Agricultural Research Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Foreign Agricultural Service
Forest Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Army Department
Defense Logistics Agency
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Labor Statistics Bureau
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Interim rule and request for comments.
We are amending the brucellosis regulations concerning the interstate movement of swine by adding Arkansas, Louisiana, and Michigan to the list of validated brucellosis-free States. We have determined that Louisiana and Arkansas meet the criteria for classification as validated brucellosis-free States. We are also adding Michigan to the list of validated brucellosis-free States as it is currently considered a validated brucellosis-free State, but was inadvertently omitted from the list. This action relieves certain restrictions on the interstate movement of breeding swine from Arkansas and Louisiana and confirms Michigan's current status as a validated brucellosis-free State.
This interim rule is effective on November 18, 2004. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before January 18, 2005.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
• EDOCKET: Go to
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. 04-103-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 04-103-1.
• E-mail: Address your comment to
• Agency Web site: Go to
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
Dr. John Korslund, Staff Veterinarian (Swine Health), Eradication and Surveillance Team, National Center for Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-5914.
Brucellosis is a contagious disease caused by bacteria of the genus
The brucellosis regulations in 9 CFR part 78 (referred to below as the regulations) contain specific provisions for cattle, bison, and swine. Under the regulations, States, herds, and individual animals are classified according to their brucellosis status. Interstate movement requirements for animals are based upon the disease status of the individual animals or the herd or State from which the animal originates.
We are amending § 78.43 of the regulations, which lists validated swine brucellosis-free States, to include Arkansas, Louisiana, and Michigan. A State may apply for validated brucellosis-free status when: (1) Any herd found to have swine brucellosis during the 2-year qualification period preceding the application has been depopulated. More than one finding of a swine brucellosis-infected herd during the qualification period disqualifies the State from validation as brucellosis-free; and (2) during the 2-year qualification period, the State has completed surveillance, annually, by either complete herd testing, market swine testing, or statistical analysis.
Breeding swine originating from a validated brucellosis-free State or herd may be moved interstate without having been tested with an official test for brucellosis within 30 days prior to interstate movement, which would otherwise be required.
After reviewing their brucellosis program records, we have concluded that Arkansas and Louisiana meet the criteria for classification as validated brucellosis-free States. Therefore, we are adding Arkansas and Louisiana to the list of validated brucellosis-free States in § 78.43. This action relieves certain restrictions on the interstate movement of breeding swine from Louisiana and Arkansas.
We are also adding Michigan to the list of validated brucellosis-free States. In practice, Michigan is already being
Immediate action is warranted to remove restrictions that are no longer necessary on the interstate movement of swine from Louisiana and Arkansas, as well as to confirm Michigan's current status as a validated brucellosis-free State. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this action effective less than 30 days after publication in the
We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.
We are amending the brucellosis regulations concerning the interstate movement of swine by adding Arkansas, Louisiana, and Michigan to the list of validated brucellosis-free States. As of January 1, 2004, 45 States, plus Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, were classified as validated brucellosis-free States. The States of Arkansas and Louisiana have been classified as Stage II States, but now meet the requirements for being listed as Stage III (validated brucellosis-free) States. Michigan is already considered a validated brucellosis-free State, but was inadvertently omitted from the list of validated brucellosis-free States in the regulations.
In 2003, there were approximately 1,000 hog and pig operations in Arkansas, with a total of 310,000 swine. The average value per head of swine in Arkansas was $64 with a reported cash value of approximately $19.8 million. In the same year, there were approximately 580 hog and pig operations in Louisiana, with a total of 20,000 swine. The average value per head of swine in Louisiana was $71 with a reported cash value of approximately $1.42 million. Arkansas and Louisiana, combined, account for less than 1 percent of the total value of hogs and pigs produced in the United States. The small business size standards for hogs and pigs, as identified by the Small Business Administration using North American Industry Classification System codes, is $750,000 or less in annual receipts. It is estimated that 74 percent of the hog and pig operations in Arkansas and nearly 100 percent of the hog and pig operations in Louisiana are small businesses.
This interim rule will grant swine producers in Arkansas and Louisiana validated brucellosis-free status. The rule will benefit breeding stock owners who will no longer have to incur the cost of brucellosis testing on sows and other breeding stock. The estimated cost of brucellosis testing ranges from $7.50 to $15 per animal, which includes veterinary and handling fees. Breeding stock was estimated at 79,079 swine and 4,062 swine for Arkansas and Louisiana, respectively. It is estimated that the proportion of hogs and pigs used or to be used for breeding by small entities is approximately 57.8 percent and 100 percent of the total breeding stock in Arkansas and Louisiana, respectively. The estimated number of hogs and pigs used or to be used for breeding purposes by small entities in Arkansas is 45,708 swine; the total cost savings for small entities in Arkansas would range from $342,810 to $685,620 if all those swine were to be moved interstate. The estimated number of hogs and pigs used or to be used for breeding purposes by small entities in Louisiana is 4,062 swine; the total cost savings for small entities in Louisiana would range from $30,465 to $60,930 if all those swine were to be moved interstate.
As of October 2004, the national average value of a sow was $207 per head. Thus, cost savings associated with suspending brucellosis testing for breeding swine to be moved interstate from Arkansas and Louisiana is roughly between 3.6 and 7.2 percent of the value of the animal.
Arkansas and Louisiana have been classified as Stage II States requiring annual testing of the breeding stock in its swine operations. However, Arkansas and Louisiana have met the requirements to be listed as validated brucellosis-free States. Michigan, currently considered a validated brucellosis-free State, is currently not listed in the regulations due to an oversight. This interim rule reclassifies Arkansas, Louisiana, and Michigan as validated brucellosis-free States. The change in the status of Arkansas and Louisiana would lead to cost savings to the breeding segment of swine production ranging from 3.6 to 7.2 percent of the value of the breeding herd if all breeding swine were to be moved interstate. APHIS does not expect cost savings of this magnitude to have a significant economic impact on affected small entity producers. The interim rule will have no effect on Michigan, as it has already been operating as a validated brucellosis-free State. This rule will not result in any additional costs for affected small entities.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
This interim rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Hogs, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Final rules.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is amending its regulations to specify which portions of an application for registration as a derivatives transaction execution facility (DTEF) or derivatives clearing organization (DCO), or for designation as a contract market (DCM), will be public. The amendments also implement a procedure requiring registered entities to submit a cover sheet for all rule submissions. Additionally, the Commission is updating its regulations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to implement expedited processing and increased time limits; revise the schedule of fees for FOIA requests; and correct certain provisions concerning publicly available records.
Effective December 20, 2004.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Mail/Hand Deliver: Jean A. Webb, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581.
E-mail:
Eileen A. Donovan, Assistant Secretary to the Commission for FOIA Matters, (202) 418-5096, electronic mail:
On July 28, 2004, the Commission requested comment from the public regarding its proposal to specify that the following portions of DTEF, DCO, and DCM applications are publicly available:
In response to this proposal, the Commission received comment letters from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) and the Chicago Board of Trade (“CBOT”) (collectively, “exchanges”). Both exchanges noted strong support for the rule proposal, but requested that the Commission expand the proposal to make additional information public as a matter of course. The Commission has carefully considered the comments from the exchanges and does not believe the proposal should be expanded at this time. First, the exchanges contend that the Commission should ensure the public has the opportunity to comment meaningfully on the salient operational features of the proposed exchange, as well as any proposed plans that could adversely impact market integrity, such as payment for order flow or internalization plans. The CBOT also believes that applicant plans to allow or encourage trading off the centralized market should be public. The Commission understands the importance of interested parties being able to comment meaningfully on this information. The Commission notes that applicant plans regarding payment for order flow or internalization plans are either submitted in the rules section of the proposed application or may be part of the applicant's future plans filed separately from the application. Applicant plans for trading off the centralized market are also submitted in the rules section of the proposal. Rules are defined in § 40.1 and are already generally considered public information. Consequently, the Commission does not believe it is necessary to separately list this information in § 40.8(a).
Second, both exchanges assert that information concerning outsourcing arrangements upon which the applicant tends to rely should be made public. The CME notes that to the extent that an applicant proposes to outsource any of its operational, self-regulatory, or clearing functions, the public cannot provide the Commission with useful comments regarding the applicant's proposed compliance with the Commodity Exchange Act's core principles or designation criteria unless the key provisions are made public. Again, the Commission recognizes the importance of interested parties being able to comment on a proposed application, but must balance this with the intent of the applicant to protect commercially sensitive information. Outsourcing arrangements often include compliance and surveillance techniques and the public release of this information could cause competitive harm to the applicant. The Commission notes that § 40.8(a) is not intended to limit which applicant information will be released, but to specify the portions of an application that are automatically public and therefore would not be granted confidential treatment under any circumstances. Therefore, even though the Commission does not specify outsourcing information in § 40.8(a), portions of this material in a redacted form could still be made public if requested under the Freedom of Information Act. The Commission also notes that the rule states that any portion of the application not covered by a request for confidential treatment will also be made public. The Commission is committed to providing transparency in the application process and will continue to evaluate whether additional information should be included in § 40.8(a).
The Commission proposed to amend the part 40 and 41 regulations requiring DTEFs, DCOs, and DTEFs to attach a Commission-generated submission cover sheet with all self-certified rules,
The Commission did not receive any comments regarding the proposed amendments to 17 CFR part 145. Therefore, all of the proposed amendments are being adopted in the final rules.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
The Commission has previously determined, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that part 145 regulations do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because they do not impose regulatory obligations on commodity professionals and small commodity firms and because the changes will improve public access to Commission records and information, the Commission does not expect the regulations to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In the proposed rules, the Commission solicited comment on whether the rules as proposed would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission received no comments in response to this request. The Commission hereby determines that the rules, as adopted herein, will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, hereby certifies, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the amendments will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Section 15(a) of the Act, as amended by section 119 of the CFMA, requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its action before issuing a new regulation under the Act. By its terms, section 15(a) as amended does not require the Commission to quantify the costs and benefits of a new regulation or to determine whether the benefits of the regulation outweigh its costs. Rather, section 15(a) simply requires the Commission to “consider the costs and benefits” of its action.
Section 15(a) of the Act further specifies that costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: Protection of market participants and the public; efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; price discovery; sound risk management practices; and other public interest considerations. Accordingly, the Commission could in its discretion give greater weight to any one of the five enumerated areas and could in its discretion determine that, notwithstanding its costs, a particular rule was necessary or appropriate to protect the public interest or to effectuate any of the provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of the Act.
The Commission published an analysis of costs and benefits when it proposed the rule amendments that have now been adopted.
Commodity futures, Contract markets, Designation application, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Security futures.
Freedom of information.
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 5, 6, 6c, 7, 7a, 8 and 12a, as amended by appendix E of Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763A-365.
To list a new product for trading, to list a product for trading that has become dormant, or to accept for clearing a product (not traded on a designated contract market or a registered derivatives transaction execution facility), a registered entity must file with the Secretary of the Commission at its Washington, DC, headquarters no later than the close of business of the business day preceding the product's listing or acceptance for clearing, either in electronic or hard copy form, a copy of the submission cover sheet in accordance with the instructions in appendix D to this part, a copy of the product's rules, including its terms and conditions, or the rules establishing the terms and conditions of products that make them acceptable for clearing, and a certification by the registered entity that the trading product or other instrument, or the clearing of the trading product or other instrument, including any rules establishing the
(a) * * *
(4) The submission identifies with particularity information in the submission (except for the product's terms and conditions which are made publicly available at the time of submission) that will be subject to a request for confidential treatment and supports that request for confidential treatment with reasonable justification;
(5) The submission includes the fee required under appendix B to this part; and
(6) The submission includes a copy of the submission cover sheet in accordance with the instructions in appendix D to this part.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) Identify any Commission regulation that the Commission may need to amend, or sections of the Act or Commission regulations that the Commission may need to interpret in order to approve the proposed rule. To the extent that such an amendment or interpretation is necessary to accommodate a proposed rule, the submission should include a reasoned analysis supporting the amendment to the Commission regulation or the interpretation;
(vii) Identify with particularity information in the submission (except for a product's terms and conditions, which are made publicly available at the time of submission) that will be subject to a request for confidential treatment and support that request for confidential treatment with reasonable justification; and
(viii) Include a copy of the submission cover sheet in accordance with the instructions in appendix D to this part.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) A brief explanation of any substantive opposing views not incorporated into the rule;
(v) A certification by the entity that the rule complies with the Act and regulations thereunder; and
(vi) A copy of the submission cover sheet in accordance with the instructions in appendix D to this part.
(a) The following sections of all applications to become a registered entity will be public: transmittal letter, proposed rules, the applicant's regulatory compliance chart, documents establishing the applicant's legal status, documents setting forth the applicant's governance structure, and any other part of the application not covered by a request for confidential treatment.
A properly completed submission cover sheet must accompany all rule submissions submitted by a designated contract market, registered derivatives clearing organization, or registered derivatives transaction execution facility and forwarded either in hard copy form or electronically to the Secretary of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581 or electronically to
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
A sample of the required submission cover sheet follows.
Sections 206, 251 and 252, Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763, 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6f, 6j, 7a-2, 12a; 15 U.S.C. 78g(c)(2).
(a) * * *
(4) Includes a certification that the terms and conditions of the contract comply with the additional conditions for trading of § 41.25;
(5) If the board of trade is a designated contract market pursuant to section 5 of the Act or a registered derivatives transaction execution facility pursuant to section 5a of the Act, it includes a certification that the security futures product complies with the Act and rules thereunder; and
(6) Includes a copy of the submission cover sheet in accordance with the instructions in appendix D of part 40.
(a) * * *
(3) Includes a certification that the designated contract market or registered derivatives clearing organization has filed the rule or rule amendment with the Securities and Exchange Commission, if such a filing is required;
(4) If the board of trade is a designated contract market pursuant to section 5 of the Act or is a registered derivatives clearing organization pursuant to section 5b of the Act, it includes the documents and certifications required to be filed with the Commission pursuant to § 40.6 of this chapter, including a certification that the security futures product complies with the Act and rules thereunder; and
(5) Includes a copy of the submission cover sheet in accordance with the instructions in appendix D of part 40.
Pub. L. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207, Pub. L. 89-554, 80 Stat. 383, Pub. L. 90-23, 81 Stat. 54, Pub. L. 93-502, 88 Stat. 1561-1564 (5 U.S.C. 552); Sec. 101(a), Pub. L. 93-463, 88 Stat. 1389 (5 U.S.C. 4a(j)); unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
(3) The Assistant Secretary, or his or her designee, will issue an initial determination with respect to a FOIA request within twenty business days after receipt by the Assistant Secretary. * * *
(j)
(e) * * *
(2) The period for filing a detailed written justification may be extended upon request and for good cause shown.
(a) * * *
(2) Weekly Advisory (solely available on the Commission's Web site at
(b)
(2) Terms and conditions of proposed contracts.
(3) Registered entity filings relating to rules as defined in § 40.1 of this chapter, unless covered by a request for confidential treatment.
(13) Publicly available portions of applications to become a registered entity including the transmittal letter, proposed rules, proposed bylaws, corporate documents, any overview or similar summary provided by the applicant, any documents pertaining to the applicant's legal status and governance structure, including governance fitness information, and any other part of the application not covered by a request for confidential treatment.
(a) * * *
(1) $4.75 for each quarter hour spent by clerical personnel in searching for or reviewing records.
(2) When a search or review cannot be performed by clerical personnel, $10.25 for each quarter hour spent by professional personnel in searching or reviewing records.
(3) When searches require the expertise of a computer specialist, staff time for programming and performing searches will be charged at $10.25 per quarter hour. For searches of records stored on personal computers used as workstations by Commission staff and shared access network servers, the computer processing time is included in the search time for the staff member using the workstation as set forth in paragraph (a) of this appendix.
(5) For copies of materials other than paper records, the requester will be charged the actual cost of materials and reproduction, including the time of clerical personnel at a rate of $4.75 per quarter hour.
(6) When a request has been made and granted to examine Commission records at an office of the Commission other than the office in which the records are routinely maintained, the requester:
(i) Will reimburse the Commission for the actual cost of transporting the records; and
(ii) Will be charged at a rate of $4.75 for each quarter hour spent by clerical personnel in preparing the records for transit.
(b)
(1) The fee is less than or equal to $10.00, the approximate cost to the Commission of collecting the fee; or,
(2) If the Commission determines that the disclosure of the information is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.
Postal Service.
Final rule.
This rule provides contact information for submission of questions or comments and all notification, plans, and reports directed by regulation throughout 39 CFR Part 501—Authorization to Manufacture and Distribute Postage Meters.
This rule is effective November 18, 2004.
Wayne Wilkerson, manager of Postage Technology Management, at 1735 N. Lynn Street, Rosslyn, VA 22209 by phone at (703) 292-3691 or by fax at (703) 292-4073.
Title 39,
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 410, 2601, 2605; Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (Pub. L. 95-452, as amended), 5 U.S.C. App. 3.
(f) The Postal Service functional area charged with administering authorization as described in this part 501 is the Postage Technology Management program office. All submissions cited throughout all sections of 39 CFR part 501 are to be made to this office in person or via U.S. mail to 1735 N. Lynn Street Room 5011, Rosslyn, VA 22209-6370 or via fax to 703-292-4073. Inquiries may be made via telephone to 703-292-3691, and information updates may be found on the U.S. Postal Service Web page at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Closure; request for comments.
NMFS announces that the commercial salmon fishery in the area from the Oregon-California Border to Humboldt South Jetty, CA was modified to close at midnight on Friday, September 17, 2004. This action was necessary to conform to the 2004 management goals. The intended effect of this action is to allow the fishery to operate within the seasons and quotas as specified in the 2004 annual management measures.
Closure effective 2359 hours local time (l.t.), September 17, 2004, after which the fishery will remain closed until opened through an additional inseason action for the west coast salmon fisheries, which will be published in the
Comments on this action must be mailed to D. Robert Lohn, Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0070; or faxed to 206-526-6376; or Rod McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, NOAA, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4132; or faxed to 562-980-4018. Comments can also be submitted via e-mail at the
Christopher Wright, 206-526-6140.
The NMFS Regional Administrator closed the commercial salmon fishery in the area from the Oregon-California Border to Humboldt South Jetty, CA, effective at midnight on Friday, September 17, 2004. On September 15, the Regional Administrator determined that available catch and effort data indicated that the quota of 6,000 chinook salmon would be reached by midnight on Friday, September 17, 2004.
Automatic season closures based on quotas are authorized by regulations at 50 CFR 660.409(a)(1).
In the 2004 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (69 FR 25026, May 5, 2004), NMFS
On September 15, 2004, the Regional Administrator consulted with representatives of the Pacific Fishery Management Council and California Department of Fish and Game. Information related to catch to date, the chinook catch rate, and effort data indicated that it was likely that the chinook quota would be reached by September 17. As a result, the State of California recommended, and the Regional Administrator concurred, that the area from the Oregon-California Border to Humboldt South Jetty, CA close effective at midnight on Friday, September 17, 2004. All other restrictions that apply to this fishery remained in effect as announced in the 2004 annual management measures.
The Regional Administrator determined that the best available information indicated that the catch and effort data, and projections, supported the above inseason action recommended by the state. The states manage the fisheries in state waters adjacent to the areas of the U.S. exclusive economic zone in accordance with this Federal action. As provided by the inseason notice procedures of 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice to fishers of the above described action was given prior to the date the action was effective by telephone hotline number 206-526-6667 and 800-662-9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz.
This action does not apply to other fisheries that may be operating in other areas.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that good cause exists for this notification to be issued without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such notification would be impracticable. As previously noted, actual notice of this action was provided to fishers through telephone hotline and radio notification. This action complies with the requirements of the annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (69 FR 25026, May 5, 2004), the West Coast Salmon Plan, and regulations implementing the West Coast Salmon Plan 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment was impracticable because NMFS and the state agency have insufficient time to provide for prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time the fishery catch and effort data are collected to determine the extent of the fisheries, and the time the fishery closure must be implemented to avoid exceeding the quota. Because of the rate of harvest in this fishery, failure to close the fishery upon attainment of the quota would allow the quota to be exceeded, resulting in fewer spawning fish and possibly reduced yield of the stocks in the future. For the same reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness required under U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
This action is authorized by 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Reopening of a fishing season; request for comments.
NMFS announces the recreational salmon fishery in the area from the U.S.-Canada Border to Cape Alava, WA (Neah Bay Subarea) was modified to reopen effective Friday, September 10, 2004, through the earlier of September 19 or a modified subarea quota of 30,750 coho. This action was necessary to conform to the 2004 management goals.
Reopening effective 0001 hours local time (l.t.) September 10, 2004, until the chinook quota or coho quota are taken, or 2359 hours l.t., September 19, 2004; after which the fishery will remain closed until opened through an additional inseason action for the west coast salmon fisheries, which will be published in the
Comments on this action must be mailed to D. Robert Lohn, Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0070; or faxed to 206-526-6376; or Rod McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, NOAA, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4132; or faxed to 562-980-4018. Comments can also be submitted via e-mail at the
Christopher Wright, 206-526-6140.
The NMFS Regional Administrator (RA) reopened the recreational salmon fishery in the area from the U.S.-Canada Border to Cape Alava, WA (Neah Bay Subarea), effective Friday, September 10, 2004, through the earlier of September 19 or a modified subarea quota of 30,750 coho. On September 9 the Regional Administrator had determined the available catch and effort data indicated that enough fish remained within the coho and chinook quotas to allow additional days of fishing.
All other restrictions remained in effect as announced for 2004 ocean salmon fisheries and previous inseason actions. This action was necessary to conform to the 2004 management goals. Recision of automatic season closures are authorized by regulations at 50 CFR 660.409(a)(2).
In the 2004 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (69 FR 25026, May 5, 2004), NMFS announced the recreational fishery in the area from the U.S.-Canada Border to Cape Alava, WA (Neah Bay Subarea) would open June 27 through the earlier of September 19 or a 21,050 coho subarea quota, with a subarea guideline of 3,700 chinook.
Inseason Action #10 reallocated 40,000 coho from Queets River to Leadbetter Point, WA (Westport Subarea) quota effective August 13, 2004, by transferring the coho on an impact neutral basis, to the coho quota in the subarea from the U.S.-Canada Border to Cape Alava, WA (Neah Bay Subarea), which increased the Neah Bay Subarea quota by 6,600 coho (69 FR 54047, September 7, 2004).
The recreational salmon fishery in the area from the U.S.-Canada Border to Cape Alava, WA (Neah Bay Subarea) was modified by Inseason Action #13 to close at midnight on Thursday, September 2, 2004. To allow for the Neah Bay Subarea to remain open until September 2, 3,100 coho were transferred to the Neah Bay coho quota on an impact neutral basis from the Queets River to Leadbetter Point, WA (Westport Subarea), coho quota.
On September 9, 2004, the RA consulted with representatives of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife by conference call. Information related to catch to date, the coho and chinook catch rates, and effort data indicated that the Neah Bay Subarea catch was lower than was anticipated, and that enough fish remained within the coho and chinook quotas to allow additional days of fishing. As a result, on September 9 the states recommended, and the RA concurred, that Neah Bay Subarea reopen effective Friday, September 10, 2004, and continue through the earlier of September 19 or a modified subarea quota of 30,750 coho. All other restrictions that applied to this fishery remained in effect as announced in the 2004 annual management measures and previous inseason action notices.
The RA determined that the best available information indicated that the catch and effort data, and projections, supported the above inseason action recommended by the states. The states manage the fisheries in state waters adjacent to the areas of the U.S. exclusive economic zone in accordance with this Federal action. As provided by the inseason notice procedures of 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice to fishers of the already described regulatory action was given, prior to the date the action was effective, by telephone hotline number 206-526-6667 and 800-662-9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz.
This action does not apply to other fisheries that may be operating in other areas.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that good cause exists for this notification to be issued without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such notification would be impracticable. As previously noted, actual notice of the regulatory action was provided to fishers through telephone hotline and radio notification. This action complies with the requirements of the annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (69 FR 25026, May 5, 2004), the West Coast Salmon Plan, and regulations implementing the West Coast Salmon Plan 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment was impracticable because NMFS and the state agencies had insufficient time to provide for prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time the fishery catch and effort data were collected to determine the extent of the fisheries, and the time the fishery modification had to be implemented in order to allow fishers access to the available fish at the time the fish were available. A delay in effectiveness of this action would unnecessarily limit fishers appropriately controlled access to available fish during the scheduled fishing season because this action rescinds an automatic closure. For the same reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness required under U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
This action is authorized by 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Closure and Modification of fishing seasons; request for comments.
NMFS announces that the commercial salmon fishery in the subarea from the Queets River, WA to Cape Falcon OR, was projected to reach its 10,000 coho quota and was closed effective at midnight on Tuesday, September 7, 2004. In addition, regulations for the commercial salmon fishery in the subarea from the U.S.-Canada Border to the Queets River, were modified to open the fishery September 8 through the earlier of September 15, or a subarea quota of 8,000 marked coho, with a landing and possession limit of 125 chinook per vessel for the 8-day open period. These actions were necessary to conform to the 2004 management goals.
Closure of the area from the Queets River, WA to Cape Falcon, OR, effective 2359 hours local time (l.t.) September 7, 2004; the area from the U.S.-Canada Border to the Queets River, WA, was reopened effective 0001 hours l.t. September 8, 2004, until the chinook quota or coho quota is taken, or 2359 hours l.t., September 15, 2004; after which the fishery will remain closed until opened through an additional inseason action for the west coast salmon fisheries, which will be published in the
Comments on these actions must be mailed to D. Robert Lohn, Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0070; or faxed to 206-526-6376; or Rod McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, NOAA, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long
Christopher Wright, 206-526-6140.
The NMFS Regional Administrator (RA) closed the commercial salmon fishery in the subarea from the Queets River, WA to Cape Falcon, OR, effective at midnight on Tuesday, September 7, 2004. In addition, the commercial salmon fishery in the subarea from the U.S.-Canada Border to the Queets River, was modified to open September 8 through the earlier of September 15, or a subarea quota of 8,000 marked coho, with a landing and possession limit of 125 chinook per vessel for the eight-day open period. On September 7, 2004, the Regional Administrator determined the available catch and effort data indicated that the adjusted subarea quota of 10,000 coho salmon for the subarea from the Queets River, WA to Cape Falcon, OR would be reached. The data also indicated the restriction for the subarea from the U.S.-Canada Border to the Queets River to be open only from Wednesday through Sunday could be modified so the area could remain open for 8 days until the end of the scheduled season without exceeding any conservation objectives established preseason.
All other restrictions remained in effect as announced for 2004 ocean salmon fisheries and previous inseason actions. These actions were necessary to conform to the 2004 management goals. Automatic season closures based on quotas are authorized by regulations at 50 CFR 660.409(a)(1). Modification of quotas and/or fishing seasons is authorized by regulations at 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(i). Modification of the species that may be caught and landed during specific seasons and the establishment or modification of limited retention regulations are authorized by regulations at 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(ii).
In the 2004 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (69 FR 25026, May 5, 2004), NMFS announced the commercial fishery for all salmon in the area from the U.S.-Canada Border to Cape Falcon, OR would open July 8 through the earlier of September 15, or a 14,700-chinook preseason guideline, or a 67,500-coho quota. The 67,500-coho quota included a subarea quota of 8,000 coho for the area between the U.S.-Canada border and the Queets River, WA. The fishery was scheduled to be open Thursday through Monday prior to August 11, and Wednesday through Sunday thereafter, with the restriction that no vessel may possess, land, or deliver more than 125 chinook for each 5-day open period.
The fishery in the area from the U.S.-Canada Border to Cape Falcon, OR was modified by Inseason Action #5 to open July 8 and close at midnight on July 12, 2004, then to reopen on July 16 through midnight on July 19, 2004, with the provision that no vessel may possess, land, or deliver more than 100 chinook for each open period (69 FR 43345, July 20, 2004). The fishing season was modified to slow the chinook catch rate and avoid exceeding the chinook quota. The fishery was scheduled to be reevaluated by an inseason conference call on July 14, and any further adjustments announced.
The fishery in the area from the U.S.-Canada Border to Cape Falcon, OR was modified by Inseason Action #6 to a revised landing provision that no vessel may possess, land, or deliver more than 125 chinook for the open period of July 16 through July 19, 2004 (69 FR 51609, August 20, 2004). The fishery then reverted back to the regulations as announced preseason for 2004 ocean salmon fisheries and was scheduled to continue until the chinook quota or coho quota were taken, or September 15, which ever was earlier. Consistent with the preseason schedule the fishery was reopened on July 22, with an open cycle of Thursday through Monday prior to August 11, and Wednesday through Sunday thereafter, and a landing and possession limit of 125 chinook per vessel per each 5-day open period.
The commercial salmon fishery in the area from the Queets River to Cape Falcon, OR was modified by Inseason Action #11 effective September 1, 2004, to allow for the retention of all legal sized coho with a landing provision that no vessel may possess, land, or deliver more than 500 coho for each 5-day open period until the earlier of September 15 or a quota of 10,000 coho (69 FR 63333, November 1, 2004). Unmarked coho could only be possessed and landed in the area from the Queets River to Cape Falcon. In addition, 20,000 coho from the quota of the commercial fishery from the U.S.-Canada Border to Cape Falcon was traded for 5,000 chinook from the recreational salmon fishery from the Queets River to Leadbetter Point, WA (Westport Subarea) guideline.
On September 7, 2004, the RA consulted with representatives of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife by conference call. Information related to catch and effort data indicated that it was likely that the commercial salmon fishery in the subarea from the Queets River, WA, to Cape Falcon, OR, would reach its 10,000 coho quota by midnight. The data also indicated the restriction for the subarea from the U.S.-Canada Border to the Queets River to be open only from Wednesday through Sunday could be modified so the area could remain open for 8 days until the end of the scheduled season without exceeding any conservation objectives established preseason. As a result, on September 7 the states recommended, and the RA concurred, that the commercial salmon fishery in the area from the Queets River to Cape Falcon be closed effective at midnight on September 7, 2004, and that the commercial salmon fishery in the subarea from the U.S.-Canada Border to the Queets River, be modified to open September 8 through the earlier of September 15, or a subarea quota of 8,000 marked coho, with a landing and possession limit of 125 chinook per vessel for the eight-day open period. All other restrictions that apply to these fisheries remained in effect as announced in the 2004 annual management measures and previous inseason actions.
The RA determined that the best available information indicated that the catch and effort data, and projections, supported the above inseason actions recommended by the states. The states manage the fisheries in state waters adjacent to the areas of the U.S. exclusive economic zone in accordance with these Federal actions. As provided by the inseason notice procedures of 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice to fishers of the above described regulatory actions were given, prior to the time the action was effective, by telephone hotline number 206-526-6667 and 800-662-9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz.
These actions do not apply to other fisheries that may be operating in other areas.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that good cause exists for this notification to be issued without affording prior notice
These actions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reopening for 60 days the comment period for the proposed rule entitled “Food Labeling: Nutrient Content Claims, General Principles; Health Claims, General Requirements and Other Specific Requirements for Individual Health Claims” (60 FR 66206, December 21, 1995) (the 1995 proposal). In that document, FDA proposed to amend its existing nutrient content claims and health claims regulations to provide additional flexibility in the use of these claims on food products. FDA reopened the comment period for the 1995 proposal to seek comment on the proposed amendments to permit unqualified health claims on certain foods that do not contain 10 percent or more of one of certain required nutrients, the proposed amendments to provide criteria that FDA would consider in determining whether to grant an exemption from disqualifying nutrient levels related to unqualified health claims of certain nutrients, and the proposed amendments to retain the word “may” or “might” in unqualified health claims. In addition, FDA sought comment on the proposed use of unlisted synonyms and abbreviated health claims. The comment period for the 1995 proposal closed on July 6, 2004. FDA is reopening the comment period again in response to four requests for additional time to submit comments to FDA.
Submit written or electronic comments by January 18, 2005.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket Nos. 1994P-0390 and 1995P-0241, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Agency Web site:
• E-mail:
• FAX: 301-827-6870.
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions]: Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Ritu Nalubola, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301-436-2371.
In the
In the
Following publication of the May 4, 2004, notice reopening the comment period, FDA received four requests for an extension of the comment period to allow interested persons additional time to comment. Two of the requests were submitted by NFPA and ABA, the petitioners. The requesters asserted that more time is needed, given the complexity of the issues, to thoroughly review the specific elements of the 1995 proposal. Some requesters further supported their requests for additional time by noting that more than 7 years have passed since the 1995 proposal was last considered in comments and FDA's May 4, 2004, notice reopening the comment period. NFPA and ABA, which are trade associations, specifically stated that, over the intervening years, many of their member companies' representatives who were responsible for consideration of the technical aspects of the 1995 proposal have left their companies and have been replaced by staff that are less familiar with the 1995 proposal, subsequent comments, and underlying petitions. In addition, NFPA and ABA asserted that because the character of their membership has changed and current members may advocate different views of the issues raised in the 1995 proposal and in comments on the 1995 proposal received through 1997, additional time is needed to ensure that all members' concerns are addressed to accurately comment and respond to FDA. Another requester, also a trade association, also requested more time to ensure that all of its members' concerns are addressed to accurately comment and respond to FDA.
FDA has considered the requests for additional time to submit comments and, because the comment period for the 1995 proposal closed on July 6, 2004, FDA is again reopening the comment period on the 1995 proposal for an additional 60 days to provide interested persons an opportunity to comment on the issues identified herein and in FDA's May 4, 2004, notice reopening the comment period for the 1995 proposal.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Postal Rate Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document addresses a proposal to add a definition of the term “postal service” to the rules of practice. This proposal is prompted by the Postal Service's action with respect to nonpostal initiatives. There is often controversy and uncertainty regarding the postal character of the services provided under those initiatives. The proposed definition is intended to provide guidance to the Postal Service and the general public concerning services that are subject to sections 3622 and 3623 of the Postal Reorganization Act.
1. Deadline for filing initial comments: December 15, 2004.
2. Deadline for filing reply comments: January 12, 2004.
File all documents referred to in this order electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
Stephen L. Sharfman, (202) 789-6818.
69 FR 3288, January 23, 2004.
69 FR 11353, March 10, 2004.
In Order No. 1389, the Commission proposed to amend its rules of practice and procedure to include a definition of the term “postal service.”
Specifically, the Commission proposed to amend its rules by including the following definition:
No commenter, including the Postal Service, challenges the Commission's authority to adopt a definition of the term postal service. Under the Postal Service's construction of the Act, however, adopting a definition would essentially be an empty gesture since it contends that the Commission lacks the authority to determine the scope of its own jurisdiction. Under its theory, any service or product it unilaterally declares not to be a postal service is beyond the Commission's jurisdiction.
The Commission rejects the claim that it cannot determine the scope of its own jurisdiction. The law on this point is well settled. “[T]he agency entitled to deference in the interpretation of 39 U.S.C. 3622-24 is the Rate Commission—not the Postal Service—as it is the Rate Commission which is charged with making recommended decisions on changes in rates and mail classification.”
In its comments, the Postal Service argues that the Commission's definition of the term postal services imposes no limits on its authority under the Act.
While most commenters support the idea that the term postal service be defined, there is no unanimity on the definition. The diversity of views expressed has helped crystallize the Commission's thinking about the issues. It is apparent that continuation of the status quo is not in the public interest. On numerous, recent occasions, parties have challenged the legitimacy of the Postal Service's claim that various services, offered unilaterally pursuant to section 404(a)(6), are not postal services. The jurisdictional implications of these services, which have become increasingly controversial, are most efficaciously addressed by rule rather than on an ad hoc basis. Comments by competitors demonstrate that many of these services offered unilaterally by the Postal Service have a substantial public effect. Accordingly, the Commission believes that it is appropriate to include a definition of the term postal service in its rules.
Based on a thorough consideration of the comments, however, the Commission has determined not to adopt either its initial proposal or any suggested in the comments. Instead, the Commission concludes that it would be preferable to define the term postal service by reference to the Postal Service's statutory duties rather than as initially proposed or as specifically suggested by any commenter. The rule proposed herein represents an improvement over that proposed in Order No. 1389 since it makes the Service's “postal service” duties the touchstone of the definition rather than any specific activities the Postal Service may or may not perform.
The revised definition reads as follows:
In lieu of adopting the foregoing definition now, the Commission will provide interested persons an opportunity to comment on the revised proposed rule. While not required under the Administrative Procedure Act, the additional comment period is deemed appropriate to assure that the impact of the rule is carefully considered and fully understood. Comments are due December 15, 2004. Reply comments may be filed on or before January 12, 2005.
Two rulemakings pending before the Commission are companion proceedings, designed to define postal services on the one hand, Docket No. RM2004-1, and reporting requirements for nonpostal services on the other, Docket No. RM2004-2. In Order No. 1389, against the backdrop of an array of new services offered unilaterally by the Postal Service, the Commission reviewed both judicial and Commission precedent concerning the meaning, for jurisdictional purposes, of the term postal service.
Seven sets of initial comments
The principal legal issues in this proceeding are the Postal Service's contention that the Commission lacks authority to determine the scope of its own jurisdiction and OCA/CA's claim that nonpostal services mean only those services provided by the Postal Service on behalf of other government agencies.
Docket No. RM2004-2, like this proceeding an outgrowth of Docket *2003, was initiated to consider the effects, if any, of non-jurisdictional services on jurisdictional rates.
In this proceeding, OCA/CA, citing the interrelationship between the two dockets, urge the Commission to define the term nonpostal (as they interpret it) in this proceeding, essentially preempting the proposed amendment to rule 54 in Docket No. RM2004-2.
Lastly, since this proceeding commenced, two complaints have been filed with the Commission alleging that the Postal Service is providing postal services without first obtaining a recommended decision from the Commission.
Section 3603 of the PRA authorizes the Commission to adopt “rules and regulations and establish procedures, subject to chapters 5 and 7 of Title 5, and take any other action they deem necessary and proper to carry out their functions and obligations to the Government of the United States and the people as prescribed under this chapter.” 39 U.S.C. 3603. No commenter disputes the Commission's authority to adopt a definition of the term postal service. The Postal Service, however, construes the Act in a manner that renders the exercise largely meaningless.
As a preface to its comments on the proposed rule, the Postal Service, referencing its comments in Docket *2003, reiterates its position that the Commission lacks authority to determine the scope of its own jurisdiction under Chapter 36 of the PRA.
The Commission concludes that it has the primary responsibility for interpreting whether services offered or proposed by the Postal Service are subject to chapter 36 of the Act.
The Act mandates that the Postal Service, to the extent it wishes to provide a postal service, submit a request to the Commission for a recommended decision on changes in the mail classification schedule. Management's initial characterization of a service as postal or not neither deprives the Commission of jurisdiction over postal services nor precludes Commission review, on complaint or otherwise, for purposes of determining its statutory jurisdiction. Such review does not impinge on management's prerogatives in a manner not contemplated by the Act. “The very existence and function of the Postal Rate Commission bespeaks a limitation on postal management's freedom.”
Furthermore, it is well settled that in matters involving rates and mail classifications the Commission's interpretation is entitled to deference. Federal courts have rejected the Postal Service's argument that its
Moreover, the Postal Service's construction ignores a wealth of judicial precedent addressing the division of responsibility under the Act between the Postal Service and the Commission that makes it plain that rate and classification authority vests with the Commission. For example, in
Specifically mindful of the bifurcation of authority under the Act, the court, in
Although the PRA does not define the term “postal services,” it is clear that “postal services” are central to the Postal Service's mission. The point is underscored by the very first section of the Act: “The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people.” 39 U.S.C. 101(a). The Postal Service is explicitly directed to “plan, develop, promote, and provide adequate and efficient postal services at fair and reasonable rates and fees.” 39 U.S.C. 403(a).
The Postal Service performs a variety of activities; some clearly relate to its obligation to provide postal services, while others do not. Some have jurisdictional implications; others do not. By statute, the Postal Service has a monopoly over the carriage of letters. 39 U.S.C. 601.
The Postal Service's authority to engage in other activities also informs the scope of its core mission regarding postal services. These include authority to provide special, philatelic, international, and nonpostal services. It is well settled that special services, authorized by section 404(a)(6) of the Act, are postal services subject to the Commission's rate and classification jurisdiction. In
The Court of Appeals, without adopting all of its reasoning, found the district court's interpretation of the Act persuasive.
The Commission's first substantive opportunity to address the jurisdictional implications of various special and other services occurred in Docket No. R76-1 following the
Although none of the three remaining specific grants of power is defined in the Act, two are readily distinguishable because each is limited by the types of service that could possibly be offered. Philatelic services, section 404(a)(5), relate exclusively to philately; international mail, section 407, exclusively involves service between or among countries. There is no real controversy over what each service entails or, for that matter, whether either could be considered a jurisdictional postal service.
Parties dispute the meaning of the term as well as the Postal Service's authority to provide certain services without prior Commission review. OCA/CA argue that “nonpostal” is a term of art under the statute limited to services provided by the Postal Service to other governmental agencies for which it is reimbursed.
In support of their position, OCA/CA cite the preexisting statute, the Kappel Commission Report,
Lastly, OCA/CA cite as most significant Judge Sirica's comment concerning the likely meaning of the term nonpostal.
Relatively early in its institutional history, the Commission characterized certain services provided by the Postal Service as nonpostal. Once the jurisdictional issue over special services was joined in Docket No. R76-1, the Postal Service submitted a lengthy list of services it provided apart from the carriage of mail.
The list included an assortment of services provided by the Postal Service, including those styled as follows:
• Domestic ancillary services,
• International ancillary services,
• Special user charges,
• Services performed for other government agencies,
• Community type services,
• Services for which a charge could be made,
Prior to considering the jurisdictional status of each service, the Commission distinguished between services provided by the Postal Service to the public and those it performed for other federal agencies. The Commission indicated that the latter included services such as “the distribution of migratory bird hunting stamps, the registration of aliens, and various forms of assistance to the Civil Service Commission.”
The Commission assessed each service based on its relationship to the
The Commission's consideration of box rentals (lockbox service) in Docket R76-1 merits particular mention because, in addition to arguing that lockbox service was a special or similar service wholly within its authority, the Postal Service contended that box rentals were not “postal services” within the meaning of section 3622.
In addition to its analysis in Docket No. R76-1 Appendix F, the Commission summarized its findings in the main body of its opinion, stating that “[m]any of these services are clearly nonpostal in character.”
The Commission is unpersuaded by the arguments advanced by OCA/CA.
The result urged by OCA/CA, that any service provided by the Postal Service that is not nonpostal (under their interpretation) would be subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, cannot be reconciled with the Act. Section 404(a)(6) authorizes the Postal Service “to provide, establish, change, or abolish special nonpostal or similar services.” 39 U.S.C. 404(a)(6). OCA/CA's interpretation would render the phrase “similar services” surplusage. If nonpostal is restricted to services provided only to other government agencies, no other service could be “similar,” thereby making it meaningless.
Conceptually, under the OCA/CA's interpretation, the Commission would be charged with recommending rates for any service or product that is not provided exclusively to other governmental agencies. Thus, they would have the Commission recommend rates for miscellaneous minor services, such as photocopying, as well as those having no evident connection to the Postal Service's core mission.
At the other end of the spectrum, the Postal Service's support for the proposition that it is authorized to engage in unlimited commercial, nonpostal activities is also unconvincing.
Section 411, which is entitled “Cooperation with Other Government Agencies,” concerns the bilateral arrangements between the Postal Service and other federal agencies.
The regulations implementing section 411, 39 CFR 259.1, indicate that it is the Postal Service's policy to cooperate with other federal agencies when it will reduce the overall costs to the government. For its part, the Postal Service states that assistance will be provided “when the knowledge and abilities of postal employees are helpful.” 39 CFR 259.1(a). It is notable that the Postal Service uses the term “nonpostal” to describe section 411 arrangements in its implementing regulations. 39 CFR 259.1(b). “The Postal Service establishes reasonable fees and charges for nonpostal services performed for agencies of the Federal as well as State governments.” “Nonpostal” fairly characterizes the nature of these services and its use in these regulations undercuts the Postal Service's argument that the use of the term “nonpostal” in section 404(a)(6), but not section 411, is significant.
Overwhelmingly, available information supports the conclusion that, at a minimum, nonpostal services encompass services performed “mainly for other Government agencies (
The Postal Service's assertion that because Congress did not, in section 404(a)(6), “explicitly exclude any type of service,”
By the Postal Service's logic, section 404(a)(6) authorizes it to engage in
Congress' “failure” to “explicitly exclude any type of service” cannot reasonably be interpreted as authorizing the Postal Service to engage in an unlimited variety of commercial, nonpostal activities.
In discussing what became section 404 of the Act, the House Report states: “This section catalogs the specific powers of the Postal Service, which powers, in conjunction with the general powers granted in section [401], are to be used to carry out postal service duties.”
Stating that it relies on more than “section 404(a)(6) to authorize the establishment of nonpostal services,” the Postal Service alludes to its “statutory mission and functions.”
The foregoing is a confounding rationale for the proposition advanced. The Postal Service attempts to justify its expansive interpretation of its authority to offer commercial, nonpostal services by reference to its postal duties and authority. Its argument is not persuasive. The Postal Service's undeniable authority to provide
The Postal Service's obligation to provide
The Act also grants the Postal Service certain general and specific powers to carry out these duties. The general powers enable the Postal Service to function as a business, an enumeration necessary since, under the Act, it would no longer operate as an executive department of the federal government.
In contrast to the overriding emphasis on the Postal Service's obligations regarding postal services, the Act contains but two references to nonpostal services, sections 404(a)(6) and 2003(b)(1).
When the POD offered a commercial service unrelated to the mails it was based on specific congressional authorization, namely by an amendment to its then-existing statutory authority. The principal example is the postal savings system, which Congress established in 1910 and discontinued in 1966.
In filings subsequent to its comments on the petition in Docket *2003, the Postal Service elaborates on its assertion regarding its authority to provide commercial, nonpostal services, principally by quoting two sentences from the House Report on H.R. 17070. Before examining those excerpts, two preliminary observations are in order. First, as a general matter, the Postal Service's philosophy regarding nonpostal services is that it “only develops products and services to meet the needs of postal patrons[.]”
Second, in its Report on Nonpostal Initiatives, the Postal Service again alludes to its mandate regarding postal services to support its unilateral offering of various “nonpostal” services. It states: “To fulfill its universal service mandate and mission, the Postal Service must find ways to use existing resources to generate new revenue.”
The two excerpts from the House Report on H.R. 17070 are apparently cited for the proposition that the Postal Service can engage in whatever nonpostal activities it may wish. As approbation, such reliance is misplaced. The Postal Service quotes the following sentence as justifying its expansive definition of the term nonpostal: “The Postal Service is empowered to engage in research and development programs directed toward the expansion of present postal services and development of new services responsive to the evolving needs of the United States.”
While only inferred by its comments, the Postal Service apparently interprets the phrase “new services” to mean nonpostal. If so, this construction is wholly without support. The entire discussion is framed in terms of the Postal Service's postal obligations; there is no mention of its nonpostal authority, even when the subject turns to the Postal Service's specific powers; and finally, it would suggest, contrary to the carefully crafted balance reflected in the Act, that Congress granted the Postal Service
Nor does the second passage from the House Report provide any support for the Postal Service's interpretation of the term nonpostal. The sentence relied on reads as follows: “H.R. 17070 envisions a national postal service that is forever searching for new markets and new ways by which the communications needs of the American people may be served.”
Again, there is no suggestion in this discussion (or elsewhere) that the “new markets and new ways by which the communications needs of the America people may be served” refer to anything other than postal services as they may evolve over time.
Furthermore, the Postal Service's construction is flawed for another reason. It fails to consider the independent role reserved for the Commission under the Act. In
Management was vested in the Postal Service, rate and classification supervision in the Postal Rate Commission. We recognize and weigh heavily the congressional goal of greater managerial flexibility, but also recognize another congressional purpose that finds its incarnation in the Postal Rate Commission. The Commission's existence insures that an agency independent of the Postal Service will provide for public notice and hearing input of those affected by the proposed action and full and on the record,
In ceding its ratemaking authority, Congress established procedures for the review of Postal Service rate, classification, and service changes. Among other things, it was mindful of the need for the Commission to consider competitive concerns.
In their initial comments, OCA/CA assert that the Supreme Court's statements in
The question presented in
The Court then proceeded to discuss the Postal Service's “nonpostal lines of business,”
The Court's observations concerning the Postal Service's “nonpostal lines of business” were not offered as dispositive of the meaning of the term nonpostal. Nor, parenthetically, does the Postal Service contend this. Rather, the observations, largely
In sum, nothing in either the statute or the legislative history provides support for the Postal Service's position. Prior to the enactment of the PRA, the Post Office Department's provision of miscellaneous nonpostal services was well recognized. In the main, the Post Office Department served as a surrogate for the government providing relatively minor services unrelated to the mails. Nor is it insignificant that the legislative history of the Act contains no substantive discussion of the term “nonpostal.” Against this considerable backdrop, it is unreasonable to suggest that the simple reference to “nonpostal” in section 404(a)(6) can be read to empower the Postal Service to offer unilaterally to the public whatever service, commercial or otherwise, it might wish. Such a reading is too at odds with the statute, legislative history, and historical operations to be credible. Had Congress intended something more, it would have been explicit, as it was when it detailed the Postal Service's postal functions.
Recognizing that the differences between its and the Commission's interpretations may need to be resolved judicially, the Postal Service states that until that happens the Commission “cannot authoritatively impose its own formulation and interpretation on the Postal Service's conduct[.]”
Early consideration of what constituted a “postal service” was limited perforce to hard copy mail. That, after all, simply reflected the state of Postal Service operations at the time. One of the issues now before the Commission is whether services relying on new technology, such as electronic services, fall within the ambit of postal services under the Act. As elaborated on below, the Commission concludes that those services in which the Postal Service receives, transmits, or delivers correspondence constitute postal services. This conclusion is drawn from the Act and its legislative history.
Section 403 sets out the general duties of the Postal Service, beginning with the duty to “plan, develop, promote, and provide adequate and efficient postal services at fair and reasonable rates and fees.”
There are no limitations inherent in these broad general duties, or elsewhere in the Act, which would suggest that the Postal Service should not consider technological advances when carrying out its functions. Section 101(a) instructs that the Postal Service “shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people.” In describing this section, the House Report states that the “Postal Service shall be operated as a basic communications service provided to all the people by the Government of the United States[.]”
The House Report confirms that Congress envisioned that postal services would change over time as influenced by, among other things, technological, economic, and social growth. In reforming the then-existing postal system, Congress intended to “[c]reate a lasting foundation for a modern, dynamic, and viable postal institution that is both equipped and empowered at all times to satisfy the postal requirements of the future technological, economic, cultural, and social growth of the Nation.”
Comments by competitors raise legitimate concerns about the Postal Service's unilateral offering of commercial, “nonpostal” services.
The careful balancing of authorities between the Commission and the Postal Service under the Act reflects Congress' concern that the public be adequately protected once congressional control of the Post Office Department was relinquished. In light of the safeguards built into the Act, there was no pressing need to define the term “postal service,” particularly since, as discussed above, the entire thrust of the Act concerns the
This definition employs statutorily linked terms descriptive of the Postal Service's duties and mission. The Postal Service has a duty to plan, develop, and provide adequate and efficient postal services. To fulfill that duty, it is required to “receive, transmit, and deliver * * * written and printed matter, parcels, and like materials[.]”
The benefit of focusing on the statutory functions of the Postal Service can be shown through the following hypothetical. Assume the Postal Service assigns every American a permanent e-mail address, and charges individuals an annual fee to access e-mails sent to those addresses. The Service would be accepting, transmitting and delivering business and personal correspondence. Under the proposed definition this would be a postal service, even though no tangible hard copy changed hands. The private express statutes do not, and should not apply to e-mail, but the Postal Service would be competing with private firms and its own products in a healthy industry, and its rates and fees should be fair and nondiscriminatory.
The terms of the proposed definition are easily understood and their meaning clear. The term “receipt” is the act of receiving something; “transmission” covers the act of transmitting, that is sending or conveying something to a destination or recipient; and “delivery” is the act of transferring, turning over, or making available the item(s) transmitted to the recipient. Collectively, these terms encompass the related activities associated with postal services,
It is appropriate to reflect electronic services in the definition of the term postal service. Postal services have continually evolved over time with changes in technology. For example, stagecoaches, which were initially used to transport the mails, were supplanted by railroads which, in turn, gave way to trucks and airplanes. In considering the evolutionary effects of technology, the Commission has observed:
Indeed, the Postal Service has recognized the role of technology in shaping the nature of postal services. Commenting on its Electronic Computer Originated Mail (E-COM) proposal in Docket No. MC78-3, the Postal Service characterized its entry into the electronic mail field as “a natural progression of technology,” by using “electronics to move the mail” instead of a surface or air carrier.
The Postal Service use of technology to develop new types of postal service is entirely consistent with its statutory mandate “to provide postal services to bind the Nation together” by “provid[ing] prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas * * *.”
This rulemaking is not the appropriate forum for the Commission
In Docket No. C99-1, the complainant contended that the Postal Service was providing a new service, Post Electronic Courier Service (Post ECS), in violation of the Act.
The Postal Service moved to dismiss the complaint arguing, first, that the Commission lacked authority to determine the status of the service as either postal or nonpostal, and second that, even assuming the Commission had authority to determine the status of Post ECS service, the complaint should be dismissed as beyond the Commission's authority because the service is neither postal nor domestic.
Recognizing that the proceeding concluded without benefit of a hearing, but assuming that Post ECS service included some wholly domestic transactions, all indications suggest that Post ECS would be a postal service under the new rule. In that proceeding, the Commission did not find it dispositive that service did not entail hard copy mail.
The Postal Service offers various ways to receive and pay bills. These currently include First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Express Mail. Until earlier this year, it also offered online payment services, consisting of USPS eBillPay, USPS Send Money, and USPS Pay@Delivery.
USPS eBillPay enabled customers to receive, review, and pay their bills via the Postal Service's Web site. The Postal Service described it as an all electronic service, except for any payments mailed at standard rates of postage.
In the recent past, the Postal Service offered a stored value card, LibertyCash, for use in purchasing postage and related products. Consideration was also given to the possibility of using it as a means to provide refunds to postal customers.
The breadth of comments received in response to the proposed rulemaking was useful in the Commission's deliberations. They range from a suggestion that the Commission do nothing to one defining postal services based on a narrow meaning of the term nonpostal. Each of the comments has been carefully considered. In the final analysis, the Commission determination not to adopt either the proposed rule or variations suggested by commenters is predicated on its conclusion that it would be preferable to link the definition of the term “postal service” to the Postal Service's statutory duties rather than by reference to specific activities that the Postal Service may or may not perform.
Of the seven sets of initial comments received, four suggest revisions to the proposed rule. Each is addressed below. Two of the remaining three commenters support the proposed rule, although for different reasons. In brief comments, the Parcel Shippers Association endorses the proposed rule, expressing its support for the treatment of the delivery of packages as a core postal service.
The last of the remaining commenters, Lifetime Addressing, asserts that “[t]he public interest is best served by a broad definition of jurisdiction.”
First, the Postal Service proposes to define postal service in terms of “carriage of” mail rather than “delivery of” mail, arguing that “as far back as Docket No. R76-1 * * * [the Commission] has focused on the “carriage of mail.”
Second, the Postal Service would eliminate reference to the maximum weight of packages, noting that the statutory maximum was deleted in 1982.
Third, in a revision to the definition it originally proposed, the Postal Service would delete reference to “transmission.”
The initial appeal of its argument that the Commission do nothing wanes on consideration.
PostCom's alternative proposal is designed to remove “electronic delivery mechanisms” from the definition.
Nor will the Commission adopt PostCom's suggestion to substitute “directly related services and functions” for “other services supportive or ancillary thereto.” While PostCom is mildly critical of the terms “ancillary” and “supportive,” it offers no support for the term “directly related” other than to assert that it is “more precise.”
The Postal Service, which opposes PostCom's suggestion, confirms that the Commission's proposed language “tracks the approach used consistently for decades.”
OCA/CA list a set of conditions which would trigger a finding that a Postal Service activity is subject to sections 3622 and/or 3623. For example, an activity would be deemed a postal service if one of the following conditions applies: (a) It significantly affects the intrinsic cost of an existing class, subclass or rate category or the relative costs of existing classes, subclasses or rate categories; (b) it grants a significant preference to any person; or (c) it deviates significantly from established methods of providing a service.
This would appear to be a problematic way to define the term postal service. Interested persons would have to speculate how the Commission might view the nexus between the Postal Service activity and its impact on other services, classes of mail, or entities. Because of this, it would be unlikely to reduce uncertainty, a major goal of this rulemaking.
OCA/CA also propose to include a definition of the term nonpostal in the Commission's rules and further urge the Commission not to employ the term “nonpostal” as proposed in a companion proceeding, Docket No. RM2004-2.
Finally, OCA/CA discuss other services which they believe qualify as postal services and urge the Commission to encompass these services in its rules.
(a) De facto classification and service changes implemented without a recommended decision from the Commission. As examples, OCA/CA cite a new carrier pickup service and Electronic Tracking Confirmation service.
(b) Pilot tests, described as experimental services, but including trials or other types of tests. They suggest that the definition of the term postal service include “changes to the rates or terms of service for any mailer that deviates from the classification language contained in the DMCS or from the evidentiary record that established the terms of service[.]”
(c) Services provided through a strategic alliance or contract with one or more parties. As an example, OCA/CA cite NetPost CardStore. They contend that the Service's “interactions and representations to the public are the main determinant for concluding that a service or product offered through a partnership arrangement that leverages the Postal Service's “brand” is a Chapter 36 “postal service.”
(d) Electronic services. They advocate that the rule explicitly state that services provided in whole or in part by electronic means are postal services.
In its reply comments, the Postal Service “urges the Commission to refrain from addressing the merits of CA/OCA's arguments and conclusions regarding any current or future Postal Service activities” cautioning that any attempt to do so “would be prejudicial, unwise, and potentially invalid.”
OCA/CA's discussion of various services offered by the Postal Service is germane to consideration of the term postal service. This does not mean, however, that this rulemaking is the appropriate forum for determining whether a specific service mentioned is a postal service or not. Facts necessary to make that determination are not available on this record. Moreover, it is unclear which services or their permutations the Postal Service continues to offer.
Nonetheless, the Commission anticipates that the Postal Service will file the appropriate requests for a recommended decision to the extent that services of this type fall within the rule ultimately adopted.
The Postal Service's apparent increasing use of alliances with private sector companies to provide services to the public merits brief mention. Such arrangements are not determinative of whether a service is or is not a postal service. That determination is dependent on the nature of the service provided. To the extent it substitutes for traditional mail service or is offered in fulfillment of the Postal Service's core mission, it may reasonably be considered to be a postal service. Illustratively, two examples may clarify the point. Pay@Delivery, a service no longer offered by the Postal Service, provided for the release of the buyer's funds to the seller after delivery via Priority Mail is confirmed by Delivery Confirmation. As a variation of collect on delivery, this service would appear to have the hallmarks of a postal service. On the other hand, any connection of
UPS raises a valid, if largely theoretical, point. Its alternative, however, could be construed as overly broad. Entities other than the Postal Service collect, process, and transmit mail prior to its deposit with the Postal Service. The definition suggested by UPS would expand the term postal service to include activities performed by entities, such as presort bureaus and consolidators, not subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. Inserting the phrase “by the Postal Service” after the term “delivery” would foreclose this construction and, as so modified, would represent an improvement over the definition proposed by the Commission. In lieu of adopting this language, however, the Commission concludes, for reasons previously discussed, that it would be preferable to define the term postal service based on statutorily derived terms.
Because it declines to adopt either its initially proposed rule or those suggested by any commenter, the Commission concludes that it would be appropriate to provide any interested person an opportunity to comment on the revised proposed rule. Accordingly, comments are due December 15, 2004. Reply comments may be filed on or before January 12, 2005. It is the Commission's expectation to review such comments expeditiously and thereafter amend its rules as may be appropriate.
1. The Commission proposes to amend its Rules of Practice and Procedure by inserting new rule 5(s), 39 CFR 3001.5(s) as follows:
2. Interested persons may submit comments by no later than December 15, 2004. Reply comments may also be filed and are due no later than January 12, 2005.
3. The Motion for Late Acceptance of Comments of Lifetime Addressing, Inc., March 16, 2004, is granted.
4. Proposed revisions suggested by commenters not adopted herein are deemed denied.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the
By the Commission.
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal service.
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission proposes to amend 39 CFR part 3001 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 3001 continues to read as follows:
39 U.S.C. 404(b); 3603; 3622-24; 3661, 3663.
2. Amend § 3001.5 by adding new paragraph(s) to read as follows:
(s)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule.
NMFS proposes quotas for the Atlantic surfclam, ocean quahog, and Maine mahogany ocean quahog fisheries for 2005-2007. Regulations governing these fisheries require NMFS to publish the proposed specifications for the 2005-2007 fishing years and seek public comment on such proposed measures. The intent of this action is to propose allowable harvest levels of Atlantic surfclams and ocean quahogs from the Exclusive Economic Zone and an allowable harvest level of Maine mahogany ocean quahogs from Atlantic waters north of 43 50' N. lat.
Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on December 20, 2004.
Written comments on the proposed specifications should be sent to:
• Email /mailbox address: The mailbox address for providing email comments is 0648AR52@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the email the following document identifier: “Comments on Surfclam/Ocean Quahog Proposed Specifications.”
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
• Mail address for mailing paper,disk, or CD-ROM comments: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298. Mark on the outside of the envelope,“Comments on Surfclam/Ocean Quahog Proposed Specifications.”
• Fax number: Facsimile (fax) to (978) 281-9135. Comments on this proposed rule may be submitted via email.
Copies of supporting documents, including the Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Brian R. Hooker, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9220.
The Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fisheries (FMP) requires that NMFS, in consultation with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), specify quotas for surfclams and ocean quahogs on an annual basis from a range that represents the optimum yield (OY) for each fishery. It is the policy of the Council that the levels selected allow sustainable fishing to continue at that level for at least 10 years for surfclams and 30 years for ocean quahogs. In addition to this constraint, the Council policy also considers the economic impacts of the quotas. Regulations implementing Amendment 10 to the FMP (63 FR 27481, May 19, 1998), added Maine ocean quahogs (locally known as mahogany quahogs) to the management unit and provided that a small artisanal fishery for ocean quahogs in the waters north of 43° 50′ N. lat. has an annual quota with an initial amount of 100,000 Maine bu (35,240 hectoliters (hL)) within a range of 17,000 to 100,000 Maine bu (5,991 hL to 35,240 hL). As specified in Amendment 10, the Maine mahogany ocean quahog quota is allocated separately from the quota specified for the ocean quahog fishery. Regulations implementing Amendment 13 to the FMP (68 FR 69970, December 16, 2003) established the ability to set multi-year quotas. An evaluation, in the form of an annual quota recommendation paper, will be conducted by the Council every year to determine if the multi-year quota specifications remains appropriate. The fishing quotas must be in compliance with overfishing definitions for each species. In proposing these quotas, the Council considered the available stock assessments, data reported by harvesters and processors, and other relevant information concerning exploitable biomass and spawning biomass, fishing mortality rates, stock recruitment, projected fishing effort and catches, and areas closed to fishing. This information was presented in a written report prepared by the Council staff.
NMFS is taking this opportunity to implement clarifications to the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog regulations. Sections 648.70(a), and 648.71(a) and (a)(2), removes references to the dates on which the initial allocation of surfclams and ocean quahogs shall be determined, and removes references to the dates on which the proposed and final rules for the annual specifications must be specified and published in the
The proposed quotas for the 2005-2007 Atlantic surfclam, ocean quahog, and Maine mahogany ocean quahog fisheries are shown in the table below. The status quo level of 2004 for Maine ocean quahog and surfclams is proposed to be maintained for 2005-2007, but the ocean quahog quota would be increased incrementally by 20 percent over the three-year period.
In 1999, the Council expressed its intention to increase the surfclam quota to OY over a period of 5 years (OY = 3.4 million bushels (181 million L)). The proposed 2005-2007 status quo surfclam quota was developed after reviewing the results of the 37th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW 37) for surfclams, held in 2003. This recommendation is consistent with the following SAW 37 recommendation: “Although the stock is above Bmsy, uncertainty in the current level of and future trend in biomass suggest that substantial increases in catch levels are not advised.” Furthermore, as of the 2002 fishing year the surfclam stock in the EEZ is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. Industry reports that the current demand for clam products is very strong, with processors describing an inability to fill all orders due to a lack of clams. However, information reported by industry in their vessel trip reports has shown a steady reduction in the landings per unit of effort (LPUE), an important indicator that the annual quota is approaching the OY for the resource. Another factor in the low LPUE is that the majority of the surfclam catch continues to be derived from one area (northern New Jersey). Based on the information and advice from the most recent assessment for surfclams, the Council is recommending, and NMFS is proposing, to maintain the status quo for the 2005-2007 quotas of 3.4 million bushels (181 million L). This quota represents the maximum allowable quota under the FMP.
The 2005-2007 quotas for ocean quahogs, which reflect a 20-percent increase above status quo, are based on results from the 2004 assessment conducted by the 38th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW 38) for ocean quahogs, held in January 2004. The assessment for ocean quahogs found that the current biomass is high, and the resource surveyed from southern New England to southern Virginia is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring as of the 2002 fishing year. As a result, the Council concluded that an increase in the quota is warranted. An additional reason for the recommended increase in
The Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog quotas are specified in standard bushels of 53.24 L per bushel, while the Maine mahogany ocean quahog quota is specified in “Maine” bushels of 35.24 L per bushel. Because Maine ocean quahogs are the same species as ocean quahogs, both fisheries are assessed under the same ocean quahog overfishing definition. When the two quota amounts (ocean quahog and Maine ocean quahog) are added, the total allowable harvest is still lower than the level that would result in overfishing for the entire stock.
This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Council prepared an IRFA in section 8.0 of the RIR that describes the economic impacts this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, the objectives and the legal basis for this action are contained in the
In 2003, a total of 50 vessels reported harvesting surfclams or ocean quahogs from Federal waters under an Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) system. Average 2003 gross income for surfclam harvesters was $1,089,417 per vessel, and $865,204 per vessel for ocean quahog harvesters. In the small artisanal fishery for ocean quahogs in Maine, 35 vessels reported harvests in the clam logbooks, with an average value of $139,890 per vessel. All of these vessels fall within the definition of a small entity. The proposed rule would maintain the 2004 status quo level for the surfclam quota, increase the ocean quahog quota by 20 percent over three years, and maintain the 2004 status quo level for the Maine ocean quahog quota. The direct impacts of any quota adjustment would be felt by the entities holding surfclam and/or ocean quahog quota allocations. The actual number of individuals or businesses holding the quota allocations will be lower than indicated below since each holder will often maintain multiple allocations. The analysis of alternatives for each fishery contains a “no action” alternative as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. The “no action” alternatives would allow unlimited harvests from the surfclam, ocean quahog, and Maine ocean quahog resources, and would be in violation of National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act, thus these alternatives are not discussed here as reasonable alternatives.
The Council identified three surfclam quota alternatives in addition to the “no-action” alternative. The preferred alternative of 3.400 million bu (181 million L) for 2005-2007, an alternative with 45.6 percent decrease to 1.85 million bu (98.49 million L), and an alternative with a 4.4 percent decrease to 3.25 million bu (173.02 million L) were analyzed. The minimum allowable quota specified in the current OY range is 1.850 million bu (98.5 million L) of surfclams. A 45.6 percent reduction in quota of would have a substantially negative impact on overall ex-vessel revenues equaling a $215,363 decrease per allocation. Adoption of the 4.4 percent decrease in quota would represent a $20,781 reduction per allocation. However, given the current biological status of the surfclam resource, the Council does not believe that a quota reduction is warranted at this time. In summation, the Council determined that the 45.6 percent reduction would significantly negatively impact revenues and a smaller 4.4 percent reduction is not warranted as the stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. The preferred alternative is the 2004 status quo, thus it would have no impact on revenues.
The Council analyzed four ocean quahog quota alternatives in addition to the “no-action” alternative. The preferred alternative of a 20 percent increase over three years, an alternative with a 20 percent (1.0 million bu (53.25 million L)) decrease, an alternative with the 2004 status quo of 5.0 million bushels (266.18 million L), and an alternative with a 20 percent (1.0 million bu (53.24 million L)) increase in one year were analyzed. The minimum allowable quota specified in the current OY range is 4.000 million bu (212.94 million L) of ocean quahogs. Adoption of a 4.0 million bu (212.94 million L) quota would represent a 20 percent decrease from the current quota. This alternative would take the most conservative approach to managing the fishery that is currently available to the Council, but would result in the fewest economic benefits available to the ocean quahog fishery. Given the current biological status of the quahog resource, the Council concluded that a quota reduction is not warranted. Adoption of the 2004 status quo quota would have no impact on revenues for small entities. A 20 percent increase in quota in the first year would move directly to the maximum quota allowed in the FMP, and, if fully utilized would equate to a $102,180 increase per allocation. However, the Council was concerned that the industry does not currently have a market available to absorb a large increase in landings that quickly. Additionally, due to uncertainty in the recent stock assessment the Council is recommending a gradual increase, with annual reviews to confirm its appropriateness. Although two alternatives would allow for increased revenues, the Council recommends a gradual 20 percent increase over three years, rather than the 20 percent increase in the first year.
The quota for Maine mahogany ocean quahogs is specified at a maximum 100,000 bu (35,240 hL). The FMP specifies that upward adjustments to the quota would require a scientific survey and stock assessment of the Maine mahogany ocean quahog resource. However, no survey or assessment has been conducted. The Council considered two alternative quotas for the Maine mahogany ocean quahog fishery, in addition to the preferred alternative of 100,000 Maine bushels (35,240 hL), including 50,000 Maine bushels and 92,500 Maine bushels (17,620 and 32,596 hL). Any quota the Council would have recommended below the 1999 landing level of 93,938 Maine bu (33,104 hL) would have resulted in a decrease in revenues to individual vessels.
In 2003, there were 9 processors that participated in the surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries, plus 10 companies that bought ocean quahogs directly from vessels from within the State of Maine. Of the nine processors, approximately six are responsible for the vast majority of purchases in the ex-vessel market and sale of processed clam products in appropriate wholesale markets. Impacts to surfclam and ocean quahog processors would most likely mirror the impacts of the various quotas to vessels as discussed above. Revenues earned by processors would be derived from the wholesale market for clam products, and since a large number of substitute products (i.e., other food products) are available, the demand for processed clam products is likely to be price-dependent.
As of September 2004, surfclam allocation holders totaled 82, while 56 firms or individuals held ocean quahog allocation. If the recommended quotas are accepted, i.e., status quo for surfclams, a 20 percent increase over three years for ocean quahogs, and no change from the 2003 quota for Maine mahogany ocean quahogs, it is likely that impacts to allocation holders or buyers would be minimal. Theoretically, increases in quota would most likely benefit those who purchase quota (through lower prices (values)) and negatively impact sellers of quota because of reduction in value. Decreases in quota would most likely have an opposite effect.
This proposed rule would not impose any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. Therefore, the costs of compliance would remain unchanged.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
2. In § 648.70, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) Each fishing year, the Regional Administrator shall determine the initial allocation of surfclams and ocean quahogs for the next fishing year for each allocation holder owning an allocation pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section. For each species, the initial allocation for the next fishing year is calculated by multiplying the allocation percentage owned by each allocation owner as of the last day of the previous fishing year in which allocation owners are permitted to permanently transfer allocation percentage pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section (i.e., October 15 of every year), by the quota specified by the Regional Administrator pursuant to § 648.71. The total number of bushels of allocation shall be divided by 32 to determine the appropriate number of cage tags to be issued or acquired under § 648.75. Amounts of allocation 0.5 or smaller created by this division shall be rounded downward to the nearest whole number, and amounts of allocation greater than 0.5 created by this division shall be rounded upward to the nearest whole number, so that allocations are specified in whole cages. These allocations shall be made in the form of an allocation permit specifying the allocation percentage and the allocation in bushels and cage tags for each species. An allocation permit is only valid for the entity for which it is issued. Such permits shall be issued on or before December 15, to allow allocation owners to purchase cage tags from a vendor specified by the Regional Administrator pursuant to § 648.75(b).
3. In § 648.71, paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(2) are revised as follows:
(a)
(2)
4. In § 648.73, paragraph (a)(1) is revised as follows:
(a) * * *
(1)
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of availability and intent.
Notice is hereby given that U.S. Patent Numbers 6,475,527, issued on November 5, 2002 and 6,761,911, issued on July 13, 2004, both entitled “Use of chlorate ion or preparations thereof for reduction of food borne pathogens”, are available for licensing and that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Eka Chemicals, Inc. of Marietta, Georgia, an exclusive license to these patents.
Comments must be received within ninety (90) calendar days of the date of publication of this Notice in the
Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Room 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.
June Blalock of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: (301) 504-5989.
The Federal Government's patent rights to these patents are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license these patents as Eka Chemicals, Inc. of Marietta, Georgia has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within ninety (90) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement and proposed scope of study; reopening of comment period.
We are reopening the comment period for our notice that advises the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service intends to prepare an environmental impact statement as part of its consideration of a petition received from Monsanto Company and The Scotts Company for a determination of nonregulated status for a glyphosate-tolerant creeping bentgrass (
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before December 2, 2004.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. 03-101-2, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 03-101-2.
• E-mail: Address your comment to
• Agency Web site: Go to
Dr. Susan M. Koehler, BRS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238; (301) 734-4886.
On April 14, 2003 APHIS received a petition (APHIS Petition No. 03-104-01p) from Monsanto Company (St. Louis, MO) and The Scotts Company (Gervais, OR) (Monsanto/Scotts), requesting deregulation of a creeping bentgrass (
In a notice published in the
On September 24, 2004, APHIS published in the
Pursuant to the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality in 40 CFR 1501.4(d), APHIS has initiated the scoping process as mandated by National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
APHIS has also decided to hold a public meeting to encourage additional public participation in the EIS scoping process. The date and location of the public meeting will be announced on the APHIS Web site (
Comments that provide information relevant to the scope identified in the September 24, 2004,
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) today accepted petitions filed by the Louisiana Shrimp Association, P.O. Box 1088, Grand Isle, Louisiana 70358, for trade adjustment assistance. The association represents shrimpers in the state of Louisiana. The Administrator will determine within 40 days whether or not imports of shrimp and prawns contributed importantly to a decline in domestic producer prices of 20 percent or more during the marketing period beginning January 2003 and ending December 2003. If the determination is positive, all shrimpers who land and market their shrimp in Louisiana will be eligible to apply to the Farm Service Agency for technical assistance at no cost and for adjustment assistance payments.
Jean-Louis Pajot, Coordinator, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers, FAS, USDA, (202) 720-2916, e-mail:
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), re-certified the trade adjustment assistance (TAA) petition that was filed by the South Carolina Shrimpers' Association and the South Carolina Growers Association on behalf of shrimpers and shrimp farmers. The petition was initially certified on November 10, 2003. Shrimpers and shrimp farmers who market their catch in South Carolina will be eligible to apply for fiscal year 2005 benefits during a 90-day period beginning on November 29, 2004. The application period closes on February 28, 2005.
Upon investigation, the Administrator determined that continued increases in imports of like or directly competitive products contributed importantly to a decline in the average landed price of shrimp in South Carolina by 40.9 percent during the 2003 marketing period (January-December 2003), compared to the 1997-2001 base period. Eligible producers may request technical assistance from the Extension Service at no cost and receive an adjustment assistance payment, if certain program criteria are satisfied. Producers in fiscal year 2005 who did not receive technical assistance under the fiscal year 2004 TAA program must obtain the technical assistance from the Extension Service by May 31, 2005, in order to be eligible for financial payments.
Producers of raw agricultural commodities wishing to learn more about TAA and how they may apply should contact the Department of Agriculture at the addresses provided below for General Information.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Tehama County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Red Bluff, California. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Introductions, (2) Approval of Minutes, (3) Public Comment, (4) Selection of New Chairman, (5) New Members Welcome, (6) Review of Walk in the Woods Project, (7) General Discussion, (8) Next Agenda.
The meeting will be held on December 9, 2004 from 9 a.m. and end at approximately 12 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Lincoln Street School, Conference Room A, 1135 Lincoln Street, Red Bluff, CA. Individuals wishing to speak or propose agenda items must send their names and proposals to Jim Giachino, DFO, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988.
Bobbin Gaddini, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, P.O. Box 164, Elk Creek, CA 95939. (530) 968-5329; e-mail
The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by December 5, 2004 will have the opportunity to address the committee at those sessions.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, Commerce.
Notice of intent to evaluate.
The NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) announces its intent to evaluate the performance of the San Francisco (California) Bay Conservation and Development Commission Coastal Management Program; the Louisiana Coastal Management Program; the North Inlet/Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, South Carolina; and the Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve, California.
The Coastal Zone Management Program evaluations will be conducted pursuant to section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, (CZMA) and regulations at 15 CFR Part 923, Subpart L. The National Estuarine Research Reserve evaluations will be conducted pursuant to sections 312 and 315 of the CZMA and regulations at 15 CFR Part 921, Subpart E and Part 923, Subpart L.
The CZMA requires continuing review of the performance of states with respect to coastal program implementation. Evaluation of Coastal Zone Management Programs and National Estuarine Research Reserves requires findings concerning the extent to which a state has met the national objectives, adhered to its Coastal Management Program document or Reserve final management plan approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance awards funded under the CZMA.
The evaluations will include a site visit, consideration of public comments, and consultations with interested Federal, state and local agencies and members of the public. Public meetings will be held as part of the site visits.
Notice is hereby given of the dates of the site visits for the listed evaluations and the dates, local times, and locations of the public meetings during the site visits.
The San Francisco (California) Bay Conservation and Development Commission Coastal Management Program evaluation site visit will be held February 7-11, 2005. One public meeting will be held during the week. The public meeting will be on Wednesday, February 9, 2005, at 7 p.m., at the Bay Conservation and Development Commission offices, McAteer-Petris Conference Room, 26th Floor, 50 California Street, San Francisco, California.
The Louisiana Coastal Management Program evaluation site visit will be held March 21-25, 2005. One public meeting will be held during the week. The public meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 23, 2005, at 7 p.m., at the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Griffon Room, LaSalle Building, 617 North Third Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
The North Inlet/Winyah Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, South Carolina, evaluation site visit will be held January 31-February 4, 2005. One public meeting will be held during the week. The public meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 1, 2005, at 5:30 p.m. at the Kimbel Lodge at Hobcaw Barony, Highway 17 North, Georgetown, South Carolina.
The Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve, California, evaluation site visit will be held March 21-25, 2005. One public meeting will be held during the week. The public meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 23, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. at the Elkhorn Slough Reserve Visitors' Center, 1700 Elkhorn Road, Watsonville, California.
Copies of states' most recent performance reports, as well as OCRM's notifications and supplemental request letters to the state, are available upon request from OCRM. Written comments from interested parties regarding these Programs are encouraged and will be accepted until 15 days after the last public meeting held for that Program. Please direct written comments to Ralph Cantral, Chief, National Policy and Evaluation Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 10th Floor, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. When the evaluations are completed, OCRM will place a notice in the
Ralph Cantral, Chief, National Policy and Evaluation Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 10th Floor, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, (301) 713-3155, extension 118.
National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice and request for applications.
The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS) is seeking applicants for the following vacant seats on its Sanctuary Advisory Council (Council): Research alternate, Recreation (non-consumptive), Recreation (non-consumptive) alternate, Public At-Large, Public At-Large alternate, Business, Conservation, and Commercial Fishing. Applicants are chosen based upon their particular expertise and experience in relation to the seat for which they are applying; community and professional affiliations; philosophy regarding the protection and management of marine resources; and possibly the length of residence in the area affected by the Sanctuary. Applicants who are chosen as members should expect to serve 2-year terms, pursuant to the Council's Charter.
Applications are due by December 4, 2004.
Application kits may be obtained from Jacklyn Kelly, Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, 113 Harbor Way, Suite 150, Santa Barbara, CA 93109-2315. Completed applications should be sent to the same address.
Jacklyn Kelly, Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, 113 Harbor Way, Suite 150, Santa Barbara, CA 93109-2315, 805-966-7107, extension 371,
The CINMS Advisory Council was originally established in December 1998 and has a broad representation consisting of 21 members, including ten government agency representatives and eleven members from the general public. The Council functions in an advisory capacity to the Sanctuary Manager. The Council works in concert with the Sanctuary Manager by keeping him or her informed about issues of concern throughout the Sanctuary, offering recommendations on specific issues, and aiding the Manager in achieving the goals of the Sanctuary program. Specifically, the Council's objectives are to provide advice on: (1) Protecting natural and cultural resources, and identifying and evaluating emergent or critical issues involving Sanctuary use or resources; (2) identifying and realizing the Sanctuary's research objectives; (3) identifying and realizing educational opportunities to increase the public knowledge and stewardship of the Sanctuary environment; and (4) assisting to develop an informed constituency to increase awareness and understanding of the purpose and value of the Sanctuary and the National Marine Sanctuary Program.
16 U.S.C. 1431,
National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice and request for applications.
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS or Sanctuary) is seeking applicants for the following vacant seats on its Sanctuary Advisory Council (Council): Maritime Heritage; South Florida Ecosystem Restoration; South Florida Ecosystem Restoration (alternate); Citizen-at-Large, Upper Keys (alternate); Commercial fishing, Marine/Tropical (alternate); Charter Fishing, Sports (alternate) and Conservation & Environment (2). Applicants are chosen based upon their particular expertise and experience in relation to the seat for which they are applying; community and professional affiliations; philosophy regarding the protection and management of marine resources; and the length of residence in the area affected by the Sanctuary. The Conservation & Environment seat has the additional requirement that the applicants are employed by accredited non-profit organizations and live in Monroe County or Dade County. Applicants who are chosen as members should expect to serve 3-year terms, pursuant to the Council's Charter.
Applications are due by December 3, 2004.
Application kits may be obtained from Fiona Wilmot, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, P.O. Box 500368, Marathon, FL 33050. Completed applications should be sent to the same address.
Fiona Wilmot at the above address or (305) 743-2437, ext. 27 or
The Council provides information for Sanctuary Managers on a wide variety of issues. The 20 member Council of stakeholders reflects the larger community from which it is drawn and meets bimonthly. Smaller working groups meet as necessary on specific topics.
16 U.S.C. 1431,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement; notice of public meetings; and request for scoping comments.
NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS), U.S. Department of the Interior, for regulations to authorize the take, by harassment, of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to seismic surveys during oil and gas exploration activities by the U.S. oil and
Written comments and information must be received no later than December 22, 2004. Two public scoping meetings are scheduled as follows:
1. December 3, 2004, 9 a.m. - approximately 12 noon, New Orleans, LA.
2. December 16, 2004, 9 a.m. - approximately 12 noon, Silver Spring, MD.
The public scoping meetings will be held at the following locations:
1. New Orleans: Location to be determined. This meeting will be held on the day following the Marine Mammal Commission's (MMC) Fourth Plenary Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals. The scoping meeting location will be provided during the MMC meeting.
2. Silver Spring: Silver Spring Metro Center, NOAA Science Center, 1301 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Submit written comments to Steve Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is
Kenneth R. Hollingshead, NMFS, 301-713-2289, ext 128.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361
Permission may be granted for periods of 5 years or less if the Secretary finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and regulations are prescribed setting forth the permissible methods of taking, other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stocks, and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.
On December 20, 2002, MMS petitioned NMFS for rulemaking under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA to authorize any potential “take,” by “harassment,” of sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) incidental to conducting seismic surveys during oil and gas exploration activities in the GOM. “Take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill. Except for certain activities not pertinent here, “harassment” means
any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
NMFS published a notice of receipt of the MMS application on March 3, 2003 (68 FR 9991). MMS submitted a revised petition to include the incidental take of other species of marine mammals, such as the Bryde's whale, several species of dolphins and beaked whales on September 26, 2004. On July 30, 2004, MMS completed its Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment (Final PEA) on this action and made that document available to the public at
The comment period on the NMFS' notice of receipt of the MMS application was extended until April 16, 2003 (see 68 FR 16262, April 3, 2003). During the public comment period, NMFS received comments recommending preparation of a Draft EIS under NEPA on this action. NMFS has considered this request and determined that it will prepare an EIS for its proposed rulemaking governing authorizations to take marine mammals incidental to oil and gas seismic surveys in the GOM. This decision is based on a combination of factors: (1) public concern over impacts of oil and gas exploration activities on the marine environment, which includes marine mammals; (2) proposed use of computer modeling as one of two methods for calculating incidental take levels for marine mammals and sea turtles for a geographic area where multiple seismic sources may be operating simultaneously; (3) incorporation of a scientifically-based risk assessment for marine mammals; (4) possible use of energy criteria rather than the current pressure criteria to calculate marine mammal take levels, especially to calculate potential multiple exposures; and (5) incorporation of new acoustic guidelines for assessing impacts of sound on marine mammals.
Marine geophysical seismic surveys are conducted to obtain information on surface and near-surface geology (high-resolution surveys) and on subsurface structures and formations (seismic surveys and vertical seismic profile (VSP) surveys).
Typical seismic surveying operations tow an array of airguns (the seismic sound source) and a streamer (signal receiver cable) behind the vessel, 5-10 m (16.4-32.8 ft) below the sea surface. The airgun array produces a burst of underwater sound by releasing compressed air into the water column that creates an acoustic energy pulse. The release of compressed air every several seconds creates a regular series of strong acoustic impulses separated by silent periods lasting 7-16 seconds, depending on survey type and depth to the target formations. Airgun arrays are designed to focus the sound energy downward. Acoustic signals are reflected off the subsurface sedimentary layers and recorded near the water surface by hydrophones spaced within the streamer cables. Some surveys employ ocean-bottom seismometers as the receiving instrument. Vessel speed is typically 4.5-6 knots (about 4-8 mph) with gear deployed.
Three-Dimensional (3-D) seismic surveying enables a more accurate assessment of potential hydrocarbon reservoirs to optimally locate exploration and development wells, and minimize the number of wells required to develop a field. State-of-the-art interactive computer mapping systems can handle much denser data coverage than older 2-D seismic surveys. Multiple-source and multiple-streamer technologies are used for 3-D seismic surveys. A typical 3-D survey might employ a dual array of 18 guns per array. Each array might emit a 3,000 cubic-inch burst of compressed air at 2,000 kilojoule (kJ) of acoustic energy for each burst. The hydrophone
For management purposes MMS has divided the Northern GOM into three planning areas: Eastern, Central and Western. In general, Federal waters offshore Florida and Alabama are in the Eastern Planning Area, Federal waters offshore Mississippi and Louisiana are in the Central Planning Area, and Federal waters offshore Texas are in the Western Planning Area. For seismic exploration, about 1300 blocks in the Western and Central Planning Areas have not yet been surveyed with 3-D seismic techniques (R. Brinkman, MMS GOM Region, pers comm, 2004). It is assumed that a lower level of new seismic survey activity will occur in the Eastern Planning Area relative to the other two areas (i.e. the vast majority of survey activities are expected in the Central and Western Planning Areas). Industry interest in the Eastern GOM has historically been limited to the westernmost portions of the planning area and is usually defined by MMS' 5-Year Leasing Plan (MMS, 2002).
The Federal waters of the GOM are inhabited by a diverse assemblage of marine mammal species. When seismic surveys are conducted acoustic energy is introduced into Gulf waters that may adversely impact marine mammals in the vicinity of the activity. The potential adverse impacts to marine mammals are detailed in MMS' 2004 Final PEA. In general, loud underwater noise has the potential to harass, injure, and possibly cause the mortality of marine mammals. While the serious injury or mortality of marine mammals is believed to be unlikely, especially due to the implementation of mitigation measures to protect marine mammals (see Mitigation), NMFS' Draft EIS will investigate and discuss the potential for injury and mortality.
MMS is seeking regulations under the MMPA governing the possible harassment and non-serious injury of several species of marine mammals in the GOM as a result of seismic surveys as described in MMS (2004). The MMPA regulations are requested by MMS on the behalf of the offshore oil and gas industry and seismic contractors operating within the GOM. NMFS expects that seismic vessel owners will obtain Letters of Authorization, in accordance with 50 CFR 216.106, to incidentally take marine mammals under the requested regulations.
The effects of sounds from airgun arrays might include one or more of the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral disturbance and perhaps temporary or permanent hearing impairment (Richardson
Using sperm whales as an example, this species spends large amounts of time at depth and uses low frequency sound to communicate and navigate. Therefore, sperm whales are considered to be sensitive to the marine acoustic environment and may respond to sound emissions in many ways. Reactions to acoustic emissions may include, but are not limited to, cessation of vocalizations, disruption of feeding and dive behaviors, physical avoidance of noisy areas and temporary or permanent hearing impairment if the noise is strong enough and/or if the animal is in close proximity to the sound source. Such impairment could have the potential to diminish the individual's chance for survival or potential for reproduction. Tolerance of noise is often demonstrated, but this does not necessarily mean that the animals are unaffected by noise. Also, adverse levels of noise might interrupt or decrease feeding activity, social interactions, or parenting. Responses to seismic activity causing adverse effects to individuals and cow/calf pairs, reproduction, feeding, or causing temporary or permanent threshold shifts in hearing may negatively impact GOM marine mammal stocks if the disruptions are extended. There are no documented data on auditory-induced physical effects of underwater seismic noise on sperm whales or other marine mammals. There is observational evidence that sperm whales may be temporarily displaced away from areas where seismic operations are underway. MMS believes that sperm whales are not being significantly displaced from the northern GOM due to seismic surveys. NMFS notes, however, that no data have been provided to support this statement. At this time it is unknown whether sperm whale site fidelity in the GOM reflects low sensitivity to seismic noise or a high motivation to remain in the area in spite of this noise. Details of seismic noise and its potential impact on marine mammals have been described in MMS (2004) and will be addressed in the NMFS Draft EIS.
In the absence of species-specific data on auditory impacts for marine mammals, a received sound pressure level of 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) or greater has been used by NMFS as a threshold for concern about temporary and/or permanent hearing impairment (Level A Harassment). This criterion, which will be included in the Draft EIS analysis, was developed as a result of public workshops held in 1998 (HESS, 1999) and 1999 (NMFS, 1999). However, this criterion does not consider the frequency component, nature of the sound source, the hearing sensitivities of different cetacean species and other relevant factors. NMFS expects that the Draft EIS will employ the latest scientific information to estimate Level A Harassment impacts on marine mammals in the GOM.
A spreading loss equation of 20 log R is recommended by Richardson
For larger 2-D and 3-D towed arrays with estimated source levels of 257 dB re 1 μPa rms, a 500-m (1640-ft) impact zone equates to an estimated received level of approximately 232 dB. According to NMFS (2002a), at source levels of 257 dB (rms), the 20 log(R) model and associated calculation above produce received levels of 203 dB re 1
In the absence of scientific, species-specific information for marine mammals in the GOM, a received sound pressure level of 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) has been used by NMFS as the threshold indicator of potential concern about disturbance of marine mammals in the wild through disruption of behavioral patterns, including but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B Harassment). Using spherical spreading (15 log(R)), subtracting 20 dB for the array effect, and 10 dB for zero-to-peak to RMS conversion, the 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) isopleth in surface and near-surface waters occurs at about 6.3 km (3.4 nm) from the seismic airgun source. Similarly, the 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) isopleth below the seismic source is calculated to extend to the sea floor. MMS (2004) calculates the 160-dB isopleth level at 3000 m (1.6 nm) based on the 20 log R model for a 4550 in
These discrepancies between dB calculations and measurements for deep and shallow water and for surface and sub-surface waters indicate a need for better data to effectively formulate models that can be used to calculate impact zones for marine mammals. Therefore, NMFS plans to include in its Draft EIS empirical information on airgun array sizes used in the GOM and actual propagation measurements made in the GOM. NMFS believes this information is vital in order to estimate impacts on marine mammals and sea turtles and for appropriate impact assessment modeling.
The environmental review of the MMS MMPA application will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of NEPA, NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) and other appropriate Federal laws and regulations, and the NMFS policies and procedures for compliance with those regulations (NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 -Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, May 20, 1999).
A preliminary list of the primary issues that NMFS will discuss in the EIS is provided here. Additional issues may be identified at the public scoping meetings and in written comments.
• marine mammals-effects of seismic noise on all species;
• other biological resources- effects of seismic noise on sea turtles, fish, coastal and marine birds, benthic communities, plankton;
• commercial and recreational fisheries;
• cumulative effects on marine mammals from military activities and commercial shipping in the GOM.
NMFS will explore and evaluate a full range of reasonable alternatives in the EIS, including the proposed action and the no-action alternative. The proposed action will be to authorize, through rulemaking and subsequent Letters of Authorization, the incidental taking of marine mammals by oil and gas seismic vessels conducting seismic surveys in state and Federal waters of the GOM. The proposed action will also include mitigation measures such as biological observers on all seismic vessels in all operating areas, gradual ramp-up of the airgun arrays, monitoring established safety zones, and power-down/shut-down procedures to protect marine mammals that are in or approaching the established safety zone.
Alternatives in the EIS will address a suite of other mitigation and monitoring measures, including: (1) requiring biological observers only on seismic vessels operating in waters deeper than 200 m (656 ft); (2) requiring a vessel-based passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) system with trained biological technicians or biologists; (3) use of PAM only in water depths greater than 200 m (656 ft), principally on the continental slope offshore of the Mississippi River mouth and extending east to the DeSoto Canyon area in the Eastern Planning Area; (4) use of vessel-based passive and active acoustic monitoring; (5) use of PAM and active acoustic monitoring only in water depths greater than 200 m (656 ft) principally in continental slope offshore of the Mississippi River mouth and extending east to the DeSoto Canyon area in the Eastern Planning Area; (6) time/area closures to protect marine mammals; and (7) use of aircraft or support vessels for marine mammal monitoring.
In response to NMFS questions regarding the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods and manner of conducting oil and gas seismic surveys to effect the least practicable adverse impact on potentially affected marine mammals, MMS responded that current mitigation measures for the oil and gas seismic industry in the GOM include: ramp-up, visual monitoring, establishment of an impact zone (currently 500 m (1,640-ft) around the sound source), and mandatory “shut-down” to avoid injury to marine mammals in or about to enter the impact zone. Ramp-up, or soft start, requires seismic operators to start firing the acoustic array with one gun and gradually over time add more guns until the array is fully operational. Theoretically, this allows whales in the area that can hear the low-frequency sounds from the array to move away from the sound source before discomfort or injury might result. Visual observers monitor the area around the sound source for 30 minutes prior to ramp-up and throughout seismic operations. Any time a marine mammal enters or surfaces within 500 m (1,640 ft) of the sound source, seismic operations immediately cease in order to minimize the exposure of the whales or dolphins to potentially damaging sound levels. In addition to these mitigation measures, the Draft EIS will discuss the use of PAM and active acoustic monitoring, certain time/area closures to protect marine mammals, and the use of aircraft or support vessels for marine mammal monitoring.
Currently, monitoring and reporting requirements for the offshore seismic industry are set forth by MMS in MMS NTL No. 2004-G01. This will be one of the alternatives in the Draft EIS. MMS intends to continue this monitoring program until a revised monitoring program is developed during the NEPA, MMPA and Endangered Species Act reviews.
Visual observers must monitor waters (with the assistance of binoculars) for marine mammals within and adjacent to the exclusion zone for 30 minutes prior to initiating the airgun ramp-up procedures. Observers must monitor the exclusion zone and adjacent waters during seismic operations, unless atmospheric conditions reduce visibility to zero or during hours of darkness (i.e.,
NMFS requests public comments on the range of alternatives and the scope of issues that should be considered in the EIS. NMFS recommends participants review the MMS PEA prior to submitting comments.
At the public scoping meeting a brief presentation may precede a request for public information and comments. Those who intend to submit verbal comments will be asked to submit a speaker card (available at the meeting). Depending on how many cards NMFS receives, speakers may be required to limit their verbal comments to a specified period of time so that all persons wishing to comment may have an equal opportunity to do so. NMFS encourages members of the public who provide verbal comments to also submit them in writing, along with any associated graphics, so as to ensure accuracy. All comments, written or verbal, will become part of the public record on this matter.
The public scoping meetings will be accessible to persons with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ken Hollingshead (see
Information and questions regarding the proposed action and/or scoping may be obtained by writing to the person listed herein (see
Additional opportunities for public review and comment will be provided when the draft EIS is completed. A notice of availability will be published in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Habitat/Marine Protected Areas/Ecosystem Oversight Committee in December, 2004. Recommendations from the committee will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
The meeting will held on Thursday, December 2, 2004 at 9:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Harborside Portsmouth Hotel, 250 Market Street, Portsmouth, NH 03801; telephone: (603) 431-2300.
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Committee will continue to work on elements of the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Omnibus Amendment 2 including, but not limited to; progress on dedicated habitat research areas, EFH species reports, EFH designation working group, strategy for prioritizing protection of EFH, and non-fishing impacts workshop. The Committee will discuss the ecosystems pilot project work plan and the potential application of the proposed habitat closed areas in Lydonia and Oceanographer canyons to other fisheries. They will also develop comments contributing to a Council response to the Cape Wind Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Other topics may be discussed at the Committee's discretion.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of meetings of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council Gulf Rationalization Community Committee.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Gulf Rationalization Community Committee will meet at the Captain Cook Hotel.
The Gulf Rationalization Community Committee will be held December 3, 2004, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
Captain Cook Hotel, Voyager Room, 4 and K Street, Anchorage, AK.
Nicole Kimball, Council staff, Phone: 907-271-2809.
The Council tasked the committee with considering several specific design and implementation issues related to each program, including: the community eligibility criteria, determining who represents the community, determining
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this notice may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at 907-271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notification of a proposal for permits to conduct experimental fishing; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Northeast Region, NMFS (Assistant Regional Administrator) has made a preliminary determination that the subject Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) application contains all the required information and warrants further consideration. The Assistant Regional Administrator has also made a preliminary determination that the activities authorized under the EFP would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to issue the EFP. Therefore, NMFS announces that the Assistant Regional Administrator proposes to recommend that an EFP be issued that would allow one commercial fishing vessel to conduct fishing operations that are otherwise restricted by the regulations governing the fisheries of the Northeastern United States. The EFP would allow for exemptions from the FMP as follows: The Gulf of Maine (GOM) Rolling Closure Areas, the minimum mesh size for trawl gear, the Days-at-Sea (DAS) notification requirements, and the effort-control program (DAS). Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs.
Comments must be received on or before December 3, 2004.
Written comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on the GOM Rope Separator Trawl Study.” Comments may also be sent via fax to (978) 281-9135, or submitted via e-mail to the following address:
Karen Tasker, Fishery Management Specialist, phone 978-281-9273.
An application for an EFP was submitted on September 22, 2004, by Dr. Pingguo He of the University of New Hampshire (UNH) for a Cooperative Research Partnership Initiative contract project. The primary goal of the research is to design and test a rope separator trawl that targets haddock and pollock while releasing cod and flounder in inshore western GOM waters. The intent of the researchers is that the experimental net, if successful, could be suitable for fishing using B DAS in the future.
The project, which is anticipated to be 18 months in duration, would include flume tank trials and 12 days of at-sea trials during the first year of the project. At-sea trials would consist of three to four 1-hour tows per sea day. Additionally, researchers would use remote underwater video observation and acoustic gear geometry monitoring to assess the success of the net during at-sea trials. The design of the net would consist of a rope separator in place of the more common netting separator in order to simplify design and rigging; a large bottom escape area for cod, flatfishes, and benthos; and a raised fishing line running through long drop chains to further allow benthic species to escape. Researchers have requested a small mesh exemption to allow for the use of a second codend or a small-mesh cover to collect fish released from the trawl to assess the effectiveness of the separator trawl.
All specimens caught would be sampled and measured. All undersized fish would be returned to the sea as quickly as practical after measurement and examination. The overall fishing mortality is estimated to be 30 percent of the average commercial fishing mortality that would result from the proposed number of DAS. The researcher anticipates that a total of 6,249 lb (2,834.5 kg) of fish, including 1,550 lb (703.1 kg) of cod, will be harvested throughout the course of the study. Other species that are anticipated to be caught are haddock, dab, yellowtail flounder, winter flounder, grey sole, white hake, and pollock. All legal-sized fish, within the possession limit, will be sold, with the proceeds returned to the project for the purposes of future enhancing research.
The first year of the study would take place from May 1, 2005, to April 30, 2006. All at-sea research will be conducted from one fishing vessel. The trials would occur between 43°20′ and 42°30′ N. lat. and west of 70°15′ W. long., excluding the Western GOM Closure Area. Researchers have asked for an exemption to the regulations establishing the Western GOM Rolling Closure Areas because they believe that an optimum mixture of haddock and cod for testing the experimental gear will be present in the waters of the Western GOM during May and June. Because the aim of the project is to separate haddock and cod before the fish are brought onboard, an exemption from the Western GOM Rolling Closures is important to the success of the study. An exemption from DAS is requested since a commercial DAS level of effort will not likely be realized due to the additional time necessary to weigh, measure, and sort the catch, and to adjust underwater video and acoustic monitoring systems.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Application for scientific research permit 1511.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received a scientific research permit application relating to Pacific salmon. The proposed research is intended to increase knowledge of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to help guide management and conservation efforts.
Comments or requests for a public hearing on the application must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
Written comments on the application should be sent to Protected Resources Division, NMFS, F/NWO3, 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232-2737. Comments may also be sent via fax to 503-230-5435 or by e-mail to
Garth Griffin, Portland, OR (ph.: 503-231-2005, Fax: 503-230-5435, e-mail:
The following listed species (evolutionarily significant unit) is covered in this notice:
Coho salmon (
Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) is requesting a 5-year research permit to annually take adult and juvenile SONCC coho salmon in various streams in Southwest Oregon. The purposes of the project are to conduct fish presence and absence surveys and to rescue or salvage fish stranded during instream work projects. The work would benefit listed fish in two ways. Presence and absence surveys conducted before beginning instream work projects provide baseline information useful for determining project effects. Rescue and salvage operations increase fish survival in project areas. The ODFW intends to use electrofishing equipment to capture the fish. Most of the fish would be immediately released, but some may be transported short distances away from instream work areas. The ODFW does not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small percentage may die as an unintended result of the research.
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
NMFS reviewed the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific regional marine mammal stock assessment reports (SARs) in accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). After a review of SARs and new information on the status of marine mammals, NMFS determined that marine mammal stocks in the Alaska and Atlantic regions did not change status or the status could not be determined more accurately. SARs for marine mammals in these two regions were not revised. SARs for marine mammals in the Pacific region were revised according to new information. NMFS also proposes changes to the guidelines for preparing SARs. NMFS solicits public comments on draft 2004 Pacific reports and on proposed changes to the guidelines for preparing SARs.
Comments must be received by February 16, 2005.
Send comments or requests for copies of reports to: Chief, Marine Mammal Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226, Attn: Stock Assessments. Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to 301-427-2580 or via email to mmsar.2004@noaa.gov. Copies of the Pacific Regional SARs may be requested from Cathy Campbell, Southwest Regional Office, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213.
Tom Eagle, Office of Protected Resources, 301-713-2322, ext. 105, e-mail Tom.Eagle@noaa.gov or Cathy Campbell, 562-280-4060, e-mail Cathy.E.Campbell@noaa.gov.
All draft stock assessment reports and the proposed revisions to the guidelines for preparing them are available via the Internet at
Section 117 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361
The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information is available, and at least once every 3 years for non-strategic stocks. NMFS and the FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined. NMFS, in conjunction with the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific Scientific Review Groups (SRGs), reviewed the status of marine mammal stocks as required and revised reports in the Pacific region. NMFS solicits public comments on the draft 2004 Pacific SARs.
The SARs in the Alaska and Atlantic regions were reviewed along with new information on these stocks of marine mammals. Although new abundance or mortality estimates were available for some stocks in these regions, the status of no stocks in these regions would be changed. Furthermore, NMFS could not determine the status of marine mammal stocks in the Alaska or Atlantic regions with substantially improved accuracy. Therefore, the reports in these two regions were not revised.
NMFS convened a workshop in June 1994, including representatives from NMFS, FWS, and the Marine Mammal Commission, to prepare draft guidelines for preparing SARs. The report of this workshop (Barlow et al., 1995) included the guidelines for preparing SARs and a summary of the discussions upon which the guidelines were based. The draft guidelines were made available, along with the initial draft SARs, for public review and comment (59 FR 40527, August 9, 1995).
In 1996, NMFS convened a second workshop to review the guidelines and to recommend changes, if appropriate, to them. Workshop participants included representatives from NMFS, FWS, MMC, and the three regional SRGs. The report of that workshop (Wade and Angliss, 1997) summarized the discussion at the workshop and contained revised guidelines. The revised guidelines represented minor changes from the initial version. The revised guidelines were made available for public review and comment along with revised stock assessment reports on January 21, 1997 (62 FR 3005).
In September 2003, NMFS again convened a workshop to review guidelines for SARs and again has proposed minor changes to the guidelines. Participants at the workshop included representatives of NMFS, FWS, MMC, and the regional SRGs. NMFS solicits public comments on the proposed changes to the guidelines for preparing SARs.
The Pacific SARs contain new or revised stock assessments for 30 Pacific marine mammal stocks under NMFS' jurisdiction. Reports on the remaining 30 Pacific region stocks were not revised.
NMFS conducted its first comprehensive survey to estimate the abundance of cetaceans in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) surrounding the Hawaiian Archipelago in fall 2002. Results of this survey were incorporated into the draft 2004 SARs for Hawaiian cetaceans, including abundance and Potential Biological Removal (PBR) estimates for all Hawaiian stocks except blue and minke whales. Three new reports were added to the Pacific SARs as a result of the 2002 survey, Hawaiian stocks of sei whales, minke whales, and Longman's beaked whales. SARs for Hawaiian stocks of marine mammals were also updated to revised mortality estimates to include results of an increased level of observer coverage in the Hawaiian longline fishery.
The report for the Hawaiian stock of false killer whales has been changed to reflect information indicating fine-scale stock structure of false killer whales. The draft report includes two prospective stocks of false killer whales because whales in the EEZ around Palmyra Island are likely a different stock than around the Hawaiian Islands. The ranges of these two prospective stocks include the EEZ surrounding Palmyra Island and the EEZ surrounding the Hawaiian Islands, respectively. False killer whales in international waters are not included in either of these prospective stocks; however, the Hawaii longline fishery causes serious injury and mortality of false killer whales on the high seas. MMPA section 117 requires SARs to be prepared for all stocks of marine mammals occurring in waters under US jurisdiction, but it has no provisions for assessing the status of marine mammal stocks found on the high seas. Therefore, it is unlikely that abundance and PBR estimates will be available for stocks of false killer whales and other cetaceans that do not occupy waters under US jurisdiction.
The SAR for Hawaiian monk seals was revised to indicate the PBR for this stock is undefined. The change is consistent with a recommended change to the guidelines for preparing SARs, discussed below.
Revisions to guidelines for preparing SARs focus primarily on stock structure and estimating PBR. The current guidelines for identifying stocks of marine mammals state, “For the purposes of management under the MMPA, a stock is recognized as being a management unit that identifies a demographically isolated biological population.” Proposed revisions to the section of the guidelines entitled “Definition of Stock” generally clarify specific points related to demographic isolation as the basis for identifying stocks of marine mammals. Selected proposed changes to the guidelines are summarized below.
The definition of “population stock” or “stock” in the MMPA includes the phrase “interbreed when mature”. The proposed changes to the guidelines recognize the phrase “interbreed when mature” includes cases in which a group of marine mammals migrates seasonally to a breeding ground where its members interbreed with members of the same group or with members of other demographically isolated groups that have migrated to the same breeding ground from other feeding areas. NMFS identified the Gulf of Maine feeding aggregation of humpback whales in the Western North Atlantic Ocean as a separate stock in 2000; thus, the proposed change emphasizes and clarifies practice NMFS has used in the past.
In the absence of data related to stock structure for a specific group of marine mammals, NMFS may use data on stock structure from other parts of a species' range to make inferences about the likely geographic sizes of stocks. The proposed guidelines clarify the use of indirect observation and information in such cases.
Another proposed change addresses “prospective stocks” when data suggest stock structure is more finely scaled than the current stock identity indicates, but the data are insufficient to fully
In unusual situations, the formula Congress added to the MMPA to calculate PBR (Nmin*0.5Rmax*Fr) results in a number that is not consistent with the narrative definition of PBR (the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortality, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its OSP). Such a situation arises when a stock is below its OSP and is declining or stable, yet human-caused mortality is a not a major factor in the population's trend. For example, Hawaiian monk seals are endangered, declining, and below OSP (based upon the abundance prior to the 1970s), yet human-caused mortality is insufficient to account for the decline or a failure to increase. A limited removal would not reduce the population's ability not reach or maintain its OSP after the major factors affecting the stock have been identified and addressed.
One option for PBR in these situations is to estimate PBR as zero. However, a PBR of zero may not reflect the concept of PBR included in the narrative definition. Furthermore, a PBR of zero would be inconsistent with Congress' concerns about the need to establish a procedure that allows for occasional taking of threatened or endangered species incidental to commercial fishing (See House Report 103-439 (March 21, 1994) at 30.) Therefore, in these unusual situations, NMFS may report PBR as “undefined”. The draft 2004 SAR for Hawaiian monk seals has been changed in accordance with this proposed change to the guidelines.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Establish the FY 2004 schedule of fees.
The Commission charges fees to designated contract markets and the National Futures Association (NFA) to recover the costs incurred by the Commission in the operation of a program which provides a service to these entities. The fees are charged for the Commission's conduct of its program of oversight of self-regulatory rule enforcement programs (17 CFR part 1 Appendix B) (NFA and the contract markets are referred to as SROs).
The calculation of the fee amounts to be charged for FY 2004 is based on an average of actual program costs incurred in during FY 2001, 2002, and 2003, as explained below. The FY 2004 fee schedule is set forth in the
The FY 2004 fees for Commission oversight of each SRO rule enforcement program must be paid by each of the named SROs in the amount specified by no later than January 18, 2005.
Stacy Dean Yochum, Counsel to the Executive Director, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5160, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. For information on electronic payment, contact Stella Lewis, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418-5186.
This notice relates to fees for the Commission's review of the rule enforcement programs at the registered futures associations and contract markets regulated by the Commission.
Fees for the Commission's review of the rule enforcement programs at the registered futures associations and contract markets regulated by the Commission:
The Commission recalculates the fees charged each year with the intention of recovering the costs of operating this Commission program.
The fees charged by the Commission to the SROs are designed to recover program costs, including direct labor costs and overhead. The overhead rate is calculated by dividing total Commission-wide overhead direct program labor costs into the total amount of the Commission-wide overhead pool. For this purpose, direct program labor costs are the salary costs of personnel working in all Commission programs. Overhead costs consist generally of the following Commission-wide costs: Indirect personnel costs (leave and benefits), rent, communications, contract services, utilities, equipment, and supplies. This formula has resulted in the following overhead rates for the most recent three years (rounded to the nearest whole percent): 117 percent for fiscal year 2001, 129 percent for fiscal year 2002, and 113 percent for fiscal year 2003. These overhead rates are applied to the direct labor costs to calculate the costs of oversight of SRO rule enforcement programs.
Under the formula adopted in 1993 (58 FR 42643, Aug. 11, 1993), which
The Commission's formula provides for a reduction in the assessed fee if an SRO has a smaller percentage of United States industry contract volume than its percentage of overall Commission oversight program costs. This adjustment reduces the costs so that as a percentage of total Commission SRO oversight program costs, they are in line with the pro rata percentage for that SRO of United States industry-wide contract volume.
The calculation made is as follows: The fee required to be paid to the Commission by each contract market is equal to the lesser of actual costs based on the three-year historical average of costs for that contract market or one-half of average costs incurred by the Commission for each contract market for the most recent three years, plus a pro rata share (based on average trading volume for the most recent three years) of the aggregate of average annual costs of all contract markets for the most recent three years. The formula for calculating the second factor is: 0.5a + 0.5 vt = current fee. In this formula, “a” equals the average annual costs, “v” equals the percentage of total volume across exchanges over the last three years, and “t” equals the average annual costs for all exchanges. NFA, the only registered futures association regulated by the Commission, has no contracts traded; hence its fee is based simply on costs for the most recent three fiscal years.
This table summarizes the data used in the calculations and the resulting fee for each entity:
An example of how the fee is calculated for one exchange, the Minneapolis Grain Exchange, is set forth here:
a. Actual three-year average costs equal $12,394.
b. The alternative computation is:
c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in this case $6,605.
As noted above, the alternative calculation based on contracts traded is not applicable to the NFA because it is not a contract market and has no contracts traded. The Commission's average annual cost for conducting oversight review of the NFA rule enforcement program during fiscal years 2001 through 2003 was $110,946 (one-third of $332,837). The fee to be paid by the NFA for the current fiscal year is $110,946.
The Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) requires deposits of fees owed to the government by electronic transfer to funds (
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
11 a.m., Friday, December 3, 2004.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance Matters.
Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.
11 a.m., Friday, December 10, 2004.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance Matters.
Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.
11 a.m., Friday, December 17, 2004.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance Matters.
Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004, 2 p.m.
Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Closed to the Public—Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(f)(1) and 16 CFR 1013.4(b)(3)(7)(9) and (10) and submitted to the
For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.
Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20207 (301) 504-7923.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (hereinafter the “Corporation”), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirement on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, the Corporation is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection,
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
You may submit written input to the Corporation by any of the following methods:
(1) Electronically through the Corporation's e-mail address system to LaMonica Shelton at
(2) By fax to 202-565-2785, Attention Ms. LaMonica Shelton.
(3) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service, Office of Research and Policy Development, 8th Floor, Attn: Ms. LaMonica Shelton, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20525.
(4) By hand delivery or by courier to the Corporation's mailroom at Room 6010 at the mail address given in paragraph (3) above, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Ms. LaMonica Shelton, (202) 606-5000, ext. 464.
The Corporation is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The Corporation for National and Community Service, through its national service programs and projects: (1) Provides opportunities for all Americans to serve; (2) affords members with meaningful, valuable, and enriching experiences (such as through leadership training, technical assistance, and citizenship training development); and (3) supports a continued ethic of volunteer service. The service opportunities available to members cover a wide range of activities over varying periods of time. The Corporation plans to administer a member satisfaction that will allow members to provide information about their satisfaction with their AmeriCorps program or project, and with their overall AmeriCorps service experience.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Defense Intelligence Agency Joint Military Intelligence College.
Notice of closed meeting.
Pursuant to the provisions of Subsection (d) of Section 10 of Pub. L. 92-463, as amended by Section 5 of Pub. L. 94-409, notice is hereby given that a closed meeting of the DIA Joint Military Intelligence College Board of Visitors has been scheduled as follows:
Tuesday, 4 January 2005, 1100 to 1700; and Wednesday, 5 January 2005, 0800 to 1600.
Joint Military Intelligence College, Washington, DC 20340-5100.
Mr. A. Denis Clift, President, DIA Joint Military Intelligence College, Washington, DC 20340-5100 (202/231-3344).
The entire meeting is devoted to the discussion of classified information as defined in Section 552b (c) (1), Title 5 of the U.S. Code and therefore will be closed. The Board will discuss several current critical intelligence issues and advise the Director, DIA, as to the successful accomplishment of the mission assigned to the Joint Military Intelligence College.
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), Department of Defense.
Notice.
The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) intends to remove its Flight Information Publications (FLIP), Digital Aeronautical Flight Information File (DAFIF), and related aeronautical safety of navigation digital and hardcopy publications from public sale and distribution.
This action is taken to accomplish the following objectives: safeguarding the integrity of Department of Defense (DoD) aeronautical navigation data currently available on the public Internet; preventing unfettered access to air facility data by those intending harm to the United States, its interests or allies; upholding terms of bi-lateral geospatial data-sharing agreements; avoiding competition with commercial interests; and avoiding intellectual property/copyright disputes with foreign agencies that provide host-nation aeronautical data.
The DAFIF and related digital aeronautical information files will be protected from general public access on the NGA home page (
NGA will implement this action on October 1, 2005 (FY06).
For further information about the substance of this notice, contact Joseph S. Jarvis, Aeronautical Division, MS L-27, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, 3838 Vogel Road, Arnold, Missouri, 63010-6238 (e-mail:
NGA and its predecessor organizations (DMA and NIMA) have published DoD's flight information products since the late 1940s to support the worldwide missions of DoD aircraft. The publications are sold to the public through the auspices of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the digital data has been freely available on the Internet. Notwithstanding a prior practice of making some of DoD's flight information available to the public in the past, NGA does not have a statutory requirement to produce aeronautical products for general civil aviation.
With the proliferation of digital capabilities throughout the international aviation network, the preferred method of information exchange is shifting from paper-based to electronic dissemination. Numerous countries that heretofore relied on host-government agencies to compile and publish their aeronautical information have recently transferred that responsibility to commercial or quasi-governmental agencies. Some of these foreign agencies are beginning to assert intellectual property rights to the aeronautical data within their territorial limits and are refusing to provide such aeronautical data to DoD so long as NGA makes it available to outside interests, whom these agencies view as possible competitors in the international marketplace. NGA relies on foreign data obtained through bilateral geospatial information sharing agreements, and certain nations may impose restrictions on their data against release to third parties. Accordingly, there is a rational basis for limiting access to aeronautical products created for DoD use to DoD and governmental end users.
By removing national defense aeronautical data from open source access NGA seeks to accomplish two additional objectives. First, NGA will reduce the vulnerability of critical navigation data on the Internet. Second, it will limit/eliminate unfettered access to that data by organizations and individuals intent on causing harm.
In conclusion, with the accomplishment of this proposed action NGA aims to protect the sources and integrity of its data, honor its bilateral agreements restricting non-governmental use, avoid competition with commercial interests, and allow NGA to focus on its primary customers and mission, supporting the Department of Defense.
Office of the Secretary, DoD.
Notice to add a system of records.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to add a system of records to its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
The changes will be effective on December 20, 2004 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination.
Send comments to OSD Privacy Act Coordinator, Records Management Section, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.
Ms. Juanita Irvin at (703) 601-4722, extension 110.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on October 28, 2004, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
DoD Women, Infants, and Children Overseas Participant Information Management System.
Choctaw Management Services Enterprises, 2161 NW., Military Highway, Suite 308, San Antonio, TX 78213-1844, and at WIC Overseas sites in Europe, Latin America and Pacific. For a complete listing of all facility addresses maintaining these records, write to the system manager.
Members of the Armed Forces, civilian employees, and DoD contractors living overseas (or in a U.S. Territory or possession), and their family members who are eligible for the DoD Women, Infants, and Children Overseas Program.
Records consist of individual's or sponsor's name, Social Security Number, current address, income information, nutritional/medical history data, and whether the participants have received nutritional education and counseling.
10 U.S.C. 1060a, Special Supplemental Food Program; 42 U.S.C. Chapter 13A, Child Nutrition; and E.O. 9397 (SSN).
DoD is responsible for providing Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) benefits to eligible members of the Armed Forces, civilian employees, and DoD contractors living overseas, and their family members. Records are being collected and maintained to determine eligibility for the DoD WIC Overseas Program. The program provides eligible participants with supplemental nutritious food, nutrition counseling and education, nutrition-health screening, and referrals to other health agencies.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD “Blanket Routine Uses” set forth at the beginning of OSD's compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system.
Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system:
Records are maintained on paper in file folders, on a microcomputer system, on diskette, on compact disk.
Records are retrieved by the sponsor's Social Security Number and/or name or the participant's name and/or Social Security Number.
Records are maintained in a controlled facility. Physical entry is restricted by the use of locks, guards, or administrative procedures. Access to records is limited to those officials who require the records to perform their official duties consistent with the purpose for which the information was collected. All personnel whose official duties require access to the information are trained in the proper safeguarding and use of the information. Access to computerized data is restricted by passwords, which are changed periodically. Computer terminals are located in supervised areas with access control.
Paper files are retained in active file until participants relocate or become ineligible to receive WIC Overseas services. The files are held for one additional year, and then destroyed by shredding, pulping, macerating, or burning.
Program Manager, TRICARE Management Activity, Joint Health Plan Coordination, 5111 Leesburg Pike, Suite 810, Falls Church, VA 22041-3206.
Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves should address written inquiries to the TRICARE Management Activity, Department of Defense, ATTN: TMA Privacy Officer, 5111 Leesburg Pike, Suite 810, Falls Church, VA 22041-3206.
Request should contain participant's and/or sponsor's full name, their Social Security Number, and current address and telephone number.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the TRICARE Management Activity, Department of Defense, ATTN: TMA Privacy Officer, 5111 Leesburg Pike, Suite 810, Falls Church, VA 22041-3206.
Request should contain participant's and/or sponsor's full name, their Social Security Number, and current address and telephone number.
The OSD rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in OSD Administrative Instruction 81; 32 CFR part 311; or may be obtained from the system manager.
Individuals applying for WIC Overseas Program benefits.
None.
Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DoD.
Notice to add a new system of records.
The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) is proposing to add a system of records notice to its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This action will be effective without further notice on December 20, 2004, unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination.
Send comments to the FOIA/PA Program Manager, Office of Corporate Communications, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, 6760 E. Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279-8000.
Ms. Linda Krabbenhoft at (303) 676-7514.
The Defense Finance and Accounting Service notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on October 28, 2004, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
DFAS Quarterly Pay Newsletter Email System.
Exact Target, 47 South Meridian, Suite 300, Indianapolis, IN 46204-3558.
Any individual that opts-in to receive the DFAS Quarterly Pay Newsletter via e-mail.
Individual's name, military service, status, pay grade, and email address.
5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations and DoD FMR 7000.14-R, Vol. 7A, Military Pay Policy and Procedures—Active Duty and Reserve Pay.
To establish a database of customers who have subscribed to the DFAS Quarterly Pay Newsletter via email. The Newsletter informs the DFAS customer of current pay information and updates. The database will be used strictly to distribute this informative Newsletter via e-mail.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD “Blanket Routine Uses” published at the beginning of the DFAS compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system.
Records are maintained on electronic media and hard copy documents.
Individual's name and e-mail address.
Access to records is limited to individuals who are properly screened and cleared on a need-to-know basis in the performance of their official duties. Physical and electronic access is limited to persons responsible for creating and distributing the Newsletter via email. User ID's and passwords are used to control access to the systems data, and procedures are in place to deter and detect browsing and unauthorized access. The records will be stored on a secure server onsite at the contractors' location. The hosting facility security is fortified with fire suppression, security guard, personnel, camera monitoring, and servers held behind lock and key. Database security is ensured by secure user logins, state-of-the-art firewalls, and consistent database back-ups.
Records are deleted when the information is superseded or obsolete, or when the individual chooses to opt-out of receiving the Newsletter.
Deputy Director for Military Pay Operations Product Line, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Denver, 6760 E. Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279-3000.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Office of Corporate Communications, Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Program Manager, 6760 E. Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279-8000.
Individual should provide their full name, email address, current address, and telephone number.
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Office of Corporate Communications, Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Program Manager, 6760 E. Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279-8000.
Individual should provide their full name, email address, current address, and telephone number.
The DFAS rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in DFAS Regulation 5400.11-R; 32 CFR part 324; or may be obtained
Information is obtained from any individual.
None.
Department of the Air Force, DoD.
Notice to add a record system.
The Department of the Air Force proposes to add a system of records notice to its inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
The actions will be effective on December 20, 2004 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination.
Send comments to the Air Force Privacy Act Manager, Office of the Chief Information Officer, AF-CIO/P, 1155 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1155.
Mrs. Anne Rollins at (703) 696-6280.
The Department of the Air Force's record system notices for records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 522a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on October 25, 2004, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Presidential Letter of Appreciation Request System (PLARS).
Secretary of the Air Force, Legislative Liaison, Congressional Inquiries, 1160 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1160.
Active duty Air Force military personnel, Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard personnel; and Air Force civilian employees.
First and last name and middle initial; title (Mr., Mrs., or Ms.); mailing address; service (Regular, Guard, Reserve, or civilian); rank; years of service; last four digits of the retiree's Social Security Number; name of requesting Military Personnel Flight (MPF) or Commander; point-of-contact name and mailing address; date of retirement; date of retirement ceremony.
10 U.S.C. 8013, Secretary of the Air Force; DoD Instruction 1348.34, Presidential Recognition on Retirement from Military Service; and Air Force Instruction 36-3203, Service Retirements.
To process requests for Presidential Letters of Appreciation for appropriate retirees and to submit retiree information in support of the requests, to generate White House memoranda, and to generate reports on the number of submitted, processed, on-hold, rejected, and archived requests during a given period.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
Information may be disclosed to the White House to obtain Presidential letters of appreciation for retirees.
The DoD ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ published at the beginning of the Air Force's compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system.
Maintained in file folders, in computers, and on computer output and storage products.
Retrieved by name.
Records are accessed by person(s) responsible for servicing the record system in performance of their official duties and by authorized personnel who are properly screened and cleared for need-to-know. Records are stored in locked rooms and cabinets. Those in computer storage devices are protected by computer system software.
Destroy after two years.
System administrator, Secretary of the Air Force, Legislative Liaison, Congressional Inquiries Office, 1160 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1160.
Individuals inquiring about information on themselves contained in the system should submit written inquiries to the Secretary of the Air Force, Legislative Liaison, Congressional Inquiries Office, 1160 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1160.
Individuals seeking to access information on themselves contained in the system should submit written inquiries to the Secretary of the Air Force, Legislative Liaison, Congressional Inquiries Office, 1160 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1160.
The Air Force rules for accessing records and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in Air Force Instruction 33-332, 32 CFR part 806b; or may be obtained from the system manager.
Information is obtained from requesting office, reports and forms.
None.
Department of the Air Force, DoD.
Notice to alter a system of records.
The Department of the Air Force is altering a system of records notice in its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The alteration adds a new category of records to the system,
This proposed action will be effective without further notice on December 20, 2004 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
Send comments to the Air Force Privacy Act Manager, Office of the Chief Information Officer, AF-CIO/P, 1155 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1155.
Mrs. Anne Rollins at (703) 696-6280.
The Department of the Air Force systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 522a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on October 25, 2004, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Biographical Data and Automated Personnel Management System (January 11, 2002, 67 FR 1445).
Add to the end of the first paragraph ‘and limited medical/immunization information for personnel readiness.’
Biographical Data and Automated Personnel Management System.
Headquarters United States Air Force; headquarters of major commands; field operating agencies; direct reporting units; headquarters of combatant commands for which Air Force is Executive Agent, and all Air Force installations and units. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Air Force’s compilation of record systems notices.
Active duty Air Force military personnel, and Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard personnel. Air Force civilian employees and contractors may be included when records are created which are identical to those on military members. Army, Navy, and Marine Corps Active duty military and civilian personnel may be included when assigned to combatant commands for which Air Force is the Executive Agent. Records may be maintained in this system on personnel in a Temporary Duty (TDY) status for the duration of the TDY.
Biographical information which may include name, rank, Social Security Number, service dates, date of birth, civilian employment, military and civilian education, military and civilian experience, program specialties, hobbies, and names of family members, religion, professional expertise and appointments, membership in professional societies, civic activities, state of license, and limited medical/immunization information for personnel readiness.
Limited locator type information which may include home address, home phone, home of record and name and address of next of kin.
Records relating to assignment to include unit of assignment, authorized and assigned grade, duty title, duty Air Force Specialty Code and Military Occupation Code, position number, date assigned to organization, estimated date of departure, control tour code, assignment availability date, overseas tour start date, short tour return date, supervisor's name and date supervision began.
Performance data,
May also contain limited routine administrative training information consisting of application for training, name and date of course completion, and educational level, when not filed in a separate system.
Limited routine correspondence on promotions, military honors and awards, security and letters of appreciation, when not filed in a separate system.
10 U.S.C. 8013, Secretary of the Air Force and E.O. 9397 (SSN).
This system is established as a management tool to provide commanders and supervisors with ready reference information file for managing their personnel, manpower and resources.
To assist in determining and scheduling workload requirements in support of their organization's assigned mission.
This system serves a ready reference locator and can be used to produce manpower reports.
Used to determine eligibility/suitability for assignment/reassignment; determine eligibility for retirement related action, to make determinations on discharges or mobilization, deferments, and fulfillment of local or statutory requirements.
Records maintained as a historical file while individual is assigned to the unit.
Used to answers correspondence/telephone inquiries; updating and/or changing information in computer and/or individual record.
Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ published at the beginning of the Air Force's compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system.
Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system:
Maintained in file folders, in computers and on computer output products.
Retrieved by name and/or Social Security Number.
Records are accessed by person(s) responsible for servicing the record system in performance of their official duties and by authorized personnel who are properly screened and cleared for need-to-know. Records are stored in locked rooms and cabinets. Those in computer storage devices are protected by computer system software.
Retain in office files until superseded, obsolete, no longer needed for reference, reassignment, separation or retirement of the individual or inactivation of the organization. Records on TDY personnel will be destroyed upon completion of the individual's TDY. Records are destroyed by tearing into pieces, shredding, pulping, macerating, or burning. Computer records are destroyed by erasing, deleting or overwriting.
Commanders/supervisors at the installation, base, unit, organization, office or function to which the individual is assigned. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Air Force's compilation of record systems notices.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address inquiries to or visit the respective unit commander or supervisor who maintains the records. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Air Force's compilation of record systems notices.
Individuals seeking to access records about themselves contained in this system should address requests to the respective unit commander or supervisor who maintains the records. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Air Force's compilation of record systems notices.
The Air Force rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in Air Force Instruction 33-332; 32 CFR part 806b; or may be obtained from the system manager.
The individual, personnel or training records and records created by commander/supervisor.
None.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice to alter a system of records.
The Department of the Army is proposing to alter a system of records notice in its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This proposed action will be effective without further notice on December 20, 2004 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
Department of the Army, Freedom of Information/Privacy Division, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, Attn: AHRC-PDD-FPZ, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Suite 144, Alexandria, VA 22325-3905.
Ms. Janice Thornton at (703) 428-6504.
The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on October 21, 2004, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Army Casualty Information Processing System (ACIPS) (January 6, 2004, 69 FR 790).
Add “DoD” to the end of the entry.
Delete entry and replace with “Defense Casualty Information Processing System (DCIPS)”.
Delete entry and replace with “Department of Defense military personnel (active component and reserve component) and their family members; DoD civilian personnel, retired service members, non-DoD civilians, and other individuals that are reported as casualties.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals name, Social Security Number, date of birth, branch of service, organization, duty, military occupational specialty (MOS), Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), Navy rate, rank, sex, race, religion, home of record, and other pertinent information; personnel records, health/dental records, correspondence with primary next of kin/secondary next of kin, inquiries from other agencies and individuals, DD Form 1300 (Report of Casualty).”
To provide DoD with a single joint military casualty information processing system; to provide support for the management of casualty and mortuary affairs by the Services Casualty and Mortuary Affairs Offices; to respond to inquiries; to provide statistical data comprising type, number, place and cause of incident to DoD Services' members.
Delete entry and replace with “From casualty reports and investigations received from commander, medical personnel, medical examiners, and other related official sources.”
Defense Casualty Information Processing System (DCIPS).
U.S. Army Human Resources Command, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA 22332-0481.
Department of Defense military personnel (active component and reserve component) and their family members; DoD civilian personnel, retired service members, non-DoD civilians, and other individuals that are reported as casualties.
Individual's name, Social Security Number, date of birth, branch of service, organization, duty, military occupational specialty (MOS), Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), Navy rate, rank, sex, race, religion, home of record, and other pertinent information; personnel records, health/dental records, correspondence with primary next of kin/secondary next of kin, inquiries from other agencies and individuals, DD Form 1300 (Report of Casualty).
10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; 10 U.S.C. 5013, Secretary of the Navy; 10 U.S.C. 8013, Secretary of the Air Force; Army Regulation 600-8-1, Army Casualty Operations, Assistance, Insurance; Army Regulation 638-2, Care and Disposition of Remains and Disposition of Personal Effects; Army Regulation 600-8-4, Line of Duty Policy, Procedures, and Investigations; and E.O. 9397 (SSN).
To provide DoD with a single joint military casualty information processing system; to provide support for the management of casualty and mortuary affairs by the Services Casualty and Mortuary Affairs Offices; to respond to inquiries; to provide statistical data comprising type, number, place and cause of incident to DoD Services' members.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD “Blanket Routine Uses” set forth at the beginning of the Army's compilation of systems of records notices also apply to this system.
Paper records in file folders and on electronic storage media.
By individual's name and/or Social Security Number or any other data element.
All information is restricted to a secure area in buildings that employ security guards. Computer printouts and magnetic tapes and files are protected by password known only to properly screened personnel possessing special authorization for access.
Records are permanent.
Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA 22332-0481.
Individuals seeking to determine if information about themselves is contained in this record system should address written inquiries to the Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Attn: AHRC-PEC, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA 22332-0481.
Individual should provide full name, current address and telephone number, and should identify the person who is the subject of the inquiry by name, rank and Social Security Number or Service Number.
Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this record system should address written inquiries to the Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Attn: AHRC-PEC, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA 22332-0481.
Individual should provide full name, current address and telephone number, and should identify the person who is the subject of the inquiry by name, rank and Social Security Number or Service Number.
The Army's rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in Army Regulation 340-21; 32 CFR part 505; or may be obtained from the system manager.
From casualty reports and investigations received from commander, medical personnel, medical examiners, and other related official sources.
None.
Defense Logistics Agency.
Notice to add a system of records.
The Defense Logistics Agency proposes to add a system of records notice to its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This action will be effective without further notice on December 20, 2004, unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination.
Send comments to the Privacy Act Officer, Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DES-B, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 6220, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221.
Ms. Susan Salus at (703) 767-6183.
The Defense Logistics Agency notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on October 21, 2004, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Defense Biometric Identification Data System (DBIDS).
Defense Manpower Data Center, 400 Gigling Road, Seaside, CA 93955-6771.
Active duty, Reserve, and Guard personnel from the Armed Forces and their family members; retired Armed Forces personnel and their families; DoD and non-DoD employees and dependents, U.S. residents abroad, foreign nationals and corporate employees and dependents who have access to U.S. installations in the continental U.S. and overseas.
The system includes personal data to include name, grade, Social Security Number, status, date and place of birth, weight, height, eye color, hair color, gender, passport number, country of citizenship, geographic and electronic home and work addresses and telephone numbers, marital status, index fingerprints and photographs, and identification card issue and expiration dates. The system also includes vehicle information such as manufacturer, model year, color and vehicle type, license plate type and number, decal number, current registration, automobile insurance data, and driver's license data. The system also contains data on government-issued and personal weapons such as type; serial number; manufacturer; caliber; firearm registration date; and storage location data to include unit, room, building, and phone number.
5 U.S.C. 301 Departmental regulations; 10 U.S.C. 113, Secretary of Defense, Note at Pub. L. 106-65; 10 U.S.C. 136, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; 18 U.S.C. 1029, Access device fraud; 18 U.S.C. 1030, Computer fraud; 23 U.S.C. 401
The records are maintained to support DoD physical security and information assurance programs and are used for identity verification purposes, to record personal property registered with the Department, and for producing facility management reports.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD “Blanket Routine Uses” set forth at the beginning of DLA's compilations of systems of records notices apply to this system.
Electronic and paper copy storage.
Retrieved primarily by name, Social Security Number, vehicle identifiers, or weapon identification data. However, data may also be retrieved by other data elements such as passport number, photograph, fingerprint data, and similar elements in the database.
Computerized records are maintained in a controlled area accessible only to authorized personnel. Entry is restricted by the use of locks, guards, and administrative procedures. Access to personal information is limited to those who require the records in the performance of their official duties, and to the individuals who are the subjects of the record or their authorized representatives. Access to personal information is further restricted by the use of unique logon and passwords, which are changed periodically.
Disposition pending.
Director, Defense Manpower Data Center, 1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 400, Arlington VA 22209-2593, or Deputy Director, Defense Manpower Data Center, DoD Center Monterey Bay, 400 Gigling Road, Seaside, CA 93955-6771.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Privacy Act Officer, Defense Logistics Agency, DES-B, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 6220, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221.
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Privacy Act Officer, Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DES-B, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 6220, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221.
The DLA rules for accessing records, for contesting contents, and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in 32 CFR part 323, or may be obtained from the Privacy Act Officer, Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency, ATTN: DES-B, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 6220, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221.
Data is collected from existing DoD databases, the Military Services, DoD Components, and from the individual.
None.
Department of the Navy, DOD.
Notice.
The invention listed below is assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and is available for licensing by the Department of the Navy. Patent application 10/975,126: Backplane Tester and Method of Use. This is a low-cost robust backplane test system that is compact, easy-to-use, and simple to manufacture. It is not encumbered by other features and add-ons, which may act as constraints to the test system and be complex to use, larger and more expensive.
Requests for copies of the invention cited should be directed to the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code 054, Bldg 1, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001.
Mr. Brian Bailey, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code 054, Bldg 1, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001, telephone (812) 854-2378. To download an application for license, see:
Take notice that on November 1, 2004, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) tendered for filing and approval amendments to existing negotiated rate service agreements between ANR and Wisconsin Gas Company and ANR and Madison Gas and Electric Company.
ANR requests that the Commission accept and approve the subject negotiated rate agreement amendments to be effective November 1, 2004.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
Take notice that on November 1, 2004, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) tendered for filing amendments to existing negotiated rate service agreements between ANR and Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Wisconsin Gas LLC, and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
ANR requests that the Commission accept and approve the subject negotiated rate agreement amendments to be effective November 1, 2004.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that, on November 2, 2004, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's Order on Rehearing and Clarification in Docket Nos. RP99-301-079 and GT01-25-005, ANR Pipeline Company, 105 FERC ¶ 61,112 (2003).
ANR states that copies of the filing were served on parties on the official service list in the above-captioned proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the following 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: Ms. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DHAC, PJ-12.1, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (739-016) on any comments or motions filed. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
k.
l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, OR “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
p. Agency Comments—Federal, State, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
Take notice that on November 1, 2004, CenterPoint Energy—Mississippi River Transmission Corporation (MRT) tendered for filing and approval certain negotiated rate agreements between MRT and Union Electric Company, d/b/a AmerenUE, to be effective December 1, 2004.
MRT states that it also has submitted those agreements as non-conforming agreements along with the following tariff sheets, listing such non-conforming agreements to be included as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, to be effective December 1, 2004:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
Take notice that on November 5, 2004, CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company (CEGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 886 and Second Revised Sheet No. 887, to be effective November 1, 2004
CEGT states that the purpose of this filing is to reflect the termination of a negotiated rate transaction.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
Take notice that on November 2, 2004, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia), 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE., Charleston, West Virginia 25314, filed in Docket No. CP05-19-000 an application pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act for authorization to construct and operate replacement facilities in Orange and Rockland Counties, New York. Specifically, Columbia proposes to abandon and replace 8.8 miles of its existing 8-inch and 16-inch Line A-5 with 8.8 miles of 30-inch pipeline. Columbia states that the existing pipeline is being replaced due to its age and condition. The cost of the replacement project is estimated to be $35,924,810, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Fredric J. George, Senior Attorney, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, P.O. Box 1273, Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1273, phone: (304) 357-2359 or fax: (304) 357-3206.
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, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project, or in support of or in opposition to 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. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the applicant. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission may issue a preliminary determination on non-environmental issues prior to the completion of its review of the environmental aspects of the project. This preliminary determination typically considers such issues as the need for the project and its economic effect on existing customers of the applicant, on other pipelines in the area, and on landowners and communities. For example, the Commission considers the extent to which the applicant may need to exercise eminent domain to obtain rights-of-way for the proposed project and balances that against the non-environmental benefits to be provided by the project. Therefore, if a person has comments on community and landowner impacts from this proposal, it is important either to file comments or to intervene as early in the process as possible.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper.
Take notice that on November 4, 2004, Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP (Cove Point) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 8. Cove Point requests an effective date for the tariff sheet of the later of December 1, 2004, or the in-service date of the fifth LNG storage tank (Fifth Tank).
Cove Point states that this sheet is being filed to correct the overrun rate for Rate Schedule LTD-1 and the commodity rate for Rate Schedule LTD2 that were inadvertently misstated in Cove Point's October 26, 2004 filing in the above captioned dockets.
Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, Dominion Transmission, Inc., (DTI) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1A, First Revised Sheet No. 86 and First Revised Sheet No. 87, to be effective December 1, 2004.
DTI states that the purpose of this filing is to add certain recently acquired gathering lines as part of DTI's FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1A.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on November 9, 2004, Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company (ESNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with a proposed effective date of November 1, 2004.
ESNG states that the purpose of this instant filing is to track rate changes attributable to storage services purchased from Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) under their Rate Schedules GSS and LSS. ESNG states that the costs of the above referenced storage services comprise the rates and charges payable under ESNG's Rate Schedules GSS and LSS. ESNG further states that this tracking filing is being made pursuant to section 3 of ESNG's Rate Schedules GSS and LSS.
ESNG states that copies of the filing have been served upon its jurisdictional customers and interested State Commissions.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
Take notice that El Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso), Post Office Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944, filed in Docket No. CP05-21-000 on November 4, 2004, an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, for authorization to abandon obsolete and unneeded compression facilities and appurtenances (the Schafer B compressor unit) at the Schafer Compressor Station in Carson County, Texas, all as 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 Robert T. Tomlinson, Director, Regulatory Affairs, at (719) 520-3788 (telephone) or (719) 520-4318 (fax).
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. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
Take notice that on November 1, 2004, Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation (GTN) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1-A, the following tariff sheets, to become effective December 2, 2004:
GTN states that these tariff sheets are being submitted to add evergreen language to GTN's Transportation General Terms and Conditions and its FTS-1 Form of Service Agreement.
GTN further states that a copy of this filing has been served on GTN's jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory agencies.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the following 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: Ms. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DHAC, PJ-12.1, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. Please include the project number (2413-065) on any comments or motions filed. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
k.
l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
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.
On October 20, 2004, Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc. (Granite State) submitted a compliance filing as directed by the Commission's order issued September 20, 2004. 108 FERC ¶ 61,243 (2004).
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 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 the parties in 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
Take notice that on November 8, 2004, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective date of December 8, 2004:
Gulf South states that it is proposing to modify its tariff to post maximum rate firm contracts for bid and allow interested parties to increase the contract term.
Gulf South states that copies of its filing have been served upon Gulf South's customers, state commissions and other interested parties.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on November 8, 2004, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South) tendered for filing as part of its Sixth Revised Volume No. 1 FERC Gas Tariff, the following tariff sheets, to become effective December 8, 2004.
Gulf South states that it is proposing certain changes to its firm transportation service (FTS) rate schedule.
Gulf South states that copies of this filing have been served upon Gulf South's customers, State commissions and other interested parties
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on November 1, 2004, Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. (Maritimes) submitted a report on technical conference and compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's July 29, 2004, order in Docket No. RP04-360-000. Maritimes states that following two technical conferences in this proceeding regarding Maritimes' non-rate tariff proposals and further discussions with the parties, Maritimes agreed to make certain revisions to the non-rate tariff proposals in its June 30, 2004, filing in this proceeding. Maritimes further states that the tariff sheets included with this filing reflect such revisions. Maritimes has proposed an effective date of December 1, 2004, for these revised tariff sheets.
Maritimes states that copies of the filing were served on parties on the official service list in the above-captioned proceeding, as well as all customers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
Take notice that the following 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: Ms. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-10482-065) on any comments or motions filed. 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 at
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.
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
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. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. 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. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
p.
q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
On October 20, 2004, Shell Gas Transmission, LLC (Shell Gas) submitted a compliance on behalf of Garden Banks Gas Pipeline, LLC, Nautilus Pipeline Company, L.L.C., and Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C., as directed by the Commission's order
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in 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
Take notice that on November 1, 2004, Southern Natural Gas Company (SNG) tendered for filing its first-year report of segmentation activity in accordance with the Commission's July 30, 2003 order issued in this proceeding. SNG further states that it also tendered certain tariff sheets to its FERC Gas Tariff to allow shippers to segment supplies from production area pools and from CSS and ISS storage accounts through zone 1 north system or zone 1 south system pools. SNG states that the tariff sheets listed below, are proposed to become effective January 1, 2005.
Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on November 1, 2004, Southern Natural Gas Company (Southern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume No. 1 the following tariff sheets, to become effective October 1, 2004:
Southern states that these tariff sheets are filed in compliance with the Commission's September 30, 2004 Order in Docket No. RP04-523.
Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on November 8, 2004, Trailblazer Pipeline Company (Trailblazer) tendered for filing its Refund Report regarding the penalty revenues for the period July 1, 2004, through September 30, 2004, that it refunded to its customers pursuant to section 40.10 of the General Terms and Conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1.
Trailblazer states that copies of the filing are being mailed to its customers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on November 4, 2004, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective November 1, 2004:
Transco states that the proposed rate changes would decrease the annual revenues by approximately $120,000.
Transco states that copies of the filing are being mailed to each of its GSS and LSS customers and interested State commissions.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on November 8, 2004, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets enumerated on Appendix A to its filing, to become effective December 1, 2004.
Transco states that the purpose of the instant filing is to (1) modify certain provisions of its tariff to require that Transco post to its Internet Web site exercises of discretion under those particular tariff provisions, thereby eliminating the requirement to make a duplicate posting to its waiver log; (2) propose changes to the Maximum Daily Delivery Point Entitlement provisions of Section 19.1(d) and 19.2(d) of the General Terms and Conditions of its tariff; and (3) propose other changes to its tariff designed to provide greater service flexibility for Transco and its shippers.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
Take notice that on November 5, 2004, Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company (Williston Basin) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet, to become effective December 5, 2004:
Williston Basin states that it is proposing this tariff change in order to allow a shipper making a nomination request subject to subsection 9.10 of its FERC Gas Tariff to make only one nomination in order for gas to continue to flow after the effective time of the next standard nomination cycle. Williston Basin further states it is also revising this subsection to remove the discretionary language and the associated posting requirement.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
Take notice that the following 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: Ms. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DHAC, PJ-12.1, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. Please include the project number (2113-165) on any comments or motions filed. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
k.
l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
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.
Take notice that on November 8, 2004, Tenaska Frontier Partners, Ltd. (Frontier) filed a Complaint, pursuant to Section 206 of the Federal Power Act, against Entergy Gulf States, Inc. and Entergy Services, Inc. (collectively, Entergy). The Complaint asserts that Entergy is violating the Commission's Interconnection Policy, engaging in prohibited “and” pricing, and charging unjust and unreasonable rates because Entergy has misclassified certain interconnection-related facilities in the Frontier-Entergy Interconnection Agreement and is refusing to provide transmission credits for facilities that should properly be classified as Network Upgrades under the Commission's Interconnection Policy.
Frontier states that copies of the Complaint have been served on Entergy.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification.
On October 29, 2004, MidAmerican Energy Company (MidAmerican) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's Order issued July 12, 2005, in Docket Nos. ER96-719-000 and EL04-106-000, 108 FERC ¶ 61,043 (2004).
Take notice that on November 1, 2004, Amerada Hess Corporation and Hess Energy, Inc. submitted for filing a Joint Triennial Updated Market Analysis.
Take notice that on November 3, 2004, NorthWestern Energy (NEW) submitted, in response to the Commission's October 4, 2004, deficiency letter, additional information regarding its August 9, 2004, filing in Docket No. ER04-1106-000 of proposed modifications to its Open Access Transmission Tariff which included changes to Schedule 4—Energy Imbalance Service; a new Schedule 9—Generator Imbalance Service; and a new Attachment J containing the
Take notice that on November 1, 2004, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) tendered for filing an unexecuted Interconnection Agreement between PG&E and Trinity Public Utilities District. PG&E requests an effective date of January 1, 2005.
Take notice that on November 1, 2004, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) tendered for filing Generator Interconnection Agreements (GIA) between PG&E and each of the Western Area Power Administration's generating plants (New Melones Power Plant, O(Neill (San Luis Forebay) Pumping-Generating Plant, and Share of San Luis (William R. Gianelli) Pumping-Generating Plant).
PG&E states that copies of this filing have been served upon the Western Area Power Administration, the California Independent System Operator Corporation and the California Public Utilities Commission.
Take notice that on October 26, 2004, Metcalf Energy Center, LLC (Metcalf) submitted an application pursuant to section 204 of the Federal Power Act seeking authorization to issue debt securities in an amount not to exceed $100 million.
Metcalf requests a waiver from the Commission's competitive bidding and negotiated placement requirements at 18 CFR 34.2.
Take notice that on October 29, 2004, Trans-Elect NTD Path 15, LLC (NTD Path 15) requested authority to issue up to $40 million in additional equity to NTD Holdings Path 15.
NTD Path 15 also requests a waiver from the Commission's competitive bidding and negotiated placement requirements at 18 CFR 34.2.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all parties to this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification.
Take notice that on November 4, 2004 National Energy & Gas Transmission, Inc. (NGET) and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS Group), filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act for authorization for disposition of jurisdictional assets related to NEGT's transfer of more than 5 percent of new NEGT common stock to a subsidiary of GS Group in order to implement a proposed plan of reorganization filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt Division) as more fully described in the Application.
Take notice that on November 4, 2004, Logan Generating Company, L.P.; Madison Windpower, LLC; Plains End, LLC (together, the NEGT Project Companies); National Energy & Gas Transmission, Inc. (NEGT); and GS Power Holdings II, LLC (GS Power) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act for authorization to permit GS Power to acquire NEGT's indirect equity ownership interest in the NEGT Project Companies.
Take notice that on November 8, 2004, Tenaska Frontier Partners, Ltd. (Frontier) filed a Complaint, pursuant to Section 206 of the Federal Power Act, against Entergy Gulf States, Inc. and Entergy Services, Inc. (collectively, Entergy). The Complaint asserts that Entergy is violating the Commission's Interconnection Policy, engaging in prohibited “and” pricing, and charging unjust and unreasonable rates because Entergy has misclassified certain interconnection-related facilities in the Frontier-Entergy Interconnection Agreement and is refusing to provide transmission credits for facilities that should properly be classified as
Frontier states that copies of the Complaint have been served on Entergy.
Take notice that, on November 2, 2004, El Paso Electric Company (EPE) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's November 17, 2003 Order Amending Market-Based Rate Tariffs and Authorizations in Dockets No. EL01-118-000
El Paso Electric Company states that copies of the filing were served on parties on the official service list in the above-captioned proceeding.
Take notice that on November 2, 2004, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO), filed a supplement to its compliance filing submitted on October 29, 2004 pursuant to the Commission's Letter Orders issued September 22, 2004 in Docket Nos. ER03-83-004 and ER03-86-003. Midwest ISO requests an effective date of October 30, 2004.
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, Midwest ISO states that the filing has been electronically posted on the Midwest ISO's Web site at
Take notice that on November 4, 2004, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's letter order issued December 1, 2003 in Docket No. ER04-11-000.
PJM states that copies of the filing were served on parties on the official service list in Docket No. ER04-11.
Take notice that on November 4, 2004, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's letter order issued December 1, 2003 in Docket No. ER04-12-000.
PJM states that copies of the filing were served on parties on the official service list in Docket No. ER04-12.
Take notice that on November 4, 2004, Southern Company Services, Inc. (SCS), acting as agent for Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company and Savannah Electric and Power Company, submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's order issued 10/5/2004 in Docket Nos. ER04-459-002 and 003, 109 FERC ¶ 61,014.
SCS states that copies of the filing were served on parties on the official service list in the Docket No. ER04-459.
Take notice that on November 4, 2004, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) and Virginia Electric and Power Company submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's order issued October 5, 2004 in Docket Nos. ER04-829-000 and 001, 109 FERC ¶ 61,012.
Take notice that on November 4, 2004, MeadWestvaco Energy Services LLC filed supplemental information to its petition for acceptance of initial rate schedule, waivers and blanket authority originally filed on August 18, 2004 in Docket No. ER04-1137-000 and supplemented on October 8, 2004 in Docket No. ER04-1137-001.
Take notice that on November 3, 2004, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) submitted a supplement to its November 1, 2004 filing in Docket No. ER05-156-000 of a new Attachment AD to its regional Open Access Transmission Tariff. SPP requests an effective date of November 1, 2004.
SPP states that it has served a copy of its transmittal letter on each of its Members and Customers. SPP states that a complete copy of this filing will be posted on the SPP Web site
Take notice that on November 2, 2004, Southwestern Public Service Company (SPS) tendered for filing proposed (1) changes in the Fuel Cost Adjustment clause (FCA) applicable to the following wholesale full requirements customers: Cap Rock Energy, Central Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc., Farmers' Electric Cooperative, Inc. of New Mexico, Lea County Electric Cooperative, Inc., Lyntegar Electric Cooperative, Inc., and Roosevelt County Electric Cooperative, Inc.; (2) changes in the FCA applicable to SPS's wholesale partial requirements customer, Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.; (3) changes in the FCA applicable to SPS's interruptible contract customer, Public Service Company of New Mexico; and (4) corresponding revised pages from SPS's power supply contracts with each of such customers, in compliance with the requirements of Order No. 614, including rate schedule designations. SPS requests an effective date of January 1, 2005.
SPS states that it has served a copy of the complete filing on each of the affected customers, the Public Utility Commission of Texas, and the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission. SPS also states that copies of the filing are available for public inspection in the offices of SPS in Amarillo, Texas.
Take notice that on November 2, 2004, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL Electric) submitted revisions to PPL Electric Rate Schedule FERC No. 180, a transmission agreement between
PPL Electric states that the copies of the filing were served upon Allegheny.
Take notice that on November 2, 2004, Southern California Edison (SCE) submitted for filing the following agreements between SCE and State of California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) under FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 6: Edmonston Pumping Plant Interconnection Facilities Agreement, Service Agreement No. 31; Pearblossom Pumping Plant Interconnection Facilities Agreement, Service Agreement No. 32; Oso Pumping Plant Interconnection Facilities Agreement, Service Agreement No. 33; William E. Warne Power Plant Interconnection Facilities Agreement, Service Agreement No. 34; and Alamo Power Plant Interconnection Facilities Agreement, Service Agreement No. 35. SCE also submitted the Devil Canyon Service Agreement for Wholesale Distribution Service, Service Agreement No. 126, under FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 5. SCE requests an effective date of January 1, 2005.
SCE states that copies of the filing were served upon the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California and CDWR.
Take notice that on November 2, 2004, Bangor Hydro-Electric Company (Bangor) filed proposed changes to its depreciation accrual rates under the Formula Rate provisions of Bangor's open access transmission tariff. Bangor requested an effective date of December 31, 2004.
Bangor states that copies of this filing were served on all interested parties.
Take notice that on November 2, 2004, Tampa Electric Company (Tampa Electric) tendered for filing a notice of cancellation of the service agreement with Koch Energy Trading, Inc., predecessor in interest to Entergy-Koch Trading, LP (Entergy-Koch) under Tampa Electric's Market-Based Sales Tariff. Tampa Electric proposes that the cancellation be made effective on November 2, 2004.
Tampa Electric states that copies of the filing have been served on Entergy-Koch and the Florida Public Service Commission.
Take notice that on November 2, 2004, Illinois Power Company (Illinois Power) tendered for filing a Tariff for Limited Sales of Excess Energy at Market-Based Rates (Tariff). Illinois Power states that the Tariff would permit Illinois Power to sell to non-affiliates at certain times between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2006, the limited amounts of energy that it purchases in excess of its real-time energy needs. Illinois Power requests an effective date of January 1, 2005.
Take notice that on November 3, 2004, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) submitted an Interconnection and Operating Agreement among Rock County Transmission, LLC, Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel and the Midwest ISO.
Midwest ISO states that a copy of this filing was served on the parties to the Interconnection Agreement.
Take notice that on November 3, 2004, Kansas City Power & Light Company (KCPL) submitted for filing the following revised service schedules for Load Regulation and Displacement Energy Service: City of Baldwin, Kansas—Rate Schedule FERC No. 85; City of Carrollton, Missouri—Rate Schedule FERC No. 86; Gardner, Kansas—Rate Schedule FERC No. 105; City of Garnett, Kansas—Rate Schedule FPC No. 78; City of Higginsville, Missouri—Rate Schedule FERC No. 108; City of Marshall, Missouri—Rate Schedule FPC No. 83; City of Osawatomie, Kansas—Rate Schedule FPC No. 77; City of Ottawa, Kansas—Rate Schedule FERC No. 90; and City of Salisbury, Missouri—Rate Schedule FERC No. 100.
KCPL states that copies of the filing were served upon KCPL's jurisdictional customers, as well as the Missouri Public Service Commission and the State Corporation Commission of Kansas.
Take notice that on November 3, 2004, Westar Energy, Inc. (Westar) submitted for filing a Notice of Cancellation for Rate Schedule FERC No. 222, an Electric Power Supply Agreement between Westar and the City of Muscotah, Kansas.
Westar states that copies of this filing were served on the City of Muscotah, Kansas and the Kansas Corporation Commission.
Take notice that on November 3, 2004, American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEPSC), as agent for AEP Texas North Company (AEPTNC) who was formerly called West Texas Utilities Company (WTU), submitted for filing an interconnection agreement between WTU and Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (Brazos) that provides for an additional point of interconnection at AEPTNC's Spur Substation in Dickens County, Texas. AEPTNC requests an effective date of October 25, 2004.
AEPSC states that it has served copies of the filing on Brazos and the Public Utility Commission of Texas.
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
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's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed an application for non-project use of project lands and waters at the Pensacola Project (FERC No. 1494) and has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed non-project use. The project is located on the Grand (Neosho) River in Craig, Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa Counties, Oklahoma.
In the application, the Grand River Dam Authority (licensee) requests Commission authorization to permit John Mullen d/b/a Thunder Bay Marina Facility to reconfigure three previously-approved but not-constructed docks at Thunder Bay Marina. The marina is located on the Duck Creek arm of Grand Lake O' the Cherokees, the project reservoir. The DEA contains the Commission staff's analysis of the probable environmental impacts of the proposal and certain staff-identified alternatives.
The DEA is available for review and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. The DEA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Comments on the DEA should be filed within 30 days of the date of this notice and should be addressed to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please reference “Pensacola Project, FERC Project No. 1494-251” on all comments. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal and natural gas pipeline facilities in Cameron Parish, Louisiana proposed by Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. and Cheniere Sabine Pass Pipeline Company (collectively referred to as Cheniere Sabine) in the above-referenced dockets.
The final EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The staff concludes that approval of the proposed project with appropriate mitigating measures as recommended, would have limited adverse environmental impact. The final EIS also evaluates alternatives to the proposal, including system alternatives, alternative sites for the LNG import terminal, and pipeline alternatives.
The final EIS also addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following LNG terminal and natural gas pipeline facilities:
• A new marine terminal basin connected to the Sabine Pass Channel that would include a ship maneuvering area and two protected berths to unload up to 300 LNG ships per year with a ship capacity ranging up to 250,000 cubic meters (m
• Three all-metal, double-walled, single containment, top-entry LNG storage tanks, each with a nominal working volume of approximately 160,000 m
• Sixteen high-pressure submerged combustion vaporizers with a capacity of approximately 180 million cubic feet per day, as well as other associated vaporization equipment;
• Instrumentation and safety systems, including hazard detection and fire response systems, ancillary utilities, buildings, and service facilities, including a metering facility;
• Packaged natural gas turbine/generator sets to generate power for the LNG terminal; and
• Approximately 16 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline, two metering stations, and associated pipeline facilities including launcher and receiver facilities.
The purpose of the Sabine Pass LNG and Pipeline Project is to provide the facilities necessary to meet growing demand for natural gas in the United States by providing a reliable supply of natural gas and access to worldwide natural gas reserves.
The final EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8371.
A limited number of copies of the final EIS are available from the Public Reference Room identified above. In addition, copies of the final EIS have been mailed to Federal, State, and local
In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations implementing the NEPA, no agency decision on a proposed action may be made until 30 days after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publishes a notice of availability of a final EIS. However, the CEQ regulations provide an exception to this rule when an agency decision is subject to a formal internal appeal process which allows other agencies or the public to make their views known. In such cases, the agency decision may be made at the same time the notice of the final EIS is published, allowing both periods to run concurrently. The Commission's decision for this proposed action is subject to a 30-day rehearing period.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC Internet Web site (
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.
Therefore, in an effort to conserve water for the winter months and future minimum flows, UPPCO requests the following operation scenario: reduce the minimum flows at the Hoist powerhouses from 100 cfs to 60 cfs, or to the minimum flow rate required for safe operation of the turbine; if the reservoir level drops below 1325 feet, hold a meeting or teleconference with the resource agencies to discuss strategy; if the reservoir level drops below 1320 feet, shut down the turbine and release a minimum flow of approximately 6 cfs to keep the penstock from freezing; if the reservoir level begins to rise while maintaining the 60 cfs minimum flow, and rises to the elevation of 1330 feet, an additional 5 cfs will be released from the Hoist powerhouse via the bypass siphon at McClure; if the reservoir goes above 1332 feet the minimum discharge of 100 cfs will be maintained until the reservoir level goes below 1330 feet or spring runoff occurs.
k.
l.
m.
Anyone may submit responses in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any responses must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
n.
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.
k.
l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
m.
n.
o.
p. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
On October 27, 2004, a Notice of Technical Conference was issued, stating that attendance at the conference would be limited to parties to the proceeding and to “anyone who has specifically requested to intervene as a party.” This is intended to include any person that has filed a motion to intervene out-of-time by close of business on Monday, November 15, 2004. As stated in the prior notice, any person planning to attend the November 17 conference
Take notice that a technical conference will be held concerning issues associated with the rulemaking proceeding on market-based rates. The technical conference will take place on December 7, 2004, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (EST), in the Commission Meeting Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC. Members of the Commission will attend the conference. An agenda providing more details of the conference will be issued at a later time.
The topic of the conference will be issues associated with transmission vertical market power and barriers to entry in electric markets, two of the four prongs the Commission currently uses to determine whether to grant market-based rate authority. The conference will address whether the Commission's
The conference will be transcribed. Those interested in acquiring the transcript should contact Ace Reporters at 202-347-3700 or 800-336-6646. Transcripts will be placed in the public record ten days after the Commission receives the transcripts. Additionally, Capitol Connection offers the opportunity for remote listening and viewing of the conference. It is available for a fee, live over the Internet, by phone or via satellite. Persons interested in receiving the broadcast, or who need information on making arrangements, should contact David Reininger or Julia Morelli at Capitol Connection (703-993-3100) as soon as possible or visit the Capitol Connection Web site at
A two-day technical conference will also be held in January 2005, dates to be announced, concerning additional issues associated with the rulemaking proceeding. The topic of this latter conference will be issues associated with affiliate abuse/reciprocal dealing and generation market power.
For more information about the conference, please contact Kelly Perl at 202-502-6421 or
A supplemental notice of this conference will be issued later that will provide details of the conference, including the panelists.
In an order issued on September 30, 2004,
The technical conference will afford parties an opportunity to consider the alternative proposal included in Northwest's September 15, 2004 filing, and provide Northwest an opportunity to provide further information to support its derivation of the fuel factors and respond to all issues raised in the protests.
Take notice that a technical conference will be held on Wednesday, December 1, 2004, beginning at 10 a.m. (EST), in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
All interested parties and staff are permitted to attend. For further information please contact: Frank Karabetsos at (202) 502-8133 or e-mail
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of exempt and prohibited off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive an exempt or prohibited off-the-record communication relevant to the merit's of a contested on-the-record proceeding, to deliver a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication, to the Secretary.
Prohibited communications will be included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications will be included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of exempt communications recently received in the Office of the Secretary. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers. These filings are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 18, 2005.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number OAR-2004-0086, to (1) EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by email to
Ms. Lynn Sohacki, Certification and Compliance Division, Vehicle Programs Group, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Dr., Ann Arbor, MI, 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4851; fax number: (734) 214-4869; email address:
In this action EPA is renewing ICR OMB Control Number 2060-0320 (EPA ICR Number 1723, originally “Information Requirements for Importation of Nonconforming Marine Engines”) and is combining the burden of that ICR with ICR OMB Control Number 2060-0294 (EPA ICR Number 1673) “Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Importation of Nonconforming Compression Ignition (CI) and Small Spark Ignition (SI) Engines.” The title of the new combined ICR will be Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Importation of Nonroad Engines and Recreational Vehicles. It is appropriate at this time to combine the two ICRs because the line between marine and nonroad engines has become less distinct. Engines that were originally manufactured as nonroad engines may be converted to be used as marine engines and marine engines may be used as nonroad engines. EPA is also adding to this ICR the information collection burden for the importation of newly regulated vehicles and engines: locomotives, marine compression ignition vehicles and engines over 37 kW, recreational vehicles (such as off-highway motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles), and large non-road spark ignition engines (such as forklifts and compressors). In light of this, EPA Form 3520-21, which collects information for importation of nonroad engines, is being updated and now will apply to both nonroad and marine engines and recreational vehicles. Therefore, it is appropriate at this time to combine the ICRs under which this information is gathered and add the burden for the newly added engines and recreational vehicles.
EPA ICR Number 1673 was just renewed in February, 2004, but EPA ICR Number 1723 expires on November 30, 2004. In this action we include the burden that was just identified and approved in EPA ICR Number 1673 into the renewal of EPA ICR Number 1723. The new combined burden will be identified in EPA ICR Number 1723 and EPA ICR Number 1673 will no longer be needed.
EPA submitted EPA ICR Number 1723 to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 30, 2004 (69 FR 39463), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received one comment. The commenter suggested that no imports of nonconforming marine engines should be allowed. However, the Clean Air Act sets forth specific allowances for importing noncomplying marine engines, provided they satisfy provisions that implement the goals of the Clean Air Act. One purpose of this ICR is to collect the information necessary to help EPA insure that such engines comply with those requirements.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0086, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at
Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 60 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are identified on the form, if applicable.
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 20, 2004.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID Number OPPT-2004-0081, to (1) EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by email to
Barbara Cunningham, Acting Director, Environmental Assistance Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 7408, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-554-1404; e-mail address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 1, 2004, EPA sought comments on this renewal ICR (69 FR 30904). EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments during the comment period.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OPPT-2004-0081, which is available for public viewing at the OPPT Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket is 202-566-0280. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at
Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's
Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40 CFR part 745). Respondents may claim all or part of a notice as CBI. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a CBI claim only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in 40 CFR part 2.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, this document announces that an Information Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. This ICR is scheduled to
Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 20, 2004.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number OECA-2004-0013, to (1) EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by email to
Gregory Fried, Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-7016; fax number: (202) 564-0050; E-mail address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On May 25, 2004, (69
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OECA-2004-0013, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is: (202) 566-1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at
Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's
The control of emissions of particulate matter from asphalt processing and roofing manufacture requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Emissions of particulate matter from asphalt processing and roofing manufacture are the result of materials handling, fuel combustion, and storage. These standards rely on the capture of particulate matter emissions by pollution control devices such as electrostatic precipitators, high velocity air filters, or afterburners.
In order to ensure compliance with these standards, adequate reporting and recordkeeping is necessary. In the absence of such information, enforcement personnel would be unable to determine whether the standards are being met on a continuous basis, as required by the Clean Air Act.
All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. Notifications are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the standard. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard and note the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Informational notice.
The purpose of this notice is to announce that on October 15, 2004, EPA granted the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency's (NNEPA) request for full delegation of authority to administer the Clean Air Act's (the Act) federal operating permits program. Under this delegation, NNEPA will issue and implement Title V operating permits for certain air pollution sources located within the formal boundaries of the Navajo Nation reservation and certain off-reservation Tribal Trust lands and will otherwise administer the program. The terms and conditions of the full delegation are specified in a Delegation of Authority Agreement (“Agreement”) between EPA Region IX and NNEPA, signed and dated on October 15, 2004. Region IX is also simultaneously suspending its collection of Part 71 fees, pursuant to 40 CFR 71.9(c)(2)(ii), for sources identified in this notice or otherwise covered by the Agreement.
The effective date for the Agreement between EPA and NNEPA, and EPA's suspension of its Part 71 fee collection for sources identified in this notice or otherwise covered by the Agreement, is October 15, 2004.
Copies of the letter requesting delegation of authority to administer the federal operating permits program and the Agreement between EPA and NNEPA are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX Office, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 and at the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency Air Quality Control Program Office, Rt. 12 North/Bldg #F004-051, Fort Defiance, AZ 86504. Effective October 15, 2004, all notifications, requests, applications, reports and other correspondence required under 40 CFR Part 71 for all Part 71 sources identified in this notice or otherwise covered by the Agreement shall be submitted to NNEPA's Air Quality Control Program Office at the following address: Navajo Nation Air Quality Control Program Office, P.O. BOX 529 Fort Defiance, AZ 86504 Attn: Chris Lee. Sources will also remain obligated to submit copies of such documents to EPA as set forth in the terms and conditions of their Part 71 permits and consistent with Section VII(2) of the Agreement.
Emmanuelle Rapicavoli, Permits Office (AIR-3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94110, Telephone: 415-972-3969, e-mail:
The purpose of this notice is to announce that on October 15, 2004, EPA granted NNEPA's request for full delegation of authority to administer the Part 71 federal operating permits program for certain Part 71 sources. The Act and its implementing regulations under Part 71 authorize EPA to delegate authority to administer the Part 71 program to any eligible Tribe that submits a demonstration of adequate regulatory procedures and authority for administration of the Part 71 operating permits program.
In order to be considered an “eligible tribe,” the NNEPA submitted, on June 17, 2004, an application for a determination, under the provisions of the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR), 40 CFR Part 49, that it is eligible to be treated in the same manner as a state for the purpose of receiving delegation of authority to administer the federal Part 71 operating permit program. The application excluded the Four Corners Power Plant and the Navajo Generating Station. Region IX reviewed NNEPA's application and determined that it met the four criteria for eligibility, identified in 40 CFR 49.6, for the sources described, and was thus eligible for entering into a delegation agreement with Region IX to administer the Part 71 program. Region IX's eligibility determination was signed on October 13, 2004.
On July 16, 2004, NNEPA submitted a request to the Region to delegate the administration of the federal Part 71 program for certain Part 71 sources. The area included in the request, herein called the “Delegated Program Area,” includes all lands within the formal boundaries of the Navajo Nation Reservation and the satellite reservations of Alamo, Canoncito and Ramah and Tribal trust lands located outside of the formal reservations in the Eastern Agency, excluding the Bennet Freeze area.
As part of its request, NNEPA submitted a legal opinion from its attorney general stating that the Navajo Nation Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act and the Navajo Nation Air Quality Control Program Operating Permit Regulations provide it adequate authority to carry out all aspects of the delegated program. NNEPA provided all necessary documentation to demonstrate that it has adequate authority and adequate resources to administer the Part 71 federal permitting program.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 71.10(b), EPA hereby notifies the public that effective October 15, 2004, it has granted NNEPA's request and is fully delegating the authority to administer the federal operating permits program as set forth under 40 CFR Part 71 and in the Agreement. The terms and conditions for full delegation are specified in the Agreement between EPA Region IX and NNEPA signed and dated on October 15, 2004.
The Agreement applies to all new and existing sources within the Delegated Program Area except the Four Corners Power Plant and the Navajo Generating Station, for which Region IX retains sole authority to regulate under Title V. The existing Part 71 sources covered by the Agreement are the following: the El Paso Natural Gas Window Rock Compressor Station, the El Paso Natural Gas White Rock Compressor Station, the El Paso Natural Gas Navajo Compressor Station, the El Paso Natural Gas Leupp Compressor Station, the El Paso Natural Gas Dilkon Compressor Station, the Transwestern Pipeline Klagetoh Compressor Station, the Transwestern Pipeline Leupp Compressor Station, El Paso Natural Gas Gallup Compressor Station, the Conoco Phillips Wingate Fractionating Plant, Peabody Western Coal Company's Black Mesa Complex, the Chevron-Texaco Aneth Gas Plant, and the Exxon-Mobil McElmo Creek Unit. The Agreement also applies to all new Part 71 sources which will construct and operate within the Delegated Program Area as well as existing sources in the Delegated Program Area which later become subject to Part 71.
If, at any time, EPA determines that NNEPA is not or cannot adequately
EPA also notifies the public, pursuant to 40 CFR 71.9(c)(2)(ii), that effective October 15, 2004, it has suspended collection of its Part 71 permit fees for those Part 71 sources identified in this notice or otherwise covered by the Agreement. In delegating the administration of the Part 71 program, EPA has determined that NNEPA can collect fees under tribal law sufficient to fund the delegated Part 71 program and carry out the duties specified in the Agreement. EPA retains its authority to collect Part 71 fees if it is demonstrated that NNEPA is not adequately administering the Part 71 program in accordance with the Agreement, Part 71, and/or the Act.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of amended final order on petition to object to a state operating permit.
On October 19, 2004, EPA amended an order signed by the Administrator on July 16, 2004, partially granting and partially denying a petition to object to a state operating permit issued by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) to Cargill, Inc.—Soybean Oil Mill (Cargill) located in Gainesville, Hall County, Georgia, pursuant to title V of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f. The July 16, 2004 Order was amended to delete two references to a cement kiln in Section IV.A. The deletions were made because:
(1) The citation for the cement kiln reference on page 6 of the original Order was incorrect. The reference originally cited to Petitioners' Consultant's Report: the Letter from Bill Powers, P.E. of Powers Engineering to Curtis Cox of Georgia Center for Law in the Public Interest (GCLPI) (October 3, 2002). While the actual date for the Powers Report was October 3,
(2) In re-reviewing the correct permit record document relating to the cement kiln reference on page 6 of the original Order, EPA has become concerned that the cement kiln information contained in the July 17, 2002 Letter from Todd Cloud of Trinity Consultants to Mr. James Capp of EPD may have been erroneously included in Trinity's Report and may not be accurate as applied to Cargill's Gainesville, Georgia facility.
Copies of the amended final order, the petition, and all pertinent information relating thereto are on file at the following location: EPA Region 4, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The amended final order is also available electronically at the following address:
Art Hofmeister, Air Permits Section, EPA Region 4, at (404) 562-9115 or
GCLPI originally submitted a petition on behalf of the Sierra Club to the Administrator on October 7, 2003, requesting that EPA object to a state title V operating permit issued by EPD to Cargill. The Petitioner maintains that the Cargill permit is inconsistent with the Act due to: (1) The inadequacy of EPD's RACT determinations for various emission units; (2) the inadequacy of various monitoring and reporting requirements; (3) the inadequacy of the statement of basis; and (4) the permit's inability to assure compliance.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The EPA, Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a teleconference of the Second Generation Model Advisory Panel to discuss its plan for providing advice to EPA on this model.
A public teleconference of the SAB Second Generation Model Advisory Panel will be held from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time on December 2, 2004.
Members of the public who wish to obtain the call-in number and access code to participate in the teleconference may contact Dr. Holly Stallworth, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff (1400F), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone/voice mail: (202) 343-9867 or via e-mail at
FASAB also announces the publication of Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standard 26, entitled Presentation of Significant Assumptions for the Statement of Social Insurance: Amending SFFAS 25. An electronic version of the statement is available on the World Wide Web at
Federal Advisory Committee Act. Pub. L. 92-463.
10 a.m., Thursday, November 18, 2004.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, 9th Floor, 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
Open.
The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:
The Commission heard oral arguments in this matter on November 9, 2004.
Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs, subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).
Jean Ellen, (202) 434-9950 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 13, 2004.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 12, 2004.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 2, 2004.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 12, 2004.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period.
The FTC issues an amendment to its Notice Announcing Public Workshop and Requesting Public Comment, extending the time period during which persons may submit written comments on the issues to be addressed by the public workshop until January 18, 2005.
Comments must be received by January 18, 2005.
Comments should refer to “P2P File-Sharing Workshop—Comment, P034517” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room 159-H (Annex B), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.
Comments containing confidential material must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). 16 CFR 4.9(c) (2004).
Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted by clicking on the following weblink:
The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments received by the Commission, whether filed in paper or in electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at
Elizabeth Delaney, (202) 326-2903, Bureau of Consumer Protection; Theodore Gebhard, (202) 326-3699, Bureau of Competition; or Hajime Hadeishi, (202) 326-2320, Bureau of Economics. The above staff can be
On December 15 and 16, 2004, the FTC is planning to host a public workshop, “Peer-to-Peer File-Sharing Technology: Consumer Protection and Competition Issues.” The FTC's workshop is intended to provide an opportunity to learn how P2P file-sharing works and to discuss current and future applications of the technology. It will discuss the risks to consumers related to file-sharing activities. The workshop also will address self-regulatory initiatives, technological efforts, and legislative proposals. It will discuss competition issues such as the models for distributing music and the impact of file-sharing on copyright holders. Questions to be addressed at the workshop are set forth in the Commission's Notice Announcing Public Workshop and Requesting Public Comment, published in the
The FTC is extending the time period during which public comments may be submitted. Interested parties may submit written comments on the published questions and other issues addressed by the workshop until January 18, 2005. Especially useful are any studies, surveys, research, and empirical data. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the
By direction of the Commission.
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: Correction.
Notice; Correction.
The Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry published a document in the
Sandra Malcom, Committee Management Specialist, NCEH/ATSDR, 1600 Clifton Road, Mail Stop E-28, Atlanta, GA 30303; telephone (404) 498-0003, fax (404) 498-0059; e-mail:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
NIOSH, along with the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM, formerly SBCCOM) and the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), will present information to attendees concerning the concept development for the PAPR CBRN standard and the Closed Circuit, Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus CBRN standard. Participants will be given an opportunity to ask questions on these topics and to present individual comments for consideration. Interested participants may obtain a copy of the PAPR CBRN concept paper and the Closed Circuit, Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus concept paper, as well as earlier versions of other concept papers used during the standard development effort, from the NIOSH NPPTL Web site at
Municipal, state, and federal responder groups, particularly in locations considered potential terrorism targets, have been developing and modifying response and consequence management plans for domestic security and preparedness issues. Since the World Trade Center and anthrax incidents, most emergency response agencies have operated with a heightened appreciation of the potential scope and sustained resource requirements for coping with such events. The federal Interagency Board for Equipment Standardization and Interoperability (IAB) has worked to identify personal protective equipment that is already available on the market for responders' use. The IAB has identified the development of standards or guidelines for respiratory protection equipment as a top priority. NIOSH,
NIOSH, RDECOM, and NIST have hosted public meetings on April 17 and 18, 2001; June 18 and 19, 2002; October 16 and 17, 2002; April 29, 2003; June 25, 2003; October 16, 2003; and May 4, 2004, presenting their progress in assessing respiratory protection needs of responders to CBRN incidents. The methods or models for developing hazard and exposure estimates and the status in evaluating test methods and performance standards that may be applicable as future CBRN respirator standards or guidelines were discussed at these meetings.
Three NIOSH CBRN respirator standards and several NFPA standards for ensembles, SCBA, and protective clothing were the first adopted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). On February 26, 2004, DHS adopted, as DHS standards, three NIOSH criteria for testing and certifying respirators for protection against CBRN exposures. NIOSH uses the criteria to test (1) SCBA for use by emergency responders against CBRN, (2) APR for use by emergency responders against CBRN exposures, and (3) escape respirators for protection against CBRN.
Interested parties should make hotel reservations directly with the Sheraton Station Square (412) 261-2000 / 1-888-325-3535) before the cut-off date of November 30, 2004. A special group rate of $85 per night for meeting guests has been negotiated for this meeting. The NIOSH/NPPTL Public Meeting must be referenced to receive this special rate. Interested parties should confirm their attendance at this meeting by completing a registration form and forwarding it by e-mail (
An opportunity to make presentations regarding the discussions of concepts for standards and testing processes for PAPR standards and for Closed Circuit, Self-Contained, Breathing Apparatus standards suitable for respiratory protection against CBRN agents will be given. Requests to make such presentations at the public meeting should be made by e-mail to the NPPTL Event Management Office (
After reviewing the requests for presentations, NPPTL Event Management will notify each presenter of the approximate time that their presentation is scheduled to begin. If a participant is not present when their presentation is scheduled to begin, the remaining participants will be heard in order. At the conclusion of the meeting, an attempt will be made to allow presentations by any scheduled participants who missed their assigned times. Attendees who wish to speak but did not submit a request for the opportunity to make a presentation may be given this opportunity at the conclusion of the meeting, at the discretion of the presiding officer.
Comments on the topics presented in this notice and at the meeting should be mailed to the NIOSH Docket Office, Robert Taft Laboratories, M/S C34, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226, Telephone 513-533-8303, Fax 513-533-8285. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail to
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register Notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Due to programmatic issues that had to be resolved, the
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice and request for comments.
This notice provides information about the Research Data Center (RDC) operated by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Research Data Center was established in 1998 to provide a mechanism whereby researchers can access detailed data files in a secure environment, without jeopardizing the confidentiality of respondents. Historically, the data files accessed in the RDC have consisted of NCHS survey data. RDC has recently begun accepting data files that were not produced from NCHS survey data. In order to assure that all data files are processed in a consistent manner, the original guidelines for accessing files in the RDC are being reviewed and revised as necessary. As part of the revision process, potential users are being given the opportunity to provide input on how the procedures of the RDC can best serve their research needs. This notice describes how to submit proposals requesting use of the data, mechanisms to access the RDC, requirements, use of outside data sets, costs for using the RDC, and other pertinent topics. We are seeking comments on these procedures and will post the final procedures on the NCHS Web site.
Submit comments on or before December 9, 2004.
Send comments concerning this notice to Ken Harris, National Center for Health Statistics, 3311 Toledo Road, Room 3210, Hyattsville, MD 20782, or e-mail to
Ken Harris at (301) 458-4262.
This document provides information about the National Center for Health Statistics' (NCHS) Research Data Center (RDC), including how to submit proposals requesting use of data, mechanisms to access the RDC, requirements, use of outside data sets, costs for using the RDC, and other pertinent topics. The Guidelines pertain to use of data produced by NCHS and non-NCHS entities. If, after reading these guidelines, you have further questions, you may seek clarification through e-mail
In order to advance knowledge on the health and well-being of the nation and its health care system, NCHS and other organizational entities in the Department of Health and Human Services release statistical micro data containing health and related variables. These files allow outside researchers and analysts to develop statistics and conduct independent research. However, any release of data, whether micro data files or the results of statistical analyses, must be consistent with the confidentiality provisions under which the data were collected. For the case of data collected or
Despite the wide dissemination of data through publications, CD-ROMs, etc., the inability to release files with, for instance, lower levels of geography, severely limits the utility of some data for research, policy, and programmatic purposes and sets a boundary on one of the goals of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Special requirements for use of non-NCHS data can be found in Appendix IV, Project-Specific Requirements.
Sections 306 and 308 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 242k and 242m).
The NCHS RDC is a research facility located at the NCHS headquarters in Hyattsville, MD, where researchers meeting certain qualifications are allowed access, under strict supervision, to restricted statistical micro data files. To gain access to the RDC researchers must submit a proposal for review and approval. Researchers can use one of three access methods (see below): (1) Direct access through local computing resources in the RDC that accommodate visiting researchers; (2) a remote program submission system through which researchers can submit work to be done in the RDC with the output returned to them by e-mail; or (3) programming services for outside researchers provided by RDC staff (see below). In all three methods, confidential data files remain in the RDC where access to unit records is restricted, and output is inspected before it leaves the RDC.
As currently designed, the NCHS RDC facility in Hyattsville has four user workstations and a secure room for the RDC printer. In addition, there is office space for the RDC staff and long-term outside researchers.
The RDC computers have no electronic link either to the NCHS network, the CDC-NCHS mainframe, or the Internet. The RDC workstations consist of Pentium III 933 MHz computers running Windows 2000. There is sufficient storage on the workstations and the server for any confidential data. PC-SAS®, SUDAAN®, Watcom Fortran 77®, and Stata® are installed on the workstations, and additional programming/analytic languages can be added as needed.
The computers have been configured so that removable media such as floppy disks are inaccessible to users. All print output is routed to a central printer which is monitored by RDC staff while the RDC is open to external researchers. Further, the system's workstations are configured such that researchers are given read-only access to requested data files and can write only onto the local workstation's hard disk. These restrictions ensure that users cannot remove information that has not been subjected to a review for confidentiality.
The three methods of access to restricted data through the Data Center include:
(1) Guest Researcher (on site)—The researcher submits a research proposal to the RDC and, upon approval, conducts his/her research on site at NCHS in the RDC. RDC staff constructs the necessary data files before the guest researcher arrives and ensure that no restricted data leave the facility. Data from virtually all of the NCHS data collection systems may be made available through the RDC. Also available are data from other data collection systems.
PC-SAS®, SUDAAN®, Watcom Fortran 77®, and Stata® are installed on the RDC workstations. Other programming languages or data analysis packages can be made available with sufficient lead time.
Researchers may take the results of their analyses off-site only after disclosure review by NCHS RDC staff. Disclosure review consists of looking for tabular cells less than 5, tables with geographic variables in any dimension, models with geographic variables (or variables tantamount to geographic variables) as outcome variables, or case listings. In general, disclosure review is consistent with the guidelines published in the NCHS Staff Manual on Confidentiality (see Appendix II, Requirements for the Release of NCHS Micro Data Files).
(2)
(3)
Each of the access methods outlined above has an associated cost which includes equipment and space rental, staff overhead, and setup. The staff overhead and setup include the time and resources necessary for monitoring progress, setting up equipment and data
Researchers must submit proposals that are detailed enough in their data specifications to permit RDC staff to easily determine what data elements are required. Prospective researchers are encouraged to check with RDC staff prior to writing their proposals to ensure that the data of interest can be made available to them. Researchers should develop their proposals in a way that facilitates the ability of the RDC staff to create the analytic files required by the project. Proposals should be explicit regarding the variables needed as well as any case selection required. Only those data items required to conduct the proposed analyses will be included in the analytic data file and the proposals should address why the requested data are needed for the proposed study. Overly large and complex projects or poorly defined projects will require extensive communication between RDC staff and the researchers proposing the project, and this can cause the process to move slowly. Work to prepare data files can be accomplished most expeditiously if large, complex projects are subdivided into manageable parts and requested data are clearly defined.
Researchers wishing to link data in the RDC with external data should provide the external data to RDC staff in advance of their entry to and use of the RDC (a minimum of 7 days prior to the approved date for access to the RDC).
The RDC expects that all researchers will adhere to established standards and principles for carrying out statistical research and analyses. Researchers must conduct only those analyses which received approval. Failure to comply will result in cancellation of the research activity and potential disbarment from future research activities in the RDC. In the case where Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is required to conduct research, RDC staff will notify relevant IRBs of infringements of protocol approvals.
Appendix IV (Project-Specific Requirements) contains information on submitting a research proposal requesting use of data other than those produced by NCHS. The format detailed below pertains specifically to use of NCHS data. If no project specific requirements are provided for non-NCHS data, the format below is to be used.
(1) The research proposal must contain the following information:
A. Cover letter.
B. Project Title.
C. Abstract: approximately 100-300 words summarizing the project.
D. Full personal identification, institutional affiliation, mailing addresses (including overnight express mail address), phone, and e-mail address. Applicants who are students must append a letter from the department chair or advisor stating that the applicant is a student working under the direction of the department.
E. Dates of proposed tenure at the RDC (or use of the remote access system). Proposals requesting remote access should include an appendix describing the computer and e-mail account that will receive output as well as the security provisions established for them.
F. Source of funding for the proposed project.
G. Background of study:
1. Key study questions or hypotheses.
2. Public health benefits.
H. A summary of the data requirements for the proposed research along with an explanation of why the data are needed for the proposed study.
1. Identification of cases to be included in the analytic file.
2. Identification of variables to be included in the analytic file.
3. Data to be supplied by the researcher and merged with NCHS or other data.
4. A description of why publicly available data are insufficient.
I. Methods for the study:
1. Analytic strategy and statistical methods to be used.
2. Software requirements (currently, PC-SAS® for Windows®, Stata®, SUDAAN®, LIMDEP®, HLM®, SPSS®, and Watcom Fortran 77® are available in the RDC; other languages can be made available with sufficient lead time).
J. A description of the output that the researcher intends to have reviewed for non-disclosure. This should include table shells, model equations, or test statistics of any output that the researcher plans to remove from the RDC. This will help the reviewers to determine the risk of disclosure.
K. Appendices.
1. A current resume or Curriculum Vitae for each person who will participate in the research activity. Resumes or CVs must specify nationality.
2. A letter from student applicant's department chair or academic advisor stating that student is working under the direction of the department.
3. A data dictionary: a complete listing of the specific data requested—data system, files, years, cases, variables, matching or linking variables, etc.
4. A data dictionary for researcher-supplied data, if any, to be merged with the confidential data. This includes identifying the source of the data, variable names, variable codes or ranges, file layout, number of records, and restrictions on NCHS use of the data (currently the RDC policy prohibits release of merged data to anyone other than the prospective researcher).
5. A description of the computer and e-mail system to be used to receive output from the remote access system as well as the security provisions established for them.
Portions of doctoral proposals or grant applications with appropriate modifications may suffice for the research proposal.
Proposals to use the Research Data Center should be sent to:
Research Data Center, National Center for Health Statistics, 3311 Toledo Road, Suite 4113, Hyattsville, MD 20782,
Upon receipt, the Research Proposal will be evaluated by a review committee convened for that purpose. The Proposal Review Committee consists of (at minimum) the director of the NCHS RDC, the RDC staff liaison, the NCHS Confidentiality Officer, and the director (or designee) of the NCHS data division whose data are requested in the proposal. Proposals for use of non-NCHS data undergo review as determined by the steward/s of those data.
(2) The following criteria apply to proposal review for projects requesting use of NCHS data:
A. Scientific and technical feasibility of the project;
B. Availability of resources at the RDC;
C. Risk of disclosure of restricted information; and
D. For projects using NCHS data, whether the proposed project is in accordance with the mission of the NCHS to provide statistical information that will guide actions and policies to improve the health of the American people.
Researchers should note that approval of their application does not constitute endorsement by NCHS of the substantive, methodological, theoretical, or policy relevance or merit of the proposed research. NCHS approval only
The RDC allows researchers to supply their own data to be linked with RDC data sets to create merged data sets that will be stored in the RDC. The researcher-supplied data may consist of proprietary data collected and “owned” by the researcher or other publicly available data obtained by the researcher such as census data. Researchers MUST provide RDC staff with complete documentation of any data proposed to be merged with RDC data. Researchers expecting to use merged files are responsible for interacting with RDC staff to ensure that their data can be merged with the data resident at the RDC and the format of the data is consistent with the RDC data. The RDC will accept user data files in SAS®, Stata®, or ASCII® format (flat files) with variables either column-delimited or column-specific. Other formats may also be proposed. RDC staff prior to the arrival of the researcher will do the merging of researcher-supplied data with RDC data sets. Identifying information in linking fields will be removed after the merge and will not be made available to the researchers.
Owners or stewards of RDC data sets make the determination of whether and how the resultant merged files would be made available to other researchers. For RDC files that are owned by NCHS, this determination is made by the owners of the researcher-supplied data that will be merged with the NCHS owned RDC files. For files that are NOT owned by NCHS, the determination is made by the stewards or owners of the RDC files. The owners of these files can require that any merged files be made available to all interested researchers or allow this determination to be made by the owners of the researcher supplied data.
The RDC periodically creates and maintains backup copies of all computer files. Backup files are stored in a secure storage area accessible by RDC staff only, although they may be made available to researchers who need to return for additional analyses. These backup files will contain user-supplied data as well as the merged files. These backup files will be destroyed only upon the written request of the user.
1. Researchers must work under the supervision of RDC staff and only during normal working hours (Monday-Friday, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.). Admittance to the RDC will be limited to the researchers whose names are included in the Research Proposal (Section D). Researchers will be required to show photo identification before admittance. A maximum of 3 collaborating researchers can sit at a computer station in the RDC.
2. Computers will be pre-loaded with the approved datasets by NCHS staff approximately one day prior to the external researcher's use of the RDC. Once the analysis is completed, NCHS staff will remove the datasets from the RDC computer.
3. Guest researchers must be able to conduct their analyses with the software specified in their research proposal.
4. External researchers are not allowed to bring documents, manuals, books, etc., that may enable them to identify and disclose confidential information they access in the RDC. Neither are they allowed to bring into the RDC cell phones, pagers, or other devices which would enable them to communicate with persons outside of the RDC.
5. All logs will be printed or electronically archived and will be kept by NCHS. NCHS will retain only the programs and procedures run by external researchers. The logs will not include results from their research.
6. All computer output generated by statistical programs and all hand-written notes based on such computer output are subject to disclosure review by NCHS staff before removal from the RDC. Output is restricted to summary tables of geographic or patient-level data (
7. Guest researchers may not save output, files, or programs to transportable electronic media. RDC staff can copy output or programs to transportable media, if requested.
8. Researchers proposing multiple analyses that employ multiple data sets will have access to only one dataset at a time. Under no circumstances will researchers be permitted any opportunity to merge datasets on their own.
1. Researchers must register an e-mail address that is credibly secure. Although programs can be sent to the RDC from any address, results will always be returned to the registered e-mail address.
2. Data requests must be in the form of SAS® programs (Version 8.2). However, certain SAS® commands/statements are not allowed through remote access. A list of such commands/statements is included in Appendix III. This list is periodically reviewed and may be modified as necessary. The SAS® program must be in plain ASCII® format.
3. During the first week of registration, researchers' data requests are executed in a manual mode, requiring RDC staff to review the program and resulting output before its release. During this period, remote access is available only during normal working hours. After the first week, researchers may submit data requests any time (day or night) and receive prompt response, except when the CDC e-mail system is down or when the remote access system is taken off-line for maintenance.
4. The remote access system does not allow users to write permanent datasets in its disk space. Jobs that attempt to create permanent datasets or files are flagged, terminated, and an error message is sent to the researcher.
5. The remote access system limits researchers' time and storage. No single program is allowed more than one hour to complete execution or to generate output in access of 1.5 MB.
6. With one exception, macros are not allowed through the remote access system. The exception, GLIMIX®, requires special permission.
In order to get access to restricted data files in the RDC, researchers must include in their proposals a signed “Agreement Regarding Conditions of Access to Confidential Data in the Research Data Center for the National Center for Health Statistics.” (Appendix V) All researchers participating on an approved project must sign the agreement—which clearly states the penalties for violating the conditions of agreement. In addition, each researcher must sign an “Affidavit of Confidentiality.” (Appendix VI) The RDC reserves the right to terminate any project at any time that it deems that an investigator's actions will compromise confidentiality or ethical standards of behavior in a research environment.
Statistical micro data files are collections of data from individual units such as persons or providers. Statistical agencies world wide are bound by ethical and legal requirements to preserve the privacy of individual respondents and the confidentiality of data provided to the agency by them or otherwise pertaining to them. As mentioned earlier, confidentiality protection at NCHS is governed by Section 308(d) of the Public Health
No information, if an establishment or person supplying the information or described in it is identifiable, obtained in the course of activities undertaken or supported under section 304, 306, or 307 may be used for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was supplied unless such establishment or person has consented (as determined under regulations of the Secretary) to its use for such other purpose and in the case of information obtained in the course of health statistical or epidemiological activities under section 304 or 306, such information may not be published or released in other form if the particular establishment or person supplying the information or described in it is identifiable unless such establishment or person has consented (as determined under regulations of the Secretary) to its publication or release in other form.
Having read and familiarized themselves with the Researcher Affidavit of Confidentiality, including Section 308(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 242m) (see below), researchers agree:
1. To make no copies of any files or portions of files to which they are granted access except those authorized by NCHS Research Data Center staff.
2. To return to RDC staff all NCHS restricted materials with which they may be provided during the conduct of their research at NCHS and other materials as requested.
3. Not to use ANY technique in an attempt to learn the identity of any person, establishment, or sampling unit not identified on public use data files.
4. To hold in strictest confidence the identification of any establishment or individual that may be inadvertently revealed in any documents or discussion, or analysis. Such inadvertent identification revealed in their analyses will be immediately brought to the attention of RDC staff.
5. Not to remove any printouts, electronic files, documents, or media until they have been scanned for disclosure risk by RDC staff.
6. Not to remove from NCHS any written notes pertaining to the identification of any establishment, individual, or geographic area that may be revealed in the conduct of their research at NCHS.
7. To the inspection of any material they may bring to or remove from the NCHS Research Data Center.
8. To comport themselves in a manner consistent with principles and standards appropriate to a scientific research establishment.
Appendix V Agreement Regarding Conditions of Access to Confidential Data in the Research Data Center of the National Center for Health Statistics, signed by all investigators on the project, must be submitted with the initial proposal.
Deliberate violation of any of these conditions may result in cancellation of the data access, and the researcher may be escorted from the premises by the duly authorized Federal protection service on duty at NCHS. The researcher may also be barred from any future use of the RDC upon review and determination by the Director of NCHS that this is necessary to protect the integrity and confidentiality of the RDC.
The RDC technical monitor will perform a disclosure review and must provide approval to the researcher before removal of any data from the RDC, whether it is in electronic or paper form. Any violation by the researcher may be punishable by fine or imprisonment for up to 5 years or both under Title 18 U.S.C. 1001.
As noted above, the RDC contains work stations with computers pre-loaded by NCHS staff with the requested dataset(s) to be analyzed with statistical software. External researchers must schedule time for use of the RDC, pay the appropriate user fees, and abide by the standard practices of the RDC. Among the requirements is a restriction on equipment that can be brought into the RDC, signing agreements to maintain confidentiality, and submitting to review of all results for any potential breaches in confidentiality.
Time in the RDC can be scheduled in increments ranging from a consecutive 2-day minimum to a consecutive 10-day maximum. Extensions can be negotiated with RDC staff subject to scheduling requirements. Scheduling time at the RDC is on a first-come, first-served basis.
Researchers using the NCHS RDC will be charged for space and equipment rental and staff time necessary for supervision, disclosure limitation review, maintenance of computer facilities (including both hardware and software), and the creation and maintenance of data files required by the researcher. The cost per project (or creation of an analytic file) is given in the table below:
There is a minimum setup charge of $500 per day for new file creation. An additional $500 per day is charged as needed for file creations and for special handling, such as the merging of additional data or creating custom file formats.
More complex projects may require discussion between the researcher and RDC staff to determine the cost of file creation. Researchers are encouraged to develop their proposals in a way that facilitates the ability of the RDC staff to create the analytic files required by the project. Proposals should be explicit regarding the variables needed as well as any case selection required. Overly large and complex projects will require extensive communication between RDC staff and the researchers proposing the project, and this can cause the process to move slowly. Work to prepare data files can be accomplished most expeditiously if large, complex projects are subdivided into manageable parts.
Payment is expected in advance of the use of the RDC. A cashier's check or money order made payable to NCHS RDC must be received seven business days prior to the start date scheduled for use of the RDC. Payments should be mailed to: NCHS RDC, Attn: RDC Director, 3311 Toledo Road, Suite 4113, Hyattsville, MD 20782.
The disclosure review process in the RDC is centered on a rigorously
Researchers may take the results of their analyses off-site after disclosure review by RDC staff. Disclosure review consists of looking for tabular cells less than 5, tables with geographic variables in any dimension, models with geographic variables (or variables tantamount to geographic variables) as outcome variables, or line listings. In general, disclosure review is consistent with the guidelines published in the NCHS Staff Manual on Confidentiality (see Appendix II, Requirements for the Release of Micro Data).
RDC staff review data summaries to assure maintenance of respondent confidentiality. In no case may any table contain cells with fewer than 5 observations. If found, these small cells are suppressed, generally by obliterating the cell. To assure that small cells cannot be calculated from the other cells in the same row or column, staff makes illegible the totals for the rows and columns corresponding to the small cell. Once disclosure review is completed, researchers receive a photocopy of the final tabulations.
RDC staff when reviewing cross-tabulations for small cell use the following procedures:
1. Shred all tables having fewer than five total observations (table total);
2. Shred all tables having fewer than five observations in each cell ;
3.If the table passes the first two criteria, RDC staff will review the table one row at a time;
4. Make illegible all counts and percents for cells with four or fewer observations;
5. If one row cell is <5, that cell and at least one other row cell will be suppressed; if two or more row cells are each <5, each will be suppressed, but the row total need not be suppressed because the suppressed row cells cannot be determined;
6. If one column cell is <5, that cell and at least one other column cell will be suppressed; if two or more column cells are each <5, each will be suppressed, but the column total need not be suppressed because the suppressed column cells cannot be determined;
7. Row (or column) total is suppressed ONLY if it (
RDC staff will use best practices in determining whether data are identifiable and will be conservative in their decisions. RDC decisions are final and not subject to negotiation by researchers.
For NCHS files, any published material derived from the data should acknowledge NCHS as the source and should include a disclaimer that credits any analyses, interpretations, or conclusions reached by the author (recipient of the file) to that author and not to NCHS, which is responsible only for the initial data. Researchers who want to publish a technical description of the data should make a reasonable effort to ensure that the description is consistent with that published by NCHS.
NCHS survey data, including vital statistics, Longitudinal Study on Aging, and other data files with restricted information (sample design information, lower levels of geography, etc.) can be made available as requested and needed.
The following rules apply to all files released by NCHS which contain any information about individual persons or establishments, except where the supplier of information was told, prior to his giving the information, that the information would be made public:
A. Before any new or revised micro data files are published, they, together with their full documentation, must be approved for publication by the Confidentiality Officer who will rely upon assistance from the NCHS Disclosure Review Board in reaching decisions.
B. The file must not contain any detailed information about the subject that could facilitate identification and that is not essential for research purposes (
C. Geographic places that have fewer than 100,000 people are not to be identified on the file. Depending upon the statistical structure of a file and other circumstances, a higher figure may be employed. It is the responsibility of the program proposing the data release to determine the disclosure risk associated with the proposed minimum size of geographic areas to be identified.
D. Characteristics of an area are not to appear on the file if they would uniquely identify an area of fewer than 100,000 people (
E. Information on the drawing of the sample which might assist in identifying a respondent must not be released outside the Center. Thus, the identities of primary sampling units are not to be made available outside the Research Data Center except in limited circumstances and as approved by the Confidentiality Officer. When such circumstances require the disclosure of the identity of areas in which data collection activities take place, the survey manager must insure that all information for this survey proposed for release takes into account the greater risk of identification because of this exception. The decision as to whether PSU identities are to be made public should be made before data are collected and plans for data release finalized.
The list below is used by the RDC remote access system to scan user-submitted programs for functions, statements, and procedures that may result in an unauthorized disclosure. Any user-submitted program that contains one or more of these
In addition to the above disallowed statements and functions, users of the remote access system cannot use any statements or functions that write permanent data files to the hard disk.
The VSD was established to allow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to carefully monitor vaccine safety in the United States. The VSD, a large-linked database, contains medical and immunization information on more than six million people annually. Information available in the database includes basic demographic information, managed care organization (MCO) enrollment, dates of vaccination, and medical visits. The VSD is a collaborative project involving CDC and several large MCOs. Information from the VSD is used by CDC to conduct vaccine safety studies.
Recognition of the need for improved monitoring of vaccine safety prompted the CDC to initiate the VSD project in 1990. This project currently involves partnerships with MCOs to continually monitor vaccine safety. All vaccines administered within a MCO are recorded and include vaccine type, date of vaccination, concurrent vaccinations (those given during the same visit), the manufacturer, lot number and injection site. Medical visits are also recorded which can be used to monitor for potential adverse events resulting from immunization. The VSD project allows for planned vaccine safety studies as well as timely investigations of emerging hypotheses. At present, the VSD project is examining potential associations between vaccines and a number of serious conditions. Data from the VSD also are used to test new vaccine safety hypotheses that result from the medical literature, signals from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), changes in the immunization schedule, the introduction of new vaccines, or recommendations from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations. This project is a powerful and cost-effective tool for the on-going evaluation of vaccine safety. It should be noted that the MCOs, as owners of the data, have broad decision-making authority over data release, as specified in CDC's contract with America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). In addition, MCOs have a recognized need and right to protect proprietary data.
In August 2002, CDC's National Immunization Program (NIP) and its managed care partners created a data sharing program to allow limited access to VSD data through the NCHS RDC with confidentiality protection under Sec. 308(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 242m). Proposals requesting use of VSD data undergo a review by the MCOs' Institutional Review Board(s) (MCO IRB) in addition to a review by RDC staff. After approval of their research proposal and payment of fees for the associated costs, researchers are able to independently analyze data from the VSD.
Two types of VSD data may be accessed at the RDC by an external researcher:
1. Analytic datasets created from the VSD data files that reside at CDC to conduct new vaccine safety studies:
The VSD data files are comprised of several separate data sets derived from computerized data sources from seven participating VSD MCOs. The VSD data files contain data through December 31, 2000 and include information such as vaccinations, hospital discharge and other diagnoses, and demographic characteristics. With these data, an external researcher may conduct a new vaccine safety study in order to test his/her vaccine safety hypothesis. The external researcher may request only the variables that are found in the VSD data Files (as listed in the data dictionary).
To assist researchers, CDC makes available at its Web site: (1) A list of recommended scientific references relevant to conducting research using large linked databases such as the VSD data files and (2) a data dictionary that lists all the variables contained in the VSD data files available for new vaccine safety research (
Proposals for analyses of new vaccine safety studies using data from the VSD data files should include only those specific variables that are needed to conduct the proposed analyses, including a brief explanation with justification for use of these variables.
Data contained in the VSD data files have been created from MCO administrative data which are not solely collected for the purpose of scientific research. It should be noted then that potential data discrepancies and varying degrees of data quality that are specific to such types of data do exist and typically are not resolvable with data that are available in the RDC.
2. Final datasets from published VSD studies:
External researchers who would like to perform a reanalysis of a published VSD study performed by VSD investigators may request the final dataset for the specific study they wish to re-analyze. Data collected for the final datasets of the published studies may include additional variables not listed in the data dictionary that is referenced above; therefore, the RDC will provide the external researcher with the necessary data dictionary for the requested dataset(s). No additional source or “raw” data are available for reanalysis of published VSD studies.
In general, VSD studies published after August 2002 are available for reanalysis. However, since many studies were published prior to the establishment of the CDC data sharing policy, some of the earlier published VSD study datasets may not be available for re-analysis for the following reasons:
• Some IRBs mandate that datasets be destroyed after research is completed.
• Principal investigator may no longer be affiliated with VSD or the collaborating MCOs; therefore, the location of the dataset is unknown.
• Rapidly changing technology can mean that data are on obsolete media.
Following receipt of a proposal for a reanalysis, the RDC will verify that the data variables requested from the published study are available. If these data are not available (for one or more of the reasons stated above), the RDC will notify the external researcher. Documentation for variables and datasets used in VSD studies completed after August 2002 are maintained according to the CDC data sharing policy regarding archival of data that are available on the Web at
All proposals requesting use of VSD data should contain the following information:
A. Project Title.
B. Name of proposed investigator and collaborators (RDC rules limit number of persons at a work station to 3 at a time).
C. Name of point of contact, address, telephone number, and e-mail address.
D. Summary of proposed study (
E. Specific hypothesis for new vaccine safety studies to be investigated or title of published VSD study to be reanalyzed.
F. Proposed methodology for new vaccine safety studies or the specification of the methods used in published VSD studies:
1. Definition of the study population of interest and type of study to be conducted:
a. Descriptive studies: specify the variables and values for those variables to be used to select the study population.
b. Case-control studies: specify criteria for cases and controls.
c. Cohort studies: specify criteria for the exposed and unexposed population.
d. For all new vaccine safety studies, please include the following information as
i. Adult or Pediatric data (0-17 or 18+).
ii. Study years of interest (
iii. How the study population will be selected from the VSD data files based on available fields in the VSD data dictionary.
2. Specification of the variables that will be required including:
a. Exposures: Specific criteria defining exposures based on the VSD data dictionary should be included. For instance, specific vaccines given within 14 days of the outcome of interest.
b. Outcomes: Specific criteria defining those outcomes based on the VSD data dictionary should be included. For instance, specific ICD-9 codes for outcomes of interest and type of health care encounter (hospitalization, outpatient encounter, emergency room visit).
c. Person Time or Enrollment: Specify criteria to determine calculation of person time, follow-up time, or MCO enrollment restrictions.
d. Confounding or control variables, including:
1. Demographic information.
2. Pre-existing or co-morbid conditions.
3. Concurrent vaccinations.
4. MCO Site.
e. Other required variables to perform the proposed analysis.
G.Proposed analytic strategies.
The RDC staff will notify the external researcher whether his/her proposal is complete and whether the requested variables are available. If all the requested data variables can be located for the proposed new vaccine safety studies or proposed reanalysis, review of the proposal by the appropriate MCO IRBs takes place. In compliance with federal law and regulations, access by external researchers to a portion of the VSD data files or to datasets from VSD published studies requires review and approval by the appropriate IRBs of the relevant MCOs. The MCO IRBs have the responsibility to protect the confidentiality and privacy of their members' medical records and to adhere to the rules and regulations applicable to their respective institution(s). Consequently, each of the MCO IRBs must review any request for access to the VSD data files that contain information on its MCO members. Any appeal by the requestor of an IRB decision must follow the national, federal procedures for IRBs. CDC is not involved in the MCO IRB process at any time. General information pertaining to the rules and regulations of IRB submission can be found at
Review of a proposal submitted by an external researcher by a MCO IRB does not imply that CDC approves or endorses the external researcher's proposed research. IRB applications may require a more detailed description of the proposed vaccine safety study and may vary according to individual IRB requirements. Furthermore, various IRBs may have different time lines for submission of proposals for review. Each IRB may have specific policies or requirements for data sharing that have not been adopted by the other MCO IRBs. These policies may include required collaboration with an MCO investigator, fees associated with the IRB review process, or differing criteria for the IRB review process.
MCO IRBs will use their established procedures and time lines to review the proposed research and to consider any appeals. As a rule, IRBs attempt to inform researchers as to the status of their proposals. Approval for access to MCO data contained within the VSD data files does not indicate approval for obtaining additional data contained within the MCO's member medical records or elsewhere, if such data are not contained within the VSD data files that reside in the RDC.
For new vaccine safety studies, it is possible that an external researcher will receive approval for access to VSD data from some, but not all, relevant IRBs. If this occurs, then the dataset(s) needed to conduct the new vaccine safety study will still be created, but only with data from the MCOs whose IRBs approved access. VSD data sets for new vaccine safety studies must contain data from two or more MCOs' data. Access will not be provided to data from only one MCO. For reanalysis of a published VSD study, all relevant IRBs from the MCOs that participated in the published study must approve the proposal for reanalysis; therefore if one or more IRBs do not approve access to VSD data used in the published study, the final dataset cannot be provided.
Once the external researcher has received a response from all of the appropriate IRBs, the RDC will begin the process of creating or formatting the approved dataset(s). The RDC will not create or prepare the dataset(s) until it receives copies of all final IRB dispositions.
When an external researcher has completed his/her work at the RDC and wishes to publish research results and findings using VSD data, there are specific requirements that must be followed:
• External researchers are required to submit a copy of these data sharing guidelines with any manuscript submitted to a journal.
• External researchers are required to submit (to the journal) a copy of the Confidentiality Agreement he/she signed prior to conducting research at the RDC.
• Disclaimers must be included in the manuscript which state:
The research was conducted using data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project, through the data sharing program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• Any published material using VSD data must acknowledge CDC as the original data source.
• Additionally, disclaimers must be included that state:
The analysis, interpretations, and conclusions are the responsibility of the authors and do not represent the views and opinions of the CDC, the Federal Government, or the managed care organization providing the data.
I ___________ (please print name) am aware that the information contained in the (name of data file) has been provided to NCHS in accordance with the provisions of Section 308(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 242m), with the assurance that it will be used only for health statistical reporting and analysis and will not be published or released in identifiable form. I am also aware that I can be held legally liable for any harm incurred by individuals or establishments who have provided or are described in the information contained in the above work files to which I will have access.
Having read and familiarized myself with the Researcher Affidavit of Confidentiality, including Section 308(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 242m) (attached), I agree:
1. To make no copies of any files or portions of files to which I am granted access except those authorized by NCHS Research Data Center staff.
2. To return to RDC staff all NCHS restricted materials with which I may be provided during the conduct of my research at NCHS and other materials as requested.
3. Not to use ANY technique in an attempt to learn the identity of any person, establishment, or sampling unit not identified on public use data files.
4. To hold in strictest confidence the identification of any establishment or individual that may be inadvertently revealed in any documents or discussion, or analysis. Such inadvertent identification revealed in my analysis will be immediately brought to the attention of RDC staff.
5. Not to remove any printouts, electronic files, documents, or media until they have been scanned for disclosure risk by RDC staff.
6. Not to remove from NCHS any written notes pertaining to the identification of any establishment, individual, or geographic area that may be revealed in the conduct of my research at NCHS.
7. To the inspection of any material I may bring to or remove from the NCHS Research Data Center.
8. To comport myself in a manner consistent with the principles and standards appropriate to a scientific research establishment.
Deliberate violation of any of these conditions may result in cancellation of the data access agreement, and the researcher may be escorted from the premises by the duly authorized Federal protection service on duty at NCHS. The researcher may also be barred from any future use of the RDC upon review and determination by the Director of NCHS that this is necessary to protect the integrity and confidentiality of the RDC.
I certify that no confidential data or information viewed or otherwise obtained while I am a researcher in the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Research Data Center (RDC) will be removed from NCHS. Further, I understand that NCHS will perform a disclosure review and must provide approval to me before I remove any data from the RDC, whether they are in electronic or paper form. I acknowledge NCHS Confidentiality Statute, Sec. 308(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 242m) stated below and fully understand my legal obligations to NCHS to protect all confidential data. Further, I understand that any violation may be punishable by fine or imprisonment for up to 5 years or both under Title 18 U.S.C. 1001.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Trevelin Prysock at 301-827-7001 at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the meeting of the Advisory Committee to the Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH).
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
A portion of the meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Government in the Sunshine Act, sections 552b(c)(6) and 552b(c)(9)(B), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended, because the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal property and the premature disclosure of information and the discussions are likely to significantly
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The comments should include the name, address, telephone number and, when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance into the building by nongovernment employees. Persons without a government I.D. will need to show a photo I.D. and sign in at the security desk upon entering the building.
Information is also available on:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel, October 8, 2004, 9 a.m. to October 8, 2004, 4 p.m., Holiday Inn Select Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on December 2-3, 2004 at the same location (Holiday Inn Select Bethesda) and the same times (9 a.m. to 4 p.m.). The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal property.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NICHD.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects on conducted by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and as the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
OMB's “Mandatory Information Requirements for Federal Assistance Program Announcements” (45 FR 39592, June 11, 1980) requires a statement concerning the official government programs contained in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. Normally NIH lists in its announcements the number and title of affected individual programs for the guidance of the public. Because the guidance in this notice covers virtually every NIH and Federal research program in which DNA recombinant molecule techniques could be used, it has been determined not to be cost effective or in the public interest to attempt to list these programs. Such a list would likely require several additional pages. In addition, NIH could not be certain that every Federal program would be included as many Federal agencies, as well as private organizations, both national and international, have elected to follow the NIH Guidelines. In lieu of the individual program listing, NIH invites readers to direct questions to the information address above about whether individual programs listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance are affected.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are 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.
In preparation for implementing Performance Partnership Grants, SAMHSA has developed a set of performance outcome measures for substance abuse treatment that cover seven domains. The domains are: Abstinence from drug use and alcohol abuse, or decreased mental illness symptomatology; increased or retained employment and school enrollment; decreased involvement with the criminal justice system; increased stability in family and living conditions; increased access to services; increased retention in services for substance abuse treatment or decreased utilization of psychiatric inpatient beds for mental health treatment; and increased social connectedness to family, friends, co-workers and classmates.
SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), is responsible for implementing the new Access to Recovery (ATR) grant program. States funded in the ATR program will use these outcome measures to meet the reporting requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) by quantifying the effects and accomplishments of the funded programs. The ATR Program is part of a Presidential initiative to: (1) Provide client choice among substance abuse clinical treatment and recovery support service providers, (2) expand access to a comprehensive array of clinical treatment and recovery support options (including faith-based programmatic options), and (3) increase substance abuse treatment capacity. Monitoring outcomes, tracking costs, and preventing waste, fraud and abuse to ensure accountability and effectiveness in the use of Federal funds are also important elements of the ATR program. Grantees, as a contingency of their award, are responsible for collecting data from their clients at intake, discharge, at 30 days after intake, and every two months during an episode of care. An episode of care is defined as a client's entry to and exit from the ATR.
The following tables summarize the annual response burden for the ATR activities using the performance outcome measures.
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 7-1045, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20850. Written comments should be received by January 18, 2005.
Part M of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority for the Department of Health and Human Services at 69 FR 60891, is amended to reflect the new functional statement for the Office of Program Services (OPS) and the Division of Operational Support (DOS). This amendment reflects the decision that the Most Efficient Organization (MEO) that is being established as a result of SAMHSA's FY 2004 competitive sourcing study will be located within DOS/OPS. In addition, this amendment reflects the Office of the Secretary's decision to consolidate responsibility for administration of the Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (SADBU) program within a single office at the Department level. Hence, reference to the SADBU function has been deleted from the DOS functional statement. The changes are as follows:
(A) The functional statements for the Office of Program Services (OPS) and the Division of Operational Support (DOS) within OPS is replaced with the following:
(1) Works in partnership with other SAMHSA and HHS components in managing, providing leadership, and ensuring SAMHSA's needs are met in the following service areas: Grant and contract application review, grants and contracts management, administrative services, human resources management, equal employment opportunity, organizational development and analysis, and information technology; (2) provides leadership in the development of policies for and the analysis, performance measurement, and improvement of SAMHSA administrative and management systems; (3) provides leadership, guidance, and technical expertise for the Agency's information technology program; (4) provides centralized administrative services for the Agency; (5) provides centralized staff assistance and office automation services for designated components of the Agency, and (6) conducts all aspects of the SAMHSA grants and contracts management process.
(1) Provides centralized administrative services for the Agency, including processing and coordinating requests for and providing advice on procurement actions, travel, property, facilities, and other activities; (2) coordinates actions as necessary with other HHS components such as the Program Support Center (PSC) procurement staff and the contract travel agency; (3) processes and coordinates requests for SAMHSA administrative actions; (4) provides advice and guidance to staff on administrative procedures for processing actions such as travel orders, acquisition requests, and training documents; (5) ensures administrative actions are consistent with regulations and other requirements, and implements general management policies as prescribed by SAMHSA and higher authorities; (6) coordinates the provision of support in the areas of real and personal property, building management, facility management, health and safety, security, transportation, parking, and telecommunications; (7) in collaboration with the Division of Financial Management in the Office of Policy, Planning, and Budget, performs budget execution tasks such as certifying funds, maintaining the commitment database, and reconciling accounts for program management for SAMHSA; (8) coordinates and complies with policies and procedures set forth by the Division of Financial Management for budget execution, and (9) provides centralized
These organizational changes are effective November 3, 2004.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of document availability for review and comment.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (we) announces the availability of the Draft Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon for public review and comment. This draft recovery plan covers 33 species, of which 20 are federally listed as threatened or endangered. These species inhabit vernal pool ecosystems in California and southern Oregon. This draft recovery plan includes recovery criteria and measures for 20 federally listed species. Federally endangered plants include
The draft recovery plan addresses conservation of 10 plant species of concern, including
Comments on the draft recovery plan must be received on or before March 18, 2005.
A copy of the draft recovery plan is available for review, by appointment, during normal business hours at the following U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service locations: Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento, California (telephone (916) 414-6600); Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California (telephone (760) 431-9440); Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California (telephone (805) 644-1766); Southwest Oregon Field Office, 2900 NW., Stewart Parkway, Roseburg, Oregon (telephone (541) 957-3473); and Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, California (telephone (707) 822-7201. An electronic copy of this draft recovery plan is also available on the World Wide Web at
Harry McQuillen or Betty Warne, Fish and Wildlife Biologists, at the above Sacramento address.
Restoring endangered or threatened animals and plants to the point where they are again secure, self-sustaining members of their ecosystems is a primary goal of our endangered species program. To help guide the recovery effort, we are working to prepare recovery plans for most of the listed species native to the United States. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for the conservation of the species, establish criteria for downlisting or delisting listed species, and estimate time and cost for implementing the recovery measures needed.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The 33 species covered in this draft recovery plan occur primarily in vernal pool, swale, or ephemeral freshwater habitats within California and southern Oregon and are largely confined to a limited area by topographic constraints, soil types, and climatic conditions. Surrounding (or associated) upland habitat is critical to the proper ecological function of these vernal pool habitats. Most of the vernal pool plants and animals addressed in the draft recovery plan have life histories adapted to the short period for growth and reproduction within inundated or drying pools interspersed with long dormant periods when pools are dry, and extreme year-to-year variation in rainfall. Threats to the species include habitat loss, fragmentation, and
The objectives of this draft recovery plan are to: (1) Ameliorate the threats that caused the species to be listed, and ameliorate any other newly identified threats in order to be able to delist these species; and (2) ensure the long-term conservation of the species of concern. These objectives will be accomplished through implementation of a variety of recovery measures including habitat protection, management and restoration; monitoring; reintroduction, introduction, and enhancement; research and status surveys; and public participation, outreach, and education.
We solicit written comments on the draft recovery plan described. All comments received by the date specified above will be considered in developing a final recovery plan.
The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of document availability for review and comment.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (we) announces the availability of the Draft Recovery Plan for the Tidewater Goby (
Comments on the draft recovery plan must be received on or before January 18, 2005 to receive our consideration.
A copy of the draft recovery plan is available for review, by appointment, during normal business hours at the following location: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003 (telephone 805-644-1766). An electronic copy of the draft recovery plan is also available on the World Wide Web at
Chris Dellith, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, at the above Sacramento address.
Restoring endangered or threatened animals and plants to the point where they are again secure, self-sustaining members of their ecosystems is a primary goal of our endangered species program. To help guide the recovery effort, we are working to prepare recovery plans for most of the listed species native to the United States. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for the conservation of the species; establish criteria for the recovery levels for downlisting or delisting them, and estimate time and cost for implementing the recovery measures needed.
Section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531
This draft recovery plan was developed by the Tidewater Goby Recovery Team. We coordinated with the California Department of Fish and Game and a team of stakeholders, which included landowners and managers, agency representatives, and non-government organizations.
The tidewater goby was listed as an endangered species on March 7, 1994 (59 FR 5494). The tidewater goby is threatened primarily by modification and loss of habitat as a result of coastal development, channelization of habitat, diversions of water flows, groundwater overdrafting, and alteration of water flows. Actions needed to recover the tidewater goby include: (1) Monitor, protect, and enhance currently occupied tidewater goby habitat; (2) conduct biological research to enhance the ability to integrate land use practices with tidewater goby recovery and revise recovery tasks as pertinent new information becomes available; (3) evaluate and implement translocation where appropriate; and (4) increase public awareness about tidewater gobies.
We solicit written comments on the draft recovery plan described. All comments received by the date specified above will be considered in developing a final recovery plan.
The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f).
Bureau of Land Management; Interior.
Notice of closure.
Notice is hereby given that effective immediately certain public lands in southwestern Huerfano County, Colorado are closed to all types of motorized travel. The purpose of this closure is to prevent the development of unauthorized user-created trails, damage to soils and vegetation, adverse impacts to water quality, and wildlife harassment. Approximately 4,600 acres of public lands are affected by this closure. It should be noted that there is no existing legal motorized public access to these public lands. These lands will remain closed until travel management planning is completed. This closure is made under the authority of 43 CFR 8364.1.
Effective immediately and remaining in effect unless revised, revoked or amended.
Bureau of Land Management, Royal Gorge Field Office, 3170 East Main Street, Can
For further information contact, Roy L. Masinton, Field Manager, or Leah Quesenberry, Outdoor Recreation Planner, at the above address and phone number.
The public lands affected by this closure are identified as follows:
Southern portion of the Wet Mountain Valley, located approximately 12 miles southwest of Gardner, Colorado, east of County Road 580.
This closure order does not apply to emergency, law enforcement, and Federal or other government vehicles while being used for official or other emergency purposes, or to any other vehicle use that is expressly authorized or otherwise officially approved by BLM. BLM will coordinate with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, United States Forest Service, and Huerfano County to implement this closure. Violation of this order is punishable by imprisonment for up to 12 months and/or a fine as defined in 18 U.S.C. 3571. Notice of this closure order and a detailed map will be posted at the Royal Gorge Field Office.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Interior.
Notice of Intent to prepare a Special Status Species RMPA and EIS for the Carlsbad and Roswell Field Offices, New Mexico.
This document provides notice that the BLM intends to prepare a RMPA with an associated EIS for the Carlsbad and Roswell Field Offices. This RMPA will amend two RMPs: Carlsbad 1988 (as amended) and Roswell 1997. The purpose of the amendment is to respond to changing resource conditions and respond to new issues in the context of habitat management for special status species on public lands in the planning area administered by the Field Offices.
This Notice initiates the public-scoping process. Comments on the scope of the plan, including issues or concerns that should be considered, should be submitted in writing to the address listed below within 45 days after the publication of this Notice. However, collaboration with the public will continue throughout the planning process. Dates and locations for public meetings will be announced through local news media, newsletters, and the BLM Web site (
Please mail written comments to the BLM, Roswell Field Office, Attention: RMPA, 2909 West Second Street, Roswell, New Mexico 88201, or fax to (505) 627-0276. All public comments, including names and mailing addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the Roswell Field Office during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) Monday through Friday, except holidays, and may be published as part of the EIS. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish to withhold your name or street address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, please state this prominently at the beginning of your written correspondence. The BLM will honor such requests to the extent allowed by law. All submissions from organizations and businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be available for public inspection in their entirety. The current RMPs and all other documents relevant to this planning process are available for public review at the Roswell Field Office (see address above).
For further information or to have your name added to the Special Status Species RMPA Mailing List, contact Howard Parman, Planning Team Leader, at the Roswell Field Office (see address above), telephone number (505) 627-0272.
The planning area for the RMPA, which includes 847,491 acres of BLM-administered public lands, is located entirely in southeast New Mexico in Chaves, Eddy, Lea, and Roosevelt Counties. A map of the planning area is available on the web site (see address above). The planning area includes all surface and subsurface (mineral estate) lands managed by BLM within the planning area.
The BLM-administered public lands within the planning area are currently managed under interim management guidelines issued on August 5, 2004. Interim management is in accordance with the decisions in the 1988 Carlsbad RMP, as amended, and the 1997 Roswell RMP. BLM will continue to manage these lands in accordance with the
Preparation of a RMPA for the Carlsbad and Roswell Field Offices is necessary to respond to changing resource conditions and respond to new issues in the context of habitat management for special status species on public lands in the planning area administered by the Field Offices. The RMPA will establish new land-use planning decisions to address issues identified through public scoping and, where appropriate, will incorporate decisions from the existing RMPs.
The BLM will work collaboratively with interested parties to identify the management decisions that are best suited to local, regional, and National interests. The public scoping process will help identify planning issues and provide for public comment on the proposed planning criteria. BLM has identified the following preliminary issues:
• Integrating wildlife habitat management with livestock grazing management.
• Minimizing surface disturbance associated with energy development.
• Utilizing existing rights-of-way corridors for energy distribution;
• Developing route designations to manage access, travel, and off-highway vehicles to protect wildlife habitat.
• Proposing land tenure and ownership adjustments for greater management efficiency;
• Regional coordination with state and local agencies for more effective management in the planning area.
• These preliminary issues are not final and may be refined or additional issues may be added through public participation.
BLM has also identified some preliminary planning criteria to guide development of the plan, to avoid unnecessary data collection and analysis, and to ensure the plan is tailored to the issues. These criteria may be modified or other criteria identified during the public-scoping process. The public is invited to comment on the following preliminary planning criteria:
• Actions must comply with laws, regulations, executive orders, and BLM Manuals (
• Actions must be reasonable and achievable and allow for flexibility where appropriate (
• The Economic Profile System (EPS) developed by the Sonoran Institute will be used as a community involvement strategy and a source of demographic and economic data for the planning process. EPS will provide a foundation of current social and economic conditions in the Planning Area. Following this, as planning alternatives are developed, a social and economic analysis and environmental justice assessment will be conducted to determine the effect that each alternative will have on users and the diverse population in the Planning Area. The analysis will consider the short- and long-term social and economic benefits associated with possible alternatives. The lifestyles, issues, and needs of area residents will be taken into consideration. Other important factors to be considered will be the needs and long-term plans of local city, county, and Tribal governments. Short-term consequences will be weighed against long-term benefits as necessary. The impacts on both the general population and affected subgroups within the planning area will be determined.
• Actions will be considered using an interdisciplinary approach.
• The Roswell/Carlsbad RMPA planning team will work cooperatively with county and municipal governments, other Federal, State and local agencies, and interested groups and individuals. A process of collaborative public involvement and participation will be carried out throughout this process.
• The RMPA will change or modify the guidance upon which the Field Offices will manage public lands within the planning area.
• The planning process will include an EIS that complies with National Environmental Policy Act standards.
• The RMPA will protect and enhance the biodiversity of the planning area, while allowing the public the opportunity for access to public lands in a productive and meaningful way.
• The RMPA will recognize valid existing rights related to the use of public lands. The RMPA will define the process that BLM will use to address applications or notices filed after the completion of the RMPA on existing land-use authorizations.
• The RMPA process will involve Native American Tribal governments and will provide strategies for protection of cultural resources and traditional cultural properties on public lands.
• Decisions in the RMPA will strive to be compatible with existing plans and policies of adjacent local, State, and Federal Governments and agencies, as long as the decisions are in conformance with BLM-management policies.
• The RMPA will comply with all legal mandates of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the BLM planning regulations in 43 CFR part 1600.
The collaborative process will allow the public, Tribes, State and Federal agencies, local elected officials, and BLM specialists to participate in identifying issues and developing and analyzing alternatives. BLM has asked the New Mexico State Land Office; the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish; and Chaves, Eddy, Lea, and Roosevelt Counties to serve as cooperating agencies during the planning process.
Bureau of Land Management; Interior.
Notice of intent.
This document provides notice that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) intends to prepare an Resource Management Plan (RMP) and associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Little Snake Field Office. The planning area is located in Northwest Colorado in Moffat, Routt, and Rio Blanco Counties. The plan will provide a framework to guide subsequent management decisions on approximately 1.3 million acres of BLM-administered public lands and 1.1 million acres of subsurface mineral estate administered by the BLM. Preparation of this RMP and EIS will conform with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Federal Regulations, and BLM management policies. The BLM will work collaboratively with a broad range of interested parties to identify management decisions that are best suited to local, regional, and national needs and concerns.
This notice initiates the public scoping process. Comments on the scope of the plan, including issues or concerns that should be considered, should be submitted in writing to the address listed below and will be accepted throughout the creation of the Draft RMP/Draft EIS. All public meetings will be announced through the local news media, newsletters, and the BLM Web site at
Please mail written comments to the BLM, Little Snake Field Office, 455 Emerson St., Craig, Colorado, 81625 or fax to (970) 826-5002. Comments should be sent to the above address or may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to
For further information or to have your name added to the Little Snake RMP Mailing List, contact Jeremy Casterson at the Little Snake Field Office (see address above), telephone (970) 826-5071.
This document provides notice that the Little Snake Field Office will revise its current RMP. The RMP to be prepared for the public lands administered by the Little Snake Field Office will identify goals, objectives, standards and guidelines for management of a variety of resources and values. The RMP will demonstrate active engagement of the community in a collaborative planning effort. The plan will specify actions, constraints, and general management practices necessary to achieve desired conditions. The scope of the RMP will be comprehensive. Certain existing standards and guidelines and other BLM plans will be incorporated into the RMP, such as the Colorado Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines, and the Uniform Format for Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations. This notice provides the public an opportunity to suggest issues, concerns, needs, and resource use, development and protection opportunities for consideration in preparation of the plan. A number of decisions related to various resource values and programs will be made as a result of this planning effort. The major issues identified to date include (1) Management of upland vegetation; (2) management of riparian areas and water quality concerns; (3) energy and mineral development; (4) special management areas; (5) recreation management; (6) travel management; (7) cultural resources and paleontology and Native American concerns; (8) management of wildlife, including conservation and recovery of special status species; (9) socio-economic values; and (10) land and realty issues.
In addition to the major issues, a number of management questions and concerns will be addressed in the plan. Issues and management concerns may be identified by interested parties during the scoping phase. After gathering public comments on what issues the plan should address, the suggested issues will be placed in one of three categories:
(1) Issues to be resolved in the plan;
(2) Issues resolved through policy or administrative action; or
(3) Issues beyond the scope of the plan.
BLM will provide feedback to the public on the final issues to be addressed in the plan. An interdisciplinary approach will be used to develop the plan in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Disciplines involved in the planning process will include specialists with expertise in rangeland management, minerals and geology, outdoor recreation, archaeology, wildlife, lands and realty, hydrology, soils, sociology and economics.
The following planning criteria have been proposed to guide the development of the plan, to avoid unnecessary data collection and analyses, and to ensure the plan is tailored to the issues. Other criteria may be identified during the public scoping process. After gathering comments on planning criteria, BLM will finalize the criteria and provide feedback to the public on the criteria to be used throughout the planning process.
• The plans will be completed in compliance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701
• Complete the planning work on time and on budget. Focus the collaborative effort so that the collaborators can see that they make a difference, within a timeframe that is reasonable and achievable.
• Recognize the specific niche that federal lands provide both to the nation and to the surrounding community. A successful plan will be one that is responsive to both national needs and community needs.
• Public participation will be encouraged throughout the process as per the attached Public Participation Plan. Collaborate and build relationships with tribes, state and local governments, federal agencies, local stakeholders and others in the community of interest of the plan as normal business. Collaborators are regularly informed and offered timely and meaningful opportunities to participate in the planning process.
• Road and trail access (and OHV management) guidance will be incorporated into the plan to ensure public and resource needs are met.
• The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) inventory results will be integrated into land use planning and energy use authorizations. Environmental protection and energy production are both desirable and necessary objectives of sound land management practices and are not to be considered mutually exclusive priorities;
• For all stipulations developed in new land use plans and to further improve consistency and understanding of lease stipulations, State and Field offices will use the Uniform Format for Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations prepared by the Rocky Mountain Regional Coordinating Committee in March 1989. Lease stipulations will be reviewed for consistency with neighboring field offices and States, and where there are discrepancies, efforts will be undertaken to try and get consistency.
• The lifestyles and concerns of area residents will be recognized in the plan. A socio-economic assessment of the planning area will be prepared to identify, analyze and review the social and economic considerations of the plans.
• The plan will incorporate the Colorado Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines. It will lay out a strategy for ensuring that proper grazing
• Contain an adaptive framework that incorporates regular monitoring and evaluation to adjust management within the direction of the existing plan. Included in the range of potential actions for each adaptive management decision, a “fallback” decision will be prepared, which would be expected to achieve the outcome. The plan will have realistic desired conditions and achievable objectives consistent with likely budgets and the design criteria.
• Lands with wilderness characteristics may be managed to protect and/or preserve some or all of those characteristics. This may include protecting certain lands in their natural condition and/or providing opportunities for solitude, or primitive and unconfined types of recreation.
• Identify existing and potential corridors (potential corridors include existing ROW routes that can be considered for additional facilities and thus be considered a corridor if not already so designated); Identify existing and potential ROW development sites such as energy development areas (
• The BLM will work cooperatively with interested parties to identify the management decisions that are best suited to local, regional, and national interests. A local citizen-based stewardship group, the Northwest Colorado Stewardship (NWCOS), will engage with the BLM in the RMP revision. NWCOS is an independent community-centered stewardship group that will focus its efforts on a community assessment, developing a community vision for the landscape, and a community alternative.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the California Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee will meet jointly with the California Bay-Delta Authority on December 8 and 9, 2004. The agenda for the joint meeting will include reports from the Lead Scientist and the Independent Science Board; a presentation on climate change by Dr. Dettinger and Francis Chung; an update on the California Water Plan, the Delta Improvements Package, and the Operations Criteria and Plan for the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project; and discussion and a possible recommendation on the 10-Year Finance Plan and the Annual Statement of Progress and Future Priorities for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program with State and Federal agency representatives.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 8, 2004, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., and on Thursday, December 9, 2004, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. If reasonable accommodation is needed due to a disability, please contact Pauline Nevins at (916) 455-5511 or TDD (800) 735-2929 at least 1 week prior to the meeting.
The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Hotel in the Grand Ballroom, 1230 J Street, Sacramento, California.
Heidi Rooks, California Bay-Delta Authority, at (916) 445-5511, or Diane Buzzard, Bureau of Reclamation, at (916) 798-5022.
The Committee was established to provide recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior, other participating Federal agencies, the Governor of the State of California, and the California Bay-Delta Authority on implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The Committee makes recommendations on annual priorities, integration of the eleven Program elements, and overall balancing of the four Program objectives of ecosystem restoration, water quality, levee system integrity, and water supply reliability. The Program is a consortium of State and Federal agencies with the mission to develop and implement a long-term comprehensive plan that will restore ecological health and improve water management for beneficial uses of the San Francisco/Sacramento and San Joaquin Bay Delta.
Committee and meeting materials will be available on the California Bay-Delta Authority Web site at
Notice is hereby given that on November 5, 2004 a proposed Consent Decree in
In this action, the United States sought the recovery of costs incurred and to be incurred by the United States in response to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances at and from the Eureka Mills NPL Site located in Eureka, Utah (the “Site”). The United States alleged that the Atlantic Richfield Company was liable under CERCLA Section 107(a)(1) and (2), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(1) and (2), as a past owner and operator of a portion of the Site at the time of disposal and as a present owner of a portion of the Site upon which hazardous substances have been released, for those response costs set forth in CERCLA Section 107(a)(4)(A)-(D), 42 U.S.C. 96707(a)(4)(A)-(D).
The settlement between the United States and the Atlantic Richfield Company provides that the Atlantic Richfield Company will implement the remedy for the Site selected by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) on those portions of the Site on which the United States has alleged that
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environmental and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The Consent Decree may be examined at U.S. EPA Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado, 80202. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree, may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
Under the policy set out at 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on November 4, 2004, the United States lodged with the United States District Court for the District of Montana a proposed consent decree (“Consent Decree”) in the case of
The proposed settlement would resolve the claims brought by the United States against ARCO under section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9607, for the recovery of response costs previously paid by EPA, through July 31, 2002, with accrued interest, in responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances at the Remaining Clark Fork Sites. The Consent Decree would simultaneously resolve, subject to certain reservations, most of the defenses and all of the counterclaims asserted by ARCO against the United States for the past cost claims at the Remaining Clark Fork Sites, as well as the future response costs and future response actions at these sites.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the office of the United States Attorney for the District of Montana, 2929 Third Avenue North, Suite 400, Billings, Montana 59101, and at U.S. EPA Region VIII Montana Office, Federal Building, 10 West 15th Street, Suite 3200, Helena, Montana 59624. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree, may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on October 25, 2004, a proposed Consent Decree in
In this action, the United States asserted claims against Esso Standard Oil Co. S.A. Ltd. (Esso) under Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), for recovery of response costs incurred regarding the Tutu Wellfield Superfund Site, in St. Thomas, USVI (Site). The proposed consent decree embodies an agreement with Esso to pay $3 million of response costs. The decree provides Esso with a covenant not to sue under Section 107(a) of CERCLA.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, 1108 King Street, Suite 201, Christensted, St. Croix, VI 00820, and at the Region II Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Records Center, 290 Broadway, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree also may be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
Submit comments on or before January 18, 2005.
Send comments to Justin Heung, 200 Constitution Avenue, C-5311, 202-693-3560,
Justin Heung, 200 Constitution Avenue, C-5311, 202-693-3560,
Sections 222, 223 and 249 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, require the Secretary of Labor to issue a determination for groups of workers as to their eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). After reviewing all of the information obtained for each petition for trade adjustment assistance filed with the Department, a determination is issued as to whether the statutory criteria for certification are met.
The information collected in ETA Form 9118 is used by the Secretary to specifically determine whether petitioning worker groups that perform a service are related to production of articles. If worker groups are related to production of articles, the form will request contact information so that sufficient article production and sales data may be collected from the appropriate contact to assess whether the production that service workers support is adversely affected by trade, and to adequately assess whether the group eligibility requirements detailed in section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, have been met.
Currently, the Employment and Training Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the Non-Production Questionnaire.
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed above in the
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
The seventh meeting of the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee will be held on December 14, 2004 in the Postal Square Building, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Washington, DC. A meeting that had been scheduled for June 11, 2004, which would have been the Committee's seventh meeting, was canceled because that date was declared a national day of mourning for former President Ronald Reagan and Federal offices were closed.
The Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee is a technical committee composed of economists, statisticians, and behavioral scientists who are recognized for their attainments and objectivity in their respective fields. Committee members are called upon to analyze issues involved in producing Federal economic statistics and recommend practices that will lead to optimum efficiency, effectiveness, and cooperation among the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of the Census.
The meeting will be held in Meeting Rooms 1 and 2 of the Postal Square Building Conference Center. The schedule and agenda for the meeting are as follows:
The meeting is open to the public. Any questions concerning the meeting should be directed to Margaret Johnson, Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee, on Area Code (202) 691-5600. Individuals with disabilities, who need special accommodations, should contact Ms. Johnson at least two days prior to the meeting date.
Notice is hereby given of the date and location of the next meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH), established under section 7(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 656) to advise the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Health and Human Services on matters relating to the administration of the Act. NACOSH will hold a meeting on December 8, at the Holiday Inn, located at 550 C Street, SW., Washington, DC. The Meeting is open to the public and will begin at 9 a.m. and end at approximately 4 p.m.
Agenda items will include updates on activities of both the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), OSHA Health Targeting, and NIOSH Nanotechnology, as well as workgroup meetings and reports addressing Hispanic Outreach, Motor Vehicle Safety, and Emergency Response.
Written data, views or comments for consideration by the committee may be submitted, preferably with 20 copies, to Wilfred Epps at the address provided below. Any such submissions received prior to the meeting will be provided to the members of the committee and will be included in the record of the meeting. Because of the need to cover a wide variety of subjects in a short period of time, there is usually insufficient time on the agenda for members of the public to address the committee orally. However, any such requests will be considered by the Chair who will determine whether or not time permits. Any request to make an oral presentation should state the amount of time desired, the capacity in which the person would apear, and a brief outline of the content of the presentation. Individuals with disabilities who need special accommodations should contact Veneta Chatmon (phone: 202-693-1912; fax; 202-693-1634) one week before the meeting.
An official record of the meeting will be available for public inspection in the OSHA Technical Data Center (TDC) located in Room N2625 at the Department of Labor Building (202-693-2350). For additional information contact: Wilfred Epps, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); Room N3641, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210 (phone: 202-693-1857; fax: 202-693-1641; e-mail:
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Section 608(d) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, Pub. L. 108-199 (Division D) requires the Millennium Challenge Corporation to publish a report that lists the countries determined by the Board of Directors of the Corporation to be eligible for assistance for Fiscal Year 2005. The Report is set forth below.
This report is provided in accordance with Section 608(d) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, 22 U.S.C.A. 7707(d) (the “Act”).
The Act authorizes the provision of Millennium Challenge Account (“MCA”) assistance under section 605 of the Act to countries that enter into compacts with the United States to support policies and programs that advance the prospects of such countries to achieve lasting poverty reduction and economic growth. The Act requires the Millennium Challenge Corporation (“MCC”) to take a number of steps to determine the countries that, based on their demonstrated commitment to just and democratic governance, economic freedom and investing in their people, will be eligible to receive MCA assistance during a fiscal year. These steps include the submission of reports to appropriate congressional committees and the publication of notices in the
1. The “candidate countries” for MCA assistance in a fiscal year (Section 608(a) of the Act);
2. The eligibility criteria and methodology that the MCC Board of Directors (the “Board”) will use to select “eligible countries” from among the “candidate countries” (Section 608(b) of the Act); and
3. The countries determined by the Board to be “eligible countries” for a fiscal year, the countries on the list of eligible countries with which the Board will seek to enter into MCA “Compacts” and a justification for such decisions (Section 608(d) of the Act).
This is the third of the above-described reports for FY 2005. It identifies countries determined by the Board to be eligible for MCA assistance in FY 2005 under section 605 of the Act and those that the Board will seek to enter into MCA Compacts under section 609 of the Act, and the justification for such decisions.
The MCC Board of Directors met on November 8, 2004, to select countries that will be eligible for FY 2005 MCA assistance under section 605 of the Act and will be invited to submit proposals for such assistance. The Board determined the following countries eligible for FY 2005 assistance: Armenia, Benin, Bolivia, Georgia, Ghana, Honduras, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Senegal, Sri Lanka, and Vanuatu.
In accordance with the Act and with MCC's “Criteria and Methodology for Determining the Eligibility of Candidate Countries for Millennium Challenge Account Assistance in FY 2005,” submitted to the Congress on August 31,
Only one new country was selected for FY05: Morocco. Morocco performed above the median in relation to its peers on at least half of the indicators in each of the three policy categories and above the median on the corruption indicator specifically. Although Morocco was substantially below average on one economic indicator—Trade Policy—the Board decided that a positive eligibility determination was nonetheless justified based on positive trends and concrete actions taken by the Government of Morocco that were not fully reflected in the “point in time” indicator data. Since 2000, Morocco has made significant efforts to liberalize its trade policy. Furthermore, in addition to the EU Agreement, which calls for the removal of all non-agricultural tariffs on trade between the two areas by 2012, Morocco recently concluded free trade agreements with Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia and the United States. These agreements put Morocco in a select group of countries that have negotiated among the most liberal market access for goods and services and the highest standards of trade and investment rules.
With the exception of Morocco, all of the countries selected were previously selected by the Board as eligible for FY04 MCA assistance: Armenia, Benin, Bolivia, Ghana, Georgia, Honduras, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Senegal, Sri Lanka, and Vanuatu. These countries were re-endorsed by the Board on November 8, 2004, based on their continued performance since the May selection, most notably in the areas outlined in MCC's Report on the Selection of MCA Eligible Countries for FY 2004, submitted to Congress on May 7, 2004. The Board also determined that no material change has occurred in the performance of these countries on the selection criteria since the FY04 selection that would justify removing them from the eligible country list.
The Board also authorized the MCC to seek to negotiate an MCA Compact, as described in section 609 of the Act, with each of the eligible countries identified above that develops a proposal that justifies beginning such negotiations. MCC will initiate the process by inviting eligible countries to submit program proposals to MCC. MCC has posted guidance on the MCC Web site (
Submission of a proposal is not a guarantee that MCC will finalize a Compact with an eligible country. MCC will evaluate proposals and make funding decisions based on the potential for impacting poverty reduction through economic growth and other considerations. The quality of the initial proposal—including how well the country has demonstrated the relationship between the proposed priority areas and poverty reduction through economic growth—will be a determining factor, in addition to, the breadth of public support within the country for the proposal and the government's commitment to continued policy improvement. An eligible country's commitment and capacity to oversee effective implementation of the program will also be a factor in determining how quickly MCC can begin substantive discussions with a country on a Compact and will likely influence the speed with which a Compact can be negotiated as well as the amount and timing of any MCA assistance approved by the Board.
Any MCA assistance provided under section 605 of the Act will be contingent on the successful negotiation of a mutually agreeable Compact between the eligible country and MCC and approval of the Compact by the Board.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice.
NARA is giving public notice that the agency has submitted to OMB for approval the information collection described in this notice. The public is invited to comment on the proposed information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted to OMB at the address below on or before December 20, 2004 to be assured of consideration.
Comments should be electronically mailed to:
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information collection and supporting statement should be directed to Tamee Fechhelm at telephone number 301-837-1694 or fax number 301-837-3213.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), NARA invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. NARA published a notice of proposed collection for this information collection on September 1, 2004 (69 FR 53470 and 53471). No comments were received. NARA has submitted the described information collection to OMB for approval. In response to this notice, comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NARA; (b) the accuracy of NARA's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of information technology. In this notice, NARA is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) has received an application, dated October 18, 2004, from the Carolina Power & Light Company, now doing business as Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc., filed pursuant to Section 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR part 54, to renew Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62 for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2. Renewal of the licenses would authorize the applicant to operate the facility for an additional 20-year period beyond the period specified in the respective current operating licenses. The current operating licenses for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, expire on September 8, 2016, and December 27, 2014, respectively. The Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, are boiling water reactors designed by General Electric Corporation, and are located in Brunswick County, North Carolina. The acceptability of the tendered application for docketing, and other matters including an opportunity to request for a hearing, will be addressed in a subsequent
Copies of the application are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, or electronically from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under accession number ML043060391. The ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible from the NRC Web site at
The staff has also verified that a copy of the license renewal application for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, has been provided to the North Carolina University at Wilmington, William Randall Library, 601 South College Road, Wilmington, North Carolina.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an exemption from 10 CFR Part 50.54(o) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, for Facility Operating License No. DPR-28, issued to Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the licensee) for operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS), located in Vernon, Vermont. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.
The proposed action would exempt Entergy from requirements to include main steam isolation valve (MSIV) leakage in (a) the overall integrated leakage rate test measurement required by Section III.A of Appendix J, Option B, and (b) the sum of local leak rate test measurements required by Section III.B of Appendix J, Option B.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated July 31, 2003, as supplemented by letters dated October 10, November 7 (2 letters), November 20, December 11 (2 letters), and December 30, 2003, and February 10, February 18, February 25, March 17, May 12, and July 20, 2004, for exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(o) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J.
Section 50.54(o) of 10 CFR Part 50 requires that primary reactor containments for water cooled power reactors be subject to the requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix J specifies the leakage test requirements, schedules, and acceptance criteria for tests of the leak tight integrity of the primary reactor containment and systems and components which penetrate the containment. Option B, Section III.A requires that the overall integrated leak rate must not exceed the allowable leakage (La) with margin, as specified in the Technical Specifications (TSs). The overall integrated leak rate, as specified in the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J definitions, includes the contribution from MSIV leakage. By letter dated July 31, 2003, the licensee has requested an exemption from Option B, Section III.A, requirements to permit exclusion of MSIV leakage from the overall integrated leak rate test measurement. Option B, Section III.B of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J requires that the sum of the leakage rates of Type B and Type C local leak rate tests be less than the performance criterion (La) with margin, as specified in the TSs. The licensee's July 31, 2003, letter also requests an exemption from this requirement, to permit exclusion of the MSIV contribution to the sum of the Type B and Type C tests.
The above-cited requirements of Appendix J require that MSIV leakage measurements be grouped with the leakage measurements of other containment penetrations when containment leakage tests are performed. These requirements are inconsistent with the design of the VYNPS and the analytical models used to calculate the radiological consequences of design basis accidents. At VYNPS, and similar facilities, the leakage from primary containment penetrations, under accident conditions, is collected and treated by the secondary containment system, or would bypass the secondary containment. However, the leakage from MSIVs is collected and treated via an Alternative Leakage Treatment (ALT) path having different mitigation characteristics. In performing accident analyses, it is appropriate to group various leakage effluents according to the treatment they receive before being released to the environment,
The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the calculated radiological consequences remain within the criteria of 10 CFR 50.67. The details of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in the exemption that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the exemption to the regulation.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off site. There is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historical sites. It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (
This action does not involve the use of any resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement dated July 1972 for VYNPS.
On May 13, 2004, the NRC staff consulted with the Vermont State official, Mr. William K. Sherman of the Vermont Department of Public Service, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments on the environmental impact of the proposed exemption, but provided comments on the associated Technical Specification changes discussed in the July 31, 2003, application. These comments will be addressed in the Safety Evaluation documenting the staff's review of that proposed change.
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to this action, see the licensee's letter dated July 31, 2003, as supplemented by letters dated October 10, November 7 (2 letters), November 20, December 11 (2
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of availability.
Orysia Masnyk Bailey, Materials Security & Industrial Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406, telephone (404) 562-4739, fax (404) 562-4955; or by e-mail:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a license amendment to the Ponce School of Medicine for Materials License No. 52-19547-01, to authorize release of its facility in Ponce, Puerto Rico for unrestricted use. NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the publication of this Notice.
The purpose of the action is to authorize the release of the licensee's Ponce, Puerto Rico facility for unrestricted use. The Ponce School of Medicine was authorized by the NRC from October 15, 1981 to use radioactive materials for research and development purposes at the site. On February 4, 2003, the Ponce School of Medicine requested that the NRC release the facility for unrestricted use. The Ponce School of Medicine has conducted surveys of the facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the site meets the license termination criteria in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release.
The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of the license amendment. The facility was remediated and surveyed prior to the licensee requesting the license amendment. The NRC staff has reviewed the information and final status survey submitted by the Ponce School of Medicine. Based on its reviews, the staff has determined that there are no additional remediation activities necessary to complete the proposed action. Therefore, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the facility and concluded that since the residual radioactivity meets the requirements in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20, a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate.
The staff has prepared the EA (summarized above) in support of the license amendment to release the facility for unrestricted use. The NRC staff has evaluated the Ponce School of Medicine's request and the results of the survey and has concluded that the completed action complies with the criteria in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20. The staff has found that the environmental impacts from the action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by NUREG-1496, Volumes 1-3, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Facilities” (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). On the basis of the EA, the NRC has concluded that the environmental impacts from the action are expected to be insignificant and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the action.
Documents related to this action, including the application for the license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically in the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this Notice are: The Environmental Assessment (ML042720062), and Letter dated February 4, 2003 transmitting the Final Status Survey Report (ML030430358). On October 25, 2004, the NRC terminated public access to ADAMS and 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 may obtain copies of the referenced documents for review and/or copying by contacting the Public Document Room pending resumption of public access to ADAMS. The NRC Public Documents Room is located at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, MD, and can be contacted at (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or by e-mail at
These documents may be viewed electronically at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. The PDR is open from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
CBOE proposes to amend its guaranteed participation rule relating to facilitation and crossing transactions. The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Additions are
(a)-(c) No change.
(d) * * *
(i) No change.
(ii) [The percentage of the order which a Floor Broker is entitled to cross, a]
[(A) 20% of the remaining contracts in the order if the order is traded at the best bid or offer given by the crowd in response to the broker's initial request for a market; or
(B) 40% of the remaining contracts in the order if the order is traded between the best bid or offer given by the crowd in response to the broker's initial request for a market.]
(iii)-(iv) No change.
(v) If a trade pursuant to this paragraph (d) occurs at the DPM's principal bid or offer in its appointed class, then the DPM's guaranteed participation level which is established pursuant to Exchange Rule 8.87 [(or Exchange circulars issued pursuant to Exchange Rule 8.87)] shall apply only to the number of contracts remaining after the following orders have been satisfied: those public customer orders which trade ahead of the cross transaction as indicated in sub-paragraph (d)(ii) above, and any portion of a customer order being crossed against the original order or the firm facilitation order as described in sub-paragraph (d)(ii) being represented by the Floor Broker. [The DPM's guaranteed participation may only be 25% for orders crossed pursuant to this paragraph unless the Floor Broker has chosen to cross less than its 20% entitlement, in which case the DPM's guaranteed entitlement]
(vi)-(vii) No change.
(e) No change.
.01-.08 No change.
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 parts of such statements.
CBOE Rule 6.74, Crossing Orders, provides the procedures for crossing and facilitation orders. Paragraph (d) of that rule details the procedures for the Exchange's “guaranteed” crossing rule. In short, paragraph (d) enables a floor broker to cross 20% of an order if it matches the crowd's price or 40% of an order if it improves upon the crowd's price (“20/40% rule”). Recently, the Exchange has begun to lose orders to another Exchange that is more crossing and facilitation friendly to order flow providers. To remain competitive, CBOE proposes to amend its 20/40% rule to make it a straight 40% rule, as described below.
Under the proposal, floor brokers would be entitled to cross 40% of an order, provided it trades at a price that matches or improves upon the price given by the trading crowd in response to the broker's initial request for a market. All other requirements would remain the same (
Changing to a straight 40% rule would require corresponding changes to the DPM participation entitlement as it pertains to facilitation and crossing orders. Currently, CBOE Rule 6.74(d)(v) entitles the DPM to a participation entitlement of 20% of the original order size when the floor broker crosses its 20% at the crowd's price. If the floor broker improves upon the crowd's price and takes its 40%, the DPM is not entitled to any participation guarantee. The Exchange proposes to retain this limitation (
Competitive pressures mandate the change from a 20/40% rule to a straight 40% rule. International Securities Exchange (“ISE”) Rule 716(d)(ii) provides Electronic Access Members with at least forty percent (40%) of the original size of the order for orders they submit through ISE's facilitation mechanism, whether executed at the current ISE displayed price or a better price. Accordingly, member firms have a strong inducement to send to the ISE orders they would like to facilitate. Recently, the Pacific Exchange received approval of rule filing SR-PCX-2003-64 in which it too adopted a straight 40% rule.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose a burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change; or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. 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-CBOE-2004-04. 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 CHX proposes to amend its membership dues and fees schedule (“Fee Schedule”) to eliminate the specialist application fee and suspend through December 31, 2004, specialist
A.-C. No change to text.
D. Specialist Assignment Fees
Specialist Application Fee: $150 per application, provided, however, that there will be no application fee for [NASDAQ/NM Securities]
Assignment of Dual Trading: Once the Committee on Specialist System Securities Assignment and Evaluation approves a member organization to act as specialist in a security, that member organization must pay the following fee:
In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received regarding 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.
In August 2004, the Exchange's Board of Governors decided to eliminate the application and assignment fees charged to specialist firms that seek to trade a Nasdaq/NM security when that security is assigned without competition.
The CHX represents that these proposed changes, like the similar proposal to modify these fees for specialists that trade Nasdaq/NM securities,
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 not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2004-34. 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.
The Department of State announces a meeting of the U.S. International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC). The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Department on matters related to telecommunication and information policy matters in preparation for international meetings pertaining to telecommunication and information issues.
The ITAC will meet to discuss the matters related to the second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). The meeting will take place on Wednesday, December 8, 2004 from 10:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. in the lecture room of the Historic National Academy of Science Building. The National Academy of Sciences is located at 2100 C St. NW., Washington, DC.
Members of the public are welcome to participate and may join in the discussions, subject to the discretion of the Chair. Persons planning to attend this meeting should send the following data by fax to (202) 647-5957 or e-mail to
Department of State.
Notice.
A determination has been made that sanctions imposed on a Russian entity, effective July 22, 2004 (69 FR 43875), pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, as amended, and the Export Administration Act of 1979 as amended (as carried out under Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001) no longer apply.
November 18, 2004.
Vann H. Van Diepen, Office of Chemical, Biological and Missile Nonproliferation, Bureau of Nonproliferation, Department of State (202-647-1142).
A determination was made on November 1, 2004, pursuant to Section 73(b)(1)(A) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b(b)(1)(A)) and Section 11B(b)(2)(A) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app. 2410b(b)(2)(A)), as carried out under Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, that the sanctions imposed effective July 22, 2004 (69 FR 43875), on the Russian entity Federal Research and Production Complex Altay (and its subunits and successors) do not apply. A determination was also made to impose sanctions against this entity under separate authority, as announced in a separate Notice in the
Bureau of Nonproliferation, Department of State.
Notice.
The U.S. Government has determined that a foreign entity has engaged in missile technology proliferation activities that require the imposition of measures pursuant to Executive Order 12938 of November 14, 1994, as amended by Executive Order 13094 of July 28, 1998.
November 18, 2004.
On general issues: Vann H. Van Diepen, Office of Chemical, Biological and Missile Nonproliferation, Bureau of Nonproliferation, Department of State (202-647-1142). On U.S. Government procurement ban issues: Gladys Gines, Office of the Procurement Executive, Department of State (703-516-1691).
Pursuant to the authorities vested in the President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701
Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of Executive Order 12938, the following measures are imposed on this entity, its subunits, and successors for two years:
1. All departments and agencies of the United States Government shall not procure or enter into any contract for the procurement of any goods, technology, or services from these entities including the termination of existing contracts;
2. All departments and agencies of the United States government shall not provide any assistance to these entities, and shall not obligate further funds for such purposes;
3. The Secretary of the Treasury shall prohibit the importation into the United States of any goods, technology, or services produced or provided by these entities, other than information or informational materials within the meaning of section 203(b)(3) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(3)).
These measures shall be implemented by the responsible departments and agencies as provided in Executive Order 12938.
In addition, pursuant to section 126.7(a)(1) of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, it is deemed that suspending the above-named entity
Moreover, it is the policy of the United States to deny licenses and other approvals for exports and temporary imports of defense articles and defense services destined for this entity.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of renewal.
Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), and in accordance with section 102-3.65, title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) has been renewed for a 2-year period beginning October 28, 2004. The primary purpose of the Committee is to provide information, advice, and recommendations to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) on matters relating to all aspects of the U.S. commercial space transportation industry. The primary goals of the Committee are to evaluate economic, technological, and institutional developments relating to the industry; to provide a forum for the discussion of problems involving the relationship between industry activities and government requirements; and to make recommendations to DOT on issues and approaches for Federal policies and programs regarding the industry. The Committee will operate in accordance with the rules of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Department of Transportation, FAA Committee Management Order (1110.30C).
Brenda Parker (AST-100), Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST), 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 331, Washington, DC 20591, telephone: (202) 267-3674; e-mail:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of intent.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public of its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposed Interstate 29 corridor study in Sioux City, Iowa from the Sioux Gateway Airport/Sergeant Bluff Interchange to the South Dakota State border.
Lisa Rold, Transportation Engineer, FHWA Iowa Division Office, 105 Sixth Street, Ames, IA, Ph. (515) 233-7307; or James P. Rost, Director, Office of Location and Environment, Iowa Department of Transportation, 800 Lincoln Way, Ames, IA 50010, Ph. (515) 239-1225.
An electronic copy of this document is available for free download from the Federal Bulletin Board (FBB). The FBB is a free electronic bulletin board service of the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO).
The FBB may be accessed in four ways: (1) Via telephone in dial-up mode or via the Internet through (2) telnet, (3) FTP, and (4) the World Wide Web.
For dial-in mode a user needs a personal computer, modem, telecommunications software package and telephone line. A hard disk is recommended for file transfers.
For Internet access a user needs Internet connectivity. Users can telnet or FTP to: fedbbs.access.gpo.gov. Users can access the FBB via the World Wide Web at
User assistance for the FBB is available from 7 a.m. until 5 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday (except Federal holidays) by calling the GPO Office of Electronic Information Dissemination Services as (202) 512-1262, toll free at (888) 293-6498; sending an e-mail to
Access to this notice is also available to Internet users through the Federal Register's home page at
The FHWA, in cooperation with the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT), will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for improvements proposed to Interstate 29 (I-29) from Sioux Gateway Airport/Sergeant Bluff Interchange to the South Dakota State border.
As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, FHWA will be preparing an EIS to assess the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the proposed project. The EIS will include a reasonable range of alternatives that will address the purpose and need of the project as well as a no-build alternative.
A Public Involvement Plan will be established and will facilitate public involvement through the project development process. The resource agencies will be solicited for their input throughout the life of this project. Throughout the development process, advance notice of the time and place of public meetings and/or hearings will be given in order to provide an opportunity for citizen attendance and comments.
The Siouxland Interstate Metropolitan Planning Council (SIMPCO), along with Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT), and the City of Sioux City conducted a multiphase study to determine the existing conditions and to develop improvement alternatives. The reports that were generated as a result of this study include Evaluation of Existing Conditions, I-29 Corridor Study, Sioux Gateway Interchange to South Dakota Border, February 1993, Development of Alternative Improvement Schemes, I-29 Corridor Study, Sioux Gateway Airport to South Dakota Border, June 1996, Refinement of Selected Improvement Concepts, I-29 Corridor Study, Sioux Gateway Interchange to South Dakota Border, January 1997, and Refinement of Selected Improvement Concepts, I-29 Corridor Study, Sioux Gateway
Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and to private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have interest in this proposal. A series of public meetings will be held throughout the study process. In addition, a public hearing will be held. Public notice will be given of the time and place of the meetings and hearing. The draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the public hearing. A formal scoping meeting with resource agencies will be scheduled. Resource agencies will be notified 30 days prior to the meeting date.
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments, and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed project and EIS should be directed to the FHWA or Iowa Department of Transportation at the address provided in the caption
In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.
The Valley Railroad Company (VALE) of Essex, Connecticut, operator of a scenic railroad on leased track, seeks waivers from certain provisions of 49 CFR part 231, 49 CFR part 223, and 49 CFR part 229 for an 80-ton diesel-electric locomotive built by General Electric in 1937 and currently numbered VALE 0901.
The specific sections from which relief is requested and the justifications for such relief are as follows: (1) Switching steps of the type required by 49 CFR part 231.30(a)-(f) are not permitted by the frame construction of the locomotive. Instead, it is equipped with four side ladders which give access to the walkways near each corner of the locomotive. (2) Glazing in the locomotive is not compliant with 49 CFR part 223.11; however, the current glazing is automotive style safety glass, and VALE reports they operate in a rural area and have had few incidents of rocks being thrown at their trains, and no incidents of rocks being thrown at a locomotive. (3) The locomotive has never been equipped with a “slip/slide alarm” as required by 49 CFR part 229.115; however, VALE reports that it will be operating at speeds less than 20 mph and with trains weighing less than 500 tons. (4) This locomotive is equipped with a single headlamp on each end which does not meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 229.125(a) for road locomotives, but which does meet the requirements for locomotives used in switching service given in 49 CFR part 229.125(b). Again, VALE states that this is sufficient due to the speed limit of 20 miles per hour.
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
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 Canadian National Railroad seeks approval of the proposed discontinuance and removal of the power-operated derails at CP North Pokegema, milepost 14.7, and CP South Pokegema, milepost 16.9, on the Duluth, Missabe, Iron Range Railroad, Interstate Branch Subdivision, and on the former Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific Railway,
The reason given for the proposed changes is to simplify operations and the physical plant.
Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an application shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which the protest is made, and include a concise statement of the interest of the party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the protest shall be furnished to the applicant at the address listed above.
All communications concerning this proceeding should be identified by the docket number and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401 (Plaza Level), 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by the FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the internet at the docket facility's Web site at
FRA wishes to inform all potential commenters that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
FRA expects to be able to determine these matters without an oral hearing. However, if a specific request for an oral hearing is accompanied by a showing that the party is unable to adequately present his or her position by written statements, an application may be set for public hearing.
Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 235 and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of 49 CFR part 236 as detailed below.
The Canadian National Railroad (CN) seeks approval for the proposed temporary discontinuance of the interlocked signal system, on the single main track movable bridge, at milepost 182.3 on the Wisconsin Central Division, Manistique Subdivision, at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, during the winter for approximately three months. The proposal is to lock down the bridge for rail traffic, and take the signal system out of service on or about February 1 of each year, for approximately three months once the canal is closed to marine traffic. In the spring, prior to restoring the signal system to service, the signal system will be completely tested in accordance with Federal Regulations.
The reason given for the proposed changes is that CN currently does not have approval to temporarily take the signal system out of service during the winter months, when the canal is closed to marine traffic. Historically, it has been the practice to suspend the signal system on this bridge during the winter, ever since the installation of the bridge signal system in 1962. FRA took exception to this practice in 2004, and this request is being made to attain compliance.
Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an application shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which the protest is made, and include a concise statement of the interest of the party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the protest shall be furnished to the applicant at the address listed above.
All communications concerning this proceeding should be identified by the docket number and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401 (Plaza Level), 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by the FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at
FRA wishes to inform all potential commenters that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
FRA expects to be able to determine these matters without an oral hearing. However, if a specific request for an oral hearing is accompanied by a showing that the party is unable to adequately present his or her position by written statements, an application may be set for public hearing.
Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 235 and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of 49 CFR part 236 as detailed below.
The Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad seeks approval of the proposed discontinuance and removal of the automatic block signal system, on the main track between Roseburg, Oregon, milepost, 575.2 and Springfield, Oregon, milepost 644.0, on the System Division, Roseburg Subdivision, a distance of approximately 69 miles, and govern train movements by Track Warrant Control.
The reasons given for the proposed changes are the maximum authorized speed is 25 mph, only five trains daily operate over the trackage, the required capital expense for maintenance of the signal system, and the semaphore signals used on a portion of the line are obsolete and replacement parts are no longer available.
Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an application shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which the protest is made, and include a concise statement of the interest of the party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the protest shall be furnished to the applicant at the address listed above.
All communications concerning this proceeding should be identified by the docket number and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401 (Plaza Level), 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by the FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at
FRA wishes to inform all potential commenters that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
FRA expects to be able to determine these matters without an oral hearing. However, if a specific request for an oral hearing is accompanied by a showing that the party is unable to adequately present his or her position by written statements, an application may be set for public hearing.
Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 235 and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of 49 CFR part 236 as detailed below.
CSX Transportation, Incorporated seeks approval of the proposed modification of the traffic control system, on the single main track, siding, and auxiliary track, on the LH & STL Subdivision, Louisville Service Lane, in Kentucky, consisting as follows:
1. At W.E. Maceo, milepost HR-104.5, convert the power-operated switch to electrically locked hand operation, remove the three associated controlled signals, and remove the signal system from the siding;
2. At E.E. Maceo, milepost HR-103.8, convert the power-operated switch to electrically locked hand operation, and remove the three associated controlled signals;
3. At Stephensport, milepost HR-65.2, convert the power-operated switch to hand operation, and remove the three associated controlled signals; and
4. Near milepost HR-63.2, remove back-to-back automatic intermediate signals No. 631 and No. 632.
The reason given for the proposed change is to eliminate facilities no longer needed in present day operation.
Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an application shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which the protest is made, and include a concise statement of the interest of the party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the protest shall be furnished to the applicant at the address listed above.
All communications concerning this proceeding should be identified by the docket number and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401 (Plaza Level), 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by the FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at
FRA wishes to inform all potential commenters that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
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.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The Federal Transit Administration and the State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) intend to jointly prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on a proposal by DLNR to build an additional ferry pier next to the existing pier in the Lahaina Small Boat Harbor, within the boundaries of the Lahaina National Historic Landmark District on the west coast of the island of Maui, Hawaii. The proposed project would include construction of an additional pier and to dredge the harbor. The existing ferry facility at times is unable to load or unload inter-island ferry passengers in a timely manner due to ship traffic and related onshore activities. The proposed project is intended to improve existing operating conditions at the harbor by alleviating ship traffic and harbor congestion.
The EIS will be prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). FTA and DLNR seek public and interagency input on the scope of the NEPA EIS for the project, including the alternatives to be considered and the environmental impacts to be evaluated.
Written comments should be sent to State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Attention: Eric Hirano, Chief Engineer, Engineering Division, P.O. Box 373, Honolulu, Hawaii, 96809. Phone: (808) 587-0230. Fax: (808) 587-0283. E-mail:
Donna Turchie, Federal Transit Administration, 201 Mission Street, Suite 2210, San Francisco, CA 94105. Phone: (415) 744-2737. Fax: (415) 794-2726.
The FTA and DLNR invite all interested individuals and organizations, and federal, state, and local agencies to comment on the scope of the EIS. During the scoping process, comments should focus on proposing alternatives that may be less costly or have less environmental impacts while achieving similar transportation objectives, and on identifying specific social, economic, or environmental issues to be evaluated. At this time, comments should not focus on a preference for a particular alternative. Additional opportunities for public participation will be announced through mailings, notices, advertisements, and press releases.
FTA must also comply with other environmental requirements, such as Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 303) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that apply to Federal actions.
The proposed ferry pier improvements are located in the Lahaina Small Boat Harbor, within the boundaries of the Lahaina National Historic Landmark District, an area listed on the National Register of Historic Places, on the west coast of the island of Maui, Hawaii.
The project area is located within the limits of the Special Management Area for the island of Maui and is also situated within the boundaries of Historic District No. 1, one of two County Historic districts in the town of Lahaina.
Coastal waters to the south of the proposed ferry pier are occupied by the existing pier and the Lahaina Small Boat Harbor, while waters to the north are undeveloped. Approximately 100 feet to the west of the existing pier lies the seaward end of the harbor's breakwater. Paralleling the shoreline, the breakwater is located about 200 feet from shore and is nearly 1,000 feet in length.
The project area is situated along the western extent of Lahaina's business district. Numerous retail stores and services are located along Front Street, the major venue for commercial activity in Lahaina Town. The Lahaina Public Library, and the historic Pioneer Inn, as well as other historic sites such as the Hauola Stone, the Brick Palace, the Old Fort, the Lahaina Courthouse, and the Banyan Tree are located in the vicinity of the proposed project.
The existing pier at Lahaina Small Boat Harbor is about 66 feet in width and 120 feet in length. The approximately 8,000 square foot pier contains a harbor master's office, a ferry kiosk, and diesel fuel dispensing and sewage pumping facilities. The existing pier is used for loading and unloading passengers onto recreational and commercial vessels, including cruise ship tenders (
Since the late 1980s, inter-island ferry service between Lanai and Maui, as well as Molokai and Maui, has been provided by private operators. Presently, the Lahaina/Lanai ferry schedules five daily round trips between the Lahaina and Manele Small Boat Harbors. The Molokai/Maui ferry schedules two round trips a day between the Lahaina Small Boat Harbor and the Kaunakakai Harbor on Mondays through Saturdays. On Sundays, the Molokai/Maui ferry makes a one way trip from Molokai to Maui. At times, the inter-island ferry vessels are unable to load or unload their passengers in a timely manner due to ship traffic and related onshore activities.
The Lahaina Small Boat Harbor contains 100 berths for recreational and commercial craft. Presently, there are 59
During the project's preliminary conceptual development process, use and operational factors were examined with regard to the proposed ferry pier and comfort station improvements. This evaluation included an examination of existing harbor facilities and activities with regard to current ferry and cruise ship operations and comfort station use, as well as the provision of a new berthing area for the replacement vessel for the Carthaginian II and for surfer access to the nearby “Harbor” and “Breakwall” surf spots. Preliminary conceptual plans for the proposed project were presented at a stakeholders' meeting on April 8, 2004.
In light of the foregoing conceptual plan development by DLNR, FTA proposes to evaluate the following alternatives in the EIS:
1. Future No Build Alternative—This alternative would maintain present physical conditions and existing operating policies as ship traffic at the Lahaina Small Boat Harbor grows.
2. Initial Ferry Pier Alternative—This alternative sited the new pier about 60 feet to the north of the existing pier. The proposed pier would consist of a concrete and sheet pile system structure that would be 48 feet in width and nearly 146 feet in length. A ramp (25 ft. width x 53 ft. length) would provide pedestrian access between the shoreline and the new ferry pier. New dredging will be required to widen existing entrance channel and create additional berthing areas.
3. Initial Ferry Pier with Multi-Purpose Pier Alternative—The multi-purpose pier (15 ft. width x 90 ft. length) presented at the stakeholders' meeting would provide a berthing area for the Carthaginian II or its replacement vessel and provide surfer access to nearby surf breaks. The multi-purpose pier would be secured by concrete pilings and contain a floating, molded composite deck. A concrete walkway and gangway ramp (8 ft. width x 60 ft. length) would link the multi-purpose pier with the initial ferry pier as presented in alternative 2, at a point about 24 to 30 feet from the shoreline. At its nearest point, the multi-purpose pier would lie approximately 60 feet from the Hauola Stone (a historic site). New dredging will be required to widen existing entrance channel and create berthing areas.
4. Initial Ferry Pier with Building Alternative—A two-story building (32 feet in height) was proposed as a possible addition to the new ferry pier. The ground level of the building would include about 4,500 square feet of open area for passenger arrivals and departures, while the second level would contain a total floor area of approximately 2,970 square feet which would include public restrooms, a janitor's closet, a wrap-around deck and 1,175 square feet of area for office and concession space. Stairs and an elevator would provide pedestrian access between levels. New dredging will be required to widen existing entrance channel and create additional berthing areas.
5. Modified Ferry Pier Alternative—Based upon comments received during the stakeholders' meeting, DLNR re-evaluated and modified their conceptual plans for the ferry pier. The DLNR's modified plan proposes a new ferry pier 35 feet wide and 116 feet long, a concrete walkway 16 feet wide and 60 feet long with safety railings that will connect to the existing pier, a shade structure on the new ferry pier, a small floating platform with a moveable gangway, and dredging to widen the entrance channel and berthing area to accommodate docking of two vessels (one on each side of the new pier) up to 101 feet in length with a beam of 24 feet. A low-rise, open-sided roofed structure, which would cover a portion of the existing pier is currently being evaluated by the DLNR for inclusion as a project component.
Any additional reasonable alternatives that emerge from the scoping process will also be considered. The formulation of preferred and alternative design schemes is an iterative process and will need to consider various factors including, but not limited to the following:
• The location of historic sites in the area and potential proximity impacts to those sites.
• The location of existing facilities in the area, such as the Pioneer Inn, the Lahaina Public Library, and King Kamehameha III Elementary School, and potential use impacts to these facilities.
• Existing baseline conditions and potential impacts to marine life, water quality, and littoral processes.
• Surrounding structures and uses in the area and potential impacts to vehicle and pedestrian traffic, open space areas, ocean and mountain views, and lateral views along the shoreline.
The EIS will evaluate and fully disclose the environmental consequences of building Lahaina Small Boat Harbor Ferry Pier Improvements in advance of any decision by FTA to commit financial or other resources toward the implementation of a particular alternative. The EIS will examine the socio-economic and environmental impacts of the alternatives. In addition, it will discuss actions to reduce or eliminate any adverse impacts.
Environmental issues to be analyzed in the EIS include: near-shore marine environmental impacts, flora and fauna impacts, air quality impacts, noise impacts, scenic and open space impacts, as well as impacts to the socio-economic environment and public services. Impacts to infrastructure will also be assessed including changes to roadway levels of service; impacts on surrounding land use, including consistency of proposed improvements with local plans and policies; and potential impacts to historic and cultural resources. Cumulative and growth-inducing impacts will be examined. Impacts will be evaluated for both the temporary construction period and for the long-term operation of the alternatives. Measures to mitigate any adverse impacts will be identified.
To ensure that all significant issues related to this proposed action are identified and addressed, scoping comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments should be directed to the DLNR as noted in the
The EIS is being prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), its implementing regulations by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and with the FTA/Federal Highway Administration's “Environmental Impact and Related Procedures” (23 CFR part 771). In accordance with FTA policy, the NEPA process will also address the requirements of other applicable environmental laws, regulations and executive orders, such as the National
Upon completion, the Draft EIS will be distributed for public and agency review and comment. A public hearing on the Draft EIS will be held within the study area. Based on the Draft EIS and the public and agency comments received, FTA and DLNR may further refine and analyze the alternatives in the Final EIS.
Surface Transportation Board, DOT.
Notice tentatively approving finance transaction.
CUSA FL, LLC d/b/a Franciscan Lines (CUSA FL or applicant), a motor passenger carrier controlled by CUSA, LLC (CUSA), has filed an application under 49 U.S.C. 14303 to acquire control and operate certain assets of Pacific Coast Bus Service, Inc. (Pacific Coast or seller), a motor passenger carrier. The transaction was approved on an interim basis under 49 U.S.C. 14303(i), and the Board is now tentatively granting permanent approval. Persons wishing to oppose this application must follow the rules at 49 CFR 1182.5 and 1182.8. If no opposing comments are timely filed, this notice will be the final Board action.
Comments must be filed by January 3, 2005. Applicant may file a reply by January 18, 2005. If no comments are filed by January 3, 2005, this notice is effective on that date.
Send an original and 10 copies of any comments referring to STB Docket No. MC-F-21011 to: Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, send one copy of any comments to applicant's representative: Stephen Flott, Flott & Co. PC, PO Box 17655, Arlington, VA 22216-7655.
Eric S. Davis, (202) 565-1608. [Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.]
CUSA, CUSA FL's parent company, controls over 20 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) registered motor passenger carriers, and, in turn, is wholly owned by KBUS Holdings, LLC (KBUS), a noncarrier. KBUS acquired control of over 30 motor passenger carriers formerly owned by Coach USA, Inc., and then consolidated those entities into the motor passenger carriers now controlled by CUSA.
Applicant has entered into an agreement with Pacific Coast to buy Pacific Coast's assets, including vehicles, and its business operations. CUSA FL holds motor common carrier passenger authority for charter and special operations and for regular route operations and contract carrier authority under MC-463273. Once this transaction is consummated, the Federal operating authority currently held by seller will be surrendered.
Under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b), the Board must approve and authorize a transaction found to be consistent with the public interest, taking into consideration at least: (1) The effect of the transaction on the adequacy of transportation to the public; (2) the total fixed charges that result; and (3) the interest of affected carrier employees.
Applicant has submitted information, as required by 49 CFR 1182.2, including information to demonstrate that the proposed transaction is consistent with the public interest under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b). Specifically, applicant states that service to the public will be enhanced in that applicant will employ the acquired assets and personnel of seller to expand its service, and that the proposed transaction will ensure that there is no cessation in seller's operations. Also, CUSA FL states that the proposed transaction will have no effect on fixed charges or employees. Applicant states that all qualified Pacific Coast employees who desire employment will be offered employment with CUSA FL. CUSA FL asserts that the proposed transaction will allow CUSA to extend its advantages of volume purchasing power in areas such as equipment and fuel to this new acquisition. Additional information, including a copy of the application, may be obtained from applicant's representative.
On the basis of the application, the Board finds that the proposed transaction is consistent with the public interest and should be authorized. If any opposing comments are timely filed, this finding will be deemed vacated and, unless a final decision can be made on the record as developed, a procedural schedule will be adopted to reconsider the application.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
This decision will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
1. The proposed finance transaction is approved and authorized, subject to the filing of opposing comments.
2. If timely opposing comments are filed, the findings made in this decision will be deemed vacated.
3. This decision will be effective on January 3, 2005, unless timely opposing comments are filed.
4. A copy of this notice will be served on: (1) The U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 8214, Washington, DC 20590; (2) the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 10th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530; and (3) the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the General Counsel, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
By the Board, Chairman Nober, Vice Chairman Mulvey, and Commissioner Buttrey.
The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw on behalf of The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) (WB461-11—10/20/2004) for permission to use certain data from the Board's Carload Waybill Samples. A copy of this request may be obtained from the Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and Administration.
The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and Administration within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.
Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR) has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 subpart F—
NSR has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) no overhead traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years and overhead traffic, if there were any, could be rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a State or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental reports), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies)
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on December 18, 2004, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to NSR's representative: James R. Paschall, General Attorney, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Three Commercial Place, Norfolk, VA 23510-2191.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
NSR has filed environmental and historic reports which address the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. SEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by November 23, 2004. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to SEA (Room 500, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling SEA, at (202) 565-1539. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.] Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), NSR shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by NSR's filing of a notice of consummation by November 18, 2005, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
The Department of the Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the
Written comments should be received on or before December 20, 2004 to be assured of consideration.
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 18, 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. 3501-21), 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 18, 2005.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of
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.