United States Code (U.S.C.) 601
In the January 30, 2004, issue of “Cattle,” the Department's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) estimates that in 2004 the number of cattle operations in the United States totaled about 1.1 million. The majority of these operations subject to the Order, 7 CFR 1260.101
The proposed rule imposes no new burden on the industry. It only adjusts representation on the Board to reflect changes in domestic cattle inventory and cattle and beef imports. This action would adjust representation on the Board, established under the Act. The adjustments are required by the Order and would result in a decrease in Board membership from 108 to 104.
The Board was initially appointed August 4, 1986, pursuant to the provisions of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2901
Section 1260.141(b) of the Order provides that the Board shall be composed of cattle producers and importers appointed by the Department from nominations submitted by certified producer organizations. A producer may only be nominated to represent the unit in which that producer is a resident.
Section 1260.141(c) of the Order provides that at least every 3 years and not more than every 2 years, the Board shall review the geographic distribution of cattle inventories throughout the United States and the volume of imported cattle, beef, and beef products and, if warranted, shall reapportion units and/or modify the number of Board members from units in order to reflect the geographic distribution of cattle production volume in the United States and the volume of cattle, beef, or beef products imported into the United States.
Section 1260.141(d) of the Order authorizes the Board to recommend to the Department modifications in the number of cattle per unit necessary for representation on the Board.
Section 1260.141(e)(1) provides that each geographic unit or State that includes a total cattle inventory equal to or greater than 500,000 head of cattle shall be entitled to one representative on the Board. Section 1260.141(e)(2) provides that States that do not have total cattle inventories equal to or greater than 500,000 head shall be grouped, to the extent practicable, into geographically-contiguous units, each of which have a combined total inventory of not less than 500,000 head. Such grouped units are entitled to at least one representative on the Board. Each unit that has an additional one million head of cattle within a unit qualifies for additional representation on the Board as provided in § 1260.141(e)(4). As provided in § 1260.141(e)(3), importers
The initial Board appointed in 1986 was composed of 113 members. Reapportionment based on a 3-year average of cattle inventory numbers and import data, reduced the Board to 111 members in 1990 and 107 members in 1993 before the Board was increased to 111 members in 1996. The Board was decreased to 110 members in 1999, 108 members in 2001, and will be decreased to 104 members with appointments for terms effective early in 2006.
The current Board representation by States or units has been based on an average of the January 1, 1999, 2000, and 2001 inventory of cattle in the various States as reported by NASS of the Department. Current importer representation has been based on a combined total average of the 1998, 1999, and 2000 live cattle imports as published by the Foreign Agricultural Service of the Department and the average of the 1998, 1999, and 2000 live animal equivalents for imported beef products.
Recommendations concerning Board reapportionment were approved by the Board at its June 24, 2004, meeting. In considering reapportionment, the Board reviewed cattle inventories as well as cattle, beef, and beef product import data for the period January 1, 2002, to January 1, 2004. The Board recommended that a 3-year average of cattle inventories and import numbers should be continued. The Board determined that an average of the January 1, 2002, 2003, and 2004 Department cattle inventory numbers would best reflect the number of cattle in each State or unit since publication of the 2001 reapportionment rule.
The Board reviewed the February 24, 2004, Department's Economic Research Service circular, “Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook,” to determine proper importer representation. The Board recommended the use of a combined total of the average of the 2001, 2002, and 2003 cattle import data and the average of the 2001, 2002, and 2003 live animal equivalents for imported beef products. The method used to calculate the total number of live cattle equivalents was the same as that used in the previous reapportionment of the Board. The recommendation for importer representation is based on the most recent 3-year average of data available to the Board at its June 24, 2004, meeting to be consistent with the procedures used for domestic representation.
The Board's recommended reapportionment plan would decrease the number of representatives on the Board from 108 to 104. Four States—Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, and Wyoming—lose one member each. The States and units affected by the reapportionment plan and the current and proposed member representation per unit are as follows: (Units are listed with the State makeup recommended by the Board.)
The 2004 nomination and appointment process was in progress while the Board was developing its recommendations. Thus, the Board reapportionment as proposed by this rulemaking would be effective, if adopted, with 2005 nominations and appointments that will be effective early in the year 2006.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Agricultural research, Imports, Marketing agreement, Meat and meat products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed that 7 CFR part 1260 be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1260 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2901
2. In § 1260.141, paragraph (a) and the table immediately following it, are revised to read as follows:
(a) Beginning with the 2005 Board nominations and the associated appointments effective early in the year 2006, the United States shall be divided into 39 geographical units and 1 unit representing importers, and the number of Board members from each unit shall be as follows:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98-03-14, which applies to certain EXTRA Flugzeugbau GmbH (EXTRA) Model EA-300 and EA-300/S airplanes. AD 98-03-14 currently requires you to inspect the upper longeron cutout-bridge for cracks, repairing any cracks found, and modifying this area. This proposed AD would retain the actions of AD 98-03-14 and incorporate new service information. For owner/operators of the affected airplanes that were able to do the modification required in AD 98-03-14, no further action would be required. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for Germany. We are issuing this proposed AD to detect and correct cracks in the upper longeron cutout-bridge, which could cause the upper longeron cutout-bridge to fail resulting in structural damage to the fuselage.
We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by December 15, 2004.
Use one of the following to submit comments on this proposed AD:
•
•
•
•
•
To get the service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Extra Flugzeubau GmbH, Flugplatz Dinslaken, D-46569 Hünxe, Germany.
To view the comments to this proposed AD, go to
Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4146; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.
• Inspect the upper longeron cutout-bridge for cracks;
• Repair any cracks you find; and
• Modify this area.
You were required to do these actions following EXTRA Service Bulletin EA-300 & EA-300/S, Doc: SB-300-3-93, Issue: A, Date: January 12, 1994.
Installing the new steel sleeves may cause distortion to the upper longeron bridge cutout and the fuselage. The distortion may cause misalignment of the steel sleeves fore and aft of the cutouts.
This caused EXTRA to issue a new service bulletin. The new service bulletin includes additional procedures for modifying the upper longeron cutout-bridge. If you modify the upper longeron bridge-cutout following Procedure II, the new service bulletin specifies replacing the new bridges every 1,000 hours time-in-service (TIS).
• Inspecting the upper longeron cutout-bridge for cracks;
• Repairing any cracks found in the upper longeron cutout-bridge;
• Modifying the upper longeron cutout-bridge using Procedure I or Procedure II; and
• If Procedure II was used, replacing the new bridges every 1,000 hours TIS.
Under this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the LBA has kept us informed of the situation described above.
Since the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other EXTRA Model EA-300 and EA-300/S airplanes of the same type design that are registered in the United States, we are proposing AD action. The proposed AD is to detect and correct cracks in the upper longeron cutout-bridge, which could result in structural damage to the fuselage. This failure could lead to loss of control of the airplane.
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of this proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need this 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 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) 98-03-14, Amendment 39-10307 (63 FR 5881, February 5, 1998), and by adding a new AD to read as follows:
(a) We must receive comments on this proposed airworthiness directive (AD) by December 15, 2004.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 98-03-14, Amendment 39-10307.
(c) This AD affects the following airplane models and serial numbers that:
(i) are certificated in any category; and
(ii) have not had the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) upper longeron bridge-cutouts inspected and modified following EXTRA Service Bulletin EA-300 & EA-300/S Doc: SB-300-3-93, Issue: A, Date: January 12, 1994.
(d) This AD is the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for Germany. The actions specified in this AD are intended to detect and correct cracks in the upper longeron cutout-bridge, which could cause the upper longeron cutout-bridge to fail resulting in structural damage to the fuselage. This condition could lead to 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 Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4146; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.
(g) German AD Number D-1994-043R1, dated May 17, 2004, also addresses the subject of this AD.
(h) To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, contact Extra Flugzeubau GmbH, Flugplatz Dinslaken, D-46569 Hünxe, Germany. 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
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dornier Model 328-300 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for discrepancies of the heat pack rotor assembly and rotor drive clips of the brake unit of the main landing gear (MLG), and replacing the assembly if any discrepancy is found. This proposed AD is prompted by reports of cracking and breakage of the heat pack rotor assemblies. We are proposing this AD to find and fix discrepancies of the heat pack rotor assembly of the brake unit of the MLG and consequent loss of braking capability, which could result in the airplane overrunning the runway during take-off or landing.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 13, 2004.
Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD.
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to
• Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590.
• By fax: (202) 493-2251.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact AvCraft Aerospace GmbH, P.O. Box 1103, D-82230 Wessling, Germany.
You can examine the contents of this AD docket on the Internet at
The FAA has implemented new procedures for maintaining AD dockets electronically. As of May 17, 2004, new AD actions are posted on DMS and assigned a docket number. We track each action and assign a corresponding directorate identifier. The DMS AD docket number is in the form “Docket No. FAA-2004-99999.” The Transport Airplane Directorate identifier is in the form “Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-999-AD.” Each DMS AD docket also lists the directorate identifier (“Old Docket Number”) as a cross-reference for searching purposes.
We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
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 that affect you. You can get more information about plain language at
You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at
The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the airworthiness authority for Germany, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Dornier Model 328-300 series airplanes. The LBA advises that operators have reported inspection findings of cracking and breakage of the heat pack rotor assemblies at the rotor drive clips of the brake unit of the main landing gear (MLG). The cause of these discrepancies is under investigation. These discrepancies, if not corrected, could result in the airplane overrunning the runway during take-off or landing.
Dornier has issued Service Bulletin 328J-32-169, dated November 20, 2002; including Dunlop Aerospace Limited Service Bulletin AHA2227-32-1292, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2002. The service bulletin describes procedures for repetitive detailed visual inspections/checks for discrepancies of the heat pack rotor assembly and rotor drive clips of the brake unit of the MLG, and replacement of the heat pack assembly with a new assembly if any discrepancy is found. The discrepancies include the following:
• Cracks or breakage of the heat pack rotor assembly.
• Rotors with clips that are loose or have missing rivets.
• Rotors with large pieces of carbon missing.
Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.
The LBA mandated the service information and issued German airworthiness directive D-2004-003, dated January 8, 2004, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Germany.
This airplane model is manufactured in Germany and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the LBA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the LBAs findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Information.”
Although the service bulletin specifies to return any unserviceable heat pack assemblies with unserviceable rotor assemblies to the parts manufacturer, this proposed AD would not include that requirement.
Although the service bulletin recommends accomplishing the inspection/check of the heat pack rotor assemblies “at every wheel removal and at every brake installation,” we have determined that this imprecise compliance time would not address the identified unsafe condition in a timely manner. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, we considered not only the manufacturer's recommendation, but the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, the average utilization of the affected fleet, and the time necessary to perform the inspection. In light of all of these factors, we find a compliance time of “At the next brake installation or within 24 months after the effective date of this AD” for completing the initial inspection, and at repetitive intervals “not to exceed the next brake installation or 24 months, whichever occurs first,” to be warranted, in that those times represent precise times for
These differences have been coordinated with the LBA.
In this proposed AD, the “detailed visual inspection/check” specified in the service bulletin is referred to as a “detailed inspection.” We have included the definition for a detailed inspection in a note in the proposed AD.
We consider this proposed AD interim action. If final action is later identified, we may consider further rulemaking then.
This proposed AD would affect about 49 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed inspection would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $3,185, or $65 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA 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 adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
(a) The Federal Aviation Administration must receive comments on this AD action by December 13, 2004.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Dornier Model 328-300 series airplanes; certificated in any category; equipped with a Dunlop brake unit having part number AHA2227-3 or -4.
(d) This AD was prompted by reports of cracking and breakage of the heat pack rotor assemblies. We are issuing this AD to find and fix discrepancies of the heat pack rotor assembly of the brake unit of the main landing gear (MLG) and consequent loss of braking capability, which could result in the airplane overrunning the runway during take-off or landing.
(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) At the next brake installation or within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is first: Accomplish a detailed inspection for discrepancies of the heat pack rotor assembly and rotor drive clips of the brake unit of the MLG by doing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Dornier Service Bulletin 328J-32-169, dated November 20, 2002. If any discrepancy is found, before further flight, replace the heat pack rotor assembly with a new assembly in accordance with the service bulletin. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed the next brake installation or 24 months, whichever is first.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.”
(g) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(h) German airworthiness directive D-2004-003, dated January 8, 2004, also addresses the subject of this AD.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Iowa state implementation plan (SIP) for the purpose of adding information to establish exemptions for equipment that is either used for nonproduction activities or exhausted inside a building, to establish an exemption for manually-operated equipment, and to establish exemptions for emission units that can be classified as small units. The state has determined that air pollution emissions from this equipment are negligible and these exemptions are likely to result in no significant impact on human health or the environment.
Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by December 13, 2004.
Comments may be mailed to Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier; please follow the detailed instructions in the Addresses section of the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this
Heather Hamilton at (913) 551-7039, or by e-mail at
In the final rules section of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve a July 29, 2003, site-specific sulfur dioxide (SO
In the final rules section of this
Written comments must be received on or before December 13, 2004.
Submit comments, identified by Regional Material in EDocket (RME) ID No. R05-OAR-2004-IL-0003 by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Agency Web site:
E-mail:
Fax: (312) 886-5824.
Mail: You may send written comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Hand delivery: Deliver your comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.
Mary Portanova, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), USEPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-5954.
This action applies to a single source, CILCO Edwards Generating Station, in Peoria County, IL.
1.
2.
a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
b. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
On July 29, 2003, Illinois submitted a site-specific sulfur dioxide (SO
For additional information, see the Direct Final Rule which is located in the Rules section of this
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.
The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (The Committee), which is responsible for administering and overseeing the implementation of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) Act, proposes to amend its regulations by requiring nonprofit agencies awarded Government contracts under the authority of the JWOD Act, as well as central nonprofit agencies designated by the Committee and nonprofit agencies that would like to qualify for participation in the JWOD Program, to comply with new governance standards. The proposed governance standards are primarily based on standards that are common practice in nonprofit and business communities. These new standards would include, among other things, standards concerning the practices of boards of directors and the reasonableness of executive and other employee compensation. Recent accounts alleging, and public concern regarding, isolated instances of excessive compensation packages for nonprofit agency executives; a perceived lack of full disclosure in the financial reporting of nonprofit agencies; and the absence of formal guidelines to establish independent boards of directors for JWOD-affiliated central nonprofit agencies and nonprofit agencies prompted this proposed change. If fully implemented, this change would help promote sound governance procedures for central nonprofit agencies and nonprofit agencies participating in the JWOD Program, help ensure the effective and transparent administration of Government contract funds, and continue to maintain a high level of public support for the JWOD Program's employment mission.
Submit your written comments on this proposed rule on or before January 11, 2005. No public meeting will be held.
Comments on the information collection aspects of this proposed rule will be considered if received by January 11, 2005. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, your comments should be received by OMB by December 13, 2004.
Send your comments on the proposed rule in one of the following ways:
• By electronic mail (preferred method) to
• By fax, to the attention of G. John Heyer, to (703) 603-0655;
• By postal mail to Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, Arlington, VA 22202-3259; or
• Through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For more information on how to submit your comments, please refer to the “Public Comments Solicited” section below.
You may submit comments on the information collection aspects of the
Comments will be made available for public inspection, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on weekdays, at the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, Arlington, VA 22202-3259.
G. John Heyer, by telephone at (703) 603-0665, by fax at (703) 603-0655, by e-mail at
The regulations at 41 CFR Chapter 51, titled “Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled,” provide the requirements, standards, and procedures for the JWOD Program. The JWOD Program creates jobs and training opportunities for people who are blind or who have other severe disabilities. Its primary means of doing so is by requiring Government agencies to purchase selected products and services from nonprofit agencies employing such individuals. As a result, JWOD employees are able to lead more productive, independent lives.
Named for its enabling legislation, the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act of 1971 (41 U.S.C. 46-48c), the JWOD Program is a mandatory source of supply for Federal employees. The JWOD Program is administered by the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. Two national, independent organizations, National Industries for the Blind (NIB) and NISH, have been designated by the Committee as central nonprofit agencies, and these organizations help State and private nonprofit agencies participate in the JWOD Program.
The Committee proposes to require nonprofit agencies awarded Government contracts under the authority of the JWOD Act, as well as central nonprofit agencies designated by the Committee and nonprofit agencies that would like to qualify for participation in the JWOD Program, to comply with new governance standards. For the purposes of this proposal, the term governance includes, but is not limited to, the structure of the central nonprofit agency's or nonprofit agency's governing authority, such as its Board of Directors; auditing and reporting of the central nonprofit agency's or nonprofit agency's finances; executive compensation packages provided by the central nonprofit agency or nonprofit agency; and the central nonprofit agency's or nonprofit agency's conflict of interest policy. Adopting the proposed governance standards would mean adding a new § 51-2.10 to the regulations to provide the standards for central nonprofit agencies, qualified nonprofit agencies participating in the JWOD Program, and nonprofit agencies that would like to qualify for participation in the JWOD Program; adding two new paragraphs to the regulations at § 51-3.2 to provide a reference to the standards and reporting requirements for central nonprofit agencies; and adding a new paragraph to the regulations at § 51-4.3 to provide a reference to the standards for nonprofit agencies.
To date, the Committee's regulations have not included governance standards. While the Committee believes, based on its experience managing the JWOD Program, that the overwhelming majority of JWOD-affiliated central nonprofit agencies and nonprofit agencies operate in an ethical and accountable manner, recent accounts alleging (and public concern regarding) isolated instances of excessive compensation packages for nonprofit agency executives, a perceived lack of full disclosure in the financial reporting of nonprofit agencies, and the absence of formal guidelines to establish independent boards of directors for JWOD-affiliated central nonprofit agencies and nonprofit agencies have prompted the need for explicitly stated standards. Therefore, in order to help maintain the integrity of the JWOD Program, the Committee is proposing to add the governance standards listed below to the regulations at 41 CFR 51-2.10.
Each central nonprofit agency, qualified nonprofit agency participating in the JWOD Program, and nonprofit agency that would like to qualify for participation in the JWOD Program would have to comply with Committee-approved governance standards. In evaluating the governance of designated central nonprofit agencies and nonprofit agencies, the Committee would consider compliance to be certification, as described under the heading “Certification” below, by the agency that the Board of Directors (or, in the case of noncorporate entities such as State and local governments, an equivalent governing authority):
• Does not include family members of the central nonprofit agency's or nonprofit agency's management team;
• Does not have the Chairperson also serving as the central nonprofit agency's or nonprofit agency's Chief Executive Officer (CEO), President, Executive Director, or equivalent;
• Has an audit committee to oversee the central nonprofit agency's or nonprofit agency's financial affairs, and audits are conducted by an independent auditing firm that is overseen by the audit committee;
• Reviews and certifies executive compensation packages, and develops and implements an annual evaluation process for the Board or other governing authority, as well as for the central nonprofit agency's or nonprofit agency's CEO, President, Executive Director, or equivalent;
• Has adopted a conflict of interest policy, and discloses all members' business relationships with the central nonprofit agency or nonprofit agency as a part of that policy;
• Turns over Board, or other governing authority, membership on a recurring schedule;
• Reviews and validates all Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 990s and all attachments, and certifies that such filings identify all sources of compensation income from the central nonprofit agency or nonprofit agency and related entities;
• Has at least one financial expert serving; and
• Publishes and makes public the minutes of Board, or other governing authority, meetings.
Further, in assessing the reasonableness of executive and other employee compensation, the Committee would consider:
• The size and complexity of the central nonprofit agency's or nonprofit agency's charter or mission;
• The mission area, geographic size, and financial condition of the central nonprofit agency or nonprofit agency;
• The technical and professional qualifications required for positions in
• Compensation packages paid at comparable central nonprofit agencies or nonprofit agencies;
• The percentage of the net revenues to the central nonprofit agency or nonprofit agency realized from the JWOD Program paid to employees and to senior management;
• The extent to which the central nonprofit agency's or nonprofit agency's executive compensation packages exceed the total compensation offered to the typical, highest paid (excluding any retention allowances and Presidential rank awards), senior executive service (SES), career Federal government employee, as explained below; and
• For only nonprofit agencies (not central nonprofit agencies), the median compensation package for the nonprofit agency's direct labor hour workers and how that median compares to the compensation packages offered to executives.
Currently, the total compensation package offered to the typical, highest paid (excluding any retention allowances and Presidential rank awards), SES, career Federal government employee amounts to approximately $207,000 per year. This amount changes annually, according to adjustments in the salary and benefits for Federal government employees. The Committee would generally consider a central nonprofit agency's or nonprofit agency's executive compensation package unreasonable if it exceeds the total compensation offered to the typical, highest paid (excluding any retention allowances and Presidential rank awards), SES, career Federal government employee, unless the central nonprofit agency or nonprofit agency can provide adequate justification for the level of executive compensation to the Committee. The basis for comparing a central nonprofit agency's or nonprofit agency's executive compensation to a Federal employee's compensation lies in the fact that the JWOD Program is a Federal program and the funds obtained through the JWOD Program are Federal contract funds.
The proposed standards also include procedures that the Committee would follow if a central nonprofit agency or qualified nonprofit agency participating in the JWOD Program violates the governance standards set forth at 41 CFR 51-2.10. Violation by a qualified nonprofit agency participating in the JWOD Program would be handled in accordance with established procedures at 41 CFR 51-4.5, “Violations by nonprofit agencies.” Violation by a central nonprofit agency would be investigated by the Committee's staff. The central nonprofit agency concerned would be afforded an opportunity to submit a statement of facts and evidence. The Committee staff would report its findings to the Committee, together with its recommendation. In reviewing the case, the Committee may request the submission of additional evidence or may conduct its own investigation. If a central nonprofit agency failed to correct its violations of the governance standards, the Committee, after affording the central nonprofit agency an opportunity to address the Committee on the matter, may terminate the central nonprofit agency's designation as a central nonprofit agency and its eligibility to participate in the JWOD Program.
Further, if a nonprofit agency that would like to qualify for participation in the JWOD Program was in violation of the proposed governance standards set forth at 41 CFR 51-2.10, that agency could fail to qualify for participation in the JWOD Program.
These new standards should help promote an environment of sound governance and adequate internal controls for JWOD-affiliated central nonprofit agencies and nonprofit agencies, as well as help ensure the effective and transparent administration of Government contract funds obtained through the JWOD Program. Further, these proposed standards should not impose an undue burden on central nonprofit agencies, nor on nonprofit agencies, because such standards are common practice in nonprofit and business communities.
Certification by a central nonprofit agency that the governance standards set forth in the proposed § 51-2.10 have or have not yet been met would occur on a new annual certification form, due to the Committee by November 1 of each year. Certification by a qualified nonprofit agency participating in the JWOD Program that the governance standards set forth in the proposed § 51-2.10 have or have not yet been met would occur on the existing annual certification forms (Committee Form 403, Annual Certification—Qualified Nonprofit Agencies Serving People Who Are Blind, or Committee Form 404, Annual Certification—Qualified Nonprofit Agencies Serving People Who Are Severely Disabled), due to the Committee by December 1 of each year. Certification by a nonprofit agency that would like to qualify for participation in the JWOD Program that the governance standards set forth in the proposed § 51-2.10 have or have not yet been met would occur on the existing initial certification forms (Committee Form 401, Initial Certification—Qualified Nonprofit Agency Serving People Who Are Blind, or Committee Form 402, Initial Certification—Qualified Nonprofit Agency Serving People Who Are Severely Disabled). These certifications are explained in more detail below, under the heading “Paperwork Reduction Act.”
As a part of the certification, central nonprofit agencies and nonprofit agencies would have to supply information on the total (cash and noncash) compensation paid to their key employees during either the fiscal year for which they are submitting an annual certification (for central nonprofit agencies and qualified nonprofit agencies participating in the JWOD Program) or the dates covered by the report (for initial certification of nonprofit agencies that would like to participate in the JWOD Program). We base our definition of a “key employee” on the definition provided by the IRS in the instructions to the IRS Form 990; a “key employee” is any person having responsibilities or powers similar to those of officers, directors, or trustees. The term includes the chief management and administrative officials of an organization (such as a CEO, President, Executive Director, or equivalent) but does not include the heads of separate departments or smaller units within an organization. A chief financial officer and the officer in charge of administration or program operations are both key employees if they have the authority to control the organization's activities, its finances, or both. The “heads of separate departments” are managers within their specific areas but not for the organization as a whole and, therefore, are not key employees.
The information we would require would consist of:
• The name, address, and title of each key employee;
• A numerical estimate of the average hours per week each key employee worked in his or her position;
• The salary, fees, bonuses, and severance payments paid to each key employee;
• All forms of deferred compensation and future severance payments and all payments to welfare benefit plans (including, but not limited to, medical, dental, life insurance, severance pay, and disability plans) paid on behalf of each key employee; and
• All taxable and nontaxable fringe benefits (including, but not limited to, payments made under indemnification arrangements, the value of personal use
We are proposing to require this information instead of a photocopy of an agency's most recently compiled IRS Form 990s because, due to differing cycles of fiscal years and filing for extensions of the deadline to submit IRS Form 990s, central nonprofit agencies and nonprofit agencies may be two or three years behind the current fiscal year in filing their IRS Form 990s. Out-of-date information would do little to help the Committee determine whether a central nonprofit agency or nonprofit agency is currently meeting the requirements of the Committee's regulations. Therefore, we would require central nonprofit agencies and nonprofit agencies to submit current information on the total compensation packages offered to key employees.
We invite public comments on this proposed rule. Please submit your comments by the date given in the DATES section using one of the options offered in the
All comments we receive will be made available for public inspection, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on weekdays, at the address listed in the
I certify that the changes proposed in this rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities (Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the service to the Government.
2. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c).
We invite comments on this certification. Please submit your comments by the date given in the DATES section using one of the options offered in the
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposal is “not significant” for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
a. If adopted, this proposal would not have an annual economic effect of $100 million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. A cost-benefit and economic analysis is not required. This proposal would have minimal effects on regulated entities.
b. If adopted, this proposal would not create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions. No other Federal agency has any role in managing the JWOD Program.
c. If adopted, this proposal would not materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
d. If adopted, this proposal would not raise novel legal or policy issues. This proposal is designed to incorporate standard, high-quality business practices into the requirements for central nonprofit agencies and nonprofit agencies participating in the JWOD Program.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) It will have no preemptive effect on State and local laws and regulations; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
This proposal does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (August 4, 1999).
This proposed rule has been reviewed under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320 implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) define a “collection of information” as the obtaining of information by or for an agency by means of identical questions posed to, or identical reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements imposed on, 10 or more persons. In addition, the OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4)(i) state that any recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirement contained in a rule of general applicability (such as this proposed rule) is deemed to involve 10 or more persons. This proposal would require a new certification from central nonprofit agencies, qualified nonprofit agencies participating in the JWOD Program, and nonprofit agencies that would like to qualify for participation in the JWOD Program and would require these agencies to supply information on the total (cash and noncash) compensation paid to their key employees (as explained above under the heading “Certification”). These new information collections would require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Simultaneous with the publication of this proposed rule, we have submitted an application for information collection approval from OMB to require a new annual certification from central nonprofit agencies that the governance standards in proposed 41 CFR 51-2.10 have or have not yet been met. This certification would include a requirement that central nonprofit agencies supply information on the total (cash and noncash) compensation paid to their key employees during the fiscal year for which they are submitting an annual certification. The application for
We are asking OMB to approve, for the first time, a new Committee Form 405, which would be the Annual Certification-Central Nonprofit Agencies. The new form would be due to the Committee by November 1 of each year from the two designated central nonprofit agencies (currently NIB and NISH). The new form would require each central nonprofit agency's Officer of the Board and Agency Executive to certify, via signature, that the governance standards in § 51-2.10 have or have not yet been met. If the governance standards have not yet been met, an explanation (with relevant documentation attached) would be required. The new form would also require central nonprofit agencies to supply, and certify the accuracy and completeness of, information on the total (cash and noncash) compensation paid to their key employees during the fiscal year for which they are submitting an annual certification. Lastly, the new form would ask if any changes have been made during the past year to the central nonprofit agency's articles of incorporation or bylaws. This last piece of information has been offered sporadically over the years by central nonprofit agencies; including it on the new form would standardize the collection of this information.
We expect that completing this new certification form would require a moderate amount of time for central nonprofit agencies even though the certification and any documents to support the certification do not exceed the knowledge and information normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings. We estimate that it would take an average of 20 hours for a respondent to complete the form, including reading the appropriate instructions; referring to and reading the new governance standards (as provided in § 51-2.10, below); certifying that the new standards have or have not been met; if necessary, providing a brief explanation concerning why the governance standards have not yet been met and attaching appropriate documentation; gathering and recording information on the total (cash and noncash) compensation paid to the agency's key employees during the fiscal year for which the agency is submitting an annual certification; certifying that the central nonprofit agency's articles of incorporation or bylaws have or have not changed during the most recent fiscal year; and, if necessary, attaching any changes to the articles of incorporation or bylaws. Therefore, for the total number of respondents completing this form (2), the new information collection requirements would result in a total annual burden of 40 hours.
Committee Form 403 (Annual Certification—Qualified Nonprofit Agencies Serving People Who Are Blind) and Committee Form 404 (Annual Certification—Qualified Nonprofit Agencies Serving People Who Are Severely Disabled) are already approved by OMB and assigned OMB control numbers 3037-0001 and 3037-0002, respectively. Both of these control numbers expire on March 31, 2006. We have submitted a revision request to OMB to update these two forms to include a new certification statement that would require each nonprofit agency's Officer of the Board and Agency Executive to certify, via signature, that the governance standards in § 51-2.10 have or have not yet been met. If the governance standards have not yet been met, an explanation (with relevant documentation attached) would be required. In addition, each nonprofit agency would have to supply, and certify the accuracy and completeness of, information on the total (cash and noncash) compensation paid to their key employees during the fiscal year for which they are submitting an annual certification.
We expect the additional certification on Committee Form 403 or 404 would require a moderate time for respondents even though the certification and any documents to support the certification do not exceed the knowledge and information normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings. We estimate that it would take an average of 19 hours for a respondent to read the appropriate instructions; refer to and read the new standards (as provided in § 51-2.10, below); certify that the new standards have or have not been met; if necessary, provide a brief explanation concerning why the governance standards have not yet been met and attach appropriate documentation; and gather and record information on the total (cash and noncash) compensation paid to the agency's key employees during the fiscal year for which the agency is submitting an annual certification. Therefore, for the total number of respondents completing both of these forms (642; 77 for Form 403, and 565 for Form 404), the new information collection requirements would result in an additional annual burden of 12,198 hours (1,463 hours for Form 403, and 10,735 hours for Form 404). In addition, in accordance with 41 CFR 51-4.3(b)(4), relevant records would have to be made available for inspection at any reasonable time to representatives of the Committee or the central nonprofit agency representing the nonprofit agency.
In addition, Committee Form 401 (Initial Certification-Qualified Nonprofit Agency Serving People Who Are Blind) and Committee Form 402 (Initial Certification-Qualified Nonprofit Agency Serving People Who Are Severely Disabled) are already approved by OMB and assigned OMB control numbers 3037-0004 and 3037-0003, respectively. Both of these control numbers expire on March 31, 2005. We have submitted a revision request to OMB to update these two forms to include a new certification statement that would require each nonprofit agency's Officer of the Board and Agency Executive to certify, via signature, that the governance standards in § 51-2.10 have or have not yet been met. If the governance standards have not yet been met, an explanation (with relevant documentation attached) would be required. In addition, each nonprofit agency would have to supply, and certify the accuracy and completeness of, information on the total (cash and noncash) compensation paid to their key employees during the dates covered by the report.
We expect the additional certification on Committee Form 401 or 402 would require a moderate time for respondents even though the certification and any documents to support the certification do not exceed the knowledge and
OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities. We invite comments on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 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; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond.
Organization and functions (Government agencies).
Government procurement, Handicapped.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Committee proposes to amend parts 51-2, 51-3, and 51-4 of title 41, chapter 51 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
1. The authority citation for parts 51-2, 51-3, and 51-4 continues to read as follows:
41 U.S.C. 46-48c.
2. Add a new § 51-2.10 to read as follows:
Each central nonprofit agency, qualified nonprofit agency participating in the JWOD Program, and nonprofit agency that would like to qualify for participation in the JWOD Program must comply with Committee-approved governance standards.
(a) In evaluating the governance of central nonprofit agencies and nonprofit agencies, the Committee will consider compliance to be certification by the agency, in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section, that the Board of Directors (or, in the case of noncorporate entities such as State and local governments, an equivalent governing authority):
(1) Does not include family members of the central nonprofit agency's or nonprofit agency's management team;
(2) Does not have the Chairperson also serving as the central nonprofit agency's or nonprofit agency's Chief Executive Officer (CEO), President, Executive Director, or equivalent;
(3) Has an audit committee to oversee the central nonprofit agency's or nonprofit agency's financial affairs, and audits are conducted by an independent auditing firm that is overseen by the audit committee;
(4) Reviews and certifies executive compensation packages, and develops and implements an annual evaluation process for the Board or other governing authority, as well as for the central nonprofit agency's or nonprofit agency's CEO, President, Executive Director, or equivalent;
(5) Has adopted a conflict of interest policy, and discloses all members' business relationships with the central nonprofit agency or nonprofit agency as a part of that policy;
(6) Turns over Board, or other governing authority, membership on a recurring schedule;
(7) Reviews and validates all Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 990s and all attachments, and certifies that such filings identify all sources of compensation income from the central nonprofit agency or nonprofit agency and related entities;
(8) Has at least one financial expert serving; and
(9) Publishes and makes public the minutes of Board, or other governing authority, meetings.
(b) In assessing the reasonableness of executive and other employee compensation, the Committee will consider:
(1) The size and complexity of the central nonprofit agency's or nonprofit agency's charter or mission;
(2) The mission area, geographic size, and financial condition of the central nonprofit agency or nonprofit agency;
(3) The technical and professional qualifications required for positions in the central nonprofit agency or nonprofit agency;
(4) Compensation packages paid at comparable central nonprofit agencies or nonprofit agencies;
(5) The percentage of the net revenues to the central nonprofit agency or nonprofit agency realized from the JWOD Program paid to employees and to senior management;
(6) The extent to which the central nonprofit agency's or nonprofit agency's executive compensation packages exceed the total compensation offered to the typical, highest paid (excluding any retention allowances and Presidential rank awards), senior executive service, career Federal government employee; and
(7) For only nonprofit agencies, the median compensation package for the nonprofit agency's direct labor hour workers and how that median compares to the compensation packages offered to executives.
(c) Certification. (1) A central nonprofit agency must certify that the governance standards set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section have or have not yet been met by completing the annual certification form (Committee Form 405) and providing the completed form to the Committee by November 1 of each year.
(2) Qualified nonprofit agencies participating in the JWOD Program must certify that the governance standards set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section have or have not yet been met on the annual certification form required by § 51-4.3(a) of this chapter.
(3) Nonprofit agencies that would like to qualify for participation in the JWOD Program must certify that the governance standards set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section have or have not yet been met on the initial certification form required by § 51-4.2(c) of this chapter.
(d) Violations. (1) Violations of the governance standards set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section by
(2) Violations of the governance standards set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section by qualified nonprofit agencies participating in the JWOD Program will be handled in accordance with 41 CFR 51-4.5, “Violations by nonprofit agencies,” of this chapter.
(e) The information collection requirements set forth in this section for central nonprofit agencies are included on Committee Form 405, which has approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 3037-xxxx. The information collection requirements set forth in this section for qualified nonprofit agencies participating in the JWOD Program are included on Committee Forms 403 and 404, which have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control numbers 3037-0001 and 3037-0002, respectively. The information collection requirements set forth in this section for nonprofit agencies that would like to qualify for participation in the JWOD Program are included on Committee Forms 401 and 402, which have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control numbers 3037-0004 and 3037-0003, respectively. A Federal 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.
3. Amend § 51-3.2 by adding new paragraphs (o) and (p) to read as follows:
(o) Submit to the Committee, by November 1 of each year, a completed copy of the Annual Certification—Central Nonprofit Agency (Committee Form 405) covering the fiscal year ending the preceding September 30.
(p) Comply with Committee-approved governance standards, as provided in § 51-2.10 of this chapter.
4. Amend § 51-4.3 by adding a new paragraph (b)(10) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(10) Comply with Committee-approved governance standards, as provided in § 51-2.10 of this chapter.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document seeks public comment on petitions filed for reconsideration and is extending the filing dates already set for two of the four petitions for reconsideration to coincide with the dates set forth in this document.
Interested parties may file oppositions to the petitions for reconsideration on or before November 15, 2004. Replies to an opposition may be filed on or before November 30, 2004. Parties that may have already submitted comments in this proceeding need not resubmit those comments unless they choose to update them.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Dana Jackson, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office at (202) 418-2247 (voice), (202) 418-7898 (TTY), or e-mail at
This is a summary of the Commission's public notice DA 04-3266, released October 15, 2004. When filing oppositions and replies to an opposition, please reference CC Docket Nos. 90-571 and No. 98-67 or CG Docket No. 03-123. Oppositions and replies to an opposition may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.
On September 30, 2004, Communication Service for the Deaf, Inc. (“CSD”) filed a petition for reconsideration,
On October 1, 2004, the National Video Relay Service Coalition (“the Coalition”) filed a petition for reconsideration to the June 30, 2004
On October 1, 2004, Hamilton Relay, Inc. (“Hamilton”) filed a petition for reconsideration to the June 30, 2004
On October 5, 2004, the Commission released a public notice stating that oppositions to CSD's and Hands On's petitions for reconsideration must be filed within 15 days of the date public notice is published in the
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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 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 should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, USDA.
Notice of solicitation for membership to the Forestry Research Advisory Council.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announces solicitation for nominations to fill nine anticipated vacancies on the Forestry Research Advisory Council. The terms of nine members expire December 31, 2004. Nominations for a three-year appointment for all nine positions are sought.
Nominations must be received on or before December 16, 2004.
The address for hand-delivered nominations or nominations submitted using an express mail or overnight courier service is: Office of the Forestry Research Advisory Council; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Room 3213 Waterfront Center; 800 9th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20024; fax: (202) 401-1706. Nominations sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be sent to the following address: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Office of the Forestry Research Advisory Council; Mail Stop 2210; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2210.
Catalino A. Blanche, Designated Federal Officer, Forestry Research Advisory Council; Office of the Forestry Research Advisory Council; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Mail Stop 2210; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2210; telephone: (202) 401-4190; fax: (202) 401-1706; e-mail:
The Forestry Research Advisory Council was established to provide advice to the Secretary of Agriculture on accomplishing efficiently the purposes of the McIntire-Stennis Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a-4,
• Federal and State agencies concerned with developing and utilizing the Nation's forest resources. In particular committee membership, will include representation from the National Forest System and Forest and Range Experiment Stations leaders, Forest Service;
• The forest industries;
• The forestry schools of the State certified eligible institutions, and State agricultural experiment stations; and
• Volunteer public groups concerned with forests and related natural resources.
Nominees will be carefully reviewed for their broad expertise, leadership, and relevancy to a membership category. Nominations for one individual who fits several of the categories, or for more than one person who fits one category will be accepted. Please indicate the specific membership category for each nominee.
Each nominee must complete Form AD-755, Advisory Committee Membership Background Information (which can be obtained from the contact persons above) and will be vetted before selection. Send the nominee's name, resume, and the completed Form AD-755 as noted above. Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit nominations via overnight mail or delivery service to ensure timely receipt by the USDA.
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on a proposed revision to the information collection burden for the Food Stamp Program Employment and Training Program, currently approved under OMB No. 0584-0339. This notice proposes to add 10.23 hours to the currently approved burden to account for the time it takes State agencies to request more funds after initial allocations are made.
Written comments must be submitted on or before January 11, 2005.
The Food and Nutrition Service invites interested persons to submit comments on this proposed information collection. Send comments to Dale Walton, Program Analyst, Program Design Branch, Program Development Division, FSP, FNS, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 810, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594, (703) 305-2432.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed revision is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden of the proposed collection of information, including validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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 those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Dale Walton at (703) 305-2432, or send e-mail to
• On the first quarter report, the number of work registrants receiving food stamps as of October 1 of the new fiscal year;
• On each quarterly report, by month, the number of new work registrants; the number of able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) applicants and recipients participating in qualifying components; the number all other applicants and recipients (including ABAWDs involved in non-qualifying activities participating in components; and the number of ABAWDs exempt under the State agency's 15% exemption allowance.
• On the fourth quarter report, the total number of individuals who participated in each component, which is also sorted by ABAWD and non-ABAWD participants, and the number of individuals who participated in the E&T Program during the fiscal year.
7 CFR 273.7(d)(1)(i)(F) provides that if a State agency will not expend all of the funds allocated to it for a fiscal year, FNS will reallocate unexpended funds to other State agencies during the fiscal year or the subsequent fiscal year as FNS considers appropriate and equitable. After initial E&T allocations are made, State agencies may request more funds, as needed. Typically, FNS receives nine such requests per year. The burden is being revised by adding 10.23 hours to it to account for the time it takes States to prepare these requests. After receiving the State requests FNS will reallocate unexpended funds as provided above. Following is the revised estimated burden for E&T reporting including the burden for State agencies to request additional funds.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 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 30, 2004.
The Davy Crockett National Forest RAC meeting will be held on November 30, 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 30, 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.
The Ravalli County Resource Advisory Committee will be meeting to discuss 2004 projects and the Fred Burr 80 project and hold a short public forum (question and answer session). The
The meeting will be held on November 23, 2004, 6:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Ravalli County Administration Building, 215 S. 4th Street, Hamilton, Montana. Send written comments to Dan Ritter, Acting District Ranger, Stevensville Ranger District, 88 Main Street, Stevensville, MT 59870, by facsimile (406) 777-7423, or electronically to
Dan Ritter, Acting Stevensville District Ranger and Designated Federal Officer, Phone: (406) 777-5461.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
This notice announces the intention of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to request comments on a newly approved information collection, 0578-0030, Emergency Watershed Protection Program.
(a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the Agency's estimate of burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(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 those who are to respond, such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technologic collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 (60 FR 44978, August 29, 1995).
NRCS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) and the Freedom to E-File Act, which require government agencies in general, and NRCS in particular, to provide the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible.
Phyllis I. Williams.
The sponsor's request is submitted formally as a letter (now the Appendix to the NRCS-PDM-20A) to the NRCS State Conservationist for consideration. The NRCS-PDM-20, Damage Survey Report (DSR), is the Agency decision-making document that includes the economic, social, and environmental evaluation and the engineer's cost estimate.
This information collection allows the responsible Federal official to make EWP eligibility determinations and provide Federal cost-share payments to the sponsor. This request is necessary to implement the EWP Program for which NRCS has statutory authority.
The table below lists the forms in this collection, the uses for each document, and the applicable programs. These forms constitute this information collection and reflect the documents used by EWP sponsors to request participation in the recovery program.
NRCS will ask OMB for 3-year approval within 60 days of submitting the request.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval.
All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to and deletions from Procurement List.
This action adds to the Procurement List services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes from the Procurement List products previously furnished by such agencies.
Effective December 12, 2004.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-3259.
Sheryl D. Kennerly, (703) 603-7740.
On September 17, 2004, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (69 FR 56037) of proposed additions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following services are added to the Procurement List:
On September 17, 2004, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (69 FR 56037/38) of proposed deletions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed deletions from Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to delete from Procurement List services furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
December 12, 2004.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-3259.
Sheryl D. Kennerly, (703) 603-7740.
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.
The following services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Redesignation of Procurement List services.
This notice redesignates services on the Procurement List which will be procured on a Facility-wide basis rather than for individual buildings as the new building opens. These services are being performed for the General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, Washington, DC.
November 12, 2004.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 2202-3259.
Sheryl D. Kennerly, (703) 603-7740.
The following services are on the Procurement List to be performed by the designated nonprofit agency for the General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service as identified below:
Economic Development Administration (EDA), Commerce.
To give all interested parties an opportunity to comment.
Petitions have been accepted for filing on the dates indicated from the firms listed below.
The petitions were submitted pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2341). Consequently, the United States Department of Commerce has initiated separate investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each firm contributed importantly to total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm. Any party having a substantial interest in the proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A request for a hearing must be received by Trade Adjustment Assistance, Room 7315, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than the close of business of the tenth calendar day following the publication of this notice.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of amended final determination of sales at less than fair value.
On October 7, 2004, the Department of Commerce announced the final determination of the sales at less than fair value investigation for hand trucks and certain parts thereof from the People's Republic of China for the period April, 1, 2003, through September 30, 2003. These final results were published in the
On October 15, 2004, Qingdao Huatian Hand Truck Co., Ltd., Qingdao Taifa Group Co., Ltd., True Potential Co., Qingdao Future Tool Inc., Gleason Industrial Products, Inc., and Precision Products Inc. submitted ministerial error allegations. On October 20, 2004, the same companies submitted rebuttal comments. Based on these allegations, we made changes to the margin calculation of Qingdao Huatian Hand Truck Co., Ltd., Qingdao Taifa Group Co., Ltd., True Potential Co., Qingdao Future Tool Inc., and Shandong Machinery Import & Export Group. The final weighted-average dumping margins for these companies are listed below in the section entitled “Amended Final Determination.”
November 12, 2004.
Dan Alexy, Audrey Twyman or Stephen Cho, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1540, (202) 482-3534 and (202) 482-3798, respectively.
On October 14, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published the final determination of this investigation.
On October 15, 2004, we received ministerial error allegations, filed
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
After analyzing the submissions, we have determined in accordance with section 735(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (“the Act”) and 19 CFR 351.224 that we made ministerial errors in the margin calculations for Huatian and Taifa. The ministerial errors include an error alleged by Huatian pertaining to the Department's deduction of international freight from certain U.S. sales of Huatian, an error alleged by the respondents in the calculation of the selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”) ratio, and two errors alleged by the petitioners, one, on the correct weight code for certain hand truck models in Taifa's margin calculation, and the other, on the proper unit of measure for bearings in Huatian's margin calculation.
Specifically:
• We inadvertently neglected to add the actual freight incurred for certain U.S. sales of Huatian.
• We inadvertently included movement expenses in the calculation of the SG&A ratio which resulted in the double-counting of these expenses.
• We inadvertently neglected to correct the error in weight code for certain hand truck models when applying facts available in Taifa's margin calculation.
• We inadvertently neglected to include the proper unit of measure for bearings when applying facts available in Huatian's margin calculation.
For a detailed discussion of the ministerial error allegations and the Department's analysis, see Memorandum from Team to Jeffrey A. May, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled “Ministerial Error Allegations,” dated November 5, 2004.
We are amending the final determination of the antidumping duty investigation of hand trucks from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) to reflect the correction of the above-cited ministerial errors. As a result of corrections of the ministerial errors in the
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. 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
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Issuance of 2005 Exempted Fishing, Scientific Research, Display, and Chartering Permits; request for comments.
NMFS announces the intent to issue Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs), Scientific Research Permits (SRPs), Display, and Chartering Permits for the collection of Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS). The Permits would authorize collections of a limited number of tunas, swordfish, billfishes, and sharks from Federal waters in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico for the purposes of scientific data collection and public display. Generally, these permits will be valid through December 31, 2005. NMFS also announces the intent to consider issuing permits upon receiving applications from U.S. fishermen whose vessels fish for Atlantic HMS while operating under chartering arrangements within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of other nations to collect data consistent with the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) recommendations and to ensure consistency with another country's regulations without violating U.S. regulations.
Written comments on these collection, research and fishing activities will be considered by NMFS in issuing such EFPs/SRPs/Display/Chartering Permits if received on or before December 13, 2004.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
• Email:
• Mail: Christopher Rogers, Chief, Highly Migratory Species Management Division (F/SF1), NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
• Fax: (301)713-1917.
Heather Stirratt or Sari Kiraly, by phone: 301-713-2347 or fax: 301-713-1917.
EFPs, SRPs, Display, and Chartering Permits are requested and issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
Issuance of EFPs, SRPs, Display, and Chartering Permits may be necessary for the collection of scientific data and for public display because the possession of certain shark species is prohibited, possession of billfishes on board commercial fishing vessels is prohibited, and because the commercial fisheries for bluefin tuna, swordfish, and large coastal sharks may be closed for extended periods, during which time the collection of live animals and/or biological samples would otherwise be prohibited. In addition, NMFS regulations at 50 CFR 635.32 regarding the implantation or attachment of archival tags in Atlantic HMS require prior authorization and a report on implantation activities.
NMFS seeks public comment on its intention to issue EFPs for the purpose of collecting biological samples under at-sea fisheries observer programs. NMFS intends to issue EFPs to any NMFS employee or NMFS-approved contractor/observer to bring onboard and possess (for scientific research purposes, biological sampling, measurement, etc.) any Atlantic swordfish, Atlantic shark, or Atlantic billfish, provided the fish is a recaptured tagged fish, dead prior to being brought onboard, or specifically authorized for sampling by the Director of NMFS' Office of Sustainable Fisheries at the request of the Southeast Fisheries Science Center or the Northeast Fisheries Science Center. On average, several hundred swordfish and sharks are collected by at-sea observers under such EFPs in any given year.
Collection of bluefin tuna may be authorized for scientific research, age and growth, genetic, and spawning studies. In 2003, a total of eleven permits, which authorized collection of 485 bluefin tuna for the purposes of archival tagging and research were issued.
NMFS is also seeking public comment on its intention to issue Display Permits for the collection of restricted species of sharks for the purpose of public display. In the Final Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks (HMS FMP), NMFS established a public display and research quota of 60 metric tons wet weight for this purpose. NMFS has preliminarily determined that, based on average weight of sharks landed, approximately 3,000 sharks could be taken with this current quota. The actual number of sharks that would be taken depends on the species and size of the sharks. NMFS believes that harvesting this amount for public display will have a minimal impact on the stock. In 2004, nine Display Permits, which authorized the collection of 373 large coastal, 133 small coastal, 96 prohibited sharks for display purposes were issued. The total number reported as actually taken will not be known until early 2005. However, of the 433 large coastal, 144 small coastal, and 102 prohibited sharks authorized for collection in nine Display Permits issued during 2003, only one small coastal shark was reported taken from Federal waters.
Generally, the authorized collections or exemptions would involve activities otherwise prohibited by regulations implementing the HMS FMP and Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan. The EFPs, if issued, may authorize recipients to fish for and possess tunas, billfishes, swordfish, and sharks outside the applicable Federal commercial seasons, size limits and/or retention limits, or to fish for and possess prohibited species.
NMFS has undertaken a restructuring of the exempted fishing application and reporting procedures for Atlantic HMS. To that effect, on November 10, 2003, NMFS published a final rule (68 FR 63738), effective on December 10, 2003, that modified the existing regulations with the intent of improving monitoring of these fishing activities, particularly those conducted to collect sharks for public display and those undertaken for scientific research.
Specifically, the final rule contains the following provisions: (1) EFP holders must notify the local NMFS Office for Law Enforcement at least 24 hours prior to departure for all fishing trips conducted to collect HMS for the purpose of public display; (2) all live HMS retained for the purpose of public display must be tagged while still on board the fishing vessel with either a conventional dart tag or a microchip Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tag, both of which will be supplied by NMFS; (3) if warranted, NMFS may specify conditions for conducting fishing activities to collect HMS for public display in order to minimize mortalities of either targeted or bycatch species; (4) NMFS reserves the right to place an at-sea observer on board an authorized HMS collection vessel; (5) EFP and SRP holders must report all HMS collection activities regardless of
In December 2003, NMFS published the Final Rule (68 FR 74747) implementing the Final Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks. While the rule focuses primarily on shark management measures, the issuance of EFPs and SRPs is also addressed where a separate display permitting system for HMS is to be developed apart from EFPs and SRPs issued for other purposes. This is an administrative change only, and current quotas as well as application and reporting requirements remain as established under the existing system.
Comments are also requested for the issuance of Chartering Permits to vessels fishing for HMS while operating under chartering arrangements within the EEZ of other nations. In November 2004, NMFS published the Final Rule requiring prior notification and approval from NMFS, via issuance of a Chartering Permit, before a vessel begins to fish under a chartering arrangement. These Chartering Permits would allow a U.S. fishing vessel to fish in a manner consistent with another country's regulations without violating U.S. regulations, and would ensure that such vessels report to the proper authorities, consistent with ICCAT recommendations. To date, NMFS has only received applications from and issued one of these Chartering Permits, which includes one pelagic longline vessel in a fleet of many thousands.
Final decisions on the issuance of any EFPs/SRPs/Display/Chartering Permits will depend on the submission of all required information about the proposed activities, NMFS' review of public comments received on this notice, consistency with conclusions in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) contained in the Final HMS FMP (64 FR 13575; March 19, 1999), Environmental Assessments (EAs) or EISs, and any consultations with appropriate Regional Fishery Management Councils, states, or Federal agencies. NMFS does not anticipate any environmental impacts from the issuance of these EFPs other than impacts already assessed in the Final HMS FMP.
All requests for EFPs/SRPs/Display/Chartering Permits of a type or nature not addressed in this
16 U.S.C. 971
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Issuance of permit modification.
Notice is hereby given that the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) has been issued a modification to scientific research Permit No. 1260.
The modification and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)713-0376; and
Southeast Region, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2432; phone (727)570-5301; fax (727)570-5320.
Patrick Opay or Ruth Johnson, (301)713-2289.
Notices were published in the Federal Register on July 15, 2004 (69 FR 42426) and July 19, 2004 (69 FR 42970) that modifications of Permit No. 1260, issued June 29, 2001 (66 FR 34621), had been requested by the above-named organization. The requested modification has been granted under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).
The modification to Permit No. 1260 authorizes the SEFSC to attach conventional or pop-up archival tag (PAT) satellite transmitters to the pygal region of up to 15 leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) that may be boated during the Pelagic Longline Fishery Observers project. Additionally, the SEFSC is authorized to handle, flipper and passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag, tissue sample and blood sample all turtles on all projects under Permit No. 1260 and now has the option of deploying either PAT or conventional satellite tags via a tether attachment to the 20 loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) for which satellite tagging was already authorized under the existing Pelagic Longline Fishery Observers project.
The modification also authorizes the annual hoop netting or dip netting, measuring, weighing, flipper and PIT tagging, tissue biopsying, blood sampling and release of an additional 100 leatherback, 120 loggerhead, 100 green (
Issuance of this modification, as required by the ESA was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered and threatened species which are the subject of this permit, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, DOC.
Notice of interim patent term extension.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued a certificate under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for a one-year interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,603,123.
Karin Ferriter by telephone at (571) 272-7744; by mail marked to her attention and addressed to Mail Stop Patent Ext., Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by fax marked to her attention at (571) 273-7744, or by e-mail to
Section 156 of Title 35, United States Code, generally provides that the term of a patent may be extended for a period of up to five years if the patent claims a product, or a method of making or using a product, that has been subject to certain defined regulatory review, and that the patent may be extended for interim periods of up to a year if the regulatory review is anticipated to extend beyond the expiration date of the patent.
On October 25, 2004, patent owner Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A. timely filed an application under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for an interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,603,123. The patent claims the active ingredient piroxicam betadex in the human drug product Brexidol®. The application indicates that a New Drug Application for Brexidol® (piroxicam betadex) has been filed and is currently undergoing regulatory review before the Food and Drug Administration for permission to market or use the product commercially.
Review of the application indicates that except for permission to market or use the product commercially, the subject patent would be eligible for an extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156, and that the patent should be extended for one year as required by 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5)(B). Since the regulatory review period is anticipated to continue beyond the expiration date of the patent November 13, 2004, interim extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) is appropriate.
An interim extension under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,603,123 is granted for a period of one year from the expiration date of the patent, i.e., until November 13, 2005.
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection adjusting limits.
November 12, 2004.
Ross Arnold, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection website (http://www.cbp.gov), or call (202) 344-2650. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel Web site at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The current limit for Categories 647/648 is being increased for the cancellation of special shift, reducing the limit for Categories 347/348 to account for the special shift being returned to Category 647/648.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on November 13, 2003, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool, man-made fiber, silk blend and other vegetable fiber textiles and textile products, produced or manufactured in Indonesia and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1, 2004 and extends through December 31, 2004.
Effective on November 12, 2004, you are directed to adjust the limits for the categories listed below, as provided for under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection adjusting limits.
November 12, 2004.
Ross Arnold, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection Web site (http://www.cbp.gov), or call (202) 344-2650. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel Web site at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for swing, carryover, and the cancellation of special shift.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on October 14, 2003, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool, man-made fiber, silk blend and other vegetable fiber textiles and textile products, produced or manufactured in Taiwan and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1, 2004 and extends through December 31, 2004.
Effective on November 12, 2004, you are directed to adjust the current limits for the following categories, as provided for under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Department of Defense, Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee.
Notice of meeting.
The Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee will meet in closed session at the Pentagon on December 8, 2004 from 0930 to 2000 and December 9, 2004 from 0830 to 1500.
The purpose of the meeting is to provide the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy with independent, informed advice on major matters of defense policy. The Board will hold classified discussions on national security matters.
In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App II (1982)), it has been determined that this meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552B(c)(1) (1982), and that accordingly this meeting will be closed to the public.
United States Election Assistance Commission.
Notice of public meeting agenda.
Tuesday, November 23, 2004, 10 a.m.-12 noon.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1225 New York Ave., NW., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005. (Metro Stop: Metro Center)
The Commission will receive updates and reports on the following:
Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (202) 566-3100.
Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
Notice of application.
ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) has applied for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests or requests to intervene must be submitted on or before November 29, 2004.
Comments, protests or requests to intervene should be addressed as follows: Office of Coal & Power Systems (FE-27), Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350 (FAX 202-287-5736).
Ellen Russell (Program Office) 202-586-9624 or Michael Skinker (Program Attorney) 202-586-2793.
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On October 4, 2004, the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) received an application from ISO-NE to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada. ISO-NE is the private, non-profit Independent System Operator for New England. ISO-NE administers the New England electricity markets and operates the bulk electric power system in the New England region. ISO-NE is responsible for protecting the short-term reliability of the New England control area, for administering competitive and efficient wholesale markets in New England, and for administering the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) Open Access Transmission Tariff on behalf of the NEPOOL participants.
In its role as control area operator, ISO-NE administers electricity transactions entered into by the NEPOOL participants and is responsible for scheduling transmission service over the bulk power transmission and generating facilities in New England. The electricity transactions administered by ISO-NE include electricity exports to Canadian entities.
On March 24, 2004, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an order granting Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) status to ISO-NE, subject to the fulfillment of certain requirements. In accordance with that order, ISO-NE will become the RTO for New England in the near future. In its application, ISO-NE states that commencement of its operations as the RTO will not have any substantive effect on the way it will administer electricity exports to Canada. In that regard, ISO-NE has requested that, if DOE grants its request in this proceeding, any order issued by DOE explicitly recognize the impending commencement of ISO-NE's operations as an RTO and provide for the continuation of its export authority once that conversion to an RTO occurs.
In its application ISO-NE requested that DOE expedite the processing of this application in order to have electricity export authority in place upon completion of the transition to the FERC-approved RTO. Accordingly, DOE has shortened the public comment period to 15 days.
ISO-NE proposes to arrange for the delivery of electric energy to Canada over the existing international transmission facilities owned by Joint Owners of the Highgate Project, Maine Electric Power Company and Vermont Electric Transmission Company. The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of each of the international transmission facilities to be utilized by ISO-NE, as more fully described in the application, has previously been authorized by a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended.
Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding or to be heard by filing comments or protests to this application should file a petition to intervene, comment or protest at the address provided above in accordance with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the FERC's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with DOE on or before the date listed above.
Comments on the ISO-NE application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with Docket EA-298. Additional copies are to be filed directly with James H. Douglass, Senior Regulatory Counsel, ISO New England Inc., One Sullivan Road, Holyoke, MA 01040-2841 and Perry D. Robinson, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP, 601 13th Street, NW., Suite 1000 South, Washington, DC 20005.
A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and a determination is made by the DOE that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above or by accessing the Fossil Energy Home Page at
Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
Notice of application.
Boliden Westmin (Canada) Limited (BWCL) and Boliden Power Limited (BPL) have jointly applied to transfer Presidential Permit PP-85-2 from BWCL to BPL.
Comments, protests, or requests to intervene must be submitted on or before December 13, 2004.
Comments, protests, or requests to intervene should be addressed as follows: Office of Fossil Energy, FE-27, Forrestal Building, U.S.
Ellen Russell (Program Office) 202-586-9624 or Michael T. Skinker (Program Attorney) 202-586-2793.
The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities at the international border of the United States for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country is prohibited in the absence of a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 10485, as amended by EO 12038. Existing Presidential permits are not transferable or assignable. However, in the event of a proposed voluntary transfer of facilities, in accordance with the regulations at 10 CFR 205.323, the existing permit holder and the transferee are required to file a joint application with DOE that includes a statement of reasons for the transfer.
On October 20, 2004, BWCL and BPL, both wholly-owned subsidiaries of Boliden AB, a Swedish Corporation, jointly filed an application with the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) to transfer from BWCL to BPL the international transmission facilities authorized by Presidential Permit PP-85-2. The permitted facilities “loop” into and out of Canada, through the State of Alaska, and do not interconnect with the electricity delivery system of Alaska. No physical change to authorized facilities is expected. The facilities proposed to be transferred are described as:
One 35,000-volt (35-kV) alternating current transmission line which crosses the U.S. international border from British Columbia, Canada, passes through the State of Alaska, and re-enters British Columbia at a second point on the U.S. international border.
Additional copies of such petitions to intervene or protests also should be filed directly with: W. S. Garton and Christopher Horte, Bull, Housser & Tupper, 3000-1055 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC, V6E 3R3, Canada.
Before a Presidential permit may be issued or amended, the DOE must determine that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system. In addition, DOE must consider the environmental impacts of the proposed action (
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above. In addition, the application may be reviewed or downloaded from the Fossil Energy home page at:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and reinstatement of this information collection requirement. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission received no comments in response to an earlier
Comments on the collection of information are due by December 10, 2004.
Address comments on the collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. Comments to OMB should be filed electronically, c/o
Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in WordPerfect, MS Word, Portable Document Format, or ASCII format. To file the document, access the Commission's Web site at
All comments are available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Michael Miller may be reached by telephone at (202) 502-8415, by fax at (202) 273-0873, and by e-mail at
The information collection submitted for OMB review contains the following:
1.
2.
3.
The Commission is now requesting that OMB approve and reinstate with a three-year extension of the expiration date, with no changes to the existing collection. The information filed with the Commission is mandatory.
4.
The exemption applies to companies engaged in the transportation or sale for resale of natural gas in interstate commerce if: (a) It receives gas at or within the boundaries of the state from another person; (b) such gas is transported, sold, consumed within such state; and (c) the rates, service and facilities of such company are subject to the regulation by a State Commission. The data required to be filed by a pipeline companies is specified by 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 152.
5.
6.
7.
Sections 1(c), 4, 7 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717-717w).
Take notice that on October 26, 2004 Starks Storage L.L.C. (Starks), c/o 1800, 855 2nd Street, SW., P.O. Box 2850, Calgary, AB T2P 2S5, Canada, filed in Docket No. CP05-8-000, CP05-9-000, and CP05-10,000, an application for (1) a certificate of public convenience and necessity under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to construct, own, operate, and maintain an underground natural gas storage facility at the Starks salt dome and a related pipeline in Calcasieu and Beauregard Parishes, Louisiana; (2) a blanket certificate under Part 157, Subpart F of the Commission's regulations; (3) a blanket certificate under Part 284, Subpart G of the Commission's regulations, (4) authorization to provide storage services at market-based rates; (5) approval of a pro-forma gas tariff; and (6) waiver of certain Commission regulations and requirements. The details are all more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may be also viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Jason A. Dubchak, Legal Counsel, c/o 1800, 855 2nd Street, SW., P.O. Box 2850, Calgary, AB T2P 2S5, Canada, phone (403) 645-5047; or Douglas F. John, John & Hengerer, 1200 17th Street, NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036-3013, phone (202) 439-8801.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. Unless filing electronically, a party must submit 14 copies of any paper filing made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.
The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification.
On November 1, 2004, Caprock Wind LLC (Caprock), a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
Caprock states that it intends to construct and operate an 80 MW wind powered generation facility located in Quay County, New Mexico ( Facility) and to generate and sell therefrom wholesale electric power. Caprock further states that approximately 60 MW of the 80 MW Facility is expected to begin commercial operations in December 2004.
Take notice that on October 28, 2004, Potomac Edison Company d/b/a/ Allegheny Power submitted a refund report in compliance with the Commission's Order on Remand issued September 28, 2004 in Docket No. EL03-55-003, 108 FERC ¶61,316 (2004).
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, Coral Power, L.L.C. (Coral Power) and Constellation Power Source, Inc. (Constellation) submitted a filing in response to the request for additional information pursuant to the Commission's deficiency letter issued on October 4, 2004 in Docket Nos. ER96-25-025 and ER97-2261-016.
Coral Power and Constellation state that copies of the filing were served on parties on the official service list in the above-captioned proceeding.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, Lake Road Generating Company, L.P. (Lake Road Gen) submitted for filing a notice of change in status in connection with the transfer of the ownership interests that were held indirectly by National Energy & Gas Transmission, Inc. in Lake Road Gen, which owns an approximately 750 MW (net) combined cycle generating facility located near Killingly, CT, to the creditors of Lake Road Gen.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, ISO New England Inc. (ISO) submitted for filing its Index of Customers for the third quarter of 2004 for its Tariff for Transmission Dispatch and Power Administration Services in compliance with Commission Order No. 614.
Take notice that on October 28, 2004, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO), submitted proposed revisions to the Midwest ISO Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT), which are intended to remove TRANSLink references from the OATT based on the Commission's Letter Orders issued September 22, 2004 in Docket Nos. ER03-83-004 and ER003-86-003. The Midwest ISO requests an effective date of October 30, 2004.
The Midwest ISO states that it has electronically served a copy of this filing, with attachments, upon all Midwest ISO Members, Member representatives of Transmission Owners and Non-Transmission Owners, the Midwest ISO Advisory Committee participants, as well as all state commissions within the region. In addition, the Midwest ISO also states that the filing has been electronically posted on the Midwest ISO's Web site at
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) tendered for filing an amendment to its August 20, 2004 filing in Docket No. ER04-1144-001, which proposed tariff amendments to establish a comprehensive planning process for reliability needs for New York. NYISO states that the amendment to the filing provides information responsive to the Commission's October 19, 2004 deficiency letter in the same proceeding.
The NYISO has served a copy of this filing on the service list maintained by the Commission in this proceeding. Additionally, the NYISO has electronically served a copy of this filing on the official representative of each of its customers, on each participant in its stakeholder committees, and on the New York State Public Service Commission. The NYISO has also served the electric utility regulatory agencies of New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, Southwestern Public Service Company (SPS) tendered for filing, proposed changes in the Power Sales Agreements applicable to the following wholesale full requirements customers: Central Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc., Farmers' Electric Cooperative, Inc. of New Mexico, Lea County Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Roosevelt County Electric Cooperative, Inc. (the Customers). SPS states that it is making the filing to modify the terms under which SPS delivers to the Customers power allocations the Customers receive from the Western Area Power Administration. SPS requests an effective date of October 1, 2004.
SPS states that it has served a copy of the complete filing on each of the affected customers. SPS also states that it has mailed a complete copy of the filing to the Public Utility Commission of Texas and to the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission. Finally, SPS states that copies of the filing are available for public inspection in the offices of SPS in Amarillo, Texas.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion Virginia Power) tendered for filing a notice of termination of power supply contract designated as First Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 94. Dominion Virginia Power requests an effective date of January 1, 2005.
Dominion Virginia Power states that copies of the filing were served upon Central Virginia Electric Cooperative, the Virginia State Corporation Commission, and the North Carolina Utilities Commission.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, Smarr EMC (Smarr) tendered for filing with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 35.13, revisions to Smarr's Second Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 1. Smarr requests an effective date of effective January 1, 2005.
Smarr states that copies of this filing have been mailed to each of Smarr's Member-Owner/Purchasers.
Take notice that, on October 29, 2004, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPSC) tendered for filing three revised service agreements between WPSC and Washington Island Electric Cooperative (Washington Island), WPSC and Manitowoc Public Utilities (Manitowoc) and WPSC and Upper Peninsula Power Company (UPPCo) (Revised Service Agreements). WPSC states that the Revised Service Agreements update the Customers' demand nominations and are being filed under WPSC's FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1. WPSC requests an effective date of January 1, 2005.
WPSC states that a copy of the filing was served upon Washington Island, Manitowoc, UPPCo, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, and the Michigan Public Service Commission.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004 Southern Company Services, Inc. submitted the annual informational schedules filing required under: (1) The Unit Power Sales Agreement dated July 20, 1988, between Southern Companies (i.e., Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, Savannah Electric and Power Company, and Southern Company Services, Inc.) and Florida Power & Light Company (FPL); (2) the Unit Power Sales Agreement dated August 17, 1988, between Southern Companies and Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA); and (3) Unit Power Sales Agreement dated July 19, 1988 between Southern Companies and Florida Power Corporation (FPC).
Southern Companies states that copies of the material filed herewith have been sent to representatives of FPL, FPC and JEA.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004 Alabama Power Company (APCo) submitted for filing proposed Amended and Restated Agreement for Partial Requirements Service and Complementary Services and the proposed Agreement for Transmission and Other Complementary Services between Alabama Power Company and the Alabama Municipal Electric Authority.
Take notice that on October 28, 2004 Southern Company Services, Inc. (SCS), acting as agent for Georgia Power Company (Georgia Power), submitted for filing the annual informational filing regarding Georgia Power's provision of transmission services resulting from the sale of the electric generating facility known as Scherer Unit No. 4 to Florida Power and Light Company (FP&L) and Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA).
SCS states that copies of the filed materials have been sent to representatives of FP&L and JEA.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, Mississippi Power Company submitted an annual informational filing required under the Transmission Facilities Agreement between Gulf States Utilities Company and Mississippi Power Company.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004 Southern Company Services, Inc. (Southern Company) submitted its annual informational filing under the Southern Company System Intercompany Interchange Contract, as amended and restated, between the Operating Companies of the Southern Company (Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, Savannah Electric and Power Company and Southern Power Company).
Southern Company states that copies of this informational filing have been furnished to representatives of each of the Operating Companies.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL Electric) filed on behalf of itself and Metropolitan Edison Corporation (Met-Ed) Second Revised Service Agreement No. 941 under PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., FERC Electric Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1. PPL Electric states that the Service Agreement No. 941 is an Interconnection Agreement between Met-Ed and PPL Electric and has been revised to include a Third Supplemental Agreement relating to the establishment of an additional point of interconnection. PPL Electric requests an effective date of September 29, 2004.
PPL Electric states that copies of the filing were served upon Met-Ed.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, Midwest Generation, LLC (MWGen) submitted its Third Revised Sheet No. 1 under MWGen's FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 3, increasing its revenue requirement for Reactive Power Capability to reflect the return to operation of two of MWGen's generating units (Will County Units 1 and 2).
MWGen states that copies of the filing were served upon the Illinois Commerce Commission, Commonwealth Edison Company, and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM)
PJM states that copies of the filing were served on all PJM members and the utility regulatory commissions in the PJM region.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), tendered for filing an unexecuted agreement for network integration transmission service (Service Agreement) with Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. d/b/a Vectren Energy Delivery, Inc., Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Southern Indiana Rural Electric Cooperative (collectively the Joint Operating Group). PJM states that it is filing the agreement because it is unexecuted and includes provisions not reflected in PJM's Open Access Transmission Tariff. PJM also states that the Service Agreement is meant to replace a previous agreement by which the Joint Operating Group took network integration transmission service under the open access transmission tariff of American Electric Power Service Corp., and is intended to maintain continuity of service. PJM requests an effective date of October 1, 2004.
PJM states that copies of this filing were served upon each member of the Joint operating Group as well as the affected state commission.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, Ameren Services Company (Ameren), on behalf of Illinois Power Company d/b/a AmerenIP (AmerenIP), submitted a revised Schedule 4R, Illinois Retail Load Energy Imbalance Service, to the Open Access Transmission Tariff of Illinois Power Company, Illinois Power Company FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 8. Ameren states that the filing provides that the imbalance service that AmerenIP offers to retail electric suppliers in Illinois under Schedule 4R will, effective December 1, 2004, be identical in all material respects, as to rate design, terms and conditions, to the retail imbalance service offered under Schedule 4A, Illinois Retail Energy Imbalance Service, of the OATT of the Ameren Operating Companies (Central Illinois Public Service Company dba AmerenCIPS and Union Electric Company dba AmerenUE).
Ameren states that it has served a copy of the complete filing on all current customers under Schedule 4R and on the Illinois Commerce Commission and a copy of the transmittal letter on other IP OATT customers providing them with notice of the filing. Ameren also states that it has posted a copy of the filing on the Midwest ISO's website at
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) submitted for filing revised pages to its Open Access Transmission Tariff intended to provide for an Aggregate Transmission Service Study process. SPP states that this process will be used to evaluate long-term transmission service requests in order to provide the necessary available transmission capacity to accommodate all such requests at the minimum total cost. SPP requests an effective date of February 1, 2005.
SPP states that it has served a copy of its transmittal letter on each of its Members and Customers. SPP also states that a complete copy of this filing will be posted on the SPP Web site
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Wisconsin Electric) tendered for filing a fully executed Master Power Purchase and Sale Agreement (Master Agreement), designated as FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 114, between Wisconsin Electric and Exelon Generation Company, LLC. (ExGen). Wisconsin Electric requests that this Master Agreement become effective immediately.
Wisconsin Electric states that copies of this filing were served on the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, the Michigan Public Service Commission and ExGen.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, TransCanada Hydro Northeast Inc. (TC Hydro NE) filed with the Commission an application requesting that the Commission accept for filing a Market-Based Tariff for TC Hydro NE, and otherwise grant TC Hydro NE the authority to sell energy and capacity and ancillary services in wholesale transactions at negotiated, market-based rates pursuant to Part 35 of the Commission's regulations. TC Hydro NE requests an effective date of November 29, 2004.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) filed a notice of termination of the wholesale power sales agreements (PSAs) on file with the Commission in Docket No. ER00-933-000 between ComEd and Entergy-Koch Trading, LP under ComEd's wholesale power sales tariffs, designated as Service Agreement No. 149 under Commonwealth Edison Company FERC Electric Tariff No. 2, and Service Agreement No. 6 under Commonwealth Edison Company FERC Electric Tariff No. 6. The PSAs terminate effective December 31, 2004.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) tendered for filing an annual rate update, including rate schedule sheet revisions, to become effective January 1, 2005, to its Reliability Must-Run Service Agreements (RMR Agreements) with the California Independent System Operator Corporation (ISO) for Helms Power Plant (PG&E First Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 207), Humboldt Power Plant (PG&E First Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 208), Hunters Point Power Plant (PG&E First Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 209), San Joaquin Power Plant (PG&E First Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 211) and Kings River Watershed (PG&E Rate Schedule FERC No. 226).
PG&E states that copies of the filing have been served upon the ISO, the California Electricity Oversight Board and the California Public Utilities Commission.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, Duke Energy Oakland, LLC (DEO) pursuant to 16 USC 824d and Part 35.13 of the Commission's Regulations, submitted for filing revisions to certain Reliability Must-Run Rate Schedules in its Reliability Must Run Agreement (RMR) with the California Independent System Operator Corporation. DEO further tendered for filing an informational filing detailing and supporting the proposed changes to its Annual Fixed Revenue Requirements under its RMR Agreement.
DEO states that copies of the filing were served upon the California ISO, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, and the Electricity Oversight Board of the State of California.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc. (Wabash Valley) submitted for filing an Agreement for Electric Service between Wabash Valley and one of its Members, Carroll County REMC, implementing service under Schedule EDR-5 of Wabash Valley's FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1 Wabash Valley requests an effective date of January 1, 2005.
Wabash Valley states that copies of the filing were served upon each of Wabash Valley's Members and the public utility commissions in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, the New York System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) tendered for filing proposed revisions to its Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff (Services Tariff) designed to extend the current methodology and rate used to calculate payments for Voltage Support Service through the end of calendar year 2005. The NYISO requests an effective date of January 1, 2005.
The NYISO states that it has electronically served a copy of this filing on the official representative of each of its customers, on each participant in its stakeholder committees, and on the New York State Public Service Commission. The NYISO states that it has also served the state regulatory commissions of New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Take notice that, on October 29, 2004, Conectiv Energy Supply, Inc. (CESI) submitted for filing a Service Agreement to its Market Based Rate Tariff a contract under which CESI will provide full requirements service to Delmarva Power & Light Company's retail residential load in Virginia. CESI requests an effective date of January 1, 2005.
CESI states that this filing was served on the Virginia State Corporation Commission.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) and the Midwest ISO Transmission Owners, submitted proposed revisions to Attachment O (Rate Formulae) of the Midwest ISO Open Access Transmission Tariff, which revisions are intended to correct an inconsistency with respect to the treatment of long-term interest as described in the Commission Uniform System of Accounts. Midwest ISO and Midwest ISO Transmission Owners have requested an effective date of January 1, 2005.
The Midwest ISO states that it has electronically served a copy of the filing, with attachments, on all Midwest ISO Members, Member representatives of Transmission Owners and Non-Transmission Owners, the Midwest ISO Advisory Committee participants, as well as all state commissions within the region. In addition, Midwest ISO states that the filing has been electronically posted on the Midwest ISO's Web site at
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, Duke Energy Vermillion, LLC (Duke Vermillion) tendered for filing its proposed tariff and supporting cost data for its Monthly Revenue Requirement for Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service provided to the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO). Duke Vermillion requests an effective date of November 1, 2004.
Duke Vermillion has served a copy of the filing on the Midwest ISO.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) submitted amendments to Schedule 2 of the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff (PJM Tariff) to incorporate the revenue requirements for Reactive Support and Voltage Control for Generation Sources Service (Reactive Power) of PPL University Park (PPL-UP), Lower Mount Bethel Energy, LLC (Lower Mount Bethel), Reliant Energy Aurora, LP (Aurora), Big Sandy Peaker Plant, LLC (Big Sandy), Wolf Hills Energy, LLC (Wolf Hills), Rolling Hills Generating, L.L.C. (Rolling Hills), Twelvepole Creek, LLC (Twelvepole Creek), and Reliant Energy Seward, LLC (Seward).
PJM states that copies of this filing have been served on all PJM members, including PPL-UP, Lower Mount Bethel, Aurora, Big Sandy, Wolf Hills, Rolling Hills, Twelvepole Creek, and Seward and each state electric utility regulatory commission in the PJM region.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) submitted an informational filing under its Reliability Must-Run Service Agreements with the California Independent System Operator Corporation (ISO) for Helms Power Plant (PG&E First Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 207), Humboldt Power Plant (PG&E First Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 208), Hunters Point Power Plant (PG&E First Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 209), San Joaquin Power Plant (PG&E First Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 211) and Kings
PG&E states that copies of PG&E's filing have been served upon the ISO, the California Electricity Oversight Board and the California Public Utilities Commission.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, Entergy Services, Inc. (ESI), on behalf of Entergy Louisiana, Inc. (ELI) as purchaser and Entergy Gulf States, Inc. (EGS) as seller, filed an amendment to the master power purchase and sale agreement between ELI and EGS. ESI requests an effective date of January 1, 2005.
ESI states that copies of this filing were served on the affected state utility commissions and members of the official service list.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, Duke Energy South Bay, LLC (DESB) submitted for filing revisions to certain Reliability Must-Run Rate Schedules in its Reliability Must Run Agreement (RMR) with the California Independent System Operator Corporation. DESB also submitted an informational filing detailing and supporting the proposed changes to its Annual Fixed Revenue Requirements under its RMR Agreement.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) tendered for filing six agreements for network integration transmission service (Service Agreements) under the PJM open access transmission tariff (PJM Tariff). PJM states that the agreements, each of which has been executed by the customer, are with Blue Ridge Power Agency, Inc., Central Virginia Electric Cooperative, the City of Dowagiac, Michigan, the City of Sturgis, Michigan, and Ormet Primary Aluminum Corp. (collectively the Parties). PJM requests an effective date of October 1, 2004.
PJM states that a copy of this filing has been served upon each of the Parties, as well as the affected state commissions.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, ISO New England Inc., (NEPOOL) and the New England transmission owners (consisting of Bangor Hydro-Electric Company; Central Maine Power Company; New England Power Company; Northeast Utilities Service Company on behalf of its operating companies: The Connecticut Light and Power Company, Western Massachusetts Electric Company, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Holyoke Power and Electric Company, and Holyoke Water Power Company; NSTAR Electric & Gas Corporation on behalf of its operating affiliates: Boston Edison Company, Commonwealth Electric Company, Canal Electric Company, and Cambridge Electric Light Company; The United Illuminating Company; Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc. submitted a report regarding compliance with paragraph 95 of the Commission's order issued March 24, 2004, 106 FERC ¶61,280 (2004).
NEPOOL states that copies of said filing have been served upon all parties to this proceeding, upon all NEPOOL Participants (electronically), non-Participant Transmission Customers, and the governors and regulatory agencies of the six New England states.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all parties to this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) regulations contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (18 CFR Part 380 [FERC Order No. 486, 52 F.R. 47897]), the Office of Energy Projects staff (staff) reviewed the applications for amendment of licenses for the Veazie Project, which is located on the Penobscot River in Penobscot County, Maine; the Milford Project, which is located on the Penobscot and Stillwater Rivers in Penobscot County, Maine; the West Enfield Project which is located on the Penobscot River in Penobscot County, Maine; the Stillwater Project, which is located on the Stillwater River in Penobscot County, Maine; and the Medway Project, which is located on the West Branch Penobscot River in Penobscot County, Maine, and prepared a draft environmental assessment (DEA) for the projects. In this DEA, staff analyzes the potential environmental
A copy of the DEA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, or it may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Any comments should be filed by November 30, 2004, and should be addressed to Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please reference the project names and numbers on all comments (p-2403-048
Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001 (a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-2607-009) on any comments or motions filed.
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing a document with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
p.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 13, 2004.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number SFUND-2004-0003, to (1) EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by email to
Sherry Fielding, Office of Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (OEPPR), Mail Code 5104A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-6174; fax number: (202) 564-8211; email address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On March 12, 2004 (69 FR 11851), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. SFUND-2004-0003, which is available for public viewing at the Superfund Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Superfund Docket is (202) 566-0276. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at
Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's
The survey will be conducted via the Internet after 600 names are randomly selected from the CAMEO Listserv. EPA will send prior notification to the entire Listserv (6,000-7,000 names) informing users of the survey and the process. EPA will send a message to the 600 selected participants with a link to the Web-based survey; there will be no passwords to access the survey. In completing the survey, EPA will not require participants to provide any identifying information.
The primary goals of this research are to: (i) Evaluate customer satisfaction with CAMEO; (ii) probe current user practices and preferences regarding several important sets of issues, including the effectiveness of selected Agency products and services, required reporting requirements, and new homeland security responsibilities; and (iii) identify emerging user needs. EPA will use the information collected through this survey to judge the success and efficacy of the Agency's chemical emergency technical assistance efforts and improve program implementation.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of adequacy.
In this notice, EPA is notifying the public that we have found the Yakima PM
This finding is effective November 29, 2004.
The finding is available at EPA's conformity Web site:
Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that we have already made. EPA Region 10 sent a letter to the Washington Department of Ecology, October 12, 2004, stating that the SIP is adequate for transportation conformity purposes.
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to SIPs. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.
The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP is adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review and it also should not be used to prejudge our ultimate approval of the SIP. Even if we find a SIP adequate for conformity, the SIP could later be disapproved.
We have described our process for determining the adequacy in SIPs in guidance dated May 14, 1999. This guidance is now reflected in the amended transportation conformity rule, July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). We followed this process in making our adequacy determination.
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at (202) 564-7167.
An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 02, 2004 (69 FR 17403).
ERP No. D-AFS-G65094-NM Rating LO, Ojo Caliente Proposed Transmission Line, Authorization for Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of a New 115kV Transmission Line and Substation, Carson National Forest and BLM Taos Field Office, Taos and Rio Arriba Counties, NM.
ERP No. D-DHS-D11036-MD Rating EC2, National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) Facility at Fort Detrick, Construction and Operation, Fort Detrick, Frederick County, MD.
ERP No. F-AFS-K65263-CA Meteor Project, Proposal for Harvesting Timber and Conducting Associated Activities on 744 Acres, Implementation, Klamath National Forest, Salmon River Ranger District, Siskiyou County, CA.
This document is available on the Internet at:
This document is available on the Internet at:
This document is available on the Internet at:
Revision of
Review of
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a meeting of the chartered SAB to hold discussions with EPA about the Agency's science program in preparation for its upcoming advisory about the EPA science and budget request for FY 2006.
A public face-to-face meeting of the SAB will be held from 1 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on November 30, 2004.
The SAB meeting will be held at the Washington Terrace Hotel, 1515 Rhode Island Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Any member of the public wishing further information concerning this meeting should contact Mr. Tom Miller, Designated Federal Officer, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office (1400F), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 343-9982; Fax (202) 233-0643; or via e-mail at
The first meeting, to be held on November 30, 2004, will be fact-finding in nature. Subsequent fact-finding meetings associated with this advisory will be conducted by telephone conference. These meetings or telephone conferences will be announced in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) is conducting a workshop on nanotechnology, biotechnology, and information technology. The workshop is open to the public, however, seating for the public will be limited and available on a first-come basis only to those who pre-register (see Workshop Registration below).
The SAB workshop will be held on Wednesday, December 1, 2004, beginning at 8:30 a.m. and adjourning no later than 1:30 p.m., Thursday, December 2, 2004.
The SAB workshop will be held at Washington Terrace Hotel, 1515 Rhode Island Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Any member of the public wishing further information concerning this workshop should contact Ms. Vickie Richardson, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office (1400F), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 343-9978; Fax (202) 233-0643; or via e-mail at
The SAB was established by 42 U.S.C. 4365 to provide independent scientific and technical advice, consultation, and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is convening this workshop to learn more about recent developments in nanotechnology, biotechnology and information technology. The workshop is intended to educate and inform the SAB, so that it may better understand the potential applications and implications of these technologies for science and research programs at EPA. The workshop will include advisory members of the SAB, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (COUNCIL), their committees, and invited EPA and outside experts in the fields of nanotechnology, biotechnology and information technology. It will begin with a series of plenary presentations. Following the plenary overviews, workshop participants will be assigned to break out groups to learn more about the specific topic areas. The Workshop will conclude with the attendees identifying a number of issues that it will consider conducting in order to assist the EPA science programs
Although the SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee, this workshop is an administrative meeting and, therefore, not subject to the open meeting requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. However, the Workshop is open to the public. Seating for the public will be limited and available on a first come basis only to those who pre-register (see Workshop Registration above).
A draft Workshop agenda is posted on the SAB Web site under “Recent Additions” (
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In accordance with section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of request for amendments by registrants to delete uses in certain registrations and to cancel certain product registrations containing the pesticide ferbam. Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be cancelled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any request in the
The deletions are effective on January 11, 2005, unless the Agency receives a written withdrawal request on or before January 11, 2005, or unless the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that would merit its further review of these requests. The Agency will consider withdrawal requests postmarked no later than January 11, 2005.
Written withdrawal requests may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
Amaris Johnson, Office of Pesticide Programs (7508C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-9542; e-mail address:
This action is directed to the public in general. Although, this action may be of particular interest to persons who produce or use pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
1.
ii.
2.
3.
This notice announces receipt by the Agency of applications from registrants to delete uses in certain pesticide registrations and to cancel certain pesticide registrations. The use
Table 3 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 and 2 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be cancelled or amended to terminate one or more uses. The Act further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for use deletion must submit the withdrawal in writing to Amaris Johnson using the instructions in Unit I.C. The Agency will consider written withdrawal requests postmarked no later than January 11, 2005.
For purposes of this cancellation order, the term “existing stocks” is defined, pursuant to EPA's existing stocks policy (56 FR 29362, June 26, 1991), as those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. The Agency has authorized the registrants to sell or distribute product under the previously approved labeling for a period of 12 months after approval of the revision, unless other restrictions have been imposed.
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), this notice advises interested persons of the third meeting of the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (Council) under its charter renewed as of December 29, 2003. The meeting will be held at the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, DC.
Monday, December 6, 2004 beginning at 10 a.m. and concluding at 1 p.m.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St., SW., Room TW-305, Washington, DC.
Jeffery Goldthorp, the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at (202) 418-1096 or
The purpose of the Council is to provide recommendations to the FCC and to the communications industry that, if implemented, shall under all reasonably foreseeable circumstances assure optimal reliability and interoperability of wireless, wireline, satellite, cable, and public data networks. The Council will discuss the progress of working groups that are addressing the topics that are contained in the Council's charter and any additional issues that may come before it. Members of the general public may attend the meeting. The Federal communications Commission will attempt to accommodate as many people as possible. Admittance, however, will be limited to the seating available. The public may submit written comments before the meeting to Jeffery Goldthorp, the Commission's Designated Federal Officer for the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council, by e-mail (
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 4:30 p.m. on Monday, November 15, 2004, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in closed session, pursuant to section 552b(c)(2), (c)(6), (c)(8), and (c)(9)(A)(ii) of Title 5, United States Code, to consider matters relating to the Corporation's corporate activities.
The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550-17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at (202) 898-7043.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session at 4 p.m. on Monday, November 15, 2004, to consider the following matters:
The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550-17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (
Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at (202) 898-7043.
Federal Election Commission.
Thursday, November 4, 2004, 10 a.m. Meeting open to the public. This meeting was cancelled.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).
This meeting will be open 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
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, effective on the corresponding date shown below:
Date Revoked: October 13, 2004.
Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984, as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515.
Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer, GSA.
Notice of request for comments regarding a renewal to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the General Services Administration will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a renewal of a currently approved information collection requirement regarding the qualifications of offerors.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
Submit comments on or before: January 11, 2005.
Ms. Linda Nelson, Procurement Analyst, Contract Policy Division, at (202) 501-1900 or via e-mail at linda.nelson@gsa.gov.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the Regulatory Secretariat (V), General Services Administration, Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0197, GSAR Provision 552.237-70, Qualifications of Offerors, in all correspondence.
The General Services Administration (GSA) has various mission responsibilities related to the acquisition and provision of service contracts. These mission responsibilities generate requirements that are realized through the solicitation and award of contracts for building services. Individual solicitations and resulting contracts may impose unique information collection and reporting requirements on contractors not required by regulation, but necessary to evaluate particular program accomplishments and measure success in meeting program objectives.
Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer, GSA.
Notice of request for comments regarding a renewal to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the General Services Administration will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a renewal of a currently approved information collection requirement regarding information specific to a contract or contracting action (not required by regulation).
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
Submit comments on or before: January 11, 2005.
Linda Nelson, Procurement Analyst, Contract Policy Division, at telephone (202) 501-1900 or via email at linda.nelson@gsa.gov.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the Regulatory Secretariat (V), General Services Administration, Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0163, Information Specific to a Contract or Contracting Action (not required by regulation), in all correspondence.
The General Services Administration (GSA) has various mission responsibilities related to the acquisition and provision of supplies, transportation, ADP, telecommunications, real property management, and disposal of real and personal property. These mission responsibilities generate requirements that are realized through the solicitation and award of public contracts. Individual solicitations and resulting contracts may impose unique information collection/reporting requirements on contractors, not required by regulation, but necessary to evaluate particular program accomplishments and measure success in meeting special program objectives.
Office of the Secretary, Grants.gov Program Management Office, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden. Emergency Clearance for the data set was published in the
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access the HHS Web site address at
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-498-1210 or send comments to Seleda Perryman, CDC Assistant Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-E11, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an e-mail to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Measurement—New—The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is considered by many to be a serious problem that cuts across cultures, socioeconomic status and gender. CDC considers IPV to be a “substantial public health problem for Americans that has serious consequences and costs for individuals, families, communities and society.” The past twenty years have witnessed an extraordinary growth in research on the prevalence, incidence, causes and effects of IPV. Various disciplines have contributed to the development of research on the subject including psychology, epidemiology, criminology and public health.
Still, there is a lack of reliable information on the extent and prevalence of IPV. Estimates vary widely regarding the magnitude of the problem. This variance is due in large part to the different contexts, instruments, and methods that are used to measure IPV. Thus, the CDC is engaged in work to improve the quality of data, and hence knowledge about violence against women. Part of this process includes identifying the strengths and limitations of different scales used to measure IPV and determine the appropriateness of each of these scales for use with individuals of different racial/ethnic backgrounds.
The purpose of this project is to administer and test the statistical properties of four scales, via telephone interviews, that measure both victimization from and perpetration of IPV. The scales will be administered to a random sample of women ages 18-50 from five racial/ethnic backgrounds: African-American, American Indian, Asian, White and Hispanic.
The four scales are the (1) Sexual Experiences Survey (SES), (2) Conflict Tactics Scale 2 (CTS2), (3) Index of Spouse Abuse (ISA), and (4) Women's Experience with Battering (WEB) scale. The survey instrument will contain each of these scales and introductory and transitional text developed specifically for this study.
The overall benefit of this project is to increase knowledge about the reliability and validity of these scales, which have been used in previous studies. Ultimately, this knowledge will assist CDC in establishing an on-going data collection system for monitoring IPV. CDC intends to contract with an agency to conduct the survey. The only cost to the respondents is the time involved to complete the survey.
This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the Advisory Committee for Injury Prevention and Control, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, of the Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period extending through October 28, 2006.
Louise Galaska, Executive Secretary, ACIPC, CDC, 4770 Buford Hwy, M/S K02, Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Telephone (770) 488-4694, fax (770) 488-4422.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
• The current state of scientific knowledge regarding transmission of certain infectious agents through the air, focusing on the scientific basis for respiratory protection of workers and patients;
• The current state of scientific knowledge regarding respiratory protection as related to droplet nuclei and certain aerosol-transmitted agents;
• Strategies for improving the quality and effectiveness of respiratory protection; and research needs to fill current knowledge gaps.
Agenda items are subject to changes as priorities dictate.
Interested parties should confirm their attendance to this meeting by completing the on-line registration form:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee meeting:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The Program Peer Review Subcommittee of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC), National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH)/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR): Teleconference.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), NCEH/ATSDR announces the following subcommittee meeting:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
For complete instructions, potential applicants must obtain a copy of SAMHSA's standard Infrastructure Grants Program Announcement (INF-05 PA), and the PHS 5161-1 (Rev. 7/00) application form before preparing and submitting an application. The INF-05 PA describes the general program design and provides instructions for applying for all SAMHSA Infrastructure Grants, including the State Adolescent Substance Abuse Treatment Coordination program. SAMHSA's Infrastructure Grants provide funds to develop or enhance service system infrastructure in order to support effective substance abuse services. Additional instructions and specific requirements for this funding opportunity are described below.
Section 509 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended and subject to the availability of funds.
The State Adolescent Substance Abuse Treatment Coordination grant program is one of SAMHSA's Infrastructure Grant programs. The purpose of State Adolescent Substance Abuse Treatment Coordination grants is to build capacity in States to provide effective, accessible, and affordable substance abuse treatment for youth and their families. Grants will provide funding to support a staff position (a State official whose sole responsibility is ensuring the effectiveness of adolescent substance abuse treatment State-wide) and a State process to assess, facilitate, and coordinate ongoing, self-sustaining cross-system planning for effective adolescent substance abuse treatment.
Grantees are required to hire and/or dedicate a full-time employee at the State level vested with the authority to convene and coordinate all of the State agencies that allocate public health resources that may provide funding and other support for adolescents and their families needing early intervention and treatment services for substance use disorders. The State adolescent substance abuse treatment coordinator shall also form linkages with other service systems that provide mental health, education, health, child welfare, and juvenile justice services for youth and their families and identify opportunities to coordinate funding and treatment resources across these systems to the fullest extent possible. It is incumbent upon the grantee to create a position vested with the authority necessary to accomplish these tasks, and to hire/designate an individual who has the necessary skills and experience appropriate for the position, including an understanding of the correlation of co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders.
Although there has been increased awareness around the need for accessible, effective substance abuse treatment for youth, there are problems within State structures that make providing funding and services for youth extremely difficult. Responsibility for adolescent treatment is located in a number of State agencies, and is frequently not in the office that oversees substance abuse treatment services. Only one State has best practices guidelines for adolescent substance abuse treatment. Only five States' substance abuse counselor licensure requirements include any knowledge of youth addiction, childhood development, or families. None has a specific licensure for clinicians working with youth addiction. Of the six States that have separate certification requirements for adolescent substance abuse treatment, four do not address required staffing levels; none addresses the issue of parental notification; only one addresses the use of discipline/restraint; only three require background checks for staff; and only three require any specialized training for staff. A major contributor to the aforementioned weaknesses in the adolescent substance abuse treatment system is that most States do not have a single locus of responsibility for ensuring an accessible, effective substance abuse treatment system for youth and their families.
Grants funds
Grantees
• Develop a full-time position within a unit of State government to oversee and coordinate the adolescent substance abuse treatment system Statewide.
• Link and coordinate with other service systems to promote comprehensive, integrated services for youth with substance abuse and/or co-occurring problems. Such service systems include mental health, health, juvenile justice, education, child welfare, and Medicaid.
• Coordinate the budget formulation and benefit plans (
• Identify barriers (fiscal, regulatory, and policy) that impede the adoption and provision of accessible evidence-based treatment across the full continuum of care recommended by the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM)*. Devise and implement strategies, in concert with all other State-agencies that may fund and/or regulate these services, to improve the access to treatment, increase capacity and quality, and expand the available continuum in communities and throughout the State implementing treatment interventions with a scientific evidence base for the population to be served.
• Import tools, coordinate training, and support providers in the adoption of screening and assessment protocols that cross-walk to DSM-IV/ICD 10 criteria for substance abuse/dependence, mental health diagnoses, and ASAM Patient Placement Criteria, Version 2—Revised
• Develop/improve State standards for licensure/certification/accreditation of programs that provide substance abuse treatment services for adolescents and their families.
• Develop/improve State standards for licensure/certification/credentialing of adolescent substance abuse treatment counselors.
• Identify and provide linkages across the universe of discretionary federal and foundation-funded adolescent substance abuse treatment grant programs for the purpose of supporting and disseminating learning across the State-wide treatment system and to provide assistance to ensure sustainability and adoption of best/evidence based practices identified in these programs.
• Identify, disseminate, and support training and technical assistance resources that expand the capacity and quality of adolescent substance abuse treatment throughout the State provider system, including cross-training for adolescent mental health and substance abuse treatment providers.
• Participate in and actively share learning across the community created by the States funded in this grant program to leverage training, support, dissemination, intervention adoption, and evaluation/research to improve the treatment system for youth and their families both intra-State and inter-State.
• Promote coordination and collaboration with family support organizations to strengthen services for youth, with or at risk of substance abuse and/or co-occurring problems.
• Facilitate the development of a State-wide provider association for adolescent substance abuse treatment across programs and for counselors engaged in providing these services, regardless of the State or local system within which they work.
• Keep abreast of the research findings related to adolescent substance abuse treatment and disseminate this information State-wide in a form that is easily digested by clinical staff, providing insight on the application of the research to improve clinical practice at the program level.
1.
This program is being announced prior to the annual appropriation for FY 2005 for SAMHSA's programs, with funding estimates based on the President's budget request for FY 2005. Applications are invited based on the assumption that sufficient funds will be appropriated for FY 2005 to permit funding of a reasonable number of applications hereby solicited. All applicants are reminded, however, that we cannot guarantee that sufficient funds will be appropriated to permit SAMHSA to fund any applications.
2.
1.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching is not required.
3.
1.
When submitting an application, be sure to type “TI 05-006/Adolescent Treatment Coordination” in Item Number 10 on the face page of the application form. Also, SAMHSA applicants are required to provide a DUNS Number on the face page of the
2.
SAMHSA's goal is to review all applications submitted for grant funding. However, this goal must be balanced against SAMHSA's obligation to ensure equitable treatment of applications. For this reason, SAMHSA has established certain formatting requirements for its applications. If you do not adhere to these requirements, your application will be screened out and returned to you without review.
☐ Use the PHS 5161-1 application.
☐ Applications must be received by the application deadline. Applications received after this date must have a proof of mailing date from the carrier dated at least 1 week prior to the due date. Private metered postmarks are not acceptable as proof of timely mailing. Applications not received by the application deadline or not postmarked at least 1 week prior to the application deadline will not be reviewed.
☐ Information provided must be sufficient for review.
☐ Text must be legible. (For Project Narratives submitted electronically in Microsoft Word, see separate requirements below under “Guidance for Electronic Submission of Applications.”)
• Type size in the Project Narrative cannot exceed an average of 15 characters per inch, as measured on the physical page. (Type size in charts, tables, graphs, and footnotes will not be considered in determining compliance.)
• Text in the Project Narrative cannot exceed 6 lines per vertical inch.
☐ Paper must be white paper and 8.5 inches by 11.0 inches in size.
☐ To ensure equity among applications, the amount of space allowed for the Project Narrative cannot be exceeded. (For Project Narratives submitted electronically in Microsoft Word, see separate requirements below under “Guidance for Electronic Submission of Applications.”)
• Applications would meet this requirement by using all margins (left, right, top, bottom) of at least one inch each, and adhering to the page limit for the Project Narrative stated in the INF-05 PA.
• Should an application not conform to these margin or page limits, SAMHSA will use the following method to determine compliance: The total area of the Project Narrative (excluding margins, but including charts, tables, graphs and footnotes) cannot exceed 58.5 square inches multiplied by the page limit. This number represents the full page less margins, multiplied by the total number of allowed pages.
• Space will be measured on the physical page. Space left blank within the Project Narrative (excluding margins) is considered part of the Project Narrative, in determining compliance.
To facilitate review of your application, follow these additional guidelines. Failure to adhere to the following guidelines will not, in itself, result in your application being screened out and returned without review. However, the information provided in your application must be sufficient for review. Following these guidelines will help ensure your application is complete, and will help reviewers to consider your application.
☐ The 10 application components required for SAMHSA applications should be included. These are:
• Face page (Standard Form 424, which is in PHS 5161-1).
• Abstract.
• Table of contents.
• Budget form (Standard Form 424A, which is in PHS 5161-1).
• Project narrative and supporting documentation.
• Appendices.
• Assurances (Standard Form 424B, which is in PHS 5161-1).
• Certifications (a form in PHS 5161-1).
• Disclosure of lobbying activities (Standard Form LLL, which is in PHS 5161-1).
• Checklist (a form in PHS 5161-1).
☐ Applications should comply with the following requirements:
• Provisions relating to confidentiality, participant protection and the protection of human subjects, as indicated in the INF-05 PA.
• Budgetary limitations as indicated in Sections I, II, and IV-5 of the INF-05 PA.
• Documentation of nonprofit status as required in the PHS 5161-1.
☐ Pages should be typed single-spaced in black ink, with one column per page. Pages should not have printing on both sides.
☐ Please number pages consecutively from beginning to end so that information can be located easily during review of the application. The cover page should be page 1, the abstract page should be page 2, and the table of contents page should be page 3. Appendices should be labeled and separated from the Project Narrative and budget section, and the pages should be numbered to continue the sequence.
☐ The page limit for Appendices stated in the INF-05 PA should not be exceeded.
☐ Send the original application and two copies to the mailing address in the funding announcement. Please do not use staples, paper clips, and fasteners. Nothing should be attached, stapled, folded, or pasted. Do not use heavy or lightweight paper, or any material that cannot be copied using automatic copying machines. Odd-sized and oversized attachments such as posters will not be copied or sent to reviewers. Do not include videotapes, audiotapes, or CD-ROMs.
3.
SAMHSA is now offering the opportunity for you to submit your application to us either in electronic or paper format. Electronic submission is voluntary. No review points will be added or deducted, regardless of whether you use the electronic or paper format.
To submit an application electronically, you must use the
You must search the Grants.gov site for the downloadable application package, by the Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number. You can find the CFDA number on the first page of the funding announcement.
You must follow the instructions in the User Guide available at:
•
•
If this is the first time you have submitted an application through Grants.gov, you must complete four
It is strongly recommended that you submit your grant application using Microsoft Office products (
The Project Narrative must be a separate document in the electronic submission. Formatting requirements for SAMHSA grant applications are described above, and in Section IV-2.3 and Appendix A of the standard grant announcement. These requirements also apply to applications submitted electronically, with the following exceptions only for Project Narratives submitted electronically in Microsoft Word. These requirements help to ensure the accurate transmission and equitable treatment of applications.
•
•
Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit their applications to Grants.gov early enough to resolve any unanticipated difficulties prior to the deadline. You may also submit a back-up paper submission of your application. Any such paper submission must be received in accordance with the requirements for timely submission detailed in Section IV-3 of the grant announcement. The paper submission must be clearly marked: “Back-up for electronic submission.” The paper submission must conform with all requirements for non-electronic submissions. If both electronic and back-up paper submissions are received by the deadline, the electronic version will be considered the official submission.
After you electronically submit your application, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. It is important that you retain this number.
The Grants.gov Web site does not accept electronic signatures at this time. Therefore, you must submit a signed paper original of the face page (SF 424), the assurances (SF 424B), and the certifications, and hard copy of any other required documentation that cannot be submitted electronically. You must reference the Grants.gov tracking number for your application, on these documents with original signatures, and send the documents to the following address. The documents must be received at the following address within 5 business days of your electronic submission. Delays in receipt of these documents may impact the score your application receives or the ability of your application to be funded.
If you require a phone number for delivery, you may use (240) 276-1199.
4.
5.
1.
The second bullet is modified to read: “Describe the proposed project. In the description of the project, address the
The first bullet is modified to read: “Describe the process and outcome evaluation for your project. Include specific performance measures and target outcomes related to the goals and objectives identified for the project in Section B of your Project Narrative. These measures and outcomes also must address the
GPRA data must be collected at the end of each event and thirty days post event. GPRA data must be entered into the GPRA web system within 7 business days of the forms being completed. In addition, 80% of the participants must be followed up on. GPRA data are to be collected and then entered into CSAT's GPRA Data Entry and Reporting System (
In addition to GPRA, grantees of the Adolescent Treatment Coordination program will be required to report semiannually on their progress in meeting the
In Section D of their project narratives, applicants must describe their current ability to collect and report data on their progress in meeting the
2.
Award administration information, including award notices, administrative and national policy requirements, and reporting requirements are available in the INF-05 PA in Section VI. SAMHSA's standard terms and conditions are available at
For questions concerning program issues contact: Randolph D. Muck, SAMHSA/CSAT/DSI, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Room 5-1083, Rockville, MD 20857; phone 240-276-1576;
For complete instructions, potential applicants must obtain a copy of SAMHSA's standard Services Grants Program Announcement, SVC-05 PA, and the PHS 5161-1 (Rev. 7/00) application form before preparing and submitting an application. The SVC-05 PA describes the general program design and provides instructions for applying for SAMHSA's Services Grants including the Targeted Capacity Expansion Grants program. SAMHSA's Services Grants provide funds to expand and strengthen effective, culturally appropriate substance abuse and/or mental health services at the State and local levels. The services implemented through SAMHSA's Services Grants must incorporate the best objective information available regarding effectiveness and acceptability. In general, SAMHSA's Services Grants are appropriate for applicants seeking Federal support to implement substance abuse and/or mental health services that have a strong evidence-base for effectiveness. SAMHSA's Services Grants must be used primarily to support direct service delivery. SAMHSA expects that the services will be sustained beyond the term of the grant. Additional instructions and specific requirements for the Targeted Capacity Expansion Grants are described below.
Section 509 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended and subject to the availability of funds.
The purpose of the Targeted Capacity Expansion Grants program is to expand and/or enhance the community's ability to provide a comprehensive, integrated, and community-based response to a targeted, well-documented substance abuse treatment capacity problem and/or improve the quality and intensity of services. For example, a community might seek a Targeted Capacity Expansion Grant to add state-of-the-art treatment approaches or new services to address emerging trends or unmet needs (
To encourage the substance abuse treatment system to become more responsive and bridge the gap between what is needed by individual States, localities, and/or tribal organizations, and what is known about effective treatments to meet those needs, SAMHSA/CSAT intends to fund projects in three categories in FY 2005: (1) Treatment for selected native populations (American Indian/Alaska Native or Asian American/Pacific Islanders). To meet the disproportionate substance abuse treatment needs of certain native communities, this category specifically identifies American Indian/Alaska Natives (AI/AN) and Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders (AA/PI), including Native Hawaiians as native populations to receive expanded and/or enhanced treatment services under this program; (2) treatment focused on methamphetamine and other emerging drugs in adult, rural populations. This category allows funding for expanding and/or enhancing substance abuse treatment for
1.
SAMHSA expects that approximately $5.3 million will be available for awards in each category, and that approximately 11 awards will be made in each category. The maximum allowable award is $500,000 in total costs (direct and indirect) per year for up to 3 years. Proposed budgets cannot exceed the allowable amount in any year of the proposed project. Annual continuations will depend on the availability of funds, grantee progress in meeting program goals and objectives, and timely submission of required data and reports.
This program is being announced prior to the annual appropriation for FY 2005 for SAMHSA's programs, with funding estimates based on the President's budget request for FY 2005. Applications are invited based on the assumption that sufficient funds will be appropriated for FY 2005 to permit funding of a reasonable number of applications hereby solicited. All applicants are reminded, however, that we cannot guarantee that sufficient funds will be appropriated to permit SAMHSA to fund any applications.
2.
1.
Eligibility in Category 3 (Campus SBI) is restricted to domestic public and private, non-profit colleges and universities in recognition of their responsibility for, and interest in, providing for the needs of their enrolled students, and because the success of the program will depend upon their authority and ability to approve the planning, implementation, and operation of screening and treatment services that will be utilized by their students. Since the Campus SBI program is restricted to college and university students, it is essential that colleges and universities take the lead in the development of SBI projects that will administer screening, referral to treatment, and treatment and recovery for their students, and maintain partnerships with either college- or university-based providers or community-based organizations that may be providing such services to the college or university.
These eligibility criteria supersede the criteria specified in Section III-1 of the SVC-05 PA.
Applications for SAMHSA Services Grants must include evidence of experience and credentials as described in Section III-3 of the SVC-05 PA. This 2-year experience requirement applies only to specialist substance abuse treatment providers participating in the project.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching is not required.
3.
1.
When submitting an application, applicants must identify
2.
SAMHSA's goal is to review all applications submitted for grant funding. However, this goal must be balanced against SAMHSA's obligation to ensure equitable treatment of applications. For this reason, SAMHSA has established certain formatting requirements for its applications. If you do not adhere to these requirements, your application will be screened out and returned to you without review.
○ Use the PHS 5161-1 application.
○ Applications must be received by the application deadline or have proof of timely submission, as detailed in Section IV-3 of the SVC-05 PA.
○ Information provided must be sufficient for review.
○ Text must be legible. (For Project Narratives submitted electronically in Microsoft Word,
○ Type size in the Project Narrative cannot exceed an average of 15 characters per inch, as measured on the physical page. (Type size in charts, tables, graphs, and footnotes will not be considered in determining compliance.)
○ Text in the Project Narrative cannot exceed 6 lines per vertical inch.
○ Paper must be white paper and 8.5 inches by 11.0 inches in size.
○ To ensure equity among applications, the amount of space allowed for the Project Narrative cannot be exceeded. (For Project Narratives submitted electronically in Microsoft Word,
• Applications would meet this requirement by using all margins (left, right, top, bottom) of at least one inch each, and adhering to the page limit for the Project Narrative stated in the SVC-05 PA.
• Should an application not conform to these margin or page limits, SAMHSA will use the following method to determine compliance: The total area of the Project Narrative (excluding margins, but including charts, tables, graphs and footnotes) cannot exceed 58.5 square inches multiplied by the page limit. This number represents the full page less margins, multiplied by the total number of allowed pages.
• Space will be measured on the physical page. Space left blank within the Project Narrative (excluding margins) is considered part of the Project Narrative, in determining compliance.
To facilitate review of your application, follow these additional guidelines. Failure to adhere to the following guidelines will not, in itself, result in your application being screened out and returned without review. However, the information provided in your application must be sufficient for review. Following these guidelines will help ensure your application is complete, and will help reviewers to consider your application.
○ The 10 application components required for SAMHSA applications should be included. These are:
• Face Page (Standard Form 424, which is in PHS 5161-1).
• Abstract.
• Table of Contents.
• Budget Form (Standard Form 424A, which is in PHS 5161-1).
• Project Narrative and Supporting Documentation.
• Appendices.
• Assurances (Standard Form 424B, which is in PHS 5161-1).
• Certifications (a form in PHS 5161-1).
• Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (Standard Form LLL, which is in PHS 5161-1).
• Checklist (a form in PHS 5161-1).
○ Applications should comply with the following requirements:
• Provisions relating to confidentiality, participant protection and the protection of human subjects, as indicated in the SVC-05 PA.
• Budgetary limitations as indicated in sections I, II, and IV-5 of the SVC-05 PA.
• Documentation of nonprofit status as required in the PHS 5161-1.
○ Pages should be typed single-spaced in black ink, with one column per page. Pages should not have printing on both sides.
○ Please number pages consecutively from beginning to end so that information can be located easily during review of the application. The cover page should be page 1, the abstract page should be page 2, and the table of contents page should be page 3. Appendices should be labeled and separated from the Project Narrative and budget section, and the pages should be numbered to continue the sequence.
○ The page limits for Appendices stated in the specific funding announcement should not be exceeded.
○ Send the original application and two copies to the mailing address in the funding announcement. Please do not use staples, paper clips, and fasteners. Nothing should be attached, stapled, folded, or pasted. Do not use heavy or lightweight paper, or any material that cannot be copied using automatic copying machines. Odd-sized and oversized attachments such as posters will not be copied or sent to reviewers. Do not include videotapes, audiotapes, or CD-ROMs.
3.
SAMHSA is now offering the opportunity for you to submit your application to us either in electronic or paper format. Electronic submission is voluntary. No review points will be added or deducted, regardless of
To submit an application electronically, you must use the
You must search the Grants.gov site for the downloadable application package, by the Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number. You can find the CFDA number on the first page of the funding announcement.
You must follow the instructions in the User Guide available at:
• By e-mail:
• By phone: 1-800-518-4726 (1-800-518-GRANTS). The Customer Support Center is open from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
If this is the first time you have submitted an application through Grants.gov, you must complete four separate registration processes before you can submit your application. Allow at least two weeks (10 business days) for these registration processes, prior to submitting your application. The processes are: DUNS Number registration, Central Contractor Registry (CCR) registration, Credential Provider registration, and Grants.gov registration.
It is strongly recommended that you submit your grant application using Microsoft Office products (
The Project Narrative must be a separate document in the electronic submission. Formatting requirements for SAMHSA grant applications are described above, and in section IV-2.3 and appendix A of the standard grant announcement. These requirements also apply to applications submitted electronically, with the following exceptions only for Project Narratives submitted electronically in Microsoft Word. These requirements help to ensure the accurate transmission and equitable treatment of applications.
•
•
Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit their applications to Grants.gov early enough to resolve any unanticipated difficulties prior to the deadline. You may also submit a back-up paper submission of your application. Any such paper submission must be received in accordance with the requirements for timely submission detailed in Section IV-3 of the grant announcement. The paper submission must be clearly marked: “Back-up for electronic submission.” The paper submission must conform with all requirements for non-electronic submissions. If both electronic and back-up paper submissions are received by the deadline, the electronic version will be considered the official submission.
After you electronically submit your application, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. It is important that you retain this number.
The Grants.gov Web site does not accept electronic signatures at this time. Therefore, you must submit a signed paper original of the face page (SF 424), the assurances (SF 424B), and the certifications, and hard copy of any other required documentation that cannot be submitted electronically. You must reference the Grants.gov tracking number for your application, on these documents with original signatures, and send the documents to the following address. The documents must be received at the following address within 5 business days of your electronic submission. Delays in receipt of these documents may impact the score your application receives or the ability of your application to be funded.
If you require a phone number for delivery, you may use (240) 276-1199.
4.
State and local governments and Indian tribal government applicants are not subject to the Public Health System Reporting Requirements; therefore, only applicants for Category 3—Campus SBI are required to follow the instructions for completing the Public Health System Impact Statement (PHSIS) contained in the SVC-05 PA. In addition, only Category 3—Campus SBI applicants have to include an Appendix 4, Letter to the SSA, as required in the SVC-05 PA.
5.
1.
1.1 In “Section A, Statement of Need,” Category 3 (Campus SBI) applicants do not have to address the 3rd bullet requiring non-tribal
1.2 In “Section C, Proposed Implementation Approach,” Category 3 (Campus SBI) applicants must, in addition to the requirements specified in the SVC-05 PA, address the following requirements that are added as an additional bullet in the Evaluation Criteria section of the SVC-05 PA:
Identify the geographic location of the proposed screening and brief intervention provider in relation to the targeted college/university campus. If the provider is located off campus, address how students will gain access to the service provider. Identify where subsequent services (
1.3 In “Section E, Evaluation and Data,” applicants must, in addition to the requirements specified in the SVC-05 PA, address the following requirements that are added to the end of the 6th bullet in the Evaluation Criteria section of the SVC-05 PA:
Applicants must state whether or not the per-person costs are within the following reasonable ranges by treatment modality. Applicants must also discuss the reasonableness of the per person costs. If proposed costs exceed reasonable ranges, a detailed justification must be provided.
Program costs. The following are considered reasonable ranges by treatment modality:
SAMHSA/CSAT computes per person costs as follows. The total support requested for the life of the project is multiplied by .8 (.2 will be the allowance for GPRA reporting requirements). The resulting amount is then divided by the number of persons the applicant proposes to serve over the life of the project.
The outreach and pretreatment services cost band only applies to outreach and pretreatment programs that do not also offer treatment services but operate within a network of substance abuse treatment facilities. Treatment programs that add outreach and pretreatment services to a treatment modality or modalities are expected to fall within the cost band for that treatment modality.
1.4 Performance Measurement: All SAMHSA grantees are required to collect and report certain data, so that SAMHSA can meet its obligations under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Grantees of the Targeted Capacity Expansion Grants program will be required to report performance in several areas. Applicants must document their ability to collect and report the required data in “Section E: Evaluation and Data” of their applications.
All Targeted Capacity Expansion grant applicants must document their ability to collect and report data using the Targeted Capacity Expansion Client Level GPRA tool that can be found at
2.
Award administration information, including information about award notices, administration requirements and reporting requirements, is included in the SVC-05 PA in Section VI. SAMHSA's standard terms and conditions are available at
You must plan to send a minimum of three persons (Authorized Grantee, Project Director if different, Evaluator) to at least two joint grantee meetings each year instead of the requirement for two persons to one joint grantee meeting each year as stated in the SVC-05 PA and should budget accordingly.
TCE grantees are required to provide progress reports every six months instead of annual progress reports required by the SVC-05 PA. The last report will be a final, cumulative report.
For questions about program issues, contact: Ken Robertson, SAMHSA/CSAT, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Room 5-1001, Rockville, MD 20857; (240) 276-1621; E-mail:
For questions on grants management issues, contact: Kimberly Pendleton, SAMHSA, Division of Grants Management, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Room 7-1097, Rockville, MD 20857; (240) 276-1421; E-mail:
Notice of application for recordation of trade name.
Application has been filed pursuant to section 133.12, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 133.12), for the recordation under section 42 of the Act of July 5, 1946, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1124), of the trade name “Joy Enterprises”. The trade name is owned by Shell Stores Corporation d/b/a Joy Enterprises, a Florida corporation.
The application states that the trade name “Joy Enterprises” is used in connection with knives, outdoor and sport supplies, police and security equipment, gift and premium items, swords, daggers, scissors, multitools and key chains, which are manufactured in China, Taiwan, Japan, Spain, USA, Italy and Germany.
Applicant states that the trade name “Joy Enterprises” is customarily used
Before final action is taken on the application, consideration will be given to any relevant data, views, or arguments, submitted in writing, by any person in opposition to the recordation of this trade name. Notice of the action taken on the application for recordation of this trade name will be published in the
Comments must be received on or before January 11, 2005.
Written comments should be addressed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attention: Office of Regulations and Rulings, Intellectual Property Rights Branch, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., (Mint Annex), Washington, DC 20229.
La Verne Watkins, Paralegal, Intellectual Property Rights Branch at (202) 572-8702.
Office of Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and should be sent to: Reports Liaison Officer, Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 8226, Washington, DC 20410.
Cheryl A. Levine, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 8140, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-3700, extension 3928 (this is not a toll-free number). Copies of the proposed data collection instruments and other available documents may be obtained from Ms. Levine.
The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses).
This Notice also lists the following information:
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., L'Enfant Plaza Building, Room 8001, Washington, DC 20410 or
Michael McCullough, Director, Office of Multifamily Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-1142, (this is not a toll free number), for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
November 12, 2004.
Kathy Burruss, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.
In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice advises the public that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), as lead agency, with the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) as cooperating agency, intends to gather information necessary for preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposed 151.87± acre trust acquisition and casino project to be located within Clark County, Washington. The purpose of the proposed action is to create a tribal land base which would enable the Cowlitz Indian Tribe (Tribe) to provide governmental services and perform governmental functions, provide jobs and career opportunities for tribal members, improve the tribal economy and tribal housing, and develop programs that would assist tribal members to attain economic self-sufficiency. This notice also announces a public scoping meeting to identify potential issues and content for inclusion in the EIS.
Written comments on the scope and implementation of this proposal must arrive by December 13, 2004. The public scoping meeting will be held December 1, 2004, from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., or until the last public comment is received.
You may mail or hand carry written comments to Stanley Speaks, Regional Director, Northwest Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232. The public scoping meeting will be held at Hudson's Bay High School, Commons Area, 1206 East Reserve Street, Vancouver, Washington. The entrance is off of East McLoughlin Boulevard.
June Boynton, (503) 231-6749.
The Tribe, which currently is landless, proposes that 151.87± acres of land be taken into trust to help it create a tribal land base for its people. The Tribe wishes to use the property for multiple tribal purposes, including economic development and the provision of governmental services.
More specifically, the Tribe contemplates that the site will be used for the development of gaming and related entertainment facilities, tribal government facilities and tribal housing. The eventual size and scope of these facilities may be altered based on information obtained through the EIS process, but the Tribe's current proposal is for approximately 160,000 square feet of gaming floor, 210,000 square feet of restaurant and retail facilities, 150,000 square feet of convention and entertainment facilities, an approximately 250 room hotel, tribal governmental offices, a tribal cultural center and approximately 10 to 25 housing units. The proposed
The 151.87± acres encompass nine contiguous tax lots in Clark County, Washington, near Ridgfield and La Center, Washington. The project site is located along NW. 319th Street between NW. 41st Avenue and NW. 31st Avenue, and adjacent to Interstate 5 at the NW. 319th Street interchange.
The proposed action encompasses the various federal approvals which would be required to implement the Tribe's efforts to establish a tribal land base, including approval of the Tribe's fee-to-trust application, approval of the Tribe's gaming management contract and approval of the Tribe's request for a reservation proclamation.
Areas of environmental concern identified so far for analysis in the EIS include land resources, water resources, air quality, living resources, cultural resources, socioeconomic conditions, traffic and transportation, land use, public utilities and services, noise, lighting, hazardous materials, environmental justice, and visual resources/aesthetics. The range of issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIS may be expanded or reduced, based on comments received in response to this notice and at the public scoping meeting.
Comments, including names and addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the BIA address shown in the
This notice is published in accordance with section 1503.1 of the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508) implementing the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4371
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is imposing a closure on approximately 440 acres of public land to recreational shooting. The emergency closure will remain in place until December 31, 2004. The use of firearms will continue to be allowed for hunting consistent with California Department of Fish and Game regulations and seasons. Specifically, this closure will apply to BLM managed lands located in Aguanga Valley, California, south of Highway 79 along what is known locally as the High Point Road.
Bruce Shaffer, Acting Field Manager, 690 West Garnet Avenue, North Palm Springs, CA 92258, telephone (760) 251-4800 or Janaye Byergo, Resource Management Specialist, (858) 451-1767.
The closure will be in concert with a closure imposed on contiguous U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands. The High Point area attracts users from three counties in southern California—Riverside, Orange, and San Diego. The BLM and USFS have become aware through public complaints that the recreational shooting at High Point is causing an immediate threat to public safety. A highway, residences, and an RV resort are all within two miles of the shooting area. Cross-shooting is occurring from the different shooting sites, and stray and ricocheting bullets are striking homes and out buildings of the nearby private residents. Shooters are firing a wide variety of calibers: handguns—.50, .44, .38, 9 mm, .357; rifles—7 mm magnum, .308, 30.06, 7.62, .22. Some rounds are carrying up to two miles and more in distance. The BLM recognizes that recreational target shooting is a valid use of public lands, and seeks to balance this with the need to provide for public safety.
During the emergency closure, BLM will be taking steps to implement a permanent closure of the area to recreational shooting. This closure is in accordance with provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-579, 90 stat. 2743, 43 U.S.C. 1701) and Title 43, Subpart 8364.1 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulation (CFR). Maximum penalties are $1000.00 fine and/or 12 months in prison.
This order affects public lands in San Diego County, California, thus described:
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and associated Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the King Range National Conservation Area (NCA) located in Humboldt and Mendocino Counties, California. The Proposed RMP and Final EIS have been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and under authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the King Range Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-476), and BLM policies. The Proposed RMP was developed with broad public participation beginning with scoping meetings in November
BLM Planning Regulations (43 CFR 1610.5-2) state that any person who participated in the planning process, and has an interest that may be adversely affected, may protest. The protest must be filed within 30 days of the date that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes a notice of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS availability in the
Copies of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS may be obtained from the following BLM locations: BLM Arcata Field Office, 1695 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521, telephone (707) 825-2300; BLM King Range NCA Project Office, P.O. Drawer 189, Whitethorn, CA 95589, telephone (707) 986-5400; or BLM California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-1834, Sacramento, CA 95825, telephone (916) 978-4600; or requested by e-mail at
Bob Wick, Bureau of Land Management, (707) 825-2300.
The King Range Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-476) established the King Range NCA. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-579) expanded the area to its present size of approximately 64,000 acres. The King Range Act requires development of “a comprehensive, balanced, and coordinated plan of land use, development, and management of the Area.” The act also states “that the plan will be reviewed and reevaluated periodically.” An original plan was completed in 1974, and the present planning effort is the first comprehensive update to be undertaken.
The King Range NCA encompasses 35 miles of Pacific coastline and provides for a range of outdoor recreation opportunities. The area contains three federally listed threatened fish species: southern Oregon/northern California coasts Coho salmon (
The BLM has considered an array of alternatives including specific land use allocations and prescriptions consistent with the legislative intent for the King Range NCA. Recreation and visitor-use management, forest health, fisheries and wildlife management, fire management, travel management, and community involvement in King Range NCA operations are addressed in these alternatives. The Draft RMP/Draft EIS examined four alternatives that respond to these issues. Alternative A is the No Action (current management) Alternative. Alternatives B, C and D present a range of management scenarios with varying amounts of natural resource restoration/use and differing levels of recreation use and developed facilities. The Proposed RMP Alternative is a combination of specific components from Alternatives B, C and D, and provides for a mix of management goals, allowable uses and actions that best address planning issues and conservation of resource values of the area.
The planning process includes an opportunity for administrative review through a plan protest to the BLM Director should a previous commenter on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS believe that the decision has been issued in error. Only those persons or organizations who participated in the planning process may protest. Protests from parties having no previous involvement will be denied without further review. A protesting party may raise only those issues which were submitted for the record during the planning process. New issues raised during the protest period should be directed to the BLM, Arcata Field Manager, 1695 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521 for consideration in plan implementation, as potential plan amendments, or as otherwise appropriate. The period for filing protests begins when the EPA publishes in the
Protests must be filed in writing to: Director (210), Attention: Brenda Williams, P.O. Box 66538, Washington, DC 20035; or by overnight mail to: Director (210), Attention: Brenda Williams, 1620 L Street, NW., Suite 1075, Washington, DC 20036. In order to be considered complete, the protest must contain, at a minimum, the following information:
1. The name, mailing address, telephone number, and interest of the person filing the protest.
2. A statement of the issue or issues being protested.
3. A statement of the part or parts of the plan being protested. To the extent possible, this should be done by reference to specific pages, paragraphs, sections, tables, maps, etc. included in the Proposed RMP.
4. A copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues which were submitted during the planning process or a reference to the date the issue or issues were discussed by the person participating, for the record.
5. A concise statement explaining why the decision of the BLM California State Director is believed to be incorrect. This is a critical part of the protest. Take care to document all relevant facts. As much as possible, reference or cite the planning documents, environmental analysis documents, and available planning records (
To be considered “timely”, the protest must be postmarked no later than the last day of the 30-day protest period. Also, although not a requirement, it is recommended that the protest be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. E-mail and faxed protests will not be accepted as valid protests unless the protesting party also provides the original letter by either regular or overnight mail postmarked by the close of the protest period. Under these conditions, the BLM will consider the e-mail or faxed protest as an advance copy, and it will receive full consideration. If you wish to provide the BLM with such advance notification, please direct faxed protests to the attention of the BLM Protests Coordinator at (202) 452-5112, and e-mails to
Please note that comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, are available for public review and/or release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Individual respondents may request confidentiality. Respondents who wish to withhold their name and/or street address from public review or from disclosure under FOIA, must state this prominently at the beginning of their written comments. Such requests will
The Director will promptly render a decision on the protest. The decision will be in writing and will be sent to the protesting party by certified mail, return receipt requested. The decision of the Director will be the final decision of the Department of the Interior.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability of Record of Decision (ROD).
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) management policies, the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of 1999 and the Black Canyon of the Gunnison Boundary Revision Act of 2003, the BLM announces the availability of the RMP/ROD for the Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area (NCA) located in Montrose and Delta Counties, Colorado. The Colorado State Director will sign the RMP/ROD, which becomes effective immediately.
Copies of the NCA RMP/ROD are available upon request from the Field Manager, Uncompahgre Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 2505 S. Townsend Avenue, Montrose, Colorado or via the Internet at
Montrose Public Library, 320 South 2nd Street, Montrose, CO 81401.
Delta Public Library, 211 West 6th Street, Delta, CO 81416.
Crawford Public Library, 425 Highway 92, Crawford, CO 81415.
Hotchkiss Public Library, 1st and Main Street, Hotchkiss, CO 81419.
Karen Tucker, Manager, Gunnison Gorge NCA, 2465 S. Townsend Avenue, Montrose, CO (970) 240-5309,
The Gunnison Gorge NCA RMP/ROD was developed with broad public participation through a two-year collaborative planning process. This RMP/ROD addresses management on approximately 95,780 acres of public land in the planning area. The Gunnison Gorge NCA RMP/ROD is designed to achieve or maintain desired future conditions developed through the planning process. It includes a series of management actions to meet the desired resource conditions for upland and riparian vegetation, wildlife habitats, cultural and visual resources, livestock grazing, recreation, wilderness management, and special status species and habitat.
The approved Gunnison Gorge NCA RMP is essentially the same as the Proposed Gunnison Gorge NCA RMP/Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS), published on January 23, 2004. BLM received 32 protests to the PRMP/FEIS. No inconsistencies with State or local plans, policies, or programs were identified during the Governor's consistency review of the PRMP/FEIS. As a result, only minor editorial modifications were made in preparing the RMP/ROD. These modifications corrected errors that were noted during review of the PRMP/FEIS and provide further clarification for some of the decisions. An errata sheet is included with the RMP/ROD that identifies the location of the corrections in the PRMP/FEIS.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of realty action.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to sell 74 parcels of federal land in Clark County, Nevada, aggregating approximately 4,320.82 acres. The BLM also proposes to offer for sale two parcels of federal land in Lander County and one parcel in Elko County, aggregating approximately 359.16 acres. The sale will be conducted in Las Vegas, Nevada, on February 2, 2005, in accordance with competitive bidding procedures.
Comments regarding the proposed sale must be received by BLM on or before December 27, 2004.
Sealed bids must be received by BLM not later than 4:30 p.m., P.s.t., January 26, 2005.
All parcels of land proposed for sale are to be put up for purchase and sale, at public auction, beginning at 10 a.m., P.s.t., February 2, 2005. Registration for oral bidding for those who have not pre-registered will begin at 8 a.m., P.s.t., February 2, 2005 and will end at 10 a.m., P.s.t.
Other deadline dates for the receipt of payments, and arranging for certain payments to be made by electronic transfer, are specified in the proposed terms and conditions of sale, as stated herein.
Comments regarding the proposed sale, as well as sealed bids to be submitted to BLM, should be addressed to: Field Manager, Las Vegas Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130.
More detailed information regarding the proposed sale and the lands involved may be reviewed during normal business hours (7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) at the BLM Las Vegas Field Office (LVFO).
The address for oral bidding registration, and the location of the public auction, is: Cashman Center, 850 Las Vegas Boulevard North, Las Vegas, NV 89101.
The auction will take place in the Cashman Theater located southwest of the Cashman Center Stadium with entrance to the Theater between Parking Lots “B” and “C”. Registration will take place in the Theater Lobby.
You may contact Judy Fry, Program Lead, SALES at (702) 515-5081 or by e-mail at
The following lands in Clark County, Nevada, are proposed for sale and have been authorized and designated for disposal under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2343), as amended by the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 1994), (hereinafter “SNPLMA”). These lands include seven (7) parcels in Clark County that were identified for sale at previous auctions, but did not sell because they did not receive any bids, or the sales were cancelled due to default. The seven (7) parcels identified as N-65894, N-65897, N-65956, N-66702, N-74826, N-74836 and N-77340 contain 20.00 acres, more or less. These parcels will be auctioned under the terms and conditions of this Notice of Realty Action.
Consisting of 74 parcels containing 4,320.99 acres, more or less.
The following lands in Lander and Elko Counties, Nevada are proposed for sale. They have been identified for disposal in the Elko Resource Management Plan, approved in March, 1987, and, therefore, meet the disposal qualification of section 205 of the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of July 25, 2000 (43 U.S.C. 2301, 2304, hereinafter “LTFA”). The purpose of the proposed sale is to dispose of lands that are difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands; and it has been determined that the public interest will be served by putting up these lands for purchase and sale at public auction. These lands were previously identified for sale at an auction in Elko, Nevada on September 15, 2004, but did not receive any bids. They consist of three (3) parcels identified as N-77171, N-77176 and N-77177 and contain a total of 359.16 acres, more or less. The three (3) parcels will be auctioned under the terms and conditions of this Notice of Realty Action.
Consisting of 3 parcels containing 359.16 acres, more or less.
All of the above described lands, in Clark, Lander and Elko Counties, are proposed to be put up for purchase and sale at a competitive oral auction on February 2, 2005, in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 203 and Section 209 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1713 and 1719), respectively, and its implementing regulations, 43 C.F.R. Part 2710 and Part 2720, at not less than the fair market value (FMV) of each parcel, as determined by the authorized officer after an appraisal. The proceeds from the sale of the parcels in Clark County will be deposited into the SNPLMA Special Account. The proceeds from the sale of the parcels in Lander and Elko Counties will be deposited into the Federal Land Disposal Account, pursuant to FLTFA.
If a parcel of land in Clark County is sold, the locatable mineral interests therein will be sold simultaneously as part of the sale. The lands identified for
The terms and conditions applicable to this sale are as follows:
1. All discretionary leaseable and saleable mineral deposits are reserved to the United States on the lands in Clark County; but, permittees, licensees, and lessees retain the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such minerals owned by the United States under applicable law and any regulations that the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe, including all necessary access and exit rights. All minerals are reserved to the United States on the lands in Lander and Elko Counties and parcel N-78214 in Clark County; but, permittees, licensees, and lessees retain the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such minerals owned by the United States under applicable law and any regulations that the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe, including all necessary access and exit rights.
2. A right-of-way is reserved for ditches and canals constructed by authority of the United States under the Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945).
3. All parcels are subject to valid existing rights. Parcels may also be subject to applications received prior to publication of this Notice if processing the application would have no adverse effect on the marketability of the federally approved Fair Market Value (FMV) of a parcel. Encumbrances of record, appearing in the BLM public files for the parcels proposed for sale, are available for review during business hours, 7:30 a.m. p.s.t. to 4:30 p.m. p.s.t., Monday through Friday, at the BLM LVFO.
4. All parcels are subject to reservations for roads, public utilities and flood control purposes, both existing and proposed, in accordance with the local governing entities' Transportation Plans.
5. 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 parcels of land proposed for sale; and the conveyance of any such parcel will not be on a contingency basis. However, to the extent required by law, all such parcels are subject to the requirements of section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)).
6. All purchasers/patentees, by accepting a patent, covenant and agree to indemnify, defend, and hold the United States harmless from any costs, damages, claims, causes of action, penalties, fines, liabilities, and judgments of any kind or nature arising from the past, present, and future acts or omissions of the patentees or their employees, agents, contractors, or lessees, or any third-party, arising out of or in connection with the patentees' use, occupancy, or operations on the patented real property. This indemnification and hold harmless agreement includes, but is not limited to, acts and omissions of the patentees and their employees, agents, contractors, or lessees, or any third party, arising out of or in connection with the use and/or occupancy of the patented real property which has already resulted or does hereafter result in: (1) Violations of federal, state, and local laws and regulations that are now or may in the future become, applicable to the real property; (2) Judgments, claims or demands of any kind assessed against the United States; (3) Costs, expenses, or damages of any kind incurred by the United States; (4) Releases or threatened releases of solid or hazardous waste(s) and/or hazardous substances(s), as defined by federal or state environmental laws, off, on, into or under land, property and other interests of the United States; (5) Activities by which solids or hazardous substances or wastes, as defined by federal and state environmental laws are generated, released, stored, used or otherwise disposed of on the patented real property, and any cleanup response, remedial action or other actions related in any manner to said solid or hazardous substances or wastes; or (6) Natural resource damages as defined by federal and state law. This covenant shall be construed as running with the parcels of land patented or otherwise conveyed by the United States, and may be enforced by the United States in a court of competent jurisdiction.
7. Maps delineating the individual proposed sale parcels are available for public review at the BLM LVFO. Large aerial photos showing the locations of all the sale parcels are available for purchase at the BLM LVFO. Current appraisals for each parcel are available for public review at the LVFO.
8. (a) Parcels N-78216 and N-78217 will only be put up for purchase and sale at the oral auction. Sealed bids for these parcels will not be accepted. If these parcels are not sold at the oral auction, they will
8. (b) Sealed bids may be presented for all other parcels. Sealed bids must be received at the BLM LVFO, no later than 4:30 p.m., p.s.t., January 26, 2005. Sealed bid envelopes must be marked on the lower front left corner with the BLM Serial Number for the parcel and the sale date. Bids must be for not less than the federally approved FMV and a separate bid must be submitted for each parcel.
8. (c) Each sealed bid shall be accompanied by a certified check, money order, bank draft, or cashier's check made payable in U.S. dollars to the order of the Bureau of Land Management, for not less than 10 percent or more than 30 percent of the amount bid. The highest qualified sealed bid for each parcel will become the starting bid at the oral auction. If no sealed bids are received, oral bidding will begin at the FMV, as determined by the authorized officer.
9. All parcels will be offered for competitive sale by oral auction beginning at 10 a.m., p.s.t., February 2, 2005, at Cashman Theater inside Cashman Center, located at 850 Las Vegas Boulevard North, Las Vegas, NV. Interested parties who will not be bidding are not required to register and may proceed directly to the Cashman Theater. If you are at the auction to conduct business with the high bidders or are there to observe the process, should seating become limited, you may be asked to relinquish your seat in order to provide seating for all bidders before the auction begins. We will try to provide an audio/visual transmission outside the theater for your convenience.
10. All oral bidders are required to register. Registration for oral bidding will begin at 8 a.m. p.s.t. on the day of the sale and will end at 10 a.m. p.s.t. You are encouraged to pre-register by mail or fax by completing the form located in the Sale Packet. The form is also available at the BLM LVFO and on the Internet at
11. Prior to receiving a bidder number on the day of the sale, all registered bidders must submit a certified check, bank draft, or cashier's check in the amount of $10,000. The check must be made payable to the order of the Bureau of Land Management. On the day of the sale, pre-registered bidders may go to the Express Registration Desk, present
12. If you purchase one or more parcels and default on any single parcel, the default will be against all of your parcels. BLM will retain your $10,000 and the sale of
13. The highest qualifying bid for any parcel, whether sealed or oral, will be declared the high bid. The apparent high bidder, if an oral bidder, must submit a deposit of not less than 20 percent of the successful bid by 4:30 p.m. p.s.t. on the day of the sale in the form of cash, personal check, bank draft, cashiers check, money order or any combination thereof, made payable in U.S. dollars to the Bureau of Land Management. If not paid by close of the auction, funds must be delivered no later than 4:30 p.m. p.s.t. the day of the sale to the BLM Collection Officers at the Cashman Theater.
14. Oral bids will be considered only if received at the place of sale and made at least for the FMV as determined by the BLM authorized officer. For parcels designated Serial Numbers N-78216 and N-78217 specifically, each prospective bidder will be required to present a certified check, postal money order, bank draft or cashier's check made payable in U.S. dollars to the Bureau of Land Management for an amount of money which shall be no less than 20 percent of the federally approved FMV of the designated parcels, in order to be eligible to bid on each respective parcel. In order to bid on both designated parcels listed, a separate certified check, postal money order, bank draft or cashier's check for an amount of money which shall be no less than 20 percent of the federally approved FMV for each designated parcel will be required. Both check(s) must be made payable in U.S. dollars to the order of the Bureau of Land Management.
15. The remainder of the full bid price for each parcel, whether sealed or oral bid, must be paid within 180 calendar days of the competitive sale date in the form of a certified check, money order, bank draft, or cashier's check made payable in U.S. dollars to the Bureau of Land Management.
16. The BLM may accept or reject any or all offers, or withdraw any parcel of land or interest therein from sale, if, in the opinion of the BLM authorized officer, consummation of the sale would not be fully consistent with FLPMA or other applicable laws or are determined to not be in the public interest.
If not sold, any parcel described above in this Notice may be identified for sale at a later date without further legal notice. Unsold parcels, with the exception of parcels N-78216 and N-78217, may be offered for sale in a future online auction on the Internet. Internet auction procedures will be available at
Federal law requires bidders to be U.S. citizens 18 years of age or older; a corporation subject to the laws of any State or of the United States; a State, State instrumentality, or political subdivision authorized to hold property, or an entity legally capable of conveying lands or interests therein under the laws of the State of Nevada. Certification of qualification, including citizenship or corporation or partnership, must accompany the bid deposit.
In order to determine the value, through appraisal, of the parcels of land proposed to be sold, certain extraordinary assumptions may have been made of the attributes and limitations of the lands and potential effects of local regulations and policies on potential future land uses. Through publication of this Notice, the Bureau of Land Management gives notice that these assumptions may not be endorsed or approved by units of local government. It is the buyer's responsibility to be aware of all applicable local government policies, laws, and regulations that would affect the subject lands, including any required dedication of lands for public uses. It is also the buyer's responsibility to be aware of existing or projected use of nearby properties. When conveyed out of federal ownership, the lands will be subject to any applicable reviews and approvals by the respective unit of local government for proposed future uses, and any such reviews and approvals will be the responsibility of the buyer. Any land lacking access from a public road or highway will be conveyed as such, and future access acquisition will be the responsibility of the buyer.
Detailed information concerning the sale, including the reservations, sale procedures and conditions, CERCLA and other environmental documents will be available for review at the BLM LVFO, or by calling (702) 515-5114.
This information also will be available on the Internet at: (1)
The land offered in this sale in Clark County, along with all other available public land in the Las Vegas Valley is being analyzed in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), titled Las Vegas Land Disposal EIS. The document is located on the Internet at
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The plat of survey of the following described lands is scheduled to be officially filed in the Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon, thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this publication.
A copy of the plat may be obtained from the Public Room at the Oregon State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 333 S.W. 1st Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon required payment. A person or party who wishes to protest against a survey must file a notice that they wish to protest (at the above address) with the State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon.
Chief, Branch of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, (333 S.W. 1st Avenue) P.O. Box 2965, Portland, Oregon 97208.
United States International Trade Commission.
Termination of five-year review.
The subject five-year review was initiated in August 2004 to determine whether revocation of the antidumping finding on melamine from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and of material injury to a domestic industry. On October 21, 2004, the Department of Commerce published notice that it was revoking the finding effective September 1, 2004 because “no domestic party responded to the sunset review notice of initiation by the applicable deadline” (69 FR 61794). Accordingly, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), the subject review is terminated.
September 1, 2004.
Mary Messer (202) 205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
This review is being terminated under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.69 of the Commission's rules (19 CFR 207.69).
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that on October 19, 2004, a proposed Consent Decree in
The proposed Consent Decree will settle the United States' claims against Cabot Corporation; Carpenter Technology Corporation; International Flavors and Fragrances, Inc.; Johnson Matthey Inc.; Kem Manufacturing Corporation; Metuchen Holdings, Inc.; Rütgers Organics Corporation; Waste Management of New Jersey, Inc.; CWM Chemical Services, LLC; and Spiral Metal Company, Inc. (“Settling Defendants”) pursuant to Section 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607, with respect to the Site. The proposed Consent Decree will also settle potential claims against certain additional entities, Ford Motor Company, Spectraserv, and A & S Transportation, which are included in the group of Settling Defendants. Pursuant to the Consent Decree, the Settling Defendants will pay to the United States a total of $720,000 in reimbursement of response costs incurred or to be incurred by EPA or the Department of Justice at or in connection with the Site.
In addition, the Settling Defendants possess potential contribution claims under Section 113(f) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9613(f), against the Department of Defense, including the Department of the Navy, the Defense Logistics Agency, and the National Imaging and Mapping Agency (collectively, “Settling Federal Agencies”), each of which is also potentially liable with respect to the Site. Pursuant to the Consent Decree, the United States, on behalf of the Settling Federal Agencies, will pay $270,000 to the Superfund.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, District of New Jersey, Peter Rodino Federal Building, 970 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102, and at the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866. During the public comment period, the proposed Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Reports of Suspicious Orders or Theft/Loss of Listed Chemicals/Machines.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until January 11, 2005. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Patricia M. Good, Chief, Liaison and Policy Section, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Brenda E. Dyer, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.
60-Day Emergency Notice of Information Collection Under Review Voluntary Appeal File (VAF) Brochure.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with emergency review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB approval has been requested by November 19, 2004. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. If granted, the emergency approval is only valid for 180 days. Comments should be directed to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Department of Justice Desk Officer, (202) 395-5806, Washington, DC 20530.
During the first 60 days of this same review period, a regular review of this information collection is also being undertaken. All comments and suggestions, or questions regarding additional information, to include obtaining a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, should be directed to Natalie Goff-Haggerty, Program Analyst, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, Module A-3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function 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 the 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 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:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The application contained on the VAF brochure will be the means for an individual to request entry into the VAF. This form will be made available to the public through Federal Firearm Licensees (FFLs), state points of contact for firearm checks, and on the FBI NICS Web site at the internet.
(5)
(6)
In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on May 5, 2003, applicable to workers of Agilent Technologies, Electronic Products and Solutions Group located in Rohnert Park, California. The notice was published in the
At the request of petitioners, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows that worker separations have occurred involving employees of Agilent Technologies, Electronic Products and Solutions Group, Rohnert Park, California working in Andover, Massachusetts. These employees provide support services for the production of test and measurement equipment and subassemblies produced by the firm.
It is the Department's intent to cover all workers of the firm impacted by the shift in production from Agilent Technologies, Electronic Products and Solutions Group, Rohnert Park, California to Malaysia. Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to extend coverage to employees of Agilent Technologies, Electronic Products and Solutions Group, Rohnert Park, California, working in Andover, Massachusetts.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-51,247 is hereby issued as follows:
By application of October 13, 2004, a worker requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of
The Department carefully reviewed the petitioner's request and has determined that further investigation will be conducted based on new information provided by the company.
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
The Department adopted a new interpretation regarding the Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) program in order to provide equitable access to ATAA for worker groups whose petitions were still in process at the time of implementation of the ATAA program on August 6, 2003. Under this new interpretation, worker groups covered by the certification of a petition that was in process on August 6, 2003 may request ATAA consideration for the certified worker group. The request must be made to the Department and may be made by anyone who was entitled to file the original petition under section 221(a)(1) of the Act.
By letter dated October 15, 2004, a company official of Dan River, Inc. requested ATAA consideration for the workers at its facility in Danville, Virginia. The original petition date was July 14, 2003, and the certification for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) was signed on August 20, 2003. The Notice of the Department's determination was published in the
The initial investigation did not address ATAA eligibility for the workers of the subject company.
In the request for consideration, a company official provided information that supports ATAA certification.
The investigation revealed that the subject worker group possesses skills that are not easily transferable in the local area, and that at least five percent of the workforce at the subject firm is at least fifty years of age.
Industry data show that competitive conditions within the textile industry are adverse.
After careful review of the facts obtained on investigation, I conclude that the requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, have been met for workers at the subject firm.
In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification:
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Dana Undies, Colquitt, Georgia. The application contained no new substantial information which would bear importantly on the Department's determination. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued.
On October 20, 2004, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the
The petition for the workers of Eclipsys Corporation, Santa Rosa, California engaged in technical writing for software development was denied because the petitioning workers did not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the Department erred in its interpretation of work performed at the subject facility as a service and further conveys that software and software documentation should be considered a product and workers compiling PDF files should be considered workers engaged in production.
A company official was contacted for clarification in regard to the nature of the work performed at the subject facility. The official stated that petitioning group of workers at the subject firm develops, and writes, technical documentation, which includes online files and manuals, such as user guides, configuration, database dictionaries, system administration, and installation books. The official further clarified that the documentations created by the subject company are electronically sent to Eclipsys Corporation facility in San Jose, California, where they are merged with the software codes and compiled on CD-ROMs for mass production and distribution to clients.
The sophistication of the work involved is not an issue in ascertaining whether the petitioning workers are eligible for trade adjustment assistance, but rather only whether they produced an article within the meaning of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Technical writing of PDF files is not considered production of an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act. Petitioning workers do not produce an “article” within the meaning of the Trade Act of 1974. Information electronic databases, technical documentation and codes, are not tangible commodities, and they are not listed on the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), as classified by the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), Office of Tariff Affairs and Trade Agreements, which describes articles imported to the United States.
To be listed in the HTS, an article would be subject to a duty on the tariff schedule and have a value that makes it marketable, fungible and interchangeable for commercial purposes. Although a wide variety of tangible products are described as articles and characterized as dutiable in the HTS, informational products that could historically be sent in letter form and that can currently be electronically transmitted are not listed in the HTS. Such products are not the type of products that customs officials inspect and that the TAA program was generally designed to address.
The investigation on reconsideration supported the findings of the primary investigation that the petitioning group of workers does not produce an article. However, it was revealed that electronic documentation created by the subject company is integrated with software and recorded on media devices (CD-ROMs) for further mass-production and distribution at an affiliated facility. Thus, it was determined that the petitioning group of service workers support production of CD-ROMs containing software at an affiliated facility in San Jose, California.
The Department conducted an additional investigation to determine whether workers can be considered eligible for TAA as directly-impacted workers in support of production of CD-ROMs containing software at an affiliated facility, Eclipsys Corporation, San Jose, California.
The group eligibility requirements for directly-impacted (primary) workers under Section 222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, can be satisfied in either of two ways:
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or
II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:
A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and
C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States;
2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or
3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision.
The investigation of Eclipsys Corporation, San Jose, California revealed that criteria (I.B) and (II.B) were not met. According to the information provided by the company official, sales and production of CD-ROMs containing software at Eclipsys Corporation, San Jose, California did not decline during the relevant time period. Moreover, the subject firm did not shift production abroad, nor did it increase company imports of CD-ROMs containing software, during the relevant period.
The petitioner further alleges that because workers lost their jobs due to a transfer of job functions, such as technical writing, to Canada, petitioning workers should be considered import impacted.
The company official stated that one position of a Technical Writer was transferred to Canada, while the rest of the positions eliminated at the subject firm were primarily moved to Boston, Massachusetts and Malvern, Pennsylvania.
Technical writing of informational documentation that is electronically transmitted is not considered production within the context of TAA eligibility requirements, so there are no imports of products in this instance. Further, as the PDF files and technical documentation do not become products until they are recorded on media device, there was no shift in production of an “article” abroad within the meaning of the Trade Act of 1974.
After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Eclipsys Corporation, Santa Rosa, California.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on October 7, 2004, applicable to workers of Emerson Tool Company, Menominee, Michigan. The notice will be published soon in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows that leased workers of Securitas, Inc., Manpower and Nicolet Staffing were employed at the Menominee, Michigan location of Emerson Tool Company.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include leased workers of Securitas, Inc., Manpower and Nicolet Staffing working at Emerson Tool Company, Menominee, Michigan.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers employed at Emerson Tool Company who were adversely affected by increased imports.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-55,700 is hereby issued as follows:
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on September 21, 2004 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Freudenberg Nonwovens, Madison, Tennessee (TA-W-55,647).
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on May 17, 2004, applicable to workers of General Electric Electromaterials, Coshocton, Ohio. The notice was published in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows that worker separations have occurred involving employees of General Electric Electromaterials, Coshocton, Ohio, working in Minnesota and Washington. These employees provide support function services for the production of bare printed circuit boards (PCBs) and rolls of mica paper produced at the Coshocton, Ohio, location of the subject firm.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include employees of General Electric Electromaterials, Coshocton, Ohio, working in Minnesota and Washington.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of General Electric Electromaterials who were adversely affected by increased imports.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-54,737 is hereby issued as follows:
By letter dated September 24, 2004 a company official requested administrative reconsideration regarding the Department's Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, applicable to the workers of the subject firm.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination signed on August 26, 2004 was based on the finding that imports of men's, women's, and children's socks did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject plant and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred. The denial notice was published in the
To support the request for reconsideration, the company official supplied additional information. Upon further review of the initial investigation and contact with subject firm's largest customers, it was revealed that subject firm customers significantly increased their import purchases of socks while decreasing its purchases from the subject firm during the relevant period.
It was further revealed that U.S. aggregate imports of socks increased significantly, while aggregate domestic production of socks decreased during the relevant period.
In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) for older workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246 of the Trade Act must be met. The Department has determined in this case that the
A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over and possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse.
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I conclude that increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced at Granville Hosiery, Inc., Oxford, North Carolina, contributed importantly to the declines in sales or production and to the total or partial separation of workers at the subject firm. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification:
All workers of Granville Hosiery, Inc., Oxford, North Carolina, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after August 5, 2003 through two years from the date of this certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
On September 9, 2004, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application on Reconsideration applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The Notice of the determination was published in the
The request for reconsideration, filed on August 3, 2004, supplemented a previous request for administrative reconsideration which was dismissed on July 21, 2004 (69 FR 47182) on the ground that the original application did not contain any new substantial information that would bear importantly on the Department's determination denying certification because Major League did not have a “significant number or proportion” of workers at its Mount Airy location who were separated or threatened with separation to meet the requirement of section 222(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Significantly, the reconsideration request dated August 3, 2004 contended that the petition was filed by Major League on behalf of all of its workers of “Major League/Activewear's apparel division,” and was not limited to the sole worker for Major League who was located in Mount Airy, North Carolina.
The investigation of the August 3, 2004 request for reconsideration revealed that the company official who filed the initial petition, intended the filing of the petition to be on behalf of all workers of Major League, Inc., including those working from other locations that reported to him at Major League's corporate headquarters in Jasper, Georgia. The company official identified two workers, located in McAllen, Texas and San Antonio, Texas, respectively, who were separated from employment with Major League between January and April 2004 along with the Major League employee located in Mount Airy, North Carolina.
Additional information was also obtained in the reconsideration investigation regarding the relationship between workers employed by Major League and the manufacture of apparel at a trade affected affiliated facility: Active Wear, Inc., Martinsville, Virginia (TA-W-54,339, certified on March 31, 2004). Major League workers were engaged in activities relating to the coordination of textile purchases and the shipping of textiles from Active Wear to Major League. Therefore, the workers were in support of the manufacture by Active Wear (scheduling and inventory control related to the textile purchases from Active Wear). Major League and Active Wear are affiliated by common ownership and are vertically integrated with regard to the production that took place at the Active Wear facility in Martinsville, Virginia. Two of the three shareholders of Major League owned 50% of the stock of Active Wear.
Section 222(a) of the Trade Act provides, in relevant part, for the certification of a group of workers when “a significant number or proportion of the worker in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated” and increased imports have contributed importantly to such separations. The Department's regulations at 29 C.F.R. 90.2 define the terms “firm,” “appropriate subdivision,” “group,” and “significant number or proportion of the workers.” While the Department usually identifies at least three workers at each facility location of a small firm before certifying a group of workers at that appropriate subdivision location, where three workers in the firm report to a single location of that firm, such as the firm's headquarters, the “group” may be found to consist of at least a total of three workers regardless of the work location. For example, a worker who travels between two or more locations of the firm or engages in telecommuting for all or part of the work week will not be excluded from consideration as part of a group of workers at an auxiliary facility merely because he or she does not report to work each day to the same facility and his or her paycheck is sent to a different location. Under these circumstances, it would not serve the purpose of the “significant number of separations” requirement to deny certification of a worker group when there are at least three separated workers at different locations who all report to headquarters even though there were not at least three separated workers at each of those locations.
Although workers employed by Major League are located in Mount Airy, North Carolina; McAllen, Texas; San Antonio, Texas; and Martinsville, Virginia, all of their activities are coordinated, and the workers are issued directives, from the company headquarters. Thus, the subject worker group of this petition consists of workers of the subject firm at these four locations as well as at the Jasper, Georgia company headquarters.
Information obtained in the investigation subsequent to the initial negative determination reveals that a significant number or proportion of workers of the subject worker group described above have been separated under section 222(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and the applicable regulations, as discussed above. In addition to the worker at Mount Airy, North Carolina, there were at least a total of two other workers at the McAllen, Texas and San Antonio, Texas locations who were totally or partially separated from employment by Major League between January and April 2004.
Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced at Active Wear, Inc.,
On September 23, 2004, the petitioner filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of International Trade. By order dated October 29, 2004, the court has granted the Department leave to file this determination.
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration and the entire record, I conclude that increased imports of like or directly competitive articles contributed importantly to the Major League/Active Wear firm and the total or partial separation of workers in the subject group. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification:
All workers of Major League, Inc., Mount Airy, North Carolina (TA-W-54,674), Major League, Inc., Jasper, Georgia (TA-W-54,674A), Major League, Inc., McAllen, Texas (TA-W-54,674B), Major League, Inc., San Antonio, Texas (TA-W-54,674C), and Major League, Inc., Martinsville, Virginia (TA-W-54,674D) who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after March 24, 2003 through two years of this certification, are eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on September 13, 2004 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of New DHC, Southwest Harbor, Maine.
The petition regarding the investigation has been deemed invalid. The petitioner is not an official of New DHC. Consequently, further investigation would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) by (TA-W) number issued during the periods of October 2004.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for directly-impacted (primary) worker adjustment assistance to be issued, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or
II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:
A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and
C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States;
2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or
3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision.
Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance as an adversely affected secondary group to be issued, each of the group eligibility requirements of section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) Either—
(A) The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20
(B) A loss or business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the criteria for eligibility have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.)(increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B) (No shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met.
The workers firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The investigation revealed that criterion (a)(2)(A)(I.A) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A) (no employment decline) has not been met.
The investigation revealed that criterion (a)(2)(A)(I.B) (Sales or production, or both, did not decline) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B) (has shifted production to a country not under the free trade agreement with the U.S.) have not been met.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A) (I.C) increased imports and (II.C) (has shifted production to a foreign country) have not been met.
The investigation revealed that criteria (2) has not been met. The workers firm (or subdivision) is not a supplier or downstream producer to trade-affected companies.
The investigation revealed that criteria (3)(A) has not been met. The workers firm (or subdivision) is not a supplier and the component parts it supplied to trade-affected companies did not account for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm.
The following certifications have been issued; the date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of (a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of Section 222 have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of (a)(2)(B) (shift in production) of Section 222 have been met.
In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met.
In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified.
The Department has determined that criterion (2) of Section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm possess skills that are easily transferable.
The Department has determined that criterion (1) of Section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm are 50 years of age or older.
Since the workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met.
The following certifications have been issued; the date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determinations.
In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(ii) have been met.
I. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older.
II. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable.
III. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry (
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the month of October 2004. Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on October 14, 2004 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at The Sewing Source, Inc., Spring Hope, North Carolina (TA-W-55,798), and The Sewing Source, Inc., Louisburg, North Carolina (TA-W-55,798A).
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and section 166(h)(4) of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) [29 U.S.C. 2911(h)(4)], notice is hereby given of the next meeting of the Native American Employment and Training Council as constituted under WIA.
The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. e.s.t. (eastern standard time) on Tuesday, November 30, 2004, and continue until 5 p.m. e.s.t. that day. The meeting will reconvene at 9 a.m. e.s.t. on Wednesday, December 1, 2004, and continue until approximately 5 p.m. e.s.t. on that day. The period from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. e.s.t. on November 30, 2004 will be reserved for participation and presentation by members of the public. The meeting will adjourn at approximately 5 p.m. on Wednesday, December 1, 2004.
All sessions will be held in Room C-5515 (1A), FPB, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
The meeting will be open to the public. Persons who need special accommodations should contact Ms. Brown on (202) 693-3737 by November 5, 2004.
The formal agenda will include, but not be limited to, the following topics: (1) A further discussion of the common measures; (2) the EMILE reporting system; (3) reporting work group recommendations; (4) future training needs of section 166 grantees; and (5) youth forums.
Ms. Athena Brown, Chief, Division of Indian and Native American Programs, Office of National Programs, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-4203, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
(202) 693-3737 (voice) (this is not a toll-free number) or 1-800-877-8339 (TTY) or speech-to-speech at 1-877-877-8982 (these are toll-free numbers).
General wage determination decisions of the Secretary of Labor are issued in accordance with applicable law and are based on the information obtained by the Department of Labor from its study of local wage conditions and data made available from other sources. They specify the basic hourly wage rates and fringe benefits which are determined to be prevailing for the described classes of laborers and mechanics employed on construction projects of a similar character and in the localities specified therein.
The determinations in these decisions of prevailing rates and fringe benefits have been made in accordance with 29 CFR part 1, by authority of the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the provisions of
Good cause is hereby found for not utilizing notice and public comment procedure thereon prior to the issuance of these determinations as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553 and not providing for delay in the effective date as prescribed in that section, because the necessity to issue current construction industry wage determinations frequently and in large volume causes procedures to be impractical and contrary to the public interest.
General wage determination decisions, and modifications and supersedes decisions thereto, contain no expiration dates and are effective from their date of notice in the
Any person, organization, or governmental agency having an interest in the rates determined as prevailing is encouraged to submit wage rate and fringe benefit information for consideration by the Department.
Further information and self-explanatory forms for the purpose of submitting this data may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division, Division of Wage Determinations, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-3014, Washington, DC 20210.
The number of the decisions listed to the Government Printing Office document entitled “General Wage Determinations Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts” being modified are listed by Volume and State. Dates of publication in the
General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts, including those noted above, may be found in the Government Printing Office (GPO) document entitled “General Wage Determinations Issued Under the Davis-Bacon And Related Acts.” This publication is available at each of the 50 Regional Government Depository Libraries and many of the 1,400 Government Depository Libraries across the country.
General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts are available electronically at no cost on the Government Printing Office site at
Hard-copy subscriptions may be purchased from: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512-1800.
When ordering hard-copy subscription(s), be sure to specify the State(s) of interest, since subscriptions may be ordered for any or all of the six separate Volumes, arranged by State. Subscriptions include an annual edition (issued in January or February) which includes all current general wage determinations for the States covered by each volume. Throughout the remainder of the year, regular weekly updates will be distributed to subscribers.
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
Notice of meeting.
The Commission will hold its next public meeting on Tuesday, November 16, 2004, and Wednesday, November 17, 2004, at the Ronald Reagan Building, International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting is tentatively scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. on November 16, and at 9 a.m. on November 17.
Topics for discussion include findings on congressionally mandated studies including: Specialty hospitals; certified registered nurse first assistants; physicians volume; cardiothoracic surgeons, and eliminating physician referrals to physical therapy. Additional presentations will include physician quality, findings from a study on employer-sponsored health benefits, and home health payment.
Agendas will be e-mailed approximately one week prior to the meeting. The final agenda will be available on the Commission's Web site (
MedPAC's address is: 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Suite 9000, Washington, DC 20001. The telephone number is (202) 220-3700.
Diane Ellison, Office Manager, (202) 220-3700.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of prospective patent license.
NASA hereby gives notice that First Technology PLC acting through its subsidiary Control Devices Inc., of Standish, Maine, has applied for an exclusive license to practice the invention described and claimed in U.S. Patent No. 6,239,601 entitled “Thickness Measurement Device for Ice, or Ice Mixed with Water or Other Liquid”, which is assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Written objections to the prospective grant of a license should be sent to NASA Langley Research Center. NASA has not yet made a determination to grant the requested license and may deny the requested license even if no objections are submitted within the comment period.
Responses to this notice must be received by November 29, 2004.
Helen Galus, Patent Attorney, Mail Stop 212, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681-2199, (757) 864-3227; Fax 757-864-9190.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of prospective patent license.
NASA hereby gives notice that JMAR Technologies, Inc., of Carlsbad, California, has applied for a partially exclusive license to practice the invention described and claimed in U.S. Patent No. 6,313,908, entitled “Apparatus and method using a holo-graphic optical element for converting a spectral distribution to image points,” which is assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Written objections to the prospective grant of a license should be sent to NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. NASA has not yet made a determination to grant the requested license and may deny the requested license even if no objections are submitted within the comment period.
Responses to this notice must be received by November 29, 2004.
Keith Dixon, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 503, Greenbelt, MD 20771, (301) 286-9279.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of prospective patent license.
NASA hereby gives notice that Kid Saver, Incorporated, of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, has applied for an exclusive license to practice the invention described and claimed in U.S. Patent No. 6,714,132 entitled “Self-Activating System and Method for Alerting When an Object or a Person is Left Unattended,” and NASA Case No. LAR 16324-2 entitled “Self-Activating System and Method for Alerting When an Object or a Person is Left Unattended,” both of which are assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Written objections to the prospective grant of a license should be sent to NASA Langley Research Center. NASA has not yet made a determination to grant the requested license and may deny the requested license even if no objections are submitted within the comment period.
Responses to this notice must be received by November 29, 2004.
Helen Galus, Patent Attorney, Mail Stop 212, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681-2199, (757) 864-3227; Fax 757-864-9190.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of prospective patent license.
NASA hereby gives notice that Molecular NanoSystems Inc., of Palo Alto, CA, has applied for a co-exclusive license to practice the invention disclosed in NASA Case No. ARC-15173-1, entitled “Nanoengineered Thermal Materials Using Carbon Nanotube Array Composites,” for which a U.S. Patent Application was filed and assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Written objections to the prospective grant of a license should be sent to Ames Research Center.
Responses to this notice must be received by December 13, 2004.
Robert Padilla, Chief Patent Counsel, NASA Ames Research Center, M/S 202A-4, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000, (650) 604-5104.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Issuance of order to modify Waste Control Specialists, LLC's exemption from requirements of 10 CFR part 70.
James Park, Environmental and Performance Assessment Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone: (301) 415-5835, fax number: (301) 415-5397; e-mail:
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing notice in the Matter of Waste Control Specialists, LLC (WCS) of the issuance of an order to modify WCS's exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR part 70.
In letters dated August 6, 2003, and March 15, 2004, WCS requested a modification to its exemption from certain NRC regulations relative to the possession of special nuclear material (SNM). A license pursuant to 10 CFR part 70 issued by NRC is required for quantities of SNM in excess of the limits in 10 CFR 150.11. WCS is requesting a modification to its exemption from licensing under part 70 for possession of greater than the part 150 SNM limits. The NRC issued the initial exemption to WCS in November 2001.
WCS operates a low-level waste (LLW) and mixed waste (MW) storage and treatment facility in Andrews County, Texas. The facility also disposes of hazardous waste. Texas is an Agreement State. This facility is licensed by the State of Texas Department of Health (TDH) under a 10 CFR part 30 equivalent radioactive materials license (RML). The facility is also licensed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to treat and dispose of hazardous waste. In 1997, WCS began accepting Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) wastes for treatment, storage, and disposal. Later that year, WCS received a license from TDH for treatment and storage of MW and LLW. The MW and LLW streams may contain quantities of SNM.
Section 70.3 of 10 CFR part 70 requires persons who own, acquire, deliver, receive, possess, use, or transfer SNM to obtain a license pursuant to the requirements in 10 CFR part 70. The licensing requirements in 10 CFR part 70 apply to persons in Agreement States possessing greater than critical mass quantities as defined in 10 CFR 150.11.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 70.17(a), “the Commission may * * * grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulations in this part as it determines are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and are otherwise in the public interest.”
On November 21, 2001, the NRC transmitted an Order to WSC. The Order was published in the
The NRC staff considers that the appropriate action is to modify WCS's exemption. Currently, WCS is exempted from the requirements of 10 CFR part 70, including the requirements for an NRC license in 10 CFR 70.3, for SNM within the restricted area at WCS's site. This modification specifically would allow WCS to use such chemical reagents as it deems necessary for treatment and stabilization of mixed waste containing SNM provided that the SNM mass does not exceed specified concentration limits. The WCS would continue to be restricted from using magnesium oxide in stabilization, per Condition 2 of the Order. Therefore, WCS's exemption is modified as follows:
1. Concentrations of SNM in individual waste containers and/or during processing must not exceed the following values:
When mixtures of these SNM isotopes are present in the waste, the sum-of-the-fractions rule, as illustrated below, should be used.
The measurement uncertainty values in column 3 above represent the maximum one-sigma uncertainty associated with the measurement of the concentration of the particular radionuclide.
The SNM must be homogeneously distributed throughout the waste. If the SNM is not homogeneously distributed, then the limiting concentrations must not be exceeded on average in any contiguous mass of 600 kilograms.
2. Waste must not contain “pure forms” of chemicals containing carbon, fluorine, magnesium, or bismuth in bulk quantities (
3. Waste accepted must not contain total quantities of beryllium, hydrogenous material enriched in deuterium, or graphite above one tenth of one percent of the total weight of the waste. The presence of the above materials will be determined and documented by the generator, based on process knowledge, or testing.
4. Waste packages must not contain highly water soluble forms of SNM greater than 350 grams of U-235 or 200 grams of U-233 or 200 grams of Pu. The sum of the fractions rule will apply for mixtures of U-233, U-235, and Pu. When multiple containers are processed in a larger container, the total quantity of soluble SNM shall not exceed these mass limits. Highly soluble forms of SNM include, but are not limited to: uranium sulfate, uranyl acetate, uranyl chloride, uranyl formate, uranyl fluoride, uranyl nitrate, uranyl potassium carbonate, uranyl sulfate, plutonium chloride, plutonium fluoride, and plutonium nitrate. The presence of the above materials will be determined and documented by the generator, based on process knowledge or testing.
5. Processing of mixed waste containing SNM will be limited to chemical stabilization (
6. Prior to shipment of waste, WCS shall require generators to provide a written certification containing the following information for each waste stream:
a. Waste Description. The description must detail how the waste was generated, list the physical forms in the waste, and identify uranium chemical composition.
b. Waste Characterization Summary. The data must include a general description of how the waste was characterized (including the volumetric extent of the waste, and the number, location, type, and results of any analytical testing), the range of SNM concentrations, and the analytical results with error values used to develop the concentration ranges.
c. Uniformity Description. A description of the process by which the waste was generated showing that the spatial distribution of SNM must be uniform, or other information supporting spatial distribution.
d. Manifest Concentration. The generator must describe the methods to be used to determine the concentrations on the manifests. These methods could include direct measurement and the use of scaling factors. The generator must describe the uncertainty associated with sampling and testing used to obtain the manifest concentrations.
WCS shall review the above information and, if adequate, approve in writing this pre-shipment waste characterization and assurance plan before permitting the shipment of a waste stream. This will include statements that WCS has a written copy of all the information required above, that the characterization information is adequate and consistent with the waste description, and that the information is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Conditions 1 through 4. Where generator process knowledge is used to demonstrate compliance with Conditions 1, 2, 3, or 4, WCS shall review this information and determine when testing is required to provide additional information in assuring compliance with the Conditions. WCS shall retain this information as required by the State of Texas to permit independent review.
At the time waste is received, WCS shall require generators of SNM waste to provide a written certification with each waste manifest that states that the SNM concentrations reported on the manifest do not exceed the limits in Condition 1, that the measurement uncertainty does not exceed the uncertainty value in Condition 1, and that the waste meets Conditions 2 through 4.
WCS shall require generators to sample and determine the SNM concentration for each waste stream at the following frequency: (a) If the concentrations are above one tenth the SNM limits (Condition 1), once per 600 kg, (b) if the concentrations are below one tenth and greater than one hundredth of the SNM limits, once per 6,000 kg, and (c) if the concentrations are below one hundredth of the SNM limits, once per 60,000 kg.
If the waste is determined to be not homogeneous (
The certifications required under these conditions shall be made in writing and include the statement that the signer of the certification understands that this information is required to meet the requirements of the NRC and must be complete and accurate in all material respects.
7. WCS shall sample and determine the SNM concentration for each waste stream at the following frequency: (a) If the concentrations are above one tenth the SNM limits (Condition 1), once per 1,500 kg for the first shipment and every 6,000 kg thereafter, (b) if the concentrations are below one tenth and greater than one hundredth of the SNM limits, once per 20,000 kg for the first shipment and every 60,000 kg thereafter, and (c) if the concentrations are below one hundredth of the SNM limits, once per 600,000 kg. This confirmatory testing is not required for waste to be disposed of at DOE's WIPP facility.
If the waste is determined to be not homogeneous (
8. WCS shall notify the NRC, Region IV office within 24 hours if any of the above Conditions are violated. A written notification of the event must be provided within 7 days.
9. WCS shall obtain NRC approval prior to changing any activities associated with the above Conditions.
Based on the staff's evaluation, the Commission has determined, pursuant to 10 CFR 70.17(a), that the exemption as described above at the WCS facility is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and is otherwise in the public interest. Accordingly, by this Order, the Commission hereby grants this exemption subject to the above conditions. The exemption will become effective after the State of Texas has incorporated the above conditions into WCS's RML.
Pursuant to the requirements in 10 CFR part 51, the Commission has published an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed action wherein it has determined that the granting of this exemption will have no significant impacts on the quality of the human environment. This finding was noticed in the
As of October 25, 2004, the NRC initiated an additional security review of publicly available documents to ensure that potentially sensitive information is removed from the ADAMS database accessible through the NRC's Web site. Interested members of the public should check the NRC's web pages for updates on the availability of documents through the ADAMS system.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The licensees identified in Attachment 1
The Commission has broad statutory authority to protect and prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of Safeguards Information. Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, grants the Commission explicit authority to “issue such orders, as necessary to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of Safeguards Information * * *” This authority extends to information concerning transfer of special nuclear material, source material, and byproduct material. Licensees and all persons who produce, receive, or acquire Safeguards Information must ensure proper handling and protection of Safeguards Information to avoid unauthorized disclosure in accordance with the specific requirements for the protection of Safeguards Information contained in Attachment 2. The Commission hereby provides notice that it intends to treat all violations of the requirements contained in Attachment 2 applicable to the handling and unauthorized disclosure of Safeguards Information as serious breaches of adequate protection of the public health and safety and the common defense and security of the United States. Access to Safeguards Information is limited to those persons who have established the need to know the information, and are considered to be trustworthy and reliable. A need to know means a determination by a person having responsibility for protecting Safeguards Information that a proposed recipient's access to Safeguards Information is necessary in the performance of official, contractual, or licensee duties of employment. Licensees and all other persons who obtain Safeguards Information must ensure that they develop, maintain and implement strict policies and procedures for the proper handling of Safeguards Information to prevent unauthorized disclosure, in accordance with the requirements in Attachment 2. All licensees must ensure that all contractors whose employees may have access to Safeguards Information either adhere to the licensee's policies and procedures on Safeguards Information or develop, maintain and implement their own acceptable policies and procedures. The licensees remain responsible for the conduct of their contractors. The policies and procedures necessary to ensure compliance with applicable requirements contained in Attachment 2 must address, at a minimum, the following: the general performance requirement that each person who produces, receives, or acquires Safeguards Information shall ensure that Safeguards Information is protected against unauthorized disclosure; protection of Safeguards Information at fixed sites, in use and in storage, and while in transit; correspondence containing Safeguards Information; access to Safeguards Information; preparation, marking, reproduction and destruction of documents; external transmission of documents; use of automatic data processing systems; and removal of the Safeguards Information category.
In order to provide assurance that the licensees are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection, to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of Safeguards Information, all licensees who hold licenses issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or an Agreement State, authorizing them to possess and reasonably expected to transport radioactive material in quantities of concern, shall implement the requirements identified in Attachment 2 to this Order. The Commission recognizes that licensees may have already initiated many of the measures set forth in Attachment 2 to this Order for handling of Safeguards Information in conjunction with current NRC license requirements or previous NRC Order. Additional measures set forth in Attachment 2 should be handled and controlled in accordance with the licensee's current program for Safeguards Information. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that in light of the common defense and security matters identified above, which warrant the issuance of this Order, the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be effective immediately.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 81, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR Part 30, 10 CFR Part 32, 10 CFR Part 35, 10 CFR Part 50, and 10 CFR Part 70,
The Director, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, and the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, may in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by the licensee. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the licensee must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, as applicable, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as applicable, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator for NRC Region I, II, III, or IV, as appropriate for the specific plant, and to the licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the licensee. Because of possible disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to
If a hearing is requested by the licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(I), the licensee may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above, shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this Order.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The service list of Materials Licensees receiving this Order has been redacted.
Information and material that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) determines are Safeguards Information must be protected from unauthorized disclosure. In order to distinguish information needing modified protection requirements from the Safeguards Information for reactors and fuel cycle facilities that require a higher level of protection, the term “Safeguards Information Modified Handling” (SGI-M) is being used as the distinguishing marking for certain materials licensees. Each person who produces, receives, or acquires SGI-M shall ensure that it is protected against unauthorized disclosure. To meet this requirement, licensees and persons shall establish and maintain an information protection system that includes the measures specified below. Information protection procedures employed by state and local police forces are deemed to meet these requirements.
Any person, whether or not a licensee of the NRC, who produces, receives, or acquires SGI-M is subject to the requirements (and sanctions) of this document. Firms and their employees that supply services or equipment to materials licensees would fall under this requirement, if they possess facility SGI-M. A licensee must inform contractors and suppliers of the existence of these requirements and the need for proper protection (See more under Conditions for Access).
State or local police units who have access to SGI-M are also subject to these requirements. However, these organizations are deemed to have adequate information protection systems. The conditions for transfer of information to a third party, (
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, explicitly provides that any person, “whether or not a licensee of the Commission, who violates any regulations adopted under this section shall be subject to the civil monetary penalties of section 234 of this Act.” Furthermore, willful violation of any regulation or order governing Safeguards Information is a felony subject to criminal penalties in the form of fines or imprisonment, or both. See sections 147b. and 223 of the Act.
Access to SGI-M beyond the initial recipients of the order will be governed by the background check requirements imposed by the order. Access to SGI-M by licensee employees, agents, or contractors must include both an appropriate need-to-know determination by the licensee, as well as a determination concerning the trustworthiness of individuals having access to the information. Employees of an organization affiliated with the licensee's company,
Need-to-know is defined as a determination by a person having responsibility for protecting SGI-M that a proposed recipient's access to SGI-M is necessary in the performance of official, contractual, or licensee duties of employment. The recipient should be made aware that the information is SGI-M and those having access to it are subject to these requirements as well as criminal and civil sanctions for mishandling the information.
Dissemination of SGI-M is limited to individuals who have an established need-to-know and who are members of certain occupational groups. These occupational groups are:
I. An employee, agent, or contractor of an applicant, a licensee, the Commission, or the United States Government;
II. A member of a duly authorized committee of the Congress;
III. The Governor of a State or his designated representative;
IV. A representative of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) engaged in activities associated with the U.S./IAEA Safeguards Agreement who has been certified by the NRC;
V. A member of a state or local law enforcement authority that is responsible for responding to requests for assistance during safeguards emergencies;
VI. A person to whom disclosure is ordered pursuant to Section 2.744(e) of Part 2 of Part 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations; or
VII. State Radiation Control Program Directors (and State Homeland Security Directors) or their designees.
In a generic sense, the individuals described above in (II) through (VII) are considered to be trustworthy by virtue of their employment status. For non-governmental individuals in group (I) above, a determination of reliability and trustworthiness is required. Discretion must be exercised in granting access to these individuals. If there is any indication that the recipient would be unwilling or unable to provide proper protection for the SGI-M, they are not authorized to receive SGI-M.
Information deemed SGI-M is information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to have a significant adverse effect on the health and safety of the public or the common defense and security by significantly increasing the likelihood of theft, diversion, or sabotage of materials or facilities subject to NRC jurisdiction.
SGI-M identifies Safeguards Information which is subject to these requirements. These requirements are necessary in order to protect quantities of nuclear material significant to the health and safety of the public or common defense and security.
The overall measure for consideration of SGI-M is the usefulness of the information (security or otherwise) to an adversary in planning or attempting a malevolent act. The specificity of the information increases the likelihood that it will be useful to an adversary.
While in use, SGI-M shall be under the control of an authorized individual. This requirement is satisfied if the SGI-M is attended by an authorized individual even though the information is in fact not constantly being used. SGI-M, therefore, within alarm stations, continuously manned guard posts or ready rooms need not be locked in file drawers or storage containers.
Under certain conditions the general control exercised over security zones or areas would be considered to meet this requirement. The primary consideration is limiting access to those who have a need-to-know. Some examples would be:
Alarm stations, guard posts and guard ready rooms;
Engineering or drafting areas if visitors are escorted and information is not clearly visible;
Plant maintenance areas if access is restricted and information is not clearly visible;
Administrative offices (e.g., central records or purchasing) if visitors are escorted and information is not clearly visible;
While unattended, SGI-M shall be stored in a locked file drawer or container. Knowledge of lock combinations or access to keys protecting SGI-M shall be limited to a minimum number of personnel for operating purposes who have a “need-to-know” and are otherwise authorized access to SGI-M in accordance with these requirements. Access to lock combinations or keys shall be strictly controlled so as to prevent disclosure to an unauthorized individual.
Documents containing SGI-M when transmitted outside an authorized place of use or storage shall be enclosed in two sealed envelopes or wrappers. The inner envelope or wrapper shall contain the name and address of the intended recipient, and be marked both sides, top and bottom with the words “Safeguards Information—Modified Handling.” The outer envelope or wrapper must be addressed to the intended recipient, must contain the address of the sender, and must not bear any markings or indication that the document contains SGI-M.
SGI-M may be transported by any commercial delivery company that provides nation-wide overnight service with computer tracking features, U.S. first class, registered, express, or certified mail, or by any individual authorized access pursuant to these requirements. Within a facility, SGI-M may be transmitted using a single opaque envelope. It may also be transmitted within a facility without single or double wrapping, provided adequate measures are taken to protect the material against unauthorized disclosure. Individuals transporting SGI-M should retain the documents in their personal possession at all times or ensure that the information is appropriately wrapped and also secured to preclude compromise by an unauthorized individual.
While the NRC is the sole authority for determining what specific information may be designated as “SGI-M,” originators of documents are responsible for determining whether those documents contain such information. Each document or other matter that contains SGI-M shall be marked “Safeguards Information—Modified Handling” in a conspicuous manner on the top and bottom of the first page to indicate the presence of protected information. The first page of the document must also contain (i) the name, title, and organization of the individual authorized to make a SGI-M determination, and who has determined that the document contains SGI-M, (ii) the date the document was originated or the determination made, (iii) an indication that the document contains SGI-M, and (iv) an indication that unauthorized disclosure would be subject to civil and criminal sanctions. Each additional page shall be marked in a conspicuous fashion at the top and bottom with letters denoting “Safeguards Information—Modified Handling.”
In addition to the “Safeguards Information—Modified Handling” markings at the top and bottom of page, transmittal letters or memoranda which do not in themselves contain SGI-M shall be marked to indicate that attachments or enclosures contain SGI-M but that the transmittal does not (
In addition to the information required on the face of the document, each item of correspondence that contains SGI-M shall, by marking or other means, clearly indicate which portions (
All documents or other matter containing SGI-M in use or storage shall be marked in accordance with these requirements. A specific exception is provided for documents in the possession of contractors and agents of licensees that were produced more than one year prior to the effective date of the order. Such documents need not be marked unless they are removed from file drawers or containers. The same exception applies to old documents stored away from the facility in central files or corporation headquarters.
Since information protection procedures employed by state and local police forces are deemed to meet NRC requirements, documents in the possession of these agencies need not be marked as set forth in this document.
Documents containing SGI-M shall be removed from the SGI-M category (decontrolled) only after the NRC determines that the information no longer meets the criteria of SGI-M. Licensees have the authority to make determinations that specific documents
The authority to determine that a document may be decontrolled may be exercised only by, or with the permission of, the individual (or office) who made the original determination. The document shall indicate the name and organization of the individual removing the document from the SGI-M category and the date of the removal. Other persons who have the document in their possession should be notified of the decontrolling of the document.
SGI-M may be reproduced to the minimum extent necessary consistent with need without permission of the originator. Newer digital copiers which scan and retain images of documents represent a potential security concern. If the copier is retaining SGI-M information in memory, the copier cannot be connected to a network. It should also be placed in a location that is cleared and controlled for the authorized processing of SGI-M information. Different copiers have different capabilities, including some which come with features that allow the memory to be erased. Each copier would have to be examined from a physical security perspective.
SGI-M may be processed or produced on an ADP system provided that the system is assigned to the licensee's or contractor's facility and requires the use of an entry code/password for access to stored information. Licensees are encouraged to process this information in a computing environment that has adequate computer security controls in place to prevent unauthorized access to the information. An ADP system is defined here as a data processing system having the capability of long term storage of SGI-M. Word processors such as typewriters are not subject to the requirements as long as they do not transmit information off-site. (
SGI-M may not be transmitted by unprotected telecommunications circuits except under emergency or extraordinary conditions. For the purpose of this requirement, emergency or extraordinary conditions are defined as any circumstances that require immediate communications in order to report, summon assistance for, or respond to a security event (or an event that has potential security significance).
This restriction applies to telephone, telegraph, teletype, facsimile circuits, and to radio. Routine telephone or radio transmission between site security personnel, or between the site and local police, should be limited to message formats or codes that do not disclose facility security features or response procedures. Similarly, call-ins during transport should not disclose information useful to a potential adversary. Infrequent or non-repetitive telephone conversations regarding a physical security plan or program are permitted provided that the discussion is general in nature.
Individuals should use care when discussing SGI-M at meetings or in the presence of others to insure that the conversation is not overheard by persons not authorized access. Transcripts, tapes or minutes of meetings or hearings that contain SGI-M shall be marked and protected in accordance with these requirements.
Documents containing SGI-M should be destroyed when no longer needed. They may be destroyed by tearing into small pieces, burning, shredding or any other method that precludes reconstruction by means available to the public at large. Piece sizes one half inch or smaller composed of several pages or documents and thoroughly mixed would be considered completely destroyed.
Postal Rate Commission.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004, at 2:30 p.m.
Commission conference room, 1333 H Street, NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20268—0001.
Closed.
Consideration of Docket No. MC2004-3, Rate and Service Changes to Implement Functionally Equivalent Negotiated Service Agreement with Bank One Corporation.
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, Postal Rate Commission, Suite 300, 1333 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 20268-0001, 202-789-6820.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
Notice of Application for Exemption under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act” or “Act”).
The Charles Talbot Fund (the “Fund” or “Applicant”).
Exemption requested under section 205(e) of the Advisers Act from section 205(a)(1) of that Act.
Applicant requests an order under section 205(e) of the Advisers Act to permit registered investment advisers to charge it performance-based advisory fees notwithstanding the prohibition set forth in section 205(a)(1) of the Act.
The application was filed on October 28, 2003, and amended on March 12, 2004, and amended further on May 7, 2004.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the SEC's Secretary and serving the Applicant with a copy of the request, either personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m., on November 30, 2004, and should be accompanied by proof of service on Applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons may request notification of a hearing by writing to the SEC's Secretary.
Marilyn Barker, Senior Counsel, or Jennifer L. Sawin, Assistant Director, Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Adviser Regulation, at (202) 942-0719.
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the SEC's Public Reference Branch.
1. Applicant is a Michigan limited partnership formed in 1978 for general investment purposes so as to facilitate and simplify the investment of assets owned by the Talbot family. Applicant represents that the Fund is the Talbot family's principal investment vehicle, and is exempt from registration as an investment company under section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act”).
2. Charles F. Talbot, Jr., is the Fund's general partner. Mr. Talbot is compensated for services as general partner by pro rata participation in the gain or loss of the partnership. He is reimbursed for actual hours spent in the partnership business such as accounting. The Fund has no other executives or employees.
3. Applicant represents that Mr. Talbot is solely responsible for making the investment decisions for the Fund. At present, Mr. Talbot owns more than 90 percent of the Fund's capital.
4. The Fund's limited partners currently consist of Mr. Talbot's wife, three of Mr. Talbot's adult children and one of their spouses, eight of Mr. Talbot's grandchildren, and a small partnership (“BIF”) whose partners currently consist of Mr. Talbot and one of his adult children.
5. Applicant represents that the partners of the Fund will be limited to Mr. Talbot, his siblings, spouse, direct lineal descendants by birth or adoption, spouses of such persons, estates of such persons, and trusts established by or for the benefit of such persons (collectively, “Family Members”), as well as partnerships whose partners consist only of Family Members.
6. Applicant states that it wants to participate in investment opportunities managed by registered investment advisers that seek to charge it a performance-based advisory fee pursuant to rule 205-3 under the Advisers Act. Applicant represents further that neither it nor any of its partners has any relationship (other than a present investment relationship) with, or is an affiliate or an interested person of, any registered investment adviser that would seek to charge it a performance fee pursuant to rule 205-3.
7. Applicant represents that the Fund is a “qualified purchaser” as defined in section 2(a)(51)(A)(ii) of the Investment Company Act
8. Applicant states that, of Mr. Talbot's children and grandchildren, only one is a “qualified client.”
1. Section 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act generally prohibits a registered investment adviser, unless exempt from registration pursuant to section 203(b) of the Act, from entering into, extending, renewing, or performing under any investment advisory contract that provides for compensation based upon “a share of capital gains upon or capital appreciation of the funds or any portion of the funds of the client,” commonly referred to as performance-based compensation or a performance fee.
2. Rule 205-3(a) under the Act provides an exemption from the prohibition in section 205(a)(1) provided each client entering into an investment advisory contract that provides for performance-based compensation is a “qualified client.” Under rule 205-3(b), each equity owner of a “private investment company” is considered a client for purposes of rule 205-3(a).
3. Because a number of the Fund's limited partners are not qualified clients, the Fund may not be treated as meeting the requirements of rule 205-3(a).
4. Applicant requests an order under section 205(e) of the Advisers Act granting an exemption from section 205(a)(1) of the Act so as to permit registered investment advisers to charge the Fund performance fees. Applicant asks that the relief requested be applicable to any Family Members that are not qualified clients and that are now or may later be admitted as partners in the Fund or the BIF partnership.
5. Section 205(e) of the Advisers Act provides that the Commission, by order upon application, may exempt any person, or any class or classes of persons, from section 205(a)(1) of the Act, if and to the extent that the exemption relates to an investment advisory contract with any person that the Commission determines does not need the protection of section 205(a)(1), on the basis of such factors as financial sophistication, net worth, knowledge of and experience in financial matters, and such other factors as the Commission determines are consistent with section 205.
6. Applicant asserts that exemptive relief to permit the Fund to be charged performance fees is appropriate and consistent with the purposes of 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act. Applicant asserts that the request for relief complies with the factors specified in section 205(e) of the Act. Applicant states that Mr. Talbot, the sole investment decision-maker for the Fund, is a qualified client meeting the net worth requirement of rule 205-3(d)(1)(ii)(A) under the Act. Applicant asserts that Mr. Talbot is financially sophisticated, has substantial knowledge of and experience in financial matters, and is fully able to assess the potential risks of performance fees. Applicant further asserts that Mr. Talbot has a father's or grandfather's love for his family and may be reasonably presumed to act in the best interests of the Family Members.
7. Applicant further asserts that Mr. Talbot's children have substantial experience and are financially sophisticated, which provides an extra layer of protection for their interests as well as those of their children.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“”Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Amex Rules 1, 118, 131 and 205 to accommodate the trading of Exchange Traded Fund Shares pursuant to the Nasdaq UTP Plan. Proposed new language is in
No change.
* * * Commentary
.01 through .04 No change.
.05 The hours of business for a security traded on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges shall
(a) through (i) No change.
(j) Odd-Lot Orders—Odd lot orders in Nasdaq National Market securities,
(i) through (vi) No change.
(k) through (l) No change.
(m) Market-on-Close and Limit-on-Close Orders—The following procedures apply to market-on-close (MOC) and limit-on-close (LOC) orders in Nasdaq National Market securities.
(i) through (vi) No change.
(n) through (q) No change.
* * * Commentary
.01 The following rules refer to trading in Nasdaq National Market securities and should be consulted by members and member organizations trading Nasdaq National Market securities on the Floor: Rule 1 (Commentary .05); Rule 3; Rule 7 (Commentary .02); Rule 24 (b); Rule 109 (Commentary .02); Rule 115 (Commentary .01); Rule 131 (Commentar[y]
(a) through (t) No change.
* * * Commentary
.01 through .02 No change.
.03 Paragraph (a) “Market at 4:00 p.m.” orders. An order in Portfolio Depositary Receipts or Index Fund Shares that trade on the Exchange until 4:15 p.m. (
(b) through (c) No change.
As used in this rule, except where otherwise provided or where the context otherwise requires, the term “effective transaction” refers to the round lot transaction on which the execution of the odd-lot order is to be based. Unless otherwise provided, references to round lot transactions are to transactions regular way.
No differential may be charged on any odd-lot order transactions, for either market or limit orders, except as otherwise specified in Section C(2) below.
Odd-lot orders shall be executed in the following manner:
A. through C. No change.
* * * Commentary
.01 through .04 No change.
.05 Odd-lot orders in Nasdaq National Market securities shall be executed in accordance with Rule 118(j).
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On August 2, 2002, the Exchange received Commission approval for the adoption of Rule 118 and the amendment of various other rules to provide for the trading of Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc (“Nasdaq”) National Market (“NNM”) securities pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”).
Commentary .05 to Rule 1 provides that the hours of business for securities
Currently, the procedures for handling odd-lot orders
The Exchange's policy and procedures with respect to market-on-close and limit-on-close orders is set forth in Rule 131A for securities listed on the Exchange and in Rule 118(m) for NNM securities traded pursuant to UTP. Rule 131A specifies that its procedures do not apply to any security whose price is based on another security or an index, which would include ETFs. Thus, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 118(m) to specify that its market-on-close and limit-on-close procedures for NNM securities in the UTP program would not apply to ETFs or other securities whose price is based upon another security or an index.
Rule 131, Commentary .03 currently provides that an order in an ETF trading on the Exchange to 4:15 p.m. may be designated as a “market at 4 p.m.” to denote that it is a market order which is to be executed at or as close as practicable to the close of the regular equity trading session on the Exchange (normally 4 p.m. New York Time). The Exchange proposes to amend this provision to reflect that it would include ETFs traded pursuant to UTP. Rule 118, Commentary .01 would also be amended to reference Commentary .03 to Rule 131.
The Exchange believes these minor changes to its rules would be useful in clarifying the various procedures for trading ETFs pursuant to the Nasdaq UTP program. Although Rule 118(b) already applies the Exchange's Constitution and Rules to the trading of NNM securities, unless the context otherwise requires, the Exchange believes it is important for members and the investing public to understand specifically where the context requires the use of other exchange rules and procedures for the trading of ETFs pursuant to the Nasdaq UTP Plan.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii) Impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii) Become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2004-86. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is proposing to amend its Certificate of Incorporation and Constitution (also serving as the “Exchange's bylaws”) in connection with its initial public offering (“IPO”). The proposed amendments, if approved, will become effective concurrently with the closing of the IPO. The proposed rule changes, including the proposed Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (“Amended Certificate”) and the proposed Amended and Restated Constitution (“Amended Constitution”), collectively referred to herein as the “proposed rule change,” are available for viewing on the Commission's Web site,
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Certificate of Incorporation and Constitution in connection with its contemplated IPO of the Class A common stock, par value $.01 per share (the “Class A Common Stock”), of the Exchange.
Following the IPO, the Exchange will continue to operate as a registered “national securities exchange” under Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange currently has two classes of common stock, Class A Common Stock and Class B common stock, par value $.01 per share (“Class B Common Stock”).
The Exchange has three series of Class B Common Stock, each series representing certain trading rights and privileges and limited voting rights. Ownership of the Class B Common Stock, Series B-1 (“Series B-1 Common Stock”), is a predicate to obtaining the trading rights and privileges associated with a Primary Market Maker.
The holders of the Class B Common Stock are not entitled to receive dividends; rather, the holders of such stock are only entitled to receive an amount equal to the par value of each share of Class B Common Stock (
The owners of Series B-1 Common Stock and Series B-2 Common Stock are also entitled to vote on any change in, or amendment or modification to, the “Core Rights”
As agreed with ISE, the Commission staff made grammatical corrections and conformed the language in this footnote to the proposed rule text. Telephone conversation between Janet M. Kissane, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, Counsel to ISE, and Jennifer C. Dodd, Attorney, Division of Market Regulation (“Division”), Commission on November 3, 2004.
The Board consists of 15 members, eight of whom are elected by the holders of the Class A Common Stock (the “Non-Industry Directors”),
As agreed with ISE, the Commission staff revised this footnote to differentiate between ISE's current and proposed rules. Telephone conversation between Janet M. Kissane, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, Counsel to ISE, and Jennifer C. Dodd, Attorney, Division, Commission, on November 3, 2004.
In addition, the Exchange currently has a Finance & Audit Committee, a Corporate Governance Committee and a Compensation Committee, all of which are governed by charters.
The Exchange proposes to amend its current Certificate of Incorporation and Constitution to:
• Increase the number of authorized shares of Class A Common Stock from 5,000,000 to 150,000,000;
• Remove the term limits of the Non-Industry Directors;
• Adopt certain limitations on the ownership and voting of shares of Class A Common Stock and of Class B Common Stock;
• Require the Board to consider applicable requirements of the Act in managing the business and affairs of the Exchange;
• Clarify that the Exchange has a Corporate Governance Committee and Compensation Committee, and that these committees, as well as the Finance & Audit Committee of the Exchange, are governed by charters;
• Adopt certain antitakeover provisions, including with respect to the nomination of Non-Industry Directors by the holders of Class A Common Stock; and
• Reduce the vote of the holders of Class A Common Stock required to amend certain provisions of the Amended Constitution from two-thirds of the outstanding shares of Class A Common Stock to a majority of such shares.
The Exchange proposes that the number of authorized shares of Class A Common Stock be increased from 5,000,000 to 150,000,000.
In order to maintain continuity with respect to the Non-Industry Directors during the transition of the Exchange to a public company, the Exchange proposes that the three-term limit (a total of six years of service) currently in the Certificate of Incorporation and Constitution with respect to all directors, other than the Chief Executive Officer, be amended to apply only to Industry Directors.
Under
Currently, with the exception of certain exemptions for Founders (as defined in the Constitution), no holder of Class A Common Stock, together with any affiliate (as defined in the Constitution), shall vote or give any proxy in relation to a vote with respect to any shares owned in excess of 20 percent of the Class A Common Stock, and no holder of Class B Common Stock, together with any affiliate (as defined in the Constitution) may own more than 20 percent of Series B-1 Stock or Series B-2 Stock and no Member (as defined in the Constitution), together with any affiliate (as defined in the Constitution), may be approved to exercise trading rights associated with more than 20 percent of Series B-1 Stock or Series B-2 Stock. Certificate of Incorporation, Article Fourth, Subdivision II(a)(iv) and Constitution, Article XIV.
As agreed with ISE, the Commission staff revised this footnote to clarify ISE's current ownership and voting limitations. Telephone conversation between Janet M. Kissane, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, Counsel to ISE, and Jennifer C. Dodd, Attorney, Division, Commission, on November 3, 2004.
Furthermore, any Person, alone or together with its Related Persons, who owns more than five percent of the then outstanding shares of any class or series of the Exchange's capital stock will be required to provide certain information to the Board and will have an ongoing obligation to update such information.
If any Person, alone or together with its Related Persons, purports to sell, transfer, assign or pledge any shares of capital stock in the Exchange in violation of the ownership limits, the Exchange would apply standard corrective procedures used by public companies with similar ownership limits. Specifically, any such sale, transfer, assignment or pledge would be void, and that number of shares in excess of the ownership limitation would be deemed to have been transferred to the Exchange, as special trustee of a charitable trust, for the exclusive benefit of a charitable beneficiary to be determined by the Exchange.
The special trustee of the trust would be required to sell the excess shares to a person whose ownership of shares is not expected to violate the ownership limitations. The net proceeds of the sale would be distributed first, to the original prohibited transferee or holder, who would receive the lesser of (1) the price per share received by the Exchange from the transfer of the excess shares (2) the price per share the prohibited transferee or holder paid for the shares in the violative transfer, or (3) if the prohibited transferee or holder did not give value for such excess shares, a price per share equal to the market price for the excess shares on the date of the purported transfer or other event that resulted in the excess shares, except that in the case of a prohibited holder holding excess shares solely as the result of an action or event by the Exchange (such as an action resulting in a reduction in the number of outstanding shares), such prohibited holder would receive the greater of (1) or (3) above for the excess shares. After such distribution, any proceeds in excess of the amount payable to the prohibited transferee or holder would be payable to the charitable beneficiary. Prior to the sale, the special trustee would be entitled to receive, in trust for the beneficiary, all dividends and other distributions paid by the Exchange with respect to the excess shares, and also would be entitled to exercise all voting rights with respect to the excess shares.
In addition, excess shares (including any shares deemed to be excess shares by reason of a reduction in outstanding shares caused by a purchase of excess shares by the Exchange) would be deemed to have been offered for sale to the Exchange.
As applied to the current outstanding capital stock of the Exchange, the 40 percent ownership limitation would apply to any holder of Class A Common Stock, other than an Exchange member. The 20 percent member ownership limitation would apply to any such member, and would limit to that amount such holder's ownership of each of the Class A Common Stock and each Series of Class B Common Stock. The Exchange represents that currently no Person, either alone or together with its Related Persons, owns more than 40 percent of the outstanding shares of Class A Common Stock, and no member, either alone or together with its Related Persons, owns more than 20 percent of the outstanding shares of Class A Common Stock or any series of Class B Common Stock.
The proposed rule change also would prohibit any Person, either alone or together with its Related Persons, from voting, or causing the voting of, shares of capital stock of the Exchange (or giving a consent or proxy with respect to shares) representing more than 20 percent of the voting power of any class or series of capital stock (the “20 percent voting limitation”).
The proposed rule change will impose certain requirements on Persons to give notice of events regarding ownership that would exceed the proposed ownership or voting threshold. Specifically, any Person intending to exceed these ownership or voting limitations must provide the Board with written notice of the fact at least 45 days (or such shorter period to which the Board expressly consents) prior to either the proposed acquisition of shares of the proposed exercise of voting rights, as the case may be.
The Board may adopt a resolution specifying that it has determined that the 40 percent ownership limitation or the 20 percent voting limitation or both should be waived if it finds that such waiver (1) will not impair the ability of the Exchange to carry out its functions and responsibilities as an “exchange” under the Act; (2) is otherwise in the best interests of the Exchange and its stockholders; (3) will not impair the ability of the Commission to enforce the Act; and (4) will apply to a Person and its Related Persons who are not subject to any applicable “statutory disqualification” (within the meaning of Section 3(a)(39) of the Act). In the event of such a finding, the waiver would take the form of an amendment to the Constitution, which would not be effective until approved by the Commission. The Board may not waive the 20 percent member ownership limitation.
The Amended Certificate also eliminates the “founders exemption” that permitted the original founders of the Exchange to own shares of Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock in excess of the stated limits for a certain period of time.
The Exchange believes that these ownership and voting limitations, taken together, will serve to prevent any stockholder, or group of stockholders acting together, from exercising undue control over the operation of the Exchange. The Exchange believes that these limitations will prohibit any Person, either alone or with its Related Persons, from having the power to control a substantial number of outstanding votes without Commission review. This should limit the ability of any such Persons from taking actions that may be adverse to the Exchange's or the Commission's regulatory oversight responsibilities. The Exchange also believes that these provisions serve to protect the integrity of the Exchange's and the Commission's regulatory oversight responsibilities and allow the Commission to review, subject to public notice and comment, the acquisition of substantial voting power by any stockholder or group of stockholders.
The Exchange proposes that the Amended Certificate provide that the Board shall, in managing the affairs and business of the Exchange, consider requirements applicable to its registration and operation as a national securities exchange under the Act,
The Exchange proposes that the Amended Constitution include provisions relating to specific Board committees in connection with the contemplated listing of the Exchange on a national securities exchange or national securities association following the IPO. In particular, the Exchange proposes to add the Corporate Governance Committee and the Compensation Committee to its list of specifically designated Board committees in the Amended Constitution, and to require that each of the Finance & Audit, Corporate Governance and Compensation Committees be governed by charters.
The Exchange proposes that the Amended Certificate, along with the Amended Constitution, include certain antitakeover provisions for protection against certain types of coercive corporate takeover practices and inadequate takeover bids. The proposed provisions relate to special meetings of stockholders and the required stockholder vote with respect to certain actions. In view of the limitations on ownership and voting described above, the provisions proposed do not include a “poison pill” arrangement. The Board does, however, maintain the authority under its current organizational documents to adopt such an arrangement with Commission approval.
The Amended Certificate and Amended Constitution deny the Exchange's stockholders the right to call a special meeting of stockholders, and provide that only the Chairman of the Board or a majority of the Board may call a special meeting of the stockholders.
The Amended Constitution establishes advance notice procedures with regard to stockholder proposals relating to the nomination of candidates for election as Non-Industry Directors or new business to be brought before meetings of stockholders. The Exchange's advance notice requirement does not apply to nominations of Industry Director nominees for election to the Board who are nominated by the Exchange's Nominating Committee (which is not a committee of the Board) or stockholders pursuant to Sections 3.10(a) and 5.3(c) of the Constitution. Following the IPO, pursuant to the Exchange's Corporate Governance Committee charter and Section 3.10(b) of the Constitution, the Corporate Governance Committee would nominate for election to the Board a slate of Non-Industry Directors pursuant to Section 2.7(a) and (b). These procedures provide that notice of stockholder proposals must be given in writing to the Secretary of the Exchange prior to the meeting at which the action is to be taken.
The Exchange's advance notice requirement will not apply to nominations of Industry Director nominees for election to the Board who are nominated by the Exchange's Nominating Committee (which is not a committee of the Board) or stockholders pursuant to Sections 3.10(a) and 5.3(c) of the Constitution. Following the IPO, the Non-Industry Directors would be nominated by the Corporate Governance Committee or Class A stockholders pursuant to Sections 2.7(a) and (b) and 3.10(b) of the Constitution.
In addition to other currently required items, the Amended Certificate would require a two-thirds vote of stockholders to amend, repeal or adopt any provisions inconsistent with (1) the limitations on ownership and voting of capital stock contained in the Amended Certificate, as described above in Section 3 (“Ownership and Voting Limitations With Respect to the Exchange's Capital Stock”), (2) the provision in the Amended Certificate providing the Board with the authority to create and issue rights under a rights plan, and (3) the advance notice provision contained in the proposed Amended Constitution.
The Exchange proposes that the current two-thirds vote of all of the outstanding shares of Class A Common
Pursuant to the Amended Certificate, all confidential information pertaining to the self-regulatory function of the Exchange (including but not limited to disciplinary matters, trading data, trading practices and audit information) contained in the books and records of the Exchange shall: (1) Not be made available to any Persons other than to those officers, directors, employees and agents of the Exchange that have a reasonable need to know the contents thereof and to the Commission; and (2) be retained in confidence by the Exchange and the officers, directors, employees and agents of the Exchange; and (3) not be used for any commercial purposes.
In addition, the ISE's books and records shall be maintained within the United States.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(1) of the Act
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members, participants or others.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change; or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Certain aspects of this proposed rule change have been approved by the Board on July 22, 2004, and by the Exchange's stockholders on August 16, 2004. The remaining aspects of this proposed rule change are scheduled to be approved by the Board and stockholders as soon as practicable. To the extent necessary, the Exchange hereby consents to an extension of the time period specified in Section 19(b)(2) of the Act until at least thirty-five (35) days after the Exchange has filed an appropriate amendment setting forth the completion of all such action under the Certificate of Incorporation and Constitution of the Exchange with respect to this proposed rule change.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an E-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2004-29. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commissions Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The NYSE proposes to establish a fee of $500 per month for a customer's receipt of the NYSE Alerts datafeed.
Below is the text of the proposed rule change, as amended.
In its filing with the Commission, the NYSE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The NYSE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The NYSE will make available to vendors and investors its NYSE Alerts datafeed. NYSE Alerts is a real-time datafeed service that NYSE will make available through NYSE's Common Access Point (CAP) network. The NYSE Alerts datafeed will include the following categories of information:
•
•
•
•
•
(More information regarding the content contained in the NYSE Alerts datafeed can be found on the NYSE Web site at
Pursuant to this proposed rule change, the NYSE proposes to establish a $500 per-month fee for receipt of access to NYSE Alerts. The NYSE believes that this access fee would reflect an equitable allocation of its overall costs to users of its facilities. The NYSE believes that the fee would enable the users of the NYSE Alerts service to make an appropriate contribution to the recovery of the overall costs of the
The NYSE believes that the basis under the Act for the proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(4)
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments regarding the proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2004-53. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange, through its wholly owned subsidiary PCX Equities, Inc. (“PCXE” or “Corporation”), proposes to make a change to the Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (“Schedule”) with respect to the fingerprinting fee and investigation fee for PCXE. The text of the proposed rule change is attached below. Proposed new language is
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The PCX has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to make a change to the Schedule with respect to the fingerprinting fee and the investigation fee for PCXE.
In September 2003, the Exchange modified the PCX membership fees relating to the options orientation fee.
In establishing these new options fees, the Exchange inadvertently failed to modify the existing PCXE fingerprinting fee and investigation fee
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its ETP Holders, issuers and other persons using the facilities.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
All submissions should refer to SR-PCX-2004-103. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
In accordance with a notice received from the Department of Homeland Security—Federal Emergency Management Agency—effective November 3, 2004, the above declaration is hereby amended to include Martin and Olmsted Counties as disaster areas due to damages caused by severe storms and flooding occurring on September 14, 2004, and continuing through September 27, 2004.
In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses located in the contiguous counties of Cottonwood, Jackson, Wabasha, Watonwan, and Winona in the State of Minnesota; and Emmet County in the State of Iowa may be filed until the specified date at the previously designated location. All other counties contiguous to the above primary counties have previously been declared.
All other information remains the same,
Dyer and Wayne Counties and the contiguous counties of Crockett, Decatur, Gibson, Hardin, Lake, Lauderdale, Lawrence, Lewis, Obion, and Perry in the State of Tennessee; Pemiscot County in the State of Missouri; Mississippi County in the State of Arkansas; and Lauderdale County in the State of Alabama constitute a disaster area as a result of tornadoes and heavy rains on October 18-19, 2004. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on January 3, 2005, and for economic injury until the close of business on August 3, 2005, at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 2 Office, One Baltimore Place, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308.
The interest rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 364312 for Tennessee, 364412 for Missouri, 364512 for Arkansas, and 364612 for Alabama. The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury damage is 9AI700 for Tennessee, 9AI800 for Missouri, 9AI900 for Arkansas, and 9AJ100 for Alabama.
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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of dispositions of prior petitions.
Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption part 11 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this notice contains a summary of certain dispositions of certain petitions previously received. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities.
Tim Adams (202) 267-8033, or Sandy Buchanan-Sumter (202) 267-7271, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of RTCA Special Committee 193/EUROCAE Working Group 44 meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 193/EUROCAE Working Group 44: Terrain and Airport Databases.
The meeting will be held December 6-10, 2004 from 9 a.m.-5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at Jeppesen, 225 West Santa Clara Street, 16th Floor, San Jose, CA 95119-1743.
RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 833-9434; Web site
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 193/EUROCAE Working Group 44 meeting. The agenda will include:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of RTCA Special Committee 147 meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 147: Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems Airborne Equipment.
The meeting will be held December 7-9, 2004 starting at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at Embassy Suites, 2577 West Greenway Road, Phoenix, AZ 85023.
RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L St., NW., Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 833-9434; Web site
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 147 meeting. The agenda will include:
• December 7:
• December 8:
• December 9:
• Closing Session (Date and Place of Next Meeting, Other Business, Review Action Items/Work Program, Adjourn).
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of policy; request for comments.
On June 17, 2004, the FAA published a notice of policy in the
Comments must be received by January 11, 2005. Comments that are received after that date will be considered only to the extent possible.
This notice is available for public review in the Dockets Office, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza Level (PL) 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. The documents have been filed under Docket No. FAA-200_-XXXXX.
Also, you may review public dockets on the Internet at
Rick Marinelli, Manager, Airport Engineering Division, AAS-100, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-7669.
On June 17, 2004, the FAA published a notice in the
AC 150/5345-53B, Airport Lighting Equipment Certification Program, establishes a certification program that applies to numerous types of airport lighting equipment, including obstruction lighting systems. The certification program is designed to ensure a high level of aviation safety. Under the certification program, third party certification bodies (listed in Appendix 1 of AC 150/5345-53B) test lighting equipment to determine whether it complies with the FAA's substantive standards prescribed in AC 150/5345-43E for all obstruction lighting systems. Lighting equipment that is certified by third party certification bodies is listed in Appendix 3 of AC 150/5345-53B.
In its current form, AC 150/5345-53B provides for certification only of entire lighting systems, and makes no provision for certification of such systems' individual components. Thus, AC 150/5345-53B does not provide a mechanism for ensuring that a certified lighting system in which non-OEM replacement components have been installed continues to meet the safety standards of AC 150/5345-43E. A non-OEM replacement part might perform as well as the original components in the system, but there is no current way under the current certification program for the FAA, the FCC, and/or the tower operator/owner to know that. Knowing the performance of safety equipment is the core purpose of certification, and the use of non-OEM replacement components in certified equipment at least has the potential for undermining the safety purpose and benefits of the certification program.
The FAA is considering developing a permanent procedure that would be available for the certification of all qualified equipment that will meet FAA safety standards. As explained below, we are soliciting public comment regarding the possible expansion of the certified equipment list and specifications to include equipment with non-OEM replacement parts.
The FAA is requesting comment on the general scope and procedures for the certification of obstruction lighting equipment systems containing non-OEM components. Based on the comments received, the FAA will consider whether to publish specific guidance implementing such a change, in the form of changes to AC 150/5345-43E, AC 150/5345-53B and AC 70/7460-1K. We will publish that specific guidance for further comment before issuing a final version.
At this time, the FAA is requesting comment on the following general questions and issues:
1. What certification procedure should apply to a replacement part that is only part of a unit listed in Appendix 3 of AC 150/5345-53B?
2. What safety issues should be considered in the certification of replacement parts (both OEM and non-OEM)?
3. Should special testing procedures apply to replacement parts (such as lamp burn in and photometric testing)?
4. How can replacement parts be listed in Appendix 3 of AC 150/5345-53B in a manner that makes clear that their use is limited to particular units or systems?
5. What terminology should apply to replacement parts to distinguish them from the original units now listed in Appendix 3 of AC 150/5345-53B?
6. What provision should be made for out-of-production equipment for which OEM replacement components are unavailable, and for which a new unit may not be available for use in certifying replacement parts?
7. What provision should be made for stock parts which currently may be subject to more stringent requirements by the manufacturers of original light systems than the specifications of the stock parts manufacturers?
Review of public comments responding to this notice and development of a change to the airport lighting equipment certification program to include testing and certification of equipment with non-OEM replacement components could require a number of months. Because the FAA believes that the certification program promotes air safety, we have decided to provide an interim procedure for certification of lighting systems that incorporate replacement parts produced by non-OEMs. The FAA does not intend to establish permanent, specific criteria for certification of equipment with non-OEM replacement lighting components without first issuing such criteria in proposed form and requesting public comment.
While the agency considers a permanent change, the FAA will allow the following procedure—effective immediately—to determine whether particular parts can be installed in existing certified fixtures and be certified. Under the interim process, the FAA will consider the substitution of a non-OEM parts as equivalent to an equipment modification by an original equipment manufacturer for the purposes of testing for recertification. Equipment modification by original equipment manufacturers is dealt with in paragraph 7, Modifications to Equipment, of Appendix 2 of AC 150/5345-53B. Under that paragraph, recertification of the entire lighting system is required when an original
As part of this interim procedure, non-OEM components will be subject to Appendix 2 of AC 150/5345-53B with the following exception. Paragraph 7 of Appendix 2 of that AC notes that “substitution of stock electrical items such as resistors, capacitors, transistors, etc., which are identical in form, fit, and function and which are equal to or better in quality and rating is permissible.” This exemption is not extended automatically to non-OEM suppliers, as OEM specifications for stock items may be more stringent than those applied by the manufacturers of those items. However, this exemption may be granted at the third party certification body's judgment. The requirements of Appendix 5, Lamp Life Test Procedure, in AC 150-5345-53B, will apply to replacement lamps. Upon the issuance of any permanent change to the certification program, the FAA will decide if substitute parts certified under this interim program will require further testing to retain certified status.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of intent.
The FHWA is republishing this notice to advise the public that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being prepared for the proposed highway project along State Route 18 in San Bernardino County, California. It is being republished due to the length of time since the original Notice of Intent (NOI) was published, which was August 30, 1990 (
Mr. Ce
The FHWA, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation, is preparing an EIS for the proposed Big Bear Lake Dam Bridge Replacement Project on State Route 18 in San Bernardino County, California. The proposed project will facilitate completion of the Big Bear Dam spillway project, move vehicular traffic off the dam structure, and improve the geometrics of the approach roadways. Existing State Route 18, within the project limits (kilo-post miles 71.1/71.9 [post miles 44.2/44.7]) has curves where the posted speed limit is less than 25 miles per hour. These curves will be realigned and the overall roadway brought up to current design standards within the project limits. This includes a wider bridge with three lanes to accommodate existing and future travel demands within the Big Bear Lake area, as well as 10-foot shoulders to accommodate nonmotorized travel and better facilitate winter snow removal. The original NOI proposed four lanes.
The U.S. Forest Service is a cooperating agency. Consultation with the U.S. Forest Services has been, and will continue to be, undertaken to minimize impacts to the surrounding San Bernardino National Forest associated with the construction of the proposed project.
Alternatives currently under consideration are the result of the 1990 public and agency scoping meetings, as well as comments received from multiple public information meetings/open houses held in the Big Bear area. These alternatives include: Alternative 1—No Action; Alternative 4—construct new bridge upstream of the existing bridge crossing over Big Bear Lake; and alternative 5—construct new bridge crossing over Bear Creek Canyon downstream of the existing bridge. Alternatives 2 and 3 were eliminated after initial scoping due to a higher level of anticipated impacts to properties eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and a larger impact area and subsequent adverse impacts to biological and visual resources. In addition, Alternative 2 would have replaced the roadway on the existing bridge. Seismic concerns and conflicts with operation of the dam also supported the decision to eliminate replacing the roadway on the existing bridge as was identified as an alternative in the 1990 NOI.
Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments were previously sent to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and to private organizations and citizens who have expressed, or are known to have, an interest in this proposal. A formal agency scoping meeting was held June 5, 1990, in the City of Big Bear Lake, California. A public scoping meeting was held July 9, 1990, also in the City of Big Bear Lake, California. At the request of the Big Bear Kiwanis and Big Bear Lions Clubs, the proposed project was presented to the clubs in the City of Big Bear Lake, California, on May 15, 1990, and August 16, 1990, respectively. On August 8, 1997, in the City of Big Bear Lake, California, a public participation meeting was held in accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regulations regarding section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to discuss/comment on the draft Finding of Effect. Public information meetings/open houses were held in the City of Big Bear Lake, California, on September 30, 1997, and May 3, 2001, to keep the public up to date and continue with the public information program. Finally, public agency coordination and update meetings were also held on May 2, 2002, and August 20, 2003. The public information program will continue throughout the environmental process.
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed, and all significant issues are identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA at the address previously provided in this notice. The Draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior
Federal Railroad 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 December 13, 2004.
Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Safety, Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6292), or Ms. Debra Steward, Office of Information Technology and Productivity Improvement, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6139). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Pub. L. No. 104-13, Section 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On September 2, 2004, FRA published a 60-day notice in the
Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30 day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d);
The summary below describes the nature of the information collection requirement (ICR) and the expected burden, and is being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 235 and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 236 as detailed below.
The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) seeks relief from the requirements of the Rules, Standards and Instructions, 49 CFR, Part 236, Section 236.110, to the extent that each test record, need not be signed by the person making the inspection or test. In lieu of the signature, the BNSF proposes to implement an electronic system for recording and maintaining signal inspection records, that uniquely identify the person as the author of the record with a PIN number or password. Once a record is entered and verified, it cannot be modified. In conjunction with this relief, the BNSF also requests the utilization of an electronic system for recording and maintaining applicable inspection and test records as defined in 49 CFR, Part 234, subject to approval by the Associate Administrator for Safety, as required by Section 234.273. A pilot program is planned for approximately 100 signal employees located in Washington, Idaho, Montana, Texas, and Louisiana.
Applicant's justification for relief: The BNSF believes that the electronic system will serve the best interest of the BNSF and the Federal and State Inspection authorities that are required to inspect records. The BNSF also anticipates this system will provide many benefits, including: improved availability of test records, improved management reporting of compliance, improved consistency for filing records, and a reduction in the need for paper documentation.
Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an application shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which the protest is made, and include a concise statement of the interest of the party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the protest shall be furnished to the applicant at the address listed above.
All communications concerning this proceeding should be identified by the docket number and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room PI-401, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by the FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the internet at the docket facility's Web site at
FRA wishes to inform all potential commenters that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
FRA expects to be able to determine these matters without an oral hearing. However, if a specific request for an oral hearing is accompanied by a showing that the party is unable to adequately present his or her position by written statements, an application may be set for public hearing.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before December 13, 2004.
Comments should be directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
Michael Kido, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel (NCC-111), (202) 366-5263, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5219, Washington, DC 20590.
Requesters are not required to keep copies of any records or reports submitted to us. As a result, the cost imposed to keep records would be zero hours and zero costs.
Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before December 13, 2004.
Debbie Parker, NHTSA, NVS-220, Washington, DC 20590, phone 202-366-1768.
Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
Toyota Motor Corporation has determined that the daytime running lamps (DRLs) on certain vehicles it manufactured in 1998-2005 do not comply with S5.5.11(a) of 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, “Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.” Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota), on behalf of Toyota Motor Corporation, has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, “Defect and Noncompliance Reports.”
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and on behalf of Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota has petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
This notice of receipt of Toyota's petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
A total of approximately 75,355 model year 1998-2005 Lexus LX470 vehicles are affected. S5.5.11(a) of FMVSS No. 108 requires that
The DRLs on the LX470s are provided by the upper beam headlamps operating at a lower intensity, with each lamp having a maximum luminous intensity of roughly 4,720 candela at the maximum point in the beam. However, the specification of the height above the road surface as measured from the center of the lamps with the vehicles at curb weight is 895 mm, and therefore the DRLs exceed the maximum luminous intensity specified in S5.5.11(a)(1)(ii) of FMVSS No. 108.
Toyota believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Toyota states the following in its petition.
Toyota conducted subjective evaluations of the glare from the DRLs using 19 contractors for the subject vehicles under various conditions, and confirmed that glare from the subject vehicles is the same or better than vehicles that were modified to meet the maximum DRL luminous intensity permitted by the standard at the height limit of 864 mm. Toyota evaluated the glare from the subject vehicles' DRLs by observing them through the rearview mirror of a small passenger car as well as directly, as from an oncoming vehicle. According to Toyota's evaluation, the subject vehicles received overall ratings above 5 (“lamps are just acceptable”). Accordingly, in the scale, higher numbers indicate less glare.
Toyota indicates in its petition that a rating of 1 indicates “The headlamps are unbearable,” while the highest rating of 9 indicates “The headlamps are just noticeable.”
Toyota further states,
Toyota calculated the luminous intensity of light from the DRLs striking the rearview mirror of the preceding vehicle mounted 1,120 mm (44 inches) above the ground and 6.1 m (20 feet) in front of the DRL. We also indicated the allowable range of the regulation. * * * The assessment mirror height of 44 inches and distance of 20 feet are the same used in NHTSA's own evaluation as described in the final rule published in the Monday, January 11, 1993
Toyota says in its petition that the subject vehicles meet all requirements of the Canadian motor vehicle standards, and that it has received no customer complaints or reports that allege a crash, injury or fatality due to problems arising from DRL glare by these vehicles.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on the petition described above. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by any of the following methods. Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20590-0001. Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. It is requested, but not required, that two copies of the comments be provided. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays. Comments may be submitted electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System Web site at
The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will be published in the
Comment closing date: December 13, 2004.
Progressive Rail, Incorporated (PGR), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to lease from Wisconsin Central, Ltd. and operate 23.97 miles of rail line consisting of (1) the Almena-Cameron Branch that extends between milepost 80.88 at or near Almena and milepost 97.80 at or near Cameron, a distance of 16.92 miles in Barron County, WI, and (2) the Rice Lake-Cameron Branch that extends between milepost 49.0 at or near Cameron and milepost 56.05 at or near Rice Lake, a
PGR certifies that its projected revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in the creation of a Class II or Class I rail carrier. The transaction was scheduled to be consummated no sooner than October 27, 2004, the effective date of the exemption (7 days after the exemption was filed).
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. 34600, 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: Thomas F. McFarland, P.C., 208 South LaSalle St., Suite 1890, Chicago, IL 60604-1112.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
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 an existing notice of proposed rulemaking, REG-104924-98, Mark-to-Market Accounting for Dealers in Commodities and Traders in Securities or Commodities (§§ 1.475(e)-1 and 1.475 (f)-2).
Written comments should be received on or before January 11, 2005 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations 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.
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 an existing final regulation, INTL-9-95 (TD 8702), Certain Transfers of Domestic Stock or Securities by U.S. Persons to Foreign Corporations (§ 1.367(a)-3).
Written comments should be received on or before January 11, 2005 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Larnice Mack at Internal Revenue Service, room 6512, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3179, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all 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.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-21), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, has submitted the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before December 13, 2004.
Denise McLamb, Records Management Service (005E3), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., or 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
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, has submitted the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before December 13, 2004.
Denise McLamb, Records Management Service (005E3), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-8030, FAX (202) 273-5981 or e-mail
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-21), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, has submitted the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before December 13, 2004.
Denise McLamb, Records Management Service (005E3), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., or 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
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before January 11, 2005.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before January 11, 2005.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before January 11, 2005.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail comments to:
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
a. Application for Ordinary Life Insurance, Replacement Insurance for Modified Life Reduced at Age 65, National Service Life Insurance, VA Form 29-8485.
b. Application for Ordinary Life Insurance, Replacement Insurance for Modified Life Reduced at Age 70, National Service Life Insurance, VA Form 29-8485a.
c. Application for Ordinary Life Insurance, Replacement Insurance for Modified Life Reduced at Age 65, National Service Life Insurance, VA Form 29-8700.
d. Information About Modified Life Reduction, VA Forms 29-8700a-e and VA Forms 29-8701a-e.
e. Application for Ordinary Life Insurance, Replacement Insurance for Modified Life Reduced at Age 70, National Service Life Insurance, VA Form 29-0701.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before January 11, 2005.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail:
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or fax (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 or the use of other forms of information technology.
a. Eligibility Verification Report Instructions, VA Form 21-0510.
b. Old Law and Section 306 Eligibility Verification Report (Surviving Spouse), VA Form 21-0512S-1.
c. Old Law and Section 306 Eligibility Verification Report (Veteran), VA Form 21-0512V-1.
d. Old Law and Section 306 Eligibility Verification Report (Children Only), VA Form 21-0513-1.
e. DIC Parent's Eligibility Verification Report, VA Forms 21-0514 and 21-0514-1.
f. Improved Pension Eligibility Verification Report (Veteran With No Children), VA Forms 21-0516 and 21-0516-1.
g. Improved Pension Eligibility Verification Report (Veteran With Children), VA Forms 21-0517 and 21-0517-1.
h. Improved Pension Eligibility Verification Report (Surviving Spouse With No Children), VA Forms 21-0518 and 21-0518-1.
i. Improved Pension Eligibility Verification Report (Child or Children), VA Forms 21-0519C and 21-0519C-1.
j. Improved Pension Eligibility Verification Report (Surviving Spouse With Children), VA Forms 21-0519S and 21-0519S-1.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before January 11, 2005.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail:
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before January 11, 2005.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35) Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail:
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before January 11, 2005.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before January 11, 2005.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail:
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before January 11, 2005.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
In rule document 04-24811 beginning on page 64477 in the issue of Friday, November 5, 2004, make the following correction:
On page 64477, in the third column, the docket number is corrected to read as set forth above.
In notice document E4-3030 beginning on page 64593 in the issue of Friday, November 5, 2004, make the following correction:
On page 64593, in the second column, under the heading “