Food Safety and Inspection Service
Forest Service
Rural Housing Service
Rural Telephone Bank
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Minerals Management Service
National Park Service
Reclamation Bureau
Labor Statistics Bureau
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Federal Aviation 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.
Rural Housing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
The Rural Housing Service (RHS) is amending its regulations for the Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program (GRRHP). Under the GRRHP, RHS guarantees loans for the development of housing and related facilities for low or moderate-income families in rural areas. RHS administers the GRRHP under the authority of the Housing Act of 1949. The GRRHP regulations are being amended to allow RHS, in the case of a default, to buy back guaranteed loans from investors, lower the minimum level of rehabilitation work when guaranteed loans are used for acquisition and rehabilitation, and clarify certain matters involving Ginnie Mae. These regulatory changes are made to increase participation by the secondary mortgage market in the GRRHP.
Arlene Nunes, Senior Loan Specialist, Multi-Family Housing Processing Division, Rural Housing Service, USDA, STOP 0781, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0781, telephone: (202) 401-2307.
This rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and therefore has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The information collection requirements contained in this regulation have been previously approved by OMB under the provisions of 44 U.S.C. chapter 35 and this regulation has been assigned OMB control number 0575-0174, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. There is a slight increase in the collection requirements from those previously approved by OMB. The Holder of the guarantee will be required to submit a demand letter to the lender and Agency requesting payment if the loan goes into default and the Holder wishes to be bought out. This change has been approved through OMB.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. In accordance with this rule: (1) All state and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings in accordance with 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before bringing suit in court challenging action taken under this rule.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, RHS generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires RHS to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the states is not required.
The affected program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Number 10.438, Section 538 Rural Rental Housing Guaranteed Loans.
For the reasons contained in the Final Rule related Notice to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, this program is subject to Executive Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. RHS has conducted intergovernmental consultation in the manner delineated in 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.
This document has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G, “Environmental Program.” It is the determination of RHS that this action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
This final rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The undersigned has determined and certified by signature of this document that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities since this rulemaking action does not involve a new or expanded program nor does it require any more action on the part of a small business than required of a large entity.
The Agency received the following comments as a result of the publication of the regulation as a Proposed Rule in the
The Agency received thirteen responses on the regulation. The commentators represented the following:
Recurring topics of discussion in the comments include increasing the interest accrual period, making payment on the guaranteed loan in a timely manner, addressing certainty of the guarantee, reducing servicing fees, increasing the percentage of the guarantee, clarifying the definition of “Holder” and the liquidation process, increasing the program size, changing the lender approval requirements, and integrating the Section 538 program with expiring Section 515 projects.
The comments that were adopted in the regulation are as follows:
1. Two commentators suggested that the Agency revise the term “bar” in § 3565.52 because of the connotation of the term in the industry. The term was eliminated in this section.
2. Two respondents recommended including a timeframe for the lender to respond to a repurchase demand from the Holder. In § 3565.405(a) of the final rule the lender has 10 business days from the date on a demand letter to respond to the Holder's request for repurchase. The Agency believes that the lender will have made this decision long before the Holder demands repurchase.
3. Two commentators considered the Agency's right to declare the guarantee unenforceable in the case where negligent servicing or origination is involved as arbitrary. To address the issue, the Agency provides a definition of “negligent servicing or origination” in § 3565.3 and describes the circumstances and procedural actions that the Agency must take before the guarantee is rendered unenforceable in § 3565.52(a).
4. One commentator suggested that the Agency substitute “eligible construction expenses” with “eligible uses of loan proceeds” in § 3565.52(c)(2) because “eligible construction expenses” are not defined. The Agency accepted the recommendation and made the change in that section.
5. One commentator recommended clarification of § 3565.52(c)(2) on what happens if the required levels of occupancy are not attained and/or conversion to a permanent loan does not occur. This section was expanded to explain that the guarantee will cover a permanent loan if even the required level of occupancy is not obtained if an additional operating reserve equal to 2% of the appraised value of the project or total development costs, whichever is greater, is set aside prior to closing of the construction loan. This cash contribution is an additional amount, over and above the required initial operating and maintenance reserve contribution.
6. One commentator questioned why in § 3565.405(b)(3) the Holder is responsible for resolving disputes regarding discrepancies between the amount claimed by the Holder and the information submitted by the lender. The Agency can only coordinate the resolution of the discrepancy. The Agency does not have independent knowledge of the amount due. Language was added in § 3565.405(b)(3) to clarify this.
7. Four comments were received about the date that interest starts to accrue once a loan is in default. The final rule in § 3565.452 defines the date interest starts to accrue as the date the Agency approves the lender's liquidation plan. If the Agency fails to respond to the lender's proposal or advise the lender to make revisions to the plan within 20 calendar days, the liquidation plan is approved by default.
8. One commentator recommended clarification on when a lender can file an estimated loss claim. Section 3565.453(d) was amended to require the lender to file an “estimated loss claim” with the liquidation plan if the lender expects the liquidation to exceed 90 calendar days.
9. Two commentators recommended eliminating moderate or substantial rehabilitation of 15 percent of the total estimated replacement cost of the project and setting the threshold to $6,500 per unit in § 3565.252. They argued that moderate or substantial rehabilitation of 15 percent of the total replacement cost of the project could be a value equal to or greater than the current level ($15,000 in the current rule), thus defeating the purpose of lowering the threshold to $6,500. The Agency agrees. The final rule in § 3565.252 has been changed accordingly.
10. The Agency has been advised that certain provisions needed to be added to the proposed rule so that section 538 loans could back securities that are guaranteed by the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae). Ginnie Mae is a government corporation within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Ginnie Mae's mortgage-backed securities program is governed by the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1716
The issues that the Agency did not adopt are as follows:
1. Three commentators identified the need to reduce the annual servicing fee in § 3565.53(b). The Agency has considered decreasing annual fees and concluded that the fees charged by the program are within industry standards.
2. Five respondents recommended a change in § 3565.52(a) to reflect a government guarantee of 100% instead of the 90% guarantee. A 100% guarantee is not permitted by the authorizing statute (42 U.S.C. 1490 p-2).
3. Three commentators argued against a limitation on interest accrual in § 3565.52(c)(1) and (2). The Agency understands the fundamental financial concept of interest accrual on borrowing. However, the term limit on interest accrual serves as an incentive for lenders to expedite the liquidation process.
4. Two commentators justified the need to increase program size, citing the prohibitive costs of making small loans as a disincentive to participation in the program. The Agency is unable to independently increase the size of the program since Congress appropriates funds to all federal programs.
5. Two commentators have suggested that the Agency use the section 538 program to meet the section 515 program's rehabilitation and preservation needs. The Agency is reviewing this possibility but has not yet been able to develop a model that would keep section 515 rents within the affordable income range that its tenants can afford.
6. Two commentators recommended changing requirements for program lender approval in § 3565.103(d)(1). They argue that lenders should not be required to obtain a rating from a lender rating agency if the lender has demonstrated financial capacity and stability. The Agency uses lender rating
7. Two commentators proposed the expansion of the definition of “Holder” in § 3565.3 so that a bond issuer or trustee may demand repurchase directly from the Agency upon loan default. The Agency would not be able to identify payments to individual Holders of the guarantee if payments were made to an intermediary unless the Holder of the guarantee designates another entity to receive payment on his/her behalf.
GRRHP is a relatively new program that is administered by RHS. The GRRHP was operated as a pilot program in 1996 and 1997 and has been a permanent program since 1998. The program has been designed to increase the availability of affordable multifamily housing in rural America through partnerships between the Agency and lending sources, as well as with state and local housing finance agencies and bond issuers. During the early stages of the program, barriers were identified that have limited the success of the program. One of the primary barriers has been the inability of lenders to close loans due to the limited interest of the secondary mortgage market. As a result, the Agency held a stakeholders' meeting in December 2000 to identify problem areas. The purpose of the following changes is to make the program more attractive to the industry without jeopardizing the best interests of the Government.
In case of default, the Holder of a Loan Note Guarantee issued prior to the effective date of this final rule will stipulate, in a written demand for repurchase, its preference for repurchase in accordance with the Loan Note Guarantee issued prior to the effective date of this final rule. If the demand for repurchase does not stipulate a preference for repurchase in accordance with the Loan Note Guarantee issued prior to the effective date of this final rule, the Agency will process the demand for repurchase allowing accrual of interest for 90 calendar days after loan default as stated in this final rule.
The Holder must stipulate a preference for repurchase in accordance with the Loan Note Guarantee issued prior to the effective date of this final rule in the first demand for repurchase. The Holder of the Loan Note Guarantee issued prior to the effective date of this final rule cannot make a subsequent demand for repurchase changing the preference stipulated in the original demand for repurchase.
Bankruptcy, Banks, Conflict of interests, Credit, Environmental impact statements, Fair housing, Government procurement, Guaranteed loans, Hearing and appeal procedures, Housing standards, Lobbying, Low and moderate income housing, Manufactured homes, Mortgages, Real property acquisition, Surety bonds.
5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989; 42 U.S.C. 1480.
A loan guarantee under this part will be evidenced by a Loan Note Guarantee issued by the Agency. Each lender will execute a Lender's Agreement. If a valid Lender's Agreement already exists, it is not necessary to execute a new Lender's Agreement with each loan guarantee.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
In addition, the lender shall require credit enhancements to protect the Government's guarantee. Acceptable credit enhancements include:
(i) Surety bonding or performance and payment bonding (the preferred credit enhancement);
(ii) An irrevocable letter of credit acceptable to the Agency; or
(iii) A pledge by the lender of acceptable collateral.
(3)
(i) To any Holder, 100 percent of any loss sustained by the Holder on the guaranteed portion of the loan and on interest due on such portion.
(ii) To the lender, the lesser of:
(A) Any loss sustained by the lender on the guaranteed portion, including principal, interest and accrued interest up to 90 days evidenced by the notes or assumption agreements and secured advances for protection and preservation of collateral made with the Agency's authorization; or
(B) The guaranteed principal advanced to or assumed by the borrower and any interest and accrued interest up to 90 days due thereon.
(b) Meet the qualifications and be approved by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae to make multifamily housing loans that are to be sold to or securitized by such corporations;
(d) * * *
(1) Overall financial strength, including capital, liquidity, and loan loss reserves, to have an acceptable level of financial soundness as determined by a lender rating service (such as Sheshunoff, Inc.); or to be an approved Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae or HUD Federal Housing Administration multifamily lender; or, if a state housing finance agency, to have a top tier rating by a rating agency (such as Standard and Poor's Corporation);
The property may include new construction or rehabilitation of existing structures. The units may be attached, detached, semi-detached, row houses, modular or manufactured houses, or multifamily structures. Manufactured housing must meet Agency requirements contained in 7 CFR part 1924, subpart A or a successor regulation. The Agency will guarantee proposals for new construction or acquisition with moderate or substantial rehabilitation of at least $6,500 per dwelling unit. The portion of guaranteed funds available for acquisition with rehabilitation may be limited in the annual Notice of Fund Availability.
(a)
(a)
(b)
Holders of Loan Note Guarantees that have been issued prior to the effective date of this final rule may opt to adhere to the terms and conditions of the Loan Note Guarantee then in effect. In case of loan default, the Holder of a Loan Note Guarantee issued prior to the effective date of this final rule will stipulate, in a written demand for repurchase, its preference for repurchase in accordance with the Loan Note Guarantee issued prior to the effective date of this final rule. If the demand for repurchase does not stipulate a preference for repurchase in accordance with the Loan Note Guarantee issued prior to the effective date of this final rule, the Agency will process the demand for repurchase as stated in this final rule. The Holder must stipulate a preference for repurchase in accordance with the Loan Note Guarantee issued prior to the effective date of this final rule in the first demand for repurchase. The Holder of the Loan Note Guarantee issued prior to the effective date of this final rule cannot make a subsequent demand for repurchase changing the preference stipulated in the original demand for repurchase.
(2) The Holder's demand to the Agency must include a copy of the written demand made to the lender. The Holder must also include evidence of its right to require payment from the Agency. Such evidence will consist of either the original of the Loan Note Guarantee properly endorsed to the Agency or the original of an Agency approved assignment guarantee agreement, properly assigned to the Agency without recourse including all rights, title, and interest in the loan. The Holder must include in its demand the amount due including unpaid principal, unpaid interest to date of demand, and interest subsequently accruing from date of demand to proposed payment date. The Agency will be subrogated to all rights of the Holder.
(3) The Agency will notify the lender of its receipt of the Holder's demand for payment. The lender must provide the Agency with the information necessary for the Agency to determine the appropriate amount due the Holder within 10 business days from the date of the written demand letter to the lender from the Holder requesting repurchase of the guaranteed portion. The lender will furnish a current statement certified by an appropriate authorized officer of the lender stating the unpaid principal and interest then owed by the borrower on the loan and the amount then owed to any Holder. Any discrepancy between the amount claimed by the Holder and the information submitted by the lender must be resolved between the lender and the Holder before payment will be approved. The Agency will coordinate the resolution of the discrepancy. Such conflict will suspend the running of the 30 calendar day payment requirement.
(4) Purchase by the Agency does not change, alter, or modify any of the lender's obligations to the Agency arising from the loan or guarantee nor does it waive any of the Agency's rights against the lender. As Holder, the Agency will have the right to set-off any payments the Agency owes the lender.
(a) A decision to liquidate shall be made when it is determined that the default cannot be cured through actions contained in § 3565.403 or it has been determined that it is in the best interest of the Agency and the lender to liquidate. For interest accrual purposes, interest will accrue for 90 calendar days after the date the liquidation plan is approved by the Agency. If within 20 calendar days of the Agency's receipt of the liquidation plan, the Agency fails to respond to the lender's proposal or advise the lender to make revisions to the plan that was submitted, the liquidation plan will be approved by default, and the 90 calendar day period for interest accrual will commence.
(a) Submission of the liquidation plan. The lender will, within 30 calendar days after a decision to liquidate, submit to the Agency in writing, its proposed detailed plan of liquidation. The Agency will inform the lender, in writing, whether the Agency concurs in the lender's liquidation plan. Should the Agency and the lender not agree on the liquidation plan, negotiations will take place between the Agency and the lender to resolve the disagreement. When the liquidation plan is approved by the Agency, the lender will proceed expeditiously with liquidation. The liquidation plan submitted to the Agency by the lender shall include:
(1) Satisfactory proof of the lender's ownership of the guaranteed loan promissory note and related security instruments.
(2) A copy of the payment ledger or equivalent which reflects the current loan balance and accrued interest to date and the method of computing the interest.
(3) A full and complete list of all collateral including any personal and corporate guarantees.
(4) The recommended liquidation methods for making the maximum collection possible on the indebtedness and the justification for such methods, including recommended actions for:
(i) Obtaining an appraisal of the collateral;
(ii) Acquiring and disposing of all collateral;
(iii) Collecting from guarantors;
(iv) Setting the proposed date of foreclosure; and
(v) Setting the proposed date of liquidation.
(5) Necessary steps for protection of the tenants and preservation of the collateral.
(6) Copies of the borrower's latest available financial statements.
(7) Copies of the guarantor's latest available financial statements.
(8) An itemized list of estimated liquidation expenses expected to be incurred along with justification for each expense.
(9) A schedule to periodically report to the Agency on the progress of liquidation.
(10) Estimated protective advance amounts with justification.
(11) Proposed protective bid amounts on collateral to be sold at auction and a breakdown to show how the amounts were determined.
(12) If a voluntary conveyance is considered, the proposed amount to be credited to the guaranteed debt.
(13) Any legal opinions supporting the decision to liquidate.
(14) The lender will obtain a complete appraisal report on all collateral securing the loan, which will reflect the fair market value and potential liquidation value, and an examination of the title on the collateral. In order to formulate a liquidation plan, which maximizes recovery, collateral must be
(b) A transfer and assumption of the borrower's operation can be accomplished before or after the loan goes into liquidation. However, if the collateral has been purchased through foreclosure or the borrower has conveyed title to the lender, no transfer and assumption is permitted.
(c) A protective bid may be made by the lender, with prior Agency written approval, at a foreclosure sale to protect the lender's and the Agency's interest. The protective bid will not exceed the amount of the loan, including expenses of foreclosure, and should be based on the liquidation value considering estimated expenses for holding and reselling the property. These expenses include, but are not limited to, expenses for resale, interest accrual, length of weatherization, and prior liens.
(d) Filing an estimated loss claim. When the lender is conducting the liquidation and owns any or all of the guaranteed portion of the loan, the lender will file an estimated loss claim with the liquidation plan if the lender expects liquidation to exceed 90 calendar days. The estimated loss payment will be based on the outstanding loan amount minus the liquidation value of the collateral. For the purpose of reporting and loss claim computation, the loss claim will be promptly processed in accordance with applicable Agency regulations, as set forth in this section. The loss claim calculation will include 90 calendar days of interest accrual on the defaulted loan at the time the estimated loss claim is paid by the Agency. If the lender estimates that there will be no loss after considering the costs of liquidation, the lender submits an estimated loss claim of zero. Interest accrual will cease 90 calendar days after the date the liquidation plan is approved by the Agency.
(e) Property disposition. Once the liquidation plan has Agency approval, the lender must make every effort to liquidate the property in a manner that will yield the highest market value consistent with the protections afforded to tenants in 7 CFR part 1944, subpart L or successor regulation.
(f) Accounting and reports. When the lender conducts liquidation, the lender will account for funds during the period of liquidation and provide the Agency with reports at least quarterly on the progress of liquidation, including disposition of collateral, resulting costs, and additional procedures necessary for successful completion of the liquidation.
(g) Transmitting payments and proceeds to the Agency. When the Agency is the Holder of a portion of the guaranteed loan, the lender will transmit to the Agency its pro rata share of any payments received from the borrower, liquidation, or elsewhere.
In all liquidation cases, final settlement will be made with the lender after the collateral is liquidated, unless otherwise designated as a future recovery or after settlement and compromise of all parties has been completed.
(a)
(b)
(1) The estimated loss payment shall be applied as of the date of such payment. The total amount of the loss payment paid by the Agency will be applied by the lender on the loan debt. Such application does not release the borrower from liability.
(2) The Government's written authorization is required for all protective advances in excess of $5,000. Protective advances include, but are not limited to, advances made for property taxes, annual assessments, ground rent, hazard or flood insurance premiums affecting the collateral, and other expenses necessary to preserve or protect the security. Attorney fees are not a protective advance. A protective advance claim will be paid only at the time of the final report of loss payment except in certain transfer and assumption situations with Agency approval.
(c)
(1) A determination must be made regarding the collectibility of unsecured personal and corporate guarantees. If reasonably possible, such guarantees should be promptly collected prior to completion of the final loss report. However, in the event that collection from the guarantors appears unlikely or will require a prolonged period of time, the report of loss will be filed when all other collateral has been liquidated, and unsecured personal or corporate guarantees will be treated as a future recovery with the net proceeds to be shared on a pro rata basis by the lender and the Agency.
(2) The lender must document that all of the collateral has been accounted for and properly liquidated and that liquidation proceeds have been properly accounted for and applied correctly to the loan.
(3) The lender will show a breakdown of any protective advance amount as to the payee, purpose of the expenditure, date paid, and evidence that the amount expended was proper and that payment was actually made.
(4) The lender will show a breakdown of liquidation expenses as to the payee, purpose of the expenditure, date paid, and evidence that the amount expended was proper and that payment was actually made. Liquidation expenses are recoverable only from collateral proceeds.
(5) Accrued interest will be supported by documentation as to how the amount was accrued.
(6) Loss payments will be paid by the Agency within 60 calendar days after the receipt of the final loss report and accounting of the collateral.
(7) Should there be a circumstance where the lender cannot or will not sign a final report of loss, the State Director may complete the final report of loss and submit it to the Finance Office without the lender's signature. Before this action can be taken, all collateral must be disposed of or accounted for; there must be no evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or negligent servicing by the lender; and all efforts to obtain the cooperation of the lender must have been exhausted and documented.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1) If the loss is greater than any estimated loss payment, the Agency will pay the additional amount owed by the Agency to the lender.
(2) If the loss is less than the estimated loss payment, the lender will reimburse the Agency for the overpayment.
(3) If the Agency determines that it is in the Government's best interest to take assignment of the loan and conduct liquidation, as stipulated in 42 U.S.C. 1490(i)(3), Assignment by Secretary, the Agency will pay the lender in accordance with the Loan Note Guarantee.
(h)
(i)
(1) Adding to the unpaid principal and interest on the date of loss, an amount approved by the Agency for payments made by the lender for amounts due and owning on the property, including:
(i) Property taxes and other protective advances as approved by the Agency;
(ii) Water and sewer charges and other special assessments that are liens prior to the guaranteed loan;
(iii) Insurance of the property; and
(iv) Reasonable liquidation expenses.
(2) And by deducting the following items:
(i) Any amount received by the lender on the account of the guaranteed loan after the date of default;
(ii) Any net income received by the lender from the secured property after the date of default; and
(iii) Any cash items retained by the lender, except any amount representing a balance of the guaranteed loan not advanced to the borrower. Any loan amount not advanced will be applied by the lender to reduce the outstanding principal on the loan.
(j)
The provisions of this subpart apply when Agency guaranteed loans are used to back Ginnie Mae securities. In instances where this subpart applies, the provisions of this subpart prevail over any other provisions of this part.
In the case of loans that back Ginnie Mae securities or loans that are acquired by Ginnie Mae as a consequence of its guaranty, the Agency guarantee under this part is incontestable except that the guarantee may not be enforced by a lender who commits fraud or misrepresentation or by a lender who had knowledge of the fraud or misrepresentation at the time such a lender acquired the guarantee or was assigned the loan.
Lenders and security Holders must comply with Ginnie Mae requirements regarding the repurchase of loans from pools backing Ginnie Mae guaranteed securities.
(a) Loans and/or mortgage servicing on loans backing Ginnie Mae guaranteed securities may only be transferred to a Ginnie Mae issuer and may only be transferred with prior Ginnie Mae approval.
(b) Agency approval shall not be required for transfer of the servicing on the guaranteed mortgages to Ginnie Mae.
(a) Ginnie Mae shall not be liable for the actions of the lender including, but not limited to, negligence, fraud, abuse, misrepresentation or misuse of funds, property condition, or violations of usury laws.
(b) Ginnie Mae's rights under the guarantee shall be fully enforceable notwithstanding the actions of the lender.
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no party is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0575-0174.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) to revise AD 98-20-38, which applies to all Beech 200 series airplanes. AD 98-20-38 requires you to revise the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to specify procedures that would prohibit flight in severe icing conditions (as determined by certain visual cues), limit or prohibit the use of various flight control devices while in severe icing conditions, and provide the flight crew with recognition cues for and procedures for exiting from severe icing conditions. Part of the applicability of AD 98-20-38 includes the Raytheon
This AD becomes effective on February 18, 2005.
To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or on the Internet at
Mr. Paul Pellicano, Aerospace Engineer (Icing Specialist), Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia 30349; telephone: (770) 703-6064; facsimile: (770) 703-6097.
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective on February 18, 2005.
(b) This AD revises AD 98-20-38, Amendment 39-10806.
(c) This AD affects the following airplane models, all serial numbers, that are certificated in any category:
(1) Beech 200 (A100-1 (U-21J)).
(2) Beech 200C.
(3) Beech 200CT.
(4) Beech 200T.
(5) Beech A200 (C-12A) or (C-12C).
(6) Beech A200C (UC-12B).
(7) Beech A200CT (C-12D), (FWC-12D), (RC-12D), (C-12F), (RC-12G), (RC-12H), (RC-12K), or (RC-12P).
(8) B200CT.
(9) B200T.
The actions of AD 96-09-13 are required for the Beech Models B200 and B200C airplanes.
(d) The actions specified in this AD are intended to minimize the potential hazards associated with operating these airplanes in severe icing condition by providing more clearly defined procedures and limitations.
(e) Within 30 days after November 4, 1998 (the effective date of AD 98-20-38), do the requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD, unless already accomplished.
Operators should initiate action to notify and ensure that flight crewmembers are apprised of this change.
(1) Revise the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) by incorporating the following into the Limitations Section of the AFM. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM.
Severe icing may result from environmental conditions outside of those for which the airplane is certificated. Flight in freezing rain, freezing drizzle, or mixed icing conditions (supercooled liquid water and ice crystals) may result in ice build-up on protected surfaces exceeding the capability of the ice protection system, or may result in ice forming aft of the protected surfaces. This ice may not be shed using the ice protection systems, and may seriously degrade the performance and controllability of the airplane.
• During flight, severe icing conditions that exceed those for which the airplane is certificated shall be determined by the following visual cues. If one or more of these visual cues exists, immediately request priority handling from Air Traffic Control to facilitate a route or an altitude change to exit the icing conditions.
• Since the autopilot, when installed and operating, may mask tactile cues that indicate adverse changes in handling characteristics, use of the autopilot is prohibited when any of the visual cues specified above exist, or when unusual lateral trim requirements or autopilot trim warnings are encountered while the airplane is in icing conditions.
• All wing icing inspection lights must be operative prior to flight into known or forecast icing conditions at night. [Note: This supersedes any relief provided by the Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL).]”
(2) Revise the FAA-approved AFM by incorporating the following into the Normal Procedures Section of the AFM. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM.
• Visible rain at temperatures below 0 degrees Celsius ambient air temperature.
• Droplets that splash or splatter on impact at temperatures below 0 degrees Celsius ambient air temperature.
These procedures are applicable to all flight phases from takeoff to landing. Monitor the ambient air temperature. While severe icing may form at temperatures as cold as −18 degrees Celsius, increased vigilance is warranted at temperatures around freezing with visible moisture present. If the visual cues specified in the Limitations Section of the AFM for identifying severe icing conditions are observed, accomplish the following:
• Immediately request priority handling from Air Traffic Control to facilitate a route or an altitude change to exit the severe icing conditions in order to avoid extended exposure to flight conditions more severe than those for which the airplane has been certificated.
• Avoid abrupt and excessive maneuvering that may exacerbate control difficulties.
• Do not engage the autopilot.
• If the autopilot is engaged, hold the control wheel firmly and disengage the autopilot.
• If an unusual roll response or uncommanded roll control movement is observed, reduce the angle-of-attack.
• Do not extend flaps when holding in icing conditions. Operation with flaps extended can result in a reduced wing angle-of-attack, with the possibility of ice forming on the upper surface further aft on the wing than normal, possibly aft of the protected area.
• If the flaps are extended, do not retract them until the airframe is clear of ice.
• Report these weather conditions to Air Traffic Control.”
(f) As an alternative method of compliance to the actions required by paragraph (e)(2) of this AD, revise the Abnormal Procedures Section or Emergency Procedures Section of the AFM instead of the Normal Procedures section of the AFM. Insert the information presented in paragraph (e)(2) of this AD into the applicable AFM section.
(g) The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may incorporate the AFM revisions required by this AD. Enter this information into the aircraft records showing compliance with this AD following section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).
(h) You may request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD by following the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, send your request to your principal inspector. The principal inspector may add comments and will send your request to the Manager, Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA. For information on any already approved alternative methods of compliance, contact Mr. Paul Pellicano, Aerospace Engineer (Icing Specialist), Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia 30349; telephone: (770) 703-6064; facsimile: (770) 703-6097.
(i) You may view the AD docket at the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) to supersede Airworthiness Directive 2004-10-15, which applies to certain GTX 330 and GTX 330D Mode S transponders that are installed on airplanes. AD 2004-10-15 currently requires you to install GTX 330/330D Software Upgrade Version 3.03, 3.04, or 3.05. This AD applies to certain GTX 33, GTX 33D, GTX 330, and GTX 330D Mode S transponders that are installed on airplanes and is the result of observations that the GTX 33/33D/330/330D may detect, from other airplanes, the S1 (suppression) interrogating pulse below the minimum trigger level (MTL) and, in some circumstances, not reply. The GTX 33/33D/330/330D should still reply even if it detects S1 interrogating pulses below the MTL. Consequently, this AD would require you to install a GTX 33/33D/330/330D Software Upgrade to at least Version 3.06. No additional action is necessary for those airplanes that have transponders Software Upgrade 3.03 installed. Software Upgrade Versions 3.03 and 3.06 correct a TAS, TCAD, and TCAS I system “whisper-shout” problem that could potentially lead to the aircraft not being visible at certain ranges. TCAS II systems are not affected. We are issuing this AD to prevent interrogating aircraft from possibly receiving inaccurate replies due to suppression from aircraft equipped with the GTX 33/33D/330/330D Mode S transponders when the pulses are below the MTL. The inaccurate replies could result in reduced vertical separation.
This AD becomes effective on February 23, 2005.
As of February 23, 2005, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulation.
To get the service information identified in this AD, contact GARMIN International Inc., 1200 East 151st Street, Olathe, KS 66062; telephone: 913-397-8200. To review this service information, go to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, go to:
To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001 or on the Internet at
Roger A. Souter, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: 316-946-4134; facsimile: 316-946-4107; e-mail address:
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective on February 23, 2005.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 2004-10-15, Amendment 39-13645.
(c) This AD affects GARMIN International Inc. GTX 33, GTX 33D, GTX 330, and GTX 330D Mode S transponders that include software versions 3.00, 3.01, 3.02, 3.04, or 3.05 that are installed on, but not limited to, the following airplanes, certificated in any category:
(d) This AD is the result of observations that the GTX 33/33D/330/330D may detect, from other airplanes, the S1 (suppression) interrogating pulse below the minimum trigger level (MTL) and, in some circumstances, not reply. The GTX 33/33D/330/330D should still reply even if it detects S1 interrogating pulses below the MTL. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent interrogating aircraft from possibly receiving inaccurate replies, due to suppression, from aircraft equipped with the GTX 33/33D/330/330D Mode S transponders when the pulses are below the minimum trigger level (MTL). Software Upgrade Versions 3.03 and 3.06 correct a TAS, TCAD, and TCAS I system “whisper-shout” problem that could potentially lead to the aircraft not being visible at certain ranges. TCAS II systems are not affected. The inaccurate replies could result in reduced vertical separation.
(e) To address this problem, you must do the following:
(f) You may request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD by following the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, send your request to your principal inspector. The principal inspector may add comments and will send your request to the Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For information on any already approved alternative methods of compliance, contact Roger A. Souter, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: 316-946-4134; facsimile: 316-946-4107; email address:
(g) You must do the actions required by this AD following the instructions in GARMIN Mandatory Software Service Bulletin No.: 0304, Rev B, dated June 12, 2003 (Software Upgrade 3.03) or GARMIN Mandatory Software Service Bulletin No.: 0409, dated July 19, 2004 (Software Upgrade 3.06). The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) to supersede AD 93-25-07, which applies to Raytheon Aircraft Company (Raytheon) Beech 100, 200, and 300 series airplanes. AD 93-25-07 currently requires you to repetitively inspect the fuselage stringers for cracks and modify at certain times depending on the number of cracked stringers. This AD is the result of FAA's policy (since 1996) to not allow airplane operation when known cracks exist in primary structure. The fuselage structure is considered primary structure and operation is currently allowed for a certain period of time if less than five fuselage stringers are cracked. Consequently, this AD retains the inspection and modification requirements of AD 93-25-07, but requires you to repair any cracked fuselage stringers. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct any cracked fuselage stringers in the rear pressure bulkhead area, which could result in structural damage to the fuselage. This damage could lead to failure of the fuselage with potential loss of control of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective on March 1, 2005.
As of March 1, 2005, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulation.
You may get the service information identified in this AD from Raytheon Aircraft Company, 9709 E. Central, Wichita, Kansas 67201-0085; telephone: (800) 429-5372 or (316) 676-3140.
You may view the AD docket at FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2004-CE-01-AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Office hours are 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Steven E. Potter, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4124; facsimile: (316) 946-4107.
This AD brings the actions of AD 93-25-07 in compliance with FAA policy. Therefore, FAA has determined:
The FAA has also identified other airplanes that should be affected by this action.
We estimate the following costs to incorporate the fuselage stringer repair kit that will be required based on the results of each inspection. We have no way to determine the number of airplanes that may need this repair kit:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective on March 1, 2005.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 93-25-07, Amendment 39-8773.
(c) This AD affects the following Beech airplane models and serial numbers that are certificated in any category:
(d) As currently written, AD 93-25-07 allows continued flight if cracks are found in
(e) To address this problem, you must do the following:
(f) You may request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD by following the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, send your request to your principal inspector. The principal inspector may add comments and will send your request to the Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For information on any already approved alternative methods of compliance, contact Steven E. Potter, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4124; facsimile: (316) 946-4107.
(g) You must do the actions required by this AD following the instructions in Raytheon Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 53-2472, Rev. 4, Issued: June, 1993, Revised: July, 2003. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service bulletin in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may get a copy from Raytheon Aircraft Company, 9709 E. Central, Wichita, Kansas 67201-0085; telephone: (800) 429-5372 or (316) 676-3140. You may review copies at FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Lancair Company (Lancair) Models LC40-550FG and LC42-550FG airplanes. This AD requires you to incorporate additional takeoff chart distance values information into the Performance Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). This AD results from flight testing that revealed that the takeoff distance values for the affected airplanes could not be duplicated. We are issuing this AD to prevent potential impact with terrain or obstruction during takeoff due to incorrect takeoff distance values.
This AD becomes effective on January 21, 2005. We must receive any comments on this AD by March 18, 2005.
Use one of the following to submit comments on this AD:
•
•
•
•
•
To get the service information identified in this AD, contact The Lancair Company, 22550 Nelson Road, Bend Oregon 97701; telephone: (541) 330-4191; e-mail:
To view the comments to this AD, go to
Mr. Jeffrey Morfitt, Program Manager, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4065; telephone: (425) 917-6405; facsimile: (425) 917-6590.
Since the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other Lancair Models LC40-550FG and LC42-550FG airplanes of the same type design, we are issuing this AD to prevent potential impact with terrain or obstruction during takeoff due to incorrect takeoff distance values.
In preparing of this rule, we contacted type clubs and aircraft operators to get technical information and information on operational and economic impacts. We did not receive any information through these contacts. If received, we would have included a discussion of any information that may have influenced this action in the rulemaking docket.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective on January 21, 2005.
(b) None.
(c) This AD affects the following airplane models and serial numbers that are certificated in any category:
(d) This AD results from flight testing that revealed that the takeoff distance values for the affected airplanes could not be duplicated. We are issuing this AD to prevent potential impact with terrain or obstruction during takeoff due to incorrect takeoff distance values.
(e) To address this problem, you must do the following:
(f) You may request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD by following the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, send your request to your principal inspector. The principal inspector may add comments and will send your request to the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA. For information on any already approved alternative methods of compliance, contact Mr. Jeffrey Morfitt, Program Manager, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4065; telephone: (425) 917-6405; facsimile: (425) 917-6590.
(g) You may obtain the service information referenced in this AD from The Lancair Company 22550 Nelson Road, Bend, Oregon 97701; telephone: (541) 330-4191; e-mail:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) to supersede AD 98-03-14, which applies to certain EXTRA Flugzeugbau GmbH (EXTRA) Model EA-300 and EA-300/S airplanes. AD 98-03-14 currently requires you to inspect the upper longeron cutout-bridge for cracks, to repair any cracks found, and to modify this area. This AD retains the actions of AD 98-03-14 and incorporates new service information. For owner/operators of the affected airplanes that were able to do the modification required in AD 98-03-14, no further action is required. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for Germany. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the upper longeron cutout-bridge, which could cause the upper longeron cutout-bridge to fail resulting in structural damage to the fuselage. This condition could lead to loss of control of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective on February 28, 2005.
On March 16, 1998 (63 FR 5881, February 5, 1998), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of EXTRA Flugzeugbau GmbH Service Bulletin EA-300 & EA-300/S Doc: SB-300-3-93, Issue: A, Date: January 12, 1994.
As of February 28, 2005, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of EXTRA Flugzeugbau GmbH Service Bulletin EA-300 & EA-300/S Doc: SB-300-3-93, Issue: B, Date: June 10, 1998.
To get the service information identified in this AD, contact Extra Flugzeugbau GmbH, Flugplatz Dinslaken, D-46569 Hünxe, Germany. To review this service information, go to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, go to:
To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001 or on the Internet at
Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4146; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.
You were required to do these actions following EXTRA Flugzeugbau GmbH Service Bulletin EA-300 & EA-300/S, Doc: SB-300-3-93, Issue: A, Date: January 12, 1994.
Installing the new steel sleeves may cause distortion to the upper longeron bridge cutout and the fuselage. The distortion may cause misalignment of the steel sleeves fore and aft of the cutouts.
This caused EXTRA to issue a new service bulletin. The new service bulletin includes additional procedures for modifying the upper longeron cutout-bridge. If you modify the upper longeron bridge-cutout following Procedure II in the new service bulletin, the new bridges must be replaced every 1,000 hours time-in-service (TIS) (as specified in the new service information.)
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need this repair:
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective on February 28, 2005.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 98-03-14, Amendment 39-10307.
(c) This AD affects the following airplane models and serial numbers that:
(1) Are certificated in any category; and
(2) Have not had the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) upper longeron cutout-bridge inspected and modified following EXTRA Flugzeugbau GmbH Service Bulletin EA-300 & EA-300/S Doc: SB-300-3-93, Issue: A, Date: January 12, 1994.
(d) This AD is the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for Germany. The actions specified in this AD are intended to detect and correct cracks in the upper longeron cutout-bridge, which could cause the upper longeron cutout-bridge to fail resulting in structural damage to the fuselage. This condition could lead to loss of control of the airplane.
(e) To address this problem, you must do the following:
(f) You may request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD by following the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, send your request to your principal inspector. The principal inspector may add comments and will send your request to the Manager, Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA. For information on any already approved alternative methods of compliance, contact Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4146; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.
(g) German AD Number D-1994-043R1, dated May 17, 2004, also addresses the subject of this AD.
(h) You must do the actions required by this AD following the instructions in EXTRA Flugzeugbau GmbH Service Bulletin EA-300 & EA-300/S Doc: SB-300-3-93, Issue: A, Date: January 12, 1994; or EXTRA Flugzeugbau GmbH Service Bulletin EA-300 & EA-300/S Doc: SB-300-3-93, Issue: B, Date: June 10, 1998.
(1) On March 16, 1998 (63 FR 5881, February 5, 1998) and in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of EXTRA Flugzeugbau GmbH Service Bulletin EA-300 & EA-300/S Doc: SB-300-3-93, Issue: A, Date: January 12, 1994.
(2) As of February 28, 2005, and in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of EXTRA Flugzeugbau GmbH Service Bulletin EA-300 & EA-300/S Doc: SB-300-3-93, Issue: B, Date: June 10, 1998.
(3) To get a copy of this service information, contact EXTRA Flugzeubau GmbH, Flugplatz Dinslaken, D-46569 Hünxe, Germany. To review copies of this service information, go to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Direct final rule; request for comments.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, part 71 (14 CFR 71) by revising Class E airspace at Coffeyville, KS. A review of controlled airspace for Coffeyville Municipal Airport revealed it does not comply with the criteria for 700 feet above ground level (AGL) airspace required for diverse departures. The area is modified and enlarged to conform to the criteria in FAA Orders.
This direct final rule is effective on 0901 UTC, May 12, 2005. Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before March 2, 2005.
Send comments on this proposal to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2004-19583/Airspace Docket No. 04-ACE-73, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at
Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2524.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Coffeyville, KS. An examination of controlled airspace for Coffeyville Municipal Airport revealed it does not meet the criteria for 700 feet AGL airspace required for diverse departures as specified in FAA Order 7400.2E, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. The criteria in FAA Order 7400.2E for an aircraft to reach 1200 feet AGL, taking into consideration rising terrain, is based on a standard climb gradient of 200 feet per mile plus the distance from the airport reference point to the end of the outermost runway. Any fractional part of a mile is converted to the next higher tenth of a mile. This amendment expands the airspace area from a 6.6-mile radius to a 7.6-mile radius of Coffeyville Municipal Airport, eliminates the extension to the airspace area, deletes reference to the Coffeyville nondirectional radio beacon (NDB) in the legal description and brings the legal description of the Coffeyville, KS Class E airspace area into compliance with FAA Order 7400.2E. This area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9M, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 30, 2004, and effective September 16, 2004, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse or negative comment and, therefore, is issuing it as a direct final rule. Previous actions of this nature have not been controversial and have not resulted in adverse comments or objections. Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the
Interested parties are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2004-19583/Airspace Docket No. 04-ACE-73.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority since it contains aircraft executing instrument approach procedures to Coffeyville Municipal Airport.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.6-mile radius of Coffeyville Municipal Airport.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone in the vicinity of the HOVENSA refinery facility in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. This security zone extends approximately 2 miles seaward from the HOVENSA facility waterfront area along the south coast of the island of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. This security zone is needed for national security reasons to protect the public and the HOVENSA facility from potential subversive acts. Vessels without scheduled arrivals must receive permission from the U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port San Juan prior to entering this temporary security zone.
This rule is effective from November 5, 2004, until May 15, 2005.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket [CGD07-04-118] and are available for inspection or copying at Sector San Juan, 5 Calle La Puntilla, San Juan, Puerto Rico between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Lieutenant Junior Grade Katiuska Pabon, Sector San Juan, Puerto Rico at (787) 289-0739.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM and delaying the rule's effective date would be contrary to the public interest. Immediate action is needed to protect the public, ports and waterways of the United States from potential subversive acts against the HOVENSA facility.
For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Captain of the Port San Juan has determined that due to the continued risk and recent necessary increases in maritime security levels, the need for the security zone persists. While the Coast Guard intends to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and permanent rule to ensure the security of this waterfront facility, this temporary final rule is required in the interim.
Based on the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and recent increases in maritime security levels, there is an increased risk that subversive activity could be launched by vessels or persons in close proximity to the HOVENSA refinery on St. Croix, USVI, against tank vessels and the waterfront facility. Given the highly volatile nature of the substances stored at the HOVENSA facility, this security zone is necessary to decrease the risk of subversive activity launched against the HOVENSA facility. The Captain of the Port San Juan is reducing this risk by prohibiting all vessels without a scheduled arrival from coming within approximately 2 miles of the HOVENSA facility, unless specifically permitted by the Captain of the Port San Juan or a designated representative. The Captain of the Port San Juan can be reached on VHF Marine Band Radio, Channel 16 (156.8 Mhz), or by calling (787) 289-2040, 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week. The HOVENSA Facility Port Captain can be reached on VHF Marine Band Radio channel 11 (156.6 Mhz) or by calling (340) 692-3488, 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week.
The temporary security zone around the HOVENSA facility encompasses all waters within a line connecting the following coordinates: 17°41′31″ N, 64°45′09″ W, to 17°39′36″ N, 64°44′12″ W, to 17°40′00″ N, 64°43′36″ W, to 17°41′48″ N, 64°44′25″ W, and back to the beginning point. All vessels without a scheduled arrival into the HOVENSA facility are prohibited from coming within this security zone—that extends approximately 2 mile seaward from the facility, unless specifically permitted by the Captain of the Port San Juan or a designated representative.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order.
The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This security zone covers an area that is not typically used by commercial vessel traffic, including fishermen, and vessels may be allowed to enter the zone on a case-by-case basis with the permission of the Captain of the Port San Juan or a designated representative.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or government jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed under
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order, because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” (CED) are not required for this rule.
Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
17°41′31″ N, 64°45′09″ W, to 17°39′36″ N, 64°44′12″ W, to 17°40′00″ N, 64°43′36″ W, to 17°41′48″ N, 64°44′25″ W, and then back to the point of origins.
(b)
(c)
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Final rule.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is amending its rules of practice to adjust the fee for filing a trademark application for registration based on whether the application is filed on paper or electronically using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). Specifically, the Office is amending its rules to provide that: The fee for a trademark application filed on paper shall be increased to $375.00 for each class of goods or services; and the fee for a trademark application filed through TEAS shall be decreased to $325.00 for each class of goods or services.
January 31, 2005.
Cheryl Black, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, by telephone at (571) 272-9565, or by e-mail to
The Office is amending the trademark rules of practice governing the payment of fees for trademark applications to require payment based on whether the application is filed on paper or electronically through TEAS. Specifically, the Office is amending its rules to provide that: (1) The fee for a trademark application filed on paper shall be increased to $375.00 for each class of goods or services; and (2) the fee for a trademark application filed through TEAS shall be decreased to $325.00 for each class of goods or services.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act 2005, Pub. L. 108-447, (Appropriations Act) was enacted on December 8, 2004. The Appropriations Act amends the Trademark Act of 1946 to require that:
[D]uring fiscal years 2005 and 2006, under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Director, the fee under § 31(a) of the Trademark Act * * * for (1) the filing of a paper application for trademark registration shall be $375; (2) the filing of an electronic application shall be $325; and (3) the filing of an electronic application meeting certain additional requirements prescribed by the Director shall be $275.
This final rule adjusts the trademark application filing fees for applications filed pursuant to § 1 or 44 of the Trademark Act on paper to $375.00 per class and applications filed pursuant to § 1 or 44 of the Trademark Act through TEAS to $325.00 per class in accordance with the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1113(a), as amended by the Appropriations Act. The purpose of the lower fee for TEAS applications is to encourage applicants to file trademark applications electronically and to respond to any outstanding issues electronically. The Director will not prescribe rules for electronic applications that qualify for a filing fee of $275.00 until the Office deploys the information technology systems necessary to process these applications. Electronic applications in this third category will have additional filing date requirements.
The filing fee for Madrid Protocol applications under § 66(a) of the Trademark Act (66(a) applications) will remain unchanged. The Office will amend the filing fee for 66(a) applications in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth in the Rule 35 of the Common Regulations Under the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks and the Protocol Relating to That Agreement (Common Regs.) (April 1, 2004) and issue a notice of the effective date of the change. The rule change in § 2.6 is waived as to 66(a) applications until the procedures required by the Common Regs. are completed.
References below to “the Act,” “the Trademark Act,” or “the statute” refer to the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. 1051,
The Office is amending rules 2.6, 2.86 and 2.87.
The Office is revising § 2.6(a)(1) to provide that the fee for filing an application on paper is $375.00 per class, and that the fee for filing an application through TEAS is $325.00 per class.
The Office is amending § 2.86(a)(2) to provide that the filing fees for a multiple class application are based on § 2.6, which lays out a two-track fee system based on whether payment is made on paper or through TEAS. For example, if the applicant files a single class application through TEAS, the applicant must pay the TEAS application filing fee for the class identified in the application. If, on examination, the Office determines that it is a multiple class application, the applicant may respond through TEAS and pay the TEAS application filing fee for each additional class. Alternatively, the applicant may respond by mail or fax and pay the paper application filing fee for each additional class.
The Office is revising § 2.87(b) to provide that where a new separate application is created from a request to divide out some, but not all, of the goods or services in a class, the applicant must pay the fee for dividing the application and the applicable application filing fee as set forth in § 2.6(a)(1). Currently division requests can only be filed on paper, so the applicable filing fee will be $375.00 per class. However, in the future it will be possible to file a request to divide through TEAS, and at that point, if the request to divide is filed through TEAS,
This final rule may also be adopted without thirty-day advance publication of the fee changes pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1113(a). While nothing in the Appropriations Act or any other law requires delayed implementation of the fee changes in order to implement these fee changes, the Office must reprogram the trademark electronic filing system to accept the reduced fee. If TEAS is not reprogrammed before the fee changes go into effect, the Office will have to issue refunds to thousands of applicants for the amount paid in excess of the lower application filing fee. Such a corrective measure would be an administrative burden to the Office and to the public. Therefore, the Director has decided to briefly delay the implementation of the fee changes to allow the Office sufficient time to make the necessary programming changes. This final rule will go into effect on January 31, 2005.
As prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 (or any other law), neither a regulatory flexibility analysis nor a certification are required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule making does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999).
This rule making has been determined not to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This rule making involves information collection requirements which are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks.
15 U.S.C. 1123; 35 U.S.C. 2, unless otherwise noted.
(a) * * *
(1) For filing an application:
(i) On paper, per class—$375.00
(ii) Through TEAS, per class—$325.00
(a) * * *
(2) Submit an application filing fee for each class, as set forth in § 2.6(a)(1).
(b) In the case of a request to divide out one or more entire classes from an application, only the fee for dividing an application under paragraph (a) of this section, as set forth in § 2.6(a)(19), will be required. However, in the case of a request to divide out some, but not all, of the goods or services in a class, the application filing fee, as set forth in § 2.6(a)(1), for each new separate application to be created by the division must be submitted, together with the fee for dividing an application under paragraph (a) of this section, as set forth in § 2.6(a)(19).
Postal Service.
Final rule.
This final rule allows sample copies of authorized and pending Periodicals publications to be enclosed with merchandise mailed at Parcel Post or Bound Printed Matter postage rates.
Effective October 3, 2004.
Donald Lagasse, (202) 268-7269,
On February 25, 2004, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 83623, the Postal Service filed with the Postal Rate Commission a request for a decision recommending a minor mail classification change. The change allows sample copies of authorized and pending Periodicals publications to be enclosed with merchandise mailed at Parcel Post or Bound Printed Matter rates. This change was approved by the Board of Governors on July 19, 2004, with an implementation date of October 3, 2004.
This change does not affect any existing standards (
This change is desirable from the point of view of both publishers and the Postal Service because it provides another venue for promoting Periodicals and Package Services. The new standards benefit customers, printers, advertisers, and all affected parties by providing an opportunity for additional subscriptions, thereby creating more revenue and volume.
Since advertising is not permitted in items mailed at Library Mail and Media Mail rates, enclosures of Periodicals publications sample copies are limited to Parcel Post and Bound Printed Matter mailpieces.
The Postal Service received three comments on the September 2, 2004, proposal (69 FR 53664). Two commenters strongly supported the proposal, but requested that the Postal Service expand the rule to include merchandise sent at Standard Mail rates. This request is outside the scope of this rulemaking. The Postal Rate Commission case authorized only a limited exception to the prohibition against entering Periodicals at Package Service rates. The prohibition against enclosing Periodicals in Standard Mail pieces remains in place at this time. The third commenter expressed concerns as to why the Postal Service provides discounts to any mailer at any mail class. This comment is also outside the scope of this rulemaking, and postal policies in this area are consistent with the ratemaking provisions established by statute.
For the reasons discussed above, the Postal Service hereby adopts the following amendments to the Domestic Mail Manual, which is incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations (
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3626, 5001.
[Amend 1.1 by revising the first sentence to read as follows:]
Package Services mail consists of mailable matter that is neither mailed or required to be mailed as First-Class Mail nor entered as Periodicals (except as permitted under 1.7) unless permitted or required by standard or as Customized MarketMail under E660. * * *
[Add new section 1.7 to read as follows:]
Sample copies of authorized and pending Periodicals publications may be enclosed or attached with merchandise sent at Parcel Post or Bound Printed Matter rates. Postage at the Parcel Post or Bound Printed Matter rates is based on the combined weight of the host piece and the sample copies enclosed.
An appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 will be published to reflect these changes.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
On June 28, 2004, Ohio submitted an oxides of nitrogen (NO
This “direct final” rule is effective on March 21, 2005 unless EPA receives adverse written comments by February 18, 2005. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Submit comments, identified by Regional Material in eDocket (RME) ID No. R05-OAR-2004-OH-0003 by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal:
J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.
John Paskevicz, Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6084.
On August 5, 2002, at 67 FR 50600, EPA published a completeness determination that the Ohio NO
Following the August 5, 2003 approval, EPA issued an NO
The Ohio NO
Today's final rule resolves the significant issue of applicability of this rule to certain fuel burning units. It is intended to give affected sources in Ohio a clear indication that CO boilers associated with fluidized catalytic cracking units (FCCU) at oil refineries are not subject to Ohio's NO
This rule revision affects all refineries in Ohio which have carbon monoxide boilers associated with fluidized catalytic cracking units. There are three refineries in Ohio which are affected by this rule change. However, since the beginning of the NO
Ohio made a number of changes to the NO
The Ohio NO
The State's submittal included: A formal letter requesting approval of the rule revision; evidence of legal authority; evidence that the rules were adopted in the Ohio Code; a copy of the rule; evidence that Ohio followed the requirements of the State's administrative procedures act; copy of the public notice; evidence that a public hearing was held; and copy of public comments.
The submittal included a revised budget demonstration, describing the changes to the Ohio NO
CO boilers associated with fluidized catalytic cracking units at oil refineries are not required to be part of the NO
The Clean Air Act (Act) requires States to allow the public an opportunity to review and comment on any State's plan to implement provisions of the Act. Section 110(a)(1) of the Act states, “Each State shall, after reasonable notice and public hearings, adopt and submit to the Administrator
Ohio's Revised Administrative Code states that the Director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency “* * * may conduct public hearings on any plan for the prevention, control, and abatement of air pollution that the director is required to submit to the Federal government.” (Ohio Revised Code Chapter 3704.03, Powers of the director of environmental protection.)
On October 21, 2003, Ohio advised the affected community of a proposed rulemaking and public hearing concerning Rules 3745-14-01, 3745-14-03, and 3745-14-05 of the Ohio Administrative Code. Notice was made available to the public and affected industries via Ohio EPA's web site and by direct electronic mail to the State's list of interested parties. This notice announced a thirty-day comment period beginning October 21, 2003. Comments were received and the rule was revised in response to the comments and again made available on the State's website. A public hearing was held in Columbus on March 11, 2004, at which no comments were made, and no comments were received via either U.S. Mail or electronic mail.
Ohio published a notice of adoption of amended rules, and in the notice offered its citizens, and affected industry, an opportunity to appeal the Ohio EPA Director's findings and orders, and again sent an announcement of this opportunity to the list of interested parties. No appeals were made. The revision was approved by the Director and became effective on May 5, 2004.
EPA is approving this revision because it conforms with the intent of EPA's applicability statement regarding boilers associated with fluidized catalytic cracking units located at oil refineries. This applicability statement or policy is available from the EPA Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD.) A copy of this policy is available at the following Web link:
Prior to the May 31, 2004 start of the trading program, EPA had already exempted these sources from the monitoring requirements. The exemptions were based on requests from the sources, and were made with the understanding that Ohio, with guidance from EPA, would amend its rules to exempt these sources from monitoring, and submit the rules to EPA to formalize the revision to the Ohio NO
We are approving Ohio's revision to the State's NO
In the event we receive substantive adverse comment, this direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on a proposed rule published elsewhere in today's
1. The Regional Office has established an electronic public rulemaking file available for inspection on RME and a hard copy file which is available for inspection at the Regional Office. EPA has established an official public rulemaking file for this action under RME ID No. R05-OAR-2004-OH-0003. The official public file consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public rulemaking file does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public rulemaking file is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. EPA requests that, if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the
2.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at the EPA Regional Office, as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in the official public rulemaking file. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate rulemaking identification number by including the text “Public comment on proposed rulemaking Region 5 RME “R05-OAR-2004-OH-0003” in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
For detailed instructions on submitting public comments and on what to consider as you prepare your comments see the
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a plan submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 21, 2005. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(132) On June 28, 2004, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency submitted revisions to OAC rule 3745-14-01. These revisions change the definition of “boiler” by excluding from the trading program carbon monoxide (CO) boilers associated with combusting CO from fluidized catalytic cracking units at petroleum refineries, change the definition of continuous emission monitoring system to coincide with the definition in 40 CFR part 97, and change the applicabililty of the rules for cogeneration units. The submittal also includes revisions to OAC rule 3745-14-03 (A housekeeping correction to reference OAC Chapter 3745-77 concerning Title V operating permit) and 3745-14-05 (Revising the number of trading program budget allowances and source identification for the ozone seasons 2004 through 2007).
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Ohio Administrative Code rules 3745-14-01, 3745-14-03, and 3745-14-05, effective May 25, 2004.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Final rule.
Modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) are finalized for the communities listed below. These modified elevations will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Doug Bellomo, P.E., Hazard Identification Section, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2903.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Mitigation Division Director of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this notice. However, this rule includes the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations are available for inspection.
The modifications are made pursuant to Section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
These modified BFEs are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings.
The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
The Mitigation Division Director of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate certifies that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because modified base flood elevations are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are required to maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.
This rule meets the applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.
Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 4001
Farm Credit Administration.
Proposed rule.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, we, or our) is proposing to amend our regulations affecting the governance of the Farm Credit System. The proposed rule does not affect the governance of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. The proposed rule provides guidance on director qualifications; requires Farm Credit System institution boards of directors to complete training on corporate governance topics and conduct evaluations of their own performance; and addresses the number, selection, terms of service, and removal of outside directors. The proposed rule also addresses board committees, providing requirements for nominating committees, establishing compensation committees, and extending audit committee requirements to all Farm Credit System institutions. Finally, the proposed rule clarifies and expands the current rule on disclosure of conflicts of interest and compensation.
You may send comments on or before March 21, 2005.
Comments may be sent by electronic mail to
You may review copies of comments we receive at our office in McLean, Virginia, or from our Web site at
or
The objectives of this proposed rule are to:
• Strengthen the safety and soundness of Farm Credit System institutions;
• Strengthen the independence of Farm Credit System institution boards;
• Incorporate many of the best corporate governance practices for Farm Credit System institutions; and
• Improve disclosures to stockholders and investors in the Farm Credit System.
The Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act),
The structure of the Farm Credit System and its individual institutions has undergone significant change as a result of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (1987 Act).
Public attention on corporate governance issues resulted in a series of investigations, public hearings, and legislative and regulatory changes for public companies. The predominant legislative action was passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Sarbanes-Oxley).
Although Farm Credit banks and associations are not subject to the governance requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley, we considered its components, the actions of other regulators, and recent governance enhancements by the Farm Credit System when developing this proposed rule. As noted in a Moody's Corporate Governance Assessment in 2003, the Farm Credit System initiated an extensive review of its governance practices, intending to adopt best practices and follow relevant provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley. We have also considered these self-initiated governance enhancements by the Farm Credit System in developing this proposed rule. We also sought to balance regulatory requirements with informal guidance. Regulations ensure an element of consistency, while informal guidance provides flexibility for management to adopt practices suitable to the unique needs of individual Farm Credit System institutions. Our efforts to achieve this balance are reflected in this proposed rule. The proposed rule also gives full consideration to our examination of Farm Credit System institutions and the role examinations play in ensuring safe and sound operations.
The proposed rule considers the current state of the Farm Credit System, the increasingly complex market environment within which it operates, and current best governance practices. Specifically, the proposed rule addresses five governance areas: (1) Director training, experience, and performance, (2) board composition, (3) nominating committees, (4) conflict of interest and compensation disclosures, and (5) audit and compensation committees. This proposed rule will ensure timely and accurate System-wide disclosure in a manner consistent with our regulatory policy.
The proposed rule amends existing § 612.2130 to clarify that the term “agent” applies to current, not past, relationships with Farm Credit System institutions. It also proposes to remove the Farm Credit System institutions exception from the list of business institutions and organizations included in the Standards of Conduct definition of “entity.” We believe the interactions between Farm Credit System institutions should be included in the Standards of Conduct reporting requirements, providing complete and full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. We also propose redesignating paragraph numbers as a conforming change.
We propose adding a definition of outside director to the general definitions in part 619. The proposed § 619.9235 would define an outside director as a director elected or appointed by the board and independent of the Farm Credit System. The proposed definition includes agents in the list of ineligible candidates. Currently Farm Credit banks, but not associations, may have agents as outside directors. The proposed definition would remove that option, making requirements between Farm Credit banks and associations consistent.
We propose using the opportunity created by the introduction of the term outside director into the regulations to clarify §§ 611.320(b) and 615.5230(a). We clarify that each voting stockholder's right to elect directors does not include outside directors.
We propose removing the existing definition of senior officer from § 620.1 and adding a definition to part 619 that expands the § 620.1 definition to include policy makers. The proposed § 619.9265 would apply the definition of senior officer to all our regulations, unless otherwise noted. In conformance with this proposed change, we propose removing the § 620.1 definition reference in §§ 611.1223(d)(9) and 612.2155(a).
We propose amending the definition of an affiliated organization at § 620.1(a) by adding the position of director to the list of positions within an affiliated organization. This change will correct an inadvertent omission in the existing rule.
The proposed rule adds a new § 611.210, requiring each Farm Credit bank and association to establish standards for evaluating the knowledge and experience of director candidates. Farm Credit bank and association boards are responsible for providing management oversight, planning, and policy direction. In addition, they have certain fiduciary responsibilities to stockholders, which may require some accounting and financial experience. It is important to identify well-qualified directors and strengthen the collective knowledge of each board. Therefore, we propose that Farm Credit System institutions identify specific board member qualifications to enhance the collective knowledge of the board in a variety of areas, such as risk management, agricultural economics, and financial reporting.
The proposed rule requires that new directors receive orientation training within 1 year of assuming a board position and that incumbent directors receive periodic training. We recognize that the Farm Credit System offers some training for directors and seeks increased opportunities for FCA and the Farm Credit System to jointly offer director training. We believe our proposed training requirement will provide these opportunities, as well as improve board performance, facilitate implementation of best governance practices, and promote stockholder confidence. Continuing education and training assists directors in keeping abreast of current issues and
The rule does not propose requiring Farm Credit bank and association boards be culturally diverse, but we believe each board should be representative of its current and potential borrowers. We believe a board should reflect the age, race, gender, and other cultural factors of producers within its territory. As such, we encourage Farm Credit System institutions to consider diversity when conducting director recruitment.
We propose adding a director evaluation requirement to §§ 615.5200 and 618.8440. We believe each board needs a systematic approach for evaluating its performance. Annual board performance evaluations are acknowledged as a best governance practice and have been endorsed by the NYSE, prominent trade groups, consulting firms, and leading schools of management. As such, we are proposing amendments to §§ 615.5200(b) and 618.8440(b) to require that every Farm Credit System institution board of directors conduct an annual evaluation of its performance as part of the 3-year operational and strategic business plan (3-year business plan). Our proposal leaves the method of conducting this evaluation to the board's discretion. Whatever method is selected, the goal of this evaluation is to help the board identify its strengths and weaknesses.
In proposing this requirement, we recognize that we currently monitor director performance through our examination process. Section EM-510 of the FCA Examination Manual requires our examiners to assist each Farm Credit System institution board in understanding our view of a director's role and responsibilities through an evaluation of a board's effectiveness in achieving safe and sound operations and operating within applicable law and regulations. We will continue to offer this assessment during examinations, but believe its usefulness would be increased if each Farm Credit System institution board also conducted a similar evaluation.
A companion to board evaluations is a Code of Ethics. A written Code of Ethics is intended to reasonably assure customers that a business offers services in an objective and impartial manner. Section 406 of Sarbanes-Oxley encourages companies to adopt a Code of Ethics and the SEC, to implement section 406, requires publicly traded companies to disclose if they have a Code of Ethics or the reason why no code has been adopted. This rule does not propose requiring Farm Credit bank and association boards to adopt a Code of Ethics. We believe the proposed enhancements to our regulations offer sufficient assurances to customers that the Farm Credit System functions in a fair manner. However, we are encouraging each board to follow the current best practice of establishing a Code of Ethics for itself, management and employees. We believe a voluntary action by the individual institutions to adopt and publish a Code of Ethics will increase stockholder and investor goodwill and confidence.
The proposed rule adds a new § 611.220 addressing outside director expertise, number, terms of service, and removal.
a.
The proposed rule would further require Farm Credit banks and associations with total assets of more than $150 million to have at least two outside directors. We feel the growth in individual institution asset size, the increasing complexity in the financial services sector and related operating risk exposure, as well as the increasing scrutiny of Government-sponsored enterprises justify our proposal. We propose exempting Farm Credit System institutions with total assets of $150 million or less because we believe these institutions are generally less complex and pose less risk. Although we propose exempting these smaller institutions, we are not precluding them from having more than one outside director. However, shareholder-elected directors must remain the majority presence on a board.
We note that in today's business climate, outside directors provide a valuable independent voice of experience to Farm Credit System institutions facing a changing business environment. As such, we believe outside directors should not be discouraged from serving in leadership positions on the board. We further encourage Farm Credit System institutions to select board leaders and committee members based on their qualifications and not on the manner of their selection to the board.
b.
We consider “cause” to include a breach of fiduciary duties, willful or criminal misconduct, and creating a risk to the Farm Credit System institution. Removal for cause does not include offering opposing viewpoints during board deliberations, identifying weaknesses in the institution's operations, or exercising appropriate authorities while serving on a committee of the board. We believe permitting removal for other than a causal basis may have a chilling effect on the outside director's independence, inhibiting the outside director's willingness to take controversial positions while serving on the board.
We are also proposing regulations requiring the removal of an outside director when the director no longer meets the definition of an outside director. The Act requires outside directors to have no affiliation with the Farm Credit System, and as such, they should not acquire any prohibited relation with the Farm Credit System while serving as an outside director. We recognize that an anomaly in the Act permits Farm Credit bank and association outside directors to serve as the Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation's (Funding Corporation) outside directors, thereby becoming ineligible to continue as the underlying bank or association outside director.
We strongly believe that stockholders have the right to vote for directors, except in limited situations.
Our proposed rule adds a new § 611.230 permitting no more than two board-selected inside director positions, subject to the majority consent of all voting stockholders of a Farm Credit System institution. We believe allowing a bylaw provision authorizing Farm Credit bank and association boards of directors to elect or appoint stockholder-directors does not adversely impact corporate democracy or a bank or association's status as a cooperative, provided the stockholders have agreed to implement this through the institution's bylaws to create the position. In further preservation of cooperative principles, we are proposing a “cooling off” period, preventing selection of anyone who was a candidate in the past 5 years for a stockholder-elected position. We believe permitting board-selected inside directors may serve as a tool for boards to achieve diversity or acquire needed skills. However, we are limiting the number of board-selected inside directors to preserve the cooperative principles of the Farm Credit System. In addition, shareholder-elected directors must constitute the majority of a board. We note that the board-selected inside director may run for election at the next available opportunity.
We are also proposing clarifying amendments addressing this unique director position in §§ 611.320 and 615.5230.
The proposed rule amends § 618.8310 to clarify that Farm Credit System institutions may provide a list of stockholders to other stockholders in relation to an election to the board of directors or to the nominating committee. In addition, we have added the distribution of campaign materials in board and nominating committee elections to the permissible purpose list of examples.
In making this clarification, we further propose amending § 618.8310 to prohibit Farm Credit banks and associations from distributing this same campaign material in lieu of providing a list of stockholders. We make this change to reconcile the provisions of § 618.8310 with those of § 611.320, which prohibits a Farm Credit System institution from distributing campaign material. We also clarify § 611.320 to emphasize that Farm Credit System institutions may not distribute director candidate campaign material. The amendments we are proposing to §§ 618.8310 and 611.320 are essential to preserve impartiality in the election of directors, while allowing for candidate communication with stockholders.
We are also proposing a clarifying amendment to § 618.8310(b)(1) to specify that a “list of stockholders” consists of each stockholder's name, address, and classes of stock held. This amendment is consistent with our past interpretations and comports with the Model Business Corporation Act.
As a technical change, we propose replacing “agricultural credit bank, bank for cooperatives, Federal land bank association, production credit association, merged association, or Farm Credit Bank” in § 618.8310(b)(1) with “Farm Credit bank or association” pursuant to the definitions contained in §§ 619.9140 and 619.9050.
We propose consolidating the provisions of subpart F,
Our proposed changes to the AMIS would require associations to include nominee residential and business addresses and for candidates to disclose any family relationships that would be reportable under part 612 if elected to the institution's board. These requirements currently exist for Farm Credit banks. Farm Credit banks would be required to provide an AMIS to stockholders at least 10 days prior to director elections, listing the day, time, and place of the meetings. These changes should encourage further participation of stockholders in Farm Credit bank and association elections, consistent with cooperative principles, and establish a uniform set of election disclosure guidelines. We also propose changing the “and” to “or” in § 620.21(c)(2), while removing the “total of” phrase to provide more information to stockholders on director attendance.
As part of the proposed consolidation, we propose amending § 615.5230 to require that Farm Credit banks report their efforts to locate nominees for director positions in the AMIS.
The proposed rule adds a new § 611.325 on nominating committees. After reviewing surveys on the practices in many Farm Credit System institutions, we decided to propose regulations addressing the duties and composition of nominating committees. Although we issued informal guidance in the past, the Farm Credit System continues to request additional information on permissible nominating committee activities. We believe this
We are proposing that each Farm Credit bank and association have a nominating committee of at least three members. We believe a minimum of three members is consistent with best governance practices for balancing outreach and diversity against potential committees of one. The proposed rule specifies that committee members may not be director candidates. We propose this restriction because some Farm Credit banks and associations have permitted a stockholder to run for the nominating committee and a directorship position in the same year. We believe requiring committee members to be free from an interest in a directorship at the time of service and selection preserves impartiality.
Our existing rule requires Farm Credit banks and associations to assure a choice of at least two nominees for each elected office or document why there are not two nominees. Currently, only associations are required to disclose this documentation to stockholders. We believe that Farm Credit bank disclosure of the efforts to locate two qualified and willing nominees will lead to greater openness in the nomination process, increase the number of candidates, and provide regulatory consistency between Farm Credit banks and associations in director nominations. Therefore, the proposed rule requires Farm Credit bank and association nominating committees to document and maintain a record of their efforts to nominate two or more suitable candidates when only one can be found and for the Farm Credit banks and associations to include the nominating committee's report in the AMIS.
We further propose requiring Farm Credit banks and associations to provide all necessary resources to the nominating committee, including a list of stockholders. We believe these resources are necessary for a nominating committee to conduct an independent and thorough search for, and evaluation of, director candidates.
The proposed rule would increase the level of disclosure for potential conflicts of interest and executive compensation. Taken together, these proposed changes will improve the transparency of Farm Credit System institution governance and operation, strengthen its safety and soundness, maintain the cooperative principles upon which the Farm Credit System is based, and improve information flow to stockholders and investors, consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Act.
The proposed rule would amend § 620.5(h) to require disclosure of director and senior officer business relationships with other business interests. The existing provision only requires directors to disclose those business interests where he or she serves on the board of another entity. We are proposing to expand the coverage of disclosure reporting to include all senior officers. We also propose increasing the level of disclosure to include all business interests where a director or senior officer serves on the board or is employed as a senior officer.
In proposing these changes, we considered the reporting requirements of part 612 and the specific business interests that could create a real or potential conflict of interest. We also looked to the reporting requirements of other regulators. At a minimum, we believe it is essential to disclose the individual's relationships with other Farm Credit System institutions, including the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. We considered limiting disclosure to lending institutions but ultimately chose to retain the existing disclosure requirement of all other business interests.
We are proposing to clarify the meaning of compensation in § 620.5(i)(1)(iv) and (i)(2). We are clarifying that compensation for serving as a Farm Credit System institution director or senior officer includes both cash and noncash compensation from all sources. For example, if a senior officer attends an out-of-town meeting in his or her Farm Credit System official capacity, any expenses paid by a third party would be reportable.
a.
b.
We believe that the interests of Farm Credit System stockholders and investors require full disclosure, as evidenced by congressional statements on disclosure in the 1992 Act. Further, it is generally considered a best practice to publicly disclose executive compensation (both cash and noncash) on an individual basis. We further clarify in the proposed rule that noncash compensation includes stock and stock options. The proposed rule also removes the option for associations to disclose senior officer compensation in the AMIS as an alternative to the annual report. Farm Credit banks do not currently have this option; therefore, we are removing the option for the associations in order to improve disclosure to stockholders and provide consistency in reporting requirements.
As a conforming change, we propose removing the provision at § 620.5(i)(2), which provides for the disclosure of individual senior officer compensation when requested.
c.
d.
An audit committee is the guardian of a corporation's financial integrity. The events outside of the Farm Credit System involving alleged misdeeds by corporate executives and independent auditors damaged stockholder confidence in the financial markets. These events highlight the need for strong, competent, and vigilant audit committees. As such, we believe it is important for all Farm Credit System institutions to have audit committees. Therefore, we are proposing that each Farm Credit System association have an audit committee. Currently, the Funding Corporation and Farm Credit banks are the only Farm Credit System institutions required to have audit committees under § 630.6.
In conjunction with the proposed expansion, we propose moving the Farm Credit bank audit committee provisions from § 630.6(b) to § 620.30 for organizational purposes and adding a requirement for association audit committees to § 620.30. This section and § 620.31 currently contain provisions on Farm Credit bank disclosure statements. As discussed earlier, we propose consolidating Farm Credit bank disclosures with association disclosure in § 620.21.
We are also proposing changes in the structure, responsibilities, and authority of audit committees. Audit committees recommend actions needed to ensure full and accurate disclosure of an institution's operations and financial well being. We believe an audit committee must be comprised of at least three well-qualified board members. This view is shared by Sarbanes-Oxley, which also requires audit committees to be composed of directors. Therefore, the proposed rule requires each audit committee to be composed solely of board members, including at least one outside director.
Audit committee independence is essential to stockholder confidence in the transparency of audited financial statements and the integrity of the audit committee. By effectively carrying out its responsibilities, an independent audit committee helps to ensure that management properly develops and adheres to a sound system of internal controls, that procedures are in place to objectively assess management's practices, and that the outside auditors objectively assess the institution's financial reporting practices. In furtherance of these objectives, we propose that a director with financial expertise serve on the audit committee as its chair.
We are also proposing that audit committees approve the engagement or discharge of an institution's outside auditor. We believe it is appropriate that the audit committee hire the outside auditor to minimize potential or perceived undue management influence in the review of financial reports and accounting procedures. The audit committee's oversight will provide auditors with a knowledgeable authority other than management with which to discuss controversial matters.
We propose authorizing each audit committee to hire experts and legal counsel, when necessary. Access to outside experts and legal counsel provides an independent source of information or advice. Other resources are also to be made available and, as part of the proposed rule, we require a supermajority board vote to deny resources to an audit committee. We propose requiring this level of control to increase the independence of the audit committee and to act as a check on both the audit committee and management expectations for the Farm Credit System institution's financial resources. The proposed rule would also add a 3-year recordkeeping requirement similar to the voting record retention timeframe contained in § 611.340.
In conjunction with the enhanced role of audit committees, we are proposing to amend §§ 618.8430, 620.5(m), 620.11(d) and (e), 630.20(l), and 630.40(d) to include a reference to the oversight responsibility of audit committees.
The proposed rule would add a requirement that each Farm Credit bank and association have a compensation committee comprised of at least three board members. We also propose that compensation committees have approval authority for senior officer compensation. We are proposing this provision to ensure that senior officer salaries are commensurate with the duties and responsibilities of their positions.
In drafting our proposal, we reviewed the regulations issued by OFHEO, several compensation committee charters of publicly traded companies, and published studies of best governance practices. These emphasized the importance of a well-defined compensation program, a qualified, objective compensation committee to oversee the program, and the importance of transparency in administering the program.
We propose placing compensation committee provisions in § 620.31 for Farm Credit banks and associations and § 630.6(b) for the Funding Corporation.
Our proposed amendments require additional conforming technical changes to other regulatory provisions. We propose removing § 611.1030 as it contains provisions rendered obsolete by the 1988 technical amendments to section 7.1 of the Act and is redundant of statutory language. We also propose amending § 612.2130(d) to remove the definition of “director” because it is unnecessary, resulting in redesignated paragraphs. We propose removing § 614.4511 as it has been rendered obsolete. We also propose changing the management reference in § 630.20 to “senior officer” for consistency. The change to § 630.20 would include incorporating the proposed changes of § 620.5(i) regarding senior officer disclosures.
We recognize that the proposed rule may increase the responsibilities of some Farm Credit System directors, such as those serving on board committees. We further appreciate that some Farm Credit banks have reported director recruitment difficulties, due in part to the statutory compensation limit for Farm Credit bank directors. In addition, prior to this rulemaking we received several requests from Farm Credit banks to revise our rules on director compensation waivers.
The Act at section 4.21 establishes the compensation for Farm Credit bank directors at $20,000, adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. The Act, however, gives FCA the authority to waive this compensation level under exceptional circumstances. Use of the waiver authority is designed to provide a higher level of compensation for the duration of the exceptional circumstances. We have exercised this authority in existing § 611.400, which authorizes Farm Credit banks to pay directors up to 30 percent more than the statutory compensation limit in documented exceptional circumstances and without prior
We are inviting comment on whether we should retain, reduce, increase, or remove the current regulatory 30-percent waiver amount and at what level we should remove the authority of Farm Credit banks to exercise the waiver without prior submission to FCA. We request that comments suggesting an appropriate percentage be accompanied by independent data. We are seeking separate comment on what constitutes an appropriate exceptional circumstance. Example of exceptional circumstances might include taking a leadership role on the board or one of its committees, serving as a recognized financial expert, or addressing one-time unusual bank business, such as a merger. In addition, we would like to receive comments identifying objective criteria. The criteria should address the special knowledge, skills, and abilities required by the exceptional circumstances.
We recognize that some Farm Credit System institutions may have to recruit outside directors who have financial expertise or hire an additional outside director to satisfy certain provisions of the proposed rule. Therefore, we are proposing a 1-year delay in the implementation of these two requirements, beginning after publication of the final rule. Full compliance with all other provisions must be achieved beginning on the day following the effective date of the final rule.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Agriculture, Banks, banking, Rural areas.
Agriculture, Banks, banking, Conflict of interests, Crime, Investigations, Rural areas.
Agriculture, Banks, banking, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.
Accounting, Agriculture, Banks, banking, Government securities, Investments, Rural areas.
Agriculture, Archives and records, Banks, banking, Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas, Technical assistance.
Agriculture, Banks, banking, Rural areas.
Accounting, Agriculture, Banks, banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.
Accounting, Agriculture, Banks, banking, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 611, 612, 614, 615, 618, 619, 620, and 630 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 611 is amended to read as follows:
Secs. 1.3, 1.4, 1.13, 2.0, 2.1, 2.10, 2.11, 3.0, 3.2, 3.21, 4.12, 4.15, 4.20, 4.21, 5.9, 5.10, 5.17, 6.9, 6.26, 7.0-7.13, 8.5(e) of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2011, 2013, 2021, 2071, 2072, 2091, 2092, 2121, 2123, 2142, 2183, 2203, 2208, 2209, 2243, 2244, 2252, 2278a-9, 2278b-6, 2279a-2279f-1, 2279aa-5(e)); secs. 411 and 412 of Pub. L. 100-233, 101 Stat. 1568, 1638; secs. 409 and 414 of Pub. L. 100-399, 102 Stat. 989, 1003, and 1004.
2. Add a new subpart B, consisting of §§ 611.210, 611.220, and 611.230, to read as follows:
(a) Each bank and association must establish standards for director candidates that consider the knowledge and experience of individual candidates in risk management, agricultural economics, financial reporting, agricultural production and marketing, or other appropriate areas.
(b) At a minimum, banks and associations must require newly elected or appointed directors to complete director orientation training within 1 year of assuming their position and require incumbent directors to attend training periodically to advance their skills. Orientation and advanced training courses should address corporate governance, strategic planning, financial reporting, electronic banking, and other areas deemed appropriate by the Farm Credit bank or association.
(a)
(2) Each bank and association with total assets exceeding $150 million as of January 1 of each year must have no fewer than two outside directors on the board. Banks and associations with $150 million or less in total assets as of January 1 of each year must have one outside director. Nothing in this section prohibits a bank or association board from exceeding the minimum number of outside directors. Stockholder-elected directors must constitute a majority of the board at all times.
(3) Banks and associations may not establish a different term of office for outside directors than that established for directors elected by the majority vote of all voting stockholders.
(b)
A board-selected inside director is a stockholder who has been elected to a Farm Credit bank or association board of directors by the other board members. Board-selected inside directors are not elected by a general or regional vote of all voting stockholders. Board-selected inside directors are not outside directors as defined in part 619 of this chapter.
(a)
(b)
(c)
3. Amend § 611.320 by revising paragraphs (b) and (e) to read as follows:
(b) No employee or agent of a Farm Credit institution shall take any part, directly or indirectly, in the nomination or election of members to the board of directors of a Farm Credit institution, or make any statement, either orally or in writing, which may be construed as intended to influence any vote in such nominations, or elections. This paragraph shall not prohibit employees or agents from providing biographical and other similar information or engaging in other activities pursuant to policies and procedures for nominations and elections. This paragraph does not affect the right of an employee or agent to nominate or vote for shareholder-elected directors of an institution in which the employee or agent is a voting member.
(e) No Farm Credit institution may in any way distribute or mail, whether at the expense of the institution or another, any campaign materials for director candidates. Institutions may request biographical, as well as the disclosure information required under § 620.21(d) of this chapter, from all declared candidates who certify that they are eligible, restate such information in a standard format, and distribute or mail it with ballots or proxy ballots.
4. Add a new § 611.325 to read as follows:
Nominating committees must conduct themselves in the impartial manner prescribed by the policies and procedures adopted by their institution under § 611.320.
(a)
(b)
(1) Each nominating committee must seek individuals whom the committee determines meet the eligibility requirements to run for director positions. The committee must endeavor to assure representation from all areas of the institution's territory and as nearly as possible all types of agriculture practiced within the territory.
(2) The nominating committee must perform an independent critical evaluation of the qualifications and suitability of the director candidates. The evaluation process must consider whether each candidate has a level of training and experience to perform the duties required by the position and whether there are any known obstacles that would prevent a candidate from performing the duties of the position.
(3) Each committee must nominate at least two candidates for each director position being voted on by stockholders. If two nominees cannot be identified, the nominating committee must provide written explanation to the existing board of the efforts to locate candidates or the reasons for disqualifying any other candidate that resulted in fewer than two nominees.
(c)
5. Remove and reserve § 611.1030.
6. Amend § 611.1223 by revising paragraph (d)(9) to read as follows:
(d) * * *
(9)
7. The authority citation for part 612 continues to read as follows:
Secs. 5.9, 5.17, 5.19 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2243, 2252, 2254).
8. Amend § 612.2130 as follows:
a. Add the word “currently” after the word “who” each time it appears in paragraph (a);
b. Remove paragraph (d);
c. Redesignate existing paragraphs (e) through (u) as paragraphs (d) through (t), consecutively; and
d. Revise newly designated paragraph (e) to read as follows:
(e)
9. Amend § 612.2155 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text to read as follows:
(a) Annually, as of the institution's fiscal yearend, and at such other times as may be required to comply with paragraph (c) of this section, each senior officer must file a written and signed statement with the Standards of Conduct Official that fully discloses:
10. The authority citation for part 614 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4104a, 4104b, 4106, and 4128; Secs. 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 2.0, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.10, 2.12, 2.13, 2.15, 3.0, 3.1, 3.3, 3.7, 3.8, 3.10, 3.20, 3.28, 4.12, 4.12A, 4.13B, 4.14, 4.14A, 4.14C, 4.14D, 4.14E, 4.18, 4.18A, 4.19, 4.25, 4.26, 4.27, 4.28, 4.36, 4.37, 5.9, 5.10, 5.17, 7.0, 7.2, 7.6, 7.8, 7.12, 7.13, 8.0, 8.5 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2071, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2091, 2093, 2094, 2097, 2121, 2122, 2124, 2128, 2129, 2131, 2141, 2149, 2183, 2184, 2201, 2202, 2202a, 2202c, 2202d, 2202e, 2206, 2206a, 2207, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214, 2219a, 2219b, 2243, 2244, 2252, 2279a, 2279a-2, 2279b, 2279c-1, 2279f, 2279f-1, 2279aa, 2279aa-5); sec. 413 of Pub. L. 100-233, 101 Stat. 1568, 1639.
11. Remove and reserve § 614.4511.
12. The authority citation for part 615 continues to read as follows:
Secs. 1.5, 1.7, 1.10,1.11, 1.12, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.12, 3.1, 3.7, 3.11, 3.25, 4.3, 4.3A, 4.9, 4.14B, 4.25, 5.9, 5.17, 6.20, 6.26, 8.0, 8.3, 8.4, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 8.10, 8.12 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2013, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2093, 2122, 2128, 2132, 2146, 2154, 2154a, 2160, 2202b, 2211, 2243, 2252, 2278b, 2278b-6, 2279aa, 2279aa-3, 2279aa-4, 2279aa-6, 2279aa-7, 2279aa-8, 2279aa-10, 2279aa-12); sec. 301(a) of Pub. L. 100-233, 101 Stat. 1568, 1608.
13. Amend § 615.5200 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) Capability of management and the board of directors;
14. Amend § 615.5230 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text, (a)(1)(ii), (a)(2) introductory text, (a)(2)(ii), (a)(3) introductory text, and (b)(5) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) Each voting shareholder of an association or bank for cooperatives must:
(i) * * *
(ii) Have the right to vote in the election of each director, except outside directors, unless the regional election of directors is provided for in the bylaws pursuant to § 615.5230(a)(3) or the bylaws provide for the board selection of an inside director pursuant to § 611.230 of this chapter;
(2) Each voting shareholder of a Farm Credit Bank must:
(i) * * *
(ii) Have the right to vote in the election of each director, except outside directors and board-selected inside directors, and be allowed to cumulate such votes and distribute them among the candidates in the shareholder's discretion, except that cumulative voting for the directors may be eliminated if 75 percent of the associations that are shareholders of the Farm Credit Bank vote in favor of elimination. In a vote to eliminate cumulative voting, each association must be accorded one vote.
(3) The regional election of stockholder-elected directors is permitted under the following conditions:
(b) * * *
(5) Each bank must endeavor to assure that there is a choice of at least two nominees for each elective office to be filled and that the board represents as nearly as possible all types of agriculture in the district. If fewer than two nominees for each position are named, the efforts to locate two willing nominees must be documented in the records of the bank and provided as part of the Annual Meeting Information Statement of part 620, subpart E of this chapter. The bank must also maintain a list of the type or types of agriculture engaged in by each director on its board.
15. The authority citation for part 618 continues to read as follows:
Secs. 1.5, 1.11, 1.12, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.12, 3.1, 3.7, 4.12, 4.13A, 4.25, 4.29, 5.9, 5.10, 5.17 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2013, 2019, 2020, 2073, 2075, 2076, 2093, 2122, 2128, 2183, 2200, 2211, 2218, 2243, 2244, 2252).
16. Amend § 618.8310 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
(b)(1) Within 7 days after receipt of a written request by a stockholder, each Farm Credit bank or association must provide a current list of its stockholders' names, addresses, and classes of stock held to such requesting stockholder. As a condition to providing the list, the bank or association may only require
(i) Utilize the list exclusively for communicating with stockholders for permissible purposes; and
(ii) Not make the list available to any person, other than the stockholder's attorney or accountant, without first obtaining the written consent of the institution.
(2) As an alternative to receiving a list of stockholders, a stockholder may request the institution mail or otherwise furnish to each stockholder a communication for a permissible purpose on behalf of the requesting stockholder. This alternative may be used at the discretion of the requesting stockholder, provided that the requester agrees to defray the reasonable costs of the communication. In the event the requester decides to exercise this option, the institution must provide the requester with a written estimate of the costs of handling and mailing the communication as soon as practicable after receipt of the stockholder's request to furnish a communication. However, a stockholder may not exercise this option when requesting the list to distribute campaign material for election to the institution board or board committees. Farm Credit banks and associations are prohibited from distributing or mailing campaign material under § 611.320(e) of this chapter.
(3) For purposes of this paragraph (b), “permissible purpose” is defined to mean matters relating to the business operations of the institutions. This includes matters relating to the effectiveness of management, the use of institution assets, the distribution by stockholder candidates of campaign material for election to the institution board or board committees, and the performance of directors and officers. This does not include communications involving commercial, social, political, or charitable causes, communications relating to the enforcement of a personal claim or the redress of a personal grievance, or proposals advocating that the bank or association violate any Federal, State, or local law or regulation.
17. Amend § 618.8430 by revising the introductory text and adding a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Each Farm Credit institution's board of directors must adopt an internal control policy, providing adequate direction to the institution in establishing effective control over, and accountability for, operations, programs, and resources. The policy must include, at a minimum, the following:
(d) The role of the audit committee in providing oversight and review of the institution's internal controls.
18. Amend § 618.8440 by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and (b)(2) to read as follows:
(b) The plan must include, at a minimum, the following:
(1) * * *
(2) An annual review of the internal and external factors likely to affect the institution during the planning period. The review must include:
(i) An assessment of management capabilities;
(ii) A self-evaluation of the board's performance; and
(iii) Strategies for correcting identified weaknesses.
19. The authority citation for part 619 is revised to read as follows:
Secs. 1.4, 1.7, 2.1, 2.4, 2.11, 3.2, 3.21, 4.9, 5.9, 5.12, 5.17, 5.18, 6.22, 7.0, 7.1, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.12 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2011, 2015, 2072, 2075, 2092, 2123, 2142, 2160, 2243, 2244, 2252, 2253, 2278b-2, 2279a, 2279a-1, 2279b, 2279b-1, 2279b-2, 2279f).
20. Amend part 619 by adding new §§ 619.9235 and 619.9265, to read as follows:
A member of a board of directors selected or appointed by the board, who is not a director, officer, employee, agent, or stockholder of any Farm Credit System institution.
The Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Operations Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, the Chief Credit Officer, and the General Counsel, or persons in similar positions; and any other person responsible for a major policy-making function.
21. The authority citation for part 620 continues to read as follows:
Secs. 5.17, 5.19, 8.11 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2252, 2254, 2279aa-11) sec. 424 of Pub. L. 100-233, 101 Stat. 1568, 1656.
22. Amend § 620.1 as follows:
a. Remove paragraph (p);
b. Redesignate existing paragraphs (q) through (s) as paragraphs (p) through (r), consecutively; and
c. Revise paragraph (a).
(a)
23. Amend § 620.5 as follows:
a. Revise paragraphs (h)(3), (i)(1), (i)(2) and (i)(2)(i) introductory text;
b. Remove paragraph (i)(2)(iii); and
c. Add new paragraph (m)(3).
(h) * * *
(3) For each director and senior officer, list any other business interest where the director or senior officer serves on the board or as a senior officer. Name the position held and state the principal business in which the business is engaged.
(i) * * *
(1)
(i) The number of days served at board meetings;
(ii) The total number of days served in other official activities, including any board committee(s);
(iii) Any additional compensation paid for service on a board committee, naming the committee; and
(iv) The total cash and noncash compensation paid to each director during the last fiscal year. Compensation reported must include the amount of cash, or value of noncash items, provided by anyone to a director for services rendered by the director on behalf of the reporting Farm Credit institution.
(2)
(i) The institution must disclose the total amount of cash and noncash compensation, including stock and stock options, paid to each senior officer in substantially the same manner as the tabular form specified in the following Summary Compensation Table (table):
(A) Report the total amount of cash and noncash compensation paid and the amount of each component of compensation paid to the institution's chief executive officer (CEO) and each senior officer for each of the last 3 completed fiscal years, naming the individuals. If more than one person served in the capacity of CEO during any given fiscal year, individual compensation disclosures must be provided for each CEO.
(B) Amounts shown as “Salary” (column (c)) and “Bonus” (column (d)) must reflect the dollar value of salary and bonus earned by the senior officer during the fiscal year. Amounts contributed during the fiscal year by the senior officer pursuant to a plan established under section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code, or similar plan, must be included in the salary column or bonus column, as appropriate. If the amount of salary or bonus earned during the fiscal year is not calculable by the time the report is prepared, the reporting institution must provide its best estimate of the compensation amount(s) and disclose that fact in a footnote to the table.
(C) Amounts shown as “deferred/perquisites” (column (e)) must reflect the dollar value of other annual compensation not properly categorized as salary or bonus, including but not limited to:
(
(
(D) Compensation amounts reported under the category “Other” (column (f)) shall reflect the dollar value of all other compensation not properly reportable in any other column. Items reported in this column shall be specifically identified and described in a footnote to the table. Such compensation includes, but is not limited to:
(
(
(E) Amounts displayed under “Total” (column (g)) shall reflect the sum total of amounts reported in columns (c), (d), (e), and (f).
(m) * * *
(3) State that the financial statements were prepared under the oversight of the audit committee, identifying the members of the audit committee.
24. Amend § 620.11 by adding a new paragraph (d)(5) and revising paragraphs (d) introductory text and (e) to read as follows:
(d)
(5) State that the financial statements were prepared under the oversight of the audit committee.
(e)
25. Revise the heading of subpart E to read as set forth above.
26. Remove and reserve § 620.20.
27. Amend § 620.21 by revising the introductory paragraph, paragraphs (c)(2) and (d) to read as follows:
Each bank or association of the Farm Credit System must provide an information statement (“statement” or “AMIS”) to its stockholders at least 10 days prior to any meeting at which directors are to be elected. The AMIS must reference the annual report required by subpart B of this part and such other material information as is necessary to make the required statement, in light of the circumstances under which it is made, not misleading. The AMIS must address the following items:
(c) * * *
(2) State the name of any incumbent director who attended fewer than 75 percent of the board meetings or any meetings of board committees on which he or she served during the last fiscal year.
(d)
(2) If fewer than two nominees for each position are named, describe the efforts of the nominating committee to locate two willing nominees.
(3) State that nominations shall be accepted from the floor.
(4) For each nominee who is not an incumbent director, except a nominee from the floor, provide the information referred to in § 620.5(j) and (k) and paragraph (d)(1) of this section. If stockholders will vote by paper mail or electronic mail ballot upon conclusion of all sessions, each floor nominee must provide the information referred to in § 620.5(j) and (k) and paragraph (d)(1) of this section in paper or electronic form to the Farm Credit institution within the time period prescribed by the institution's bylaws. If the institution's bylaws do not prescribe a time period, state that each floor nominee must provide the disclosure to the institution within 5 business days of the nomination. The institution must ensure that the information is provided to the voting stockholders by delivering the ballots for the election of directors in the same format as the comparable information contained in the annual meeting information statement. If stockholders will not vote by paper mail or electronic mail ballot upon conclusion of all sessions, each floor nominee must provide the information referred to in § 620.5(j) and (k) and paragraph (d)(1) of this section in paper or electronic form at the first session at which voting is held.
(5) If association directors are nominated or elected by region, describe the regions and state the number of voting stockholders entitled to vote in each region. Any association director nominee from the floor must be an eligible candidate for the association director position for which the person has been nominated.
(i) If association directors are not elected by region, the following must apply:
(A) If the annual meeting is to be held in more than one session and paper mail or electronic mail balloting will be conducted upon the conclusion of all sessions, state that nominations from the floor may be made at any session or, if the association's bylaws so provide, state that nominations from the floor shall be accepted only at the first session.
(B) If stockholders will not vote solely by paper mail or electronic mail ballot upon conclusion of all sessions, state that nominations from the floor may be made only at the first session.
(ii) If association directors are elected by region, the following must apply:
(A) If more than one session of an annual meeting is held in a region, and if paper mail or electronic mail balloting will be conducted at the end of all sessions in a region, state that nominations from the floor may be made at any session in the region or, if the association's bylaws so provide, state that nominations from the floor shall be accepted only at the first session held in the region.
(B) If stockholders will not vote solely by paper mail or electronic mail ballot upon conclusion of all sessions in a region, state that nominations from the floor may be made only at the first session held in the region.
(6) Each bank and association must adopt policies and procedures that assure a disclosure statement is prepared by each director candidate. Copies of completed and signed disclosure statements must be provided to voting stockholders with the election ballots. No person may be a nominee for director who does not make the disclosures required by this subpart.
28. Revise subpart F to read as follows:
Each Farm Credit bank and association must establish and maintain an audit committee. An audit committee is established by adopting a written charter describing the committee's composition, authorities, and responsibilities in accordance with this section. All audit committees must maintain records of meetings, including attendance, for at least 3 fiscal years.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Each Farm Credit bank and association must establish and maintain a compensation committee by adopting a written charter describing the committee's composition, authorities, and responsibilities in accordance with this section. All compensation committees will be required to maintain records of meetings, including attendance, for at least 3 fiscal years.
(a)
(b)
(c)
29. The authority citation for part 630 continues to read as follows:
Secs. 5.17, 5.19 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2252, 2254).
30. Revise § 630.6 to read as follows:
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
31. Amend § 630.20 by revising the introductory heading for paragraph (h), paragraphs (h)(2) and (l) introductory text to read as follows:
(h)
(2)
(l)
32. Amend § 630.40 by revising paragraph (d) introductory text to read as follows:
(d)
Small Business Administration.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is extending the deadline for comments on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), which requested comments on issues related to SBA's effort to restructure its small business size standards, for 60 days because SBA agrees with the public's view that an extension is necessary to afford interested parties more time to thoroughly review the issues described in the ANPRM and prepare their comments. The previous deadline of February 1, 2005 is extended to April 3, 2005.
Comments must be received on or before April 3, 2005.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3245-AF22, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• E-mail:
• Fax: (202) 205-6390.
• Mail: Gary M. Jackson, Assistant Administrator for Size Standards, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Gary M. Jackson, Assistant Administrator for Size Standards, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416.
Upon receipt of a written request, SBA will make available public comments to the requestor, subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
SBA's Office of Size Standards, (202) 205-6618, or
On March 19, 2004, SBA published a proposed rule to restructure its small business size standards by establishing them based primarily on the number of employees of a business concern and by limiting to 10 the number of different size standard levels (69 FR 13130). Although a majority of the more than 4,000 comments on the proposed changes expressed support for the proposal, SBA also received a large number of comments opposing various aspects of SBA's approach to simplifying size standards. As a result, SBA withdrew the proposal on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 39874).
On December 3, 2004, SBA published an ANPRM seeking comments from the public on several issues that were raised during the public comment period for the proposed rule (69 FR 70197). Specifically, the ANPRM sought comments on the approach to simplify size standards, the calculation of number of employees (including how SBA defines an employee for size purposes), the use of receipts-based size standards, the designation of size standards for Federal procurements, the establishment of size standards for use solely in Federal procurement programs, the establishment of tiered size standards, the simplification of affiliation regulations, the simplification of small business joint venture eligibility regulations, the grandfathering of small business eligibility, and the impact of SBA size standards on the regulations of other Federal agencies. The deadline for comments on the ANPRM was February 1, 2005.
SBA has received hundreds of comments on these issues. SBA has also received requests from the public for an extension of the comment period to afford interested parties more time to thoroughly review the issues described in the ANPRM and prepare their comments. Given the scope and nature of size standard issues, SBA agrees that it is in the public interest to provide additional time for preparation of comments, which SBA will consider as part of its deliberations on restructuring size standards. Therefore, SBA is extending the comment period for 60 days, from February 1, 2005 to April 3, 2005.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This notice proposes special conditions for the installation of an AMSAFE, Inc., Inflatable Three-Point Restraint Safety Belt with an Integrated Airbag Device on Mooney models M20K, M20M, M20R, and M20S. These airplanes, as modified by AMSAFE, Inc., will have novel and unusual design features associated with the lap belt portion of the safety belt, which contains an integrated airbag device. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. The proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Comments must be received on or before February 18, 2005.
Comments on this proposal may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Regional Counsel, ACE-7, Attention: Rules Docket, Docket No. CE217, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, or delivered in duplicate to the Regional Counsel at the above address. Comments must be marked: Docket No. CE217. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.
Mr. Mark James, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane Directorate, ACE-111, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri, 816-329-4137, fax 816-329-4090, e-mail
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of these proposed special conditions by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The proposals described in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. CE217.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
On April 13, 2004, AMSAFE, Inc., Aviation Inflatable Restraints Division, 1043 North 47th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85043, applied for a supplemental type certificate for the installation of an inflatable lap belt restraint with a standard upper torso restraint (or shoulder harness) in Mooney models M20 (K, M, R, and S). The Mooney models M20 (K, M, R, and S) are single-engine, multi-place airplanes.
The inflatable restraint system is a three-point safety belt restraint system consisting of a traditional shoulder harness and an inflatable airbag lap belt. The inflatable portion of the restraint system will rely on sensors to electronically activate the inflator for deployment. The inflatable restraint system will be made available on the pilot, co-pilot, and passenger seats of these airplanes.
In the event of an emergency landing, the airbag will inflate and provide a protective cushion between the occupant's head and structure within the airplane. This will reduce the potential for head and torso injury. The inflatable restraint behaves in a manner that is similar to an automotive airbag, but in this case, the airbag is integrated into the lap belt. While airbags and inflatable restraints are standard in the automotive industry, the use of an inflatable three-point restraint system is novel for general aviation operations.
The FAA has determined that this project will be accomplished on the basis of providing the same level of safety as the current Mooney models M20 (K, M, R, and S). The FAA has two primary safety concerns with the installation of airbags or inflatable restraints:
• That they perform properly under foreseeable operating conditions; and
• That they do not perform in a manner or at such times as to impede the pilot's ability to maintain control of the airplane or constitute a hazard to the airplane or occupants.
The latter point has the potential to be the more rigorous of the requirements. An unexpected deployment while conducting the takeoff or landing phases of flight may result in an unsafe condition. The unexpected deployment may either startle the pilot or generate a force sufficient to cause a sudden movement of the control yoke. Either action could result in a loss of control of the airplane, the consequences of which are magnified due to the low operating altitudes during these phases of flight. The FAA has considered this when establishing these special conditions.
The inflatable restraint system relies on sensors to electronically activate the inflator for deployment. These sensors could be susceptible to inadvertent activation, causing deployment in a potentially unsafe manner. The consequences of an inadvertent deployment must be considered in establishing the reliability of the system. AMSAFE, Inc., must show either that the effects of an inadvertent deployment in flight are not a hazard to the airplane or that an inadvertent deployment is extremely improbable. In addition, general aviation aircraft are susceptible to a large amount of cumulative wear and tear on a restraint system. It is likely that the potential for inadvertent deployment increases as a result of this cumulative damage. Therefore, the impact of wear and tear on inadvertent deployment must be considered. Due to the effects of this cumulative damage, a life limit must be established for the appropriate system components in the restraint system design.
There are additional factors to be considered to minimize the chances of inadvertent deployment. General aviation airplanes are exposed to a unique operating environment, since the same airplane may be used by both experienced and student pilots. The effect of this environment on
• The airplane vibration levels appropriate for a general aviation airplane; and
• The inertial loads that result from typical flight or ground maneuvers, including gusts and hard landings.
Other influences on inadvertent deployment include high intensity electromagnetic fields (HIRF) and lightning. Since the sensors that trigger deployment are electronic, they must be protected from the effects of these threats. To comply with HIRF and lightning requirements, the AMSAFE, Inc., inflatable restraint system is considered a critical system, since its inadvertent deployment could have a hazardous effect on the airplane.
Given the level of safety of the current Mooney M20 occupant restraints, the inflatable restraint system must show that it will offer an equivalent level of protection in the event of an emergency landing. In the event of an inadvertent deployment, the restraint must still be at least as strong as a Technical Standard Order approved belt and shoulder harness. There is no requirement for the inflatable portion of the restraint to offer protection during multiple impacts, where more than one impact would require protection.
The inflatable restraint system must deploy and provide protection for each occupant under a crash condition. The seats of the models M20 (K, M, R, and S) are not certificated to the requirements of § 23.562, and it is not known if they would remain in tact following exposure to the crash pulse identified in § 23.562. Therefore, the test crash pulse used to satisfy this requirement may have a peak longitudinal deceleration lower than that required by § 23.562. However, the test pulse onset rate (deceleration divided by time) must be equal to or greater than the onset rate of the pulse described in § 23.562. This will demonstrate that the crash sensor will trigger when exposed to a rapidly applied deceleration, like an actual crash event.
It is possible a wide range of occupants will use the inflatable restraint. Thus, the protection offered by this restraint should be effective for occupants that range from the fifth percentile female to the ninety-fifth percentile male. Energy absorption must be performed in a consistent manner for this occupant range.
In support of this operational capability, there must be a means to verify the integrity of this system before each flight. As an option, AMSAFE, Inc., can establish inspection intervals where they have demonstrated the system to be reliable between these intervals.
It is possible that an inflatable restraint will be “armed” even though no occupant is using the seat. While there will be means to verify the integrity of the system before flight, it is also prudent to require that unoccupied seats with active restraints not constitute a hazard to any occupant. This will protect any individual performing maintenance inside the cockpit while the aircraft is on the ground. The restraint must also provide suitable visual warnings that would alert rescue personnel to the presence of an inflatable restraint system.
In addition, the design must prevent the inflatable seatbelt from either being incorrectly buckled or installed such that the airbag would not properly deploy, or both. As an alternative, AMSAFE, Inc., may show that such deployment is not hazardous to the occupant and will still provide the required protection.
The cabins of the Mooney model airplanes identified in these special conditions are confined areas, and the FAA is concerned that noxious gasses may accumulate in the event of airbag deployment. When deployment does occur, either by design or inadvertently, there must not be a release of hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the cockpit.
An inflatable restraint should not increase the risk already associated with fire. Therefore, the inflatable restraint should be protected from the effects of fire so that an additional hazard is not created by, for example, a rupture of the inflator.
Finally, the airbag is likely to have a large volume displacement and possibly impede the egress of an occupant. Since the bag deflates to absorb energy, it is likely that the inflatable restraint would be deflated at the time an occupant would attempt egress. However, it is appropriate to specify a time interval after which the inflatable restraint may not impede rapid egress. Ten seconds has been chosen as reasonable time. This time limit will offer a level of protection throughout the impact event.
Under the provisions of § 21.101, AMSAFE, Inc., must show that the Mooney models M20 (K, M, R, and S), as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. 2A3 or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. 2A3 are as follows:
M20K S/N's 25-2000 thru 25-2012 may be retrofitted to TSIO-360-SB2 engine and gross weight increase to 3130 Lbs. when complied with M20K Gross Weight Increase Retrofit Instructions.
For the models listed above, the certification basis also includes all exemptions, if any; equivalent level of safety findings, if any; and the special conditions adopted by this rulemaking action.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38, and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to that model under the provisions of § 21.101.
The Mooney models M20 (K, M, R, and S) will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:
The AMSAFE, Inc., Inflatable Three-Point Restraint Safety Belt With an Integrated Airbag Device. The purpose of the airbag is to reduce the potential for injury in the event of an accident. In a severe impact, an airbag will deploy from the lap belt portion of the restraint, in a manner similar to an automotive airbag. The airbag will deploy between the head of the occupant and airplane interior structure. This will, therefore, provide some protection to the head of the occupant. The restraint will rely on sensors to electronically activate the inflator for deployment.
The Code of Federal Regulations state performance criteria for seats and restraints in an objective manner. However, none of these criteria are adequate to address the specific issues raised concerning inflatable restraints. Therefore, the FAA has determined that, in addition to the requirements of part 21 and part 23, special conditions are needed to address the installation of this inflatable restraint.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Mooney models M20 (K, M, R, and S) equipped with the AMSAFE, Inc., three-point inflatable restraint system. Should AMSAFE, Inc., apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model on the Type Certificates identified in these special conditions to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the Mooney models M20 (K, M, R, and S). It is not a rule of general applicability, and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19.
The FAA has determined that this project will be accomplished on the basis of not lowering the current level of safety for the Mooney models M20 (K, M, R, and S) occupant restraint system. Accordingly, the FAA proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for the Mooney models M20 (K, M, R, and S), as modified by AMSAFE, Inc.
1. It must be shown that the inflatable restraint will deploy and provide protection under crash conditions. Compliance will be demonstrated using the dynamic test condition specified in § 23.562, which may be modified as follows:
a. The peak longitudinal deceleration may be reduced; however, the onset rate of the deceleration must be equal to or greater than the crash pulse identified in § 23.562.
b. The peak longitudinal deceleration must be above the deployment threshold of the crash sensor and equal to or greater than the forward static design longitudinal load factor required by the original certification basis of the airplane.
c. The means of protection must take into consideration a range of stature from a 5th percentile female to a 95th percentile male. The inflatable restraint must provide a consistent approach to energy absorption throughout the range.
2. The inflatable restraint must provide adequate protection for each occupant. In addition, unoccupied seats that have an active restraint must not constitute a hazard to any occupant.
3. The design must prevent the inflatable restraint from either being incorrectly buckled or incorrectly installed, or both, such that the airbag would not properly deploy. Alternatively, it must be shown that such deployment is not hazardous to the occupant and will provide the required protection.
4. It must be shown that the inflatable restraint system is not susceptible to inadvertent deployment as a result of wear and tear or the inertial loads resulting from in-flight or ground maneuvers (including gusts and hard landings) that are likely to be experienced in service.
5. It must be extremely improbable for an inadvertent deployment of the restraint system to occur, or an inadvertent deployment must not impede the pilot's ability to maintain control of the airplane or cause an unsafe condition (or hazard to the airplane). In addition, a deployed inflatable restraint must be at least as strong as a Technical Standard Order (C114) certificated belt and shoulder harness.
6. It must be shown that deployment of the inflatable restraint system is not hazardous to the occupant or result in injuries that could impede rapid egress. This assessment should include occupants whose restraint is loosely fastened.
7. It must be shown that an inadvertent deployment that could cause injury to a standing or sitting person is improbable. In addition, the restraint must also provide suitable visual warnings that would alert rescue personnel to the presence of an inflatable restraint system.
8. It must be shown that the inflatable restraint will not impede rapid egress of the occupants 10 seconds after its deployment.
9. For the purposes of complying with HIRF and lightning requirements, the inflatable restraint system is considered a critical system since its deployment could have a hazardous effect on the airplane.
10. It must be shown that the inflatable restraints will not release hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the cabin.
11. The inflatable restraint system installation must be protected from the effects of fire such that no hazard to occupants will result.
12. There must be a means to verify the integrity of the inflatable restraint activation system before each flight or it must be demonstrated to reliably operate between inspection intervals.
13. A life limit must be established for appropriate system components.
14. Qualification testing of the internal firing mechanism must be performed at vibration levels appropriate for a general aviation airplane.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require modification of the operational program software (OPS) of the air data inertial reference unit (ADIRU). This proposed AD is prompted by a report of the display of erroneous heading information to the pilot due to a defect in the OPS of the ADIRU. We are proposing this AD to prevent the display of erroneous heading information to the pilot, which could result in loss of the main sources of attitude data, consequent high pilot workload, and subsequent deviation from the intended flight path.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 7, 2005.
Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD.
•
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.
You can examine the contents of this AD docket on the Internet at
Paul Feider, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 917-6467; fax (425) 917-6590.
We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at
We have received a report of the display of erroneous heading information to the pilot due to a defect in the operational program software (OPS) of the air data inertial reference unit (ADIRU) on certain Model 777 series airplanes. Investigation revealed a timing defect in the ADIRU Auto Navigation Realign Logic, which could potentially result in the use of a “stale” update, which would then produce incorrect heading information with a variable error magnitude. This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of the main sources of attitude data, consequent high pilot workload, and subsequent deviation from the intended flight path.
We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 777-34A0082, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2002. The service bulletin describes procedures for modification of the OPS of the ADIRU. The modification includes installing new OPS in the flight compartment at the maintenance access terminal (MAT), or, as an option, replacing the hard drive for the existing OPS in the MAT and/or the Portable MAT. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.
We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Information.”
Although the service information recommends accomplishing the modification “at the earliest opportunity when manpower, parts, and facilities are available,” we have determined that this imprecise compliance time would not address the identified unsafe condition in a timely manner. However, the manufacturer has recommended that the compliance time not exceed 6 months. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, we considered not only the manufacturer's recommendation, but the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, the average utilization of the affected fleet, and the time necessary to perform the modification. In light of all of these factors, we find a compliance time of 6 months for completing the required modification to be warranted, in that it represents an appropriate interval of time for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety.
There are about 409 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 130 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts would be free of charge. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $8,450, or $65 per airplane.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this proposed AD.
We have determined that this proposed AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
(a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive comments on this AD action by March 7, 2005.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as listed in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-34A0082, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2002.
(d) This AD was prompted by a report of the display of erroneous heading information to the pilot due to a defect in the operational program software (OPS) of the air data inertial reference unit (ADIRU). The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to prevent the display of erroneous heading information to the pilot, which could result in loss of the main sources of attitude data, consequent high pilot workload, and subsequent deviation from the intended flight path.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the OPS of the ADIRU by doing the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-34A0082, Revision 1, dated December 19, 2002.
(g) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to various aircraft equipped with a certain Honeywell Primus II RNZ-850/-851 Integrated Navigation Unit (INU). The existing AD requires inspecting to determine whether Mod L has been done on the Honeywell Primus II NV850 Navigation Receiver Module (NRM), which is part of the INU. In lieu of this inspection, or for aircraft with an NRM having Mod L, the existing AD requires revising the aircraft flight manual to include new limitations for instrument landing system approaches. For aircraft equipped with an NRM having Mod L or aircraft not inspected previously, this proposed AD would require inspecting to determine whether certain other modifications have been done on the NRM; and doing related investigative, corrective, and other specified actions, as applicable. This proposed AD is prompted by reports of erroneous glide slope indications on certain aircraft equipped with subject INUs. We are proposing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has an accurate glideslope deviation indication. An erroneous glideslope deviation indication could lead to the aircraft making an approach off the glideslope, which could result in impact with an obstacle or terrain.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 7, 2005.
Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD.
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to
• Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590.
• Fax: (202) 493-2251.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Honeywell Aerospace Electronic Systems, CES-Phoenix, P.O. Box 2111, Phoenix, Arizona 85036-1111.
You can examine the contents of this AD docket on the Internet at
J. Kirk Baker, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5345; fax (562) 627-5210.
We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at
On February 14, 2003, we issued AD 2003-04-06, amendment 39-13054 (68 FR 8539, February 24, 2003), for various aircraft equipped with a certain Honeywell Primus II RNZ-850/-851 Integrated Navigation Unit (INU). As one alternative for compliance, that AD provides for a one-time inspection to determine whether a certain modification has been installed on the Honeywell Primus II NV850 Navigation Receiver Module (NRM), which is part of the INU. In lieu of accomplishing this inspection, and for aircraft found to have an affected NRM, that AD provides for revising the aircraft flight manual to include new limitations for instrument landing system approaches. That AD was prompted by reports indicating that erroneous glideslope indications have occurred on certain Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-145 series airplanes. Affected Honeywell Primus II RNZ-850/-851 INUs are installed on numerous aircraft models. We issued that AD to ensure that the flightcrew has an accurate glideslope deviation indication. An erroneous glideslope deviation indication could lead to the aircraft making an approach off the glideslope, which could result in impact with an obstacle or terrain.
The preamble to AD 2003-04-06 specified that we considered the requirements “interim action” and that the manufacturer was developing a modification to address the unsafe condition. That AD explained that we may consider further rulemaking if a modification is developed, approved, and available. The manufacturer now has developed such a modification, and we have determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary; this proposed AD follows from that determination.
We have reviewed Honeywell Service Bulletin 7510100-34-A0035, dated July 11, 2003, which describes procedures for inspecting the NRM to determine whether Mod L has been done. If Mod L has not been done, the service bulletin specifies re-identifying the NRM with a new part number. If Mod L has been done, the service bulletin specifies inspecting to determine if Mod N, P, or R has also been done. (Mod N, P, and R test the NRM for discrepant signals.) If any of those mods has been done, the specified actions are replacing the existing modification plates on the NRM and INU with new plates bearing new part numbers. If Mod L has been done, but neither Mod N, P, nor R has been done, the service bulletin specifies doing further investigative actions and corrective actions in accordance with Honeywell Service Bulletin 7510100-34-A0034, then replacing the existing modification plates on the NRM and INU with new plates bearing new part numbers.
Honeywell Service Bulletin 7510100-34-A0034, dated February 28, 2003, describes procedures for inspecting to determine the NRM part number and marking the modification plates of the NRM and INU accordingly. This service bulletin also describes procedures for a related investigative action if neither Mod N nor P is marked, which consists of testing the INU for discrepant signals. If any discrepant signal is detected, corrective action consists of replacing the unit with a new or modified INU. Honeywell Service Bulletin 7510100-34-A0034 refers to Honeywell Service Bulletin 7510134-34-A0016, currently at Revision 001, dated March 4, 2003, as an additional source of service information for re-identifying the INU.
Accomplishing the actions specified in this service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.
We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2003-04-06. This proposed AD would retain the requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Information.”
The service information specifies reporting certain information and returning parts to the manufacturer. However, this proposed AD would not require those actions.
This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2003-04-06. Since AD 2003-04-06 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table:
For the purposes of this proposed AD, we estimate that there are about 3,063 aircraft worldwide that may be equipped with a part that is subject to this proposed AD, including about 1,500 aircraft of U.S. registry.
The inspection to determine whether Mod L has been done, which is currently required by AD 2003-04-06 and retained in this proposed AD, takes about 1 work hour per aircraft, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $65 per aircraft.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-13054 (68 FR 8539, February 24, 2003) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
(a) The Federal Aviation Administration must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by March 7, 2005.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 2003-04-06, amendment 39-13054 (68 FR 8539, February 24, 2003).
(c) This AD applies to aircraft, certificated in any category, equipped with a Honeywell Primus II RNZ-850/-851 Integrated Navigation Unit (INU) having a part number identified in Table 1 of this AD; including, but not limited to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Jetstream) Model 4101 airplanes; Bombardier BD-700-1A10 series airplanes; Bombardier CL-215-6B11 (CL415 variant) series airplanes; Cessna Model 560, 560XL, and 650 airplanes; Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 50 series airplanes; Dornier Model 328-100 and -300 series airplanes; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135 and -145 series airplanes; Learjet Model 45 airplanes; Raytheon Model Hawker 800XP and Hawker 1000 airplanes; and Sikorsky Model S-76A, S-76B, and S-76C aircraft.
This AD applies to Honeywell Primus II RNZ-850/-851 INUs installed on any aircraft, regardless of whether the aircraft has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For aircraft that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (m) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
(d) This AD was prompted by reports indicating that erroneous glideslope indications have occurred on certain aircraft equipped with the subject INUs. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has an accurate glideslope deviation indication. An erroneous glideslope deviation indication could lead to the aircraft making an approach off the glideslope, which could result in impact with an obstacle or terrain.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) Within 5 days after March 11, 2003 (the effective date of AD 2003-04-06, amendment 39-13054), accomplish the requirements of either paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD. After the effective date of this AD, only accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD is acceptable for compliance with this paragraph.
(g) Perform a one-time general visual inspection of the modification plate for the Honeywell Primus II NV-850 Navigation Receiver Module (NRM); part number 7510134-811, -831, -901, or -931; which is part of the Honeywell Primus II RNZ-850/-851 INU; to determine if Mod L has been installed. The modification plate is located on the bottom of the Honeywell Primus II RNZ-850/-851 INU, is labeled NV-850, and contains the part number and serial number for the Honeywell Primus II NV-850 NRM. If Mod L is installed, the letter L will be blacked out. Honeywell Service Bulletin 7510100-34-A0035, dated July 11, 2003, is an acceptable source of service information for the inspection required by this paragraph.
(1) If Mod L is installed, before further flight, do paragraph (h) or (j) of this AD. After the effective date of this AD, only accomplishment of paragraph (j) is acceptable for compliance with this paragraph.
(2) If Mod L is not installed, no further action is required by this paragraph.
For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is defined as: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to enhance visual access to all exposed surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.”
For more information on the inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, refer to Honeywell Technical Newsletter A23-3850-001, Revision 1, dated January 21, 2003.
(h) Revise the Limitations section of the aircraft flight manual (AFM) to include the following statements (which may be accomplished by inserting a copy of the AD into the AFM):
When crossing the Outer Marker on glideslope, the altitude must be verified with the value on the published procedure.
For aircraft with a single operating glideslope receiver, the approach may be flown using normal procedures no lower than Localizer Only Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA).
For aircraft with two operating glideslope receivers, the aircraft may be flown to the published minimums for the approach using normal procedures if both glideslope receivers are tuned to the approach and both crew members are monitoring the approach using independent data and displays.”
(i) As of March 11, 2003, no person may install a Honeywell Primus II NV-850 NRM on which Mod L has been installed, on the Honeywell Primus II RNZ-850/-851 INU of any aircraft, unless paragraph (h) or (k) of this AD is accomplished. As of the effective date of this AD, only accomplishment of paragraph (k) is acceptable for compliance with this paragraph.
(j) For aircraft on which Mod L was found to be installed during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, or for aircraft on which paragraph (h) of this AD was accomplished: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, do an inspection of the modification plate on the Honeywell Primus II NV-850 NRM; part number 7510134-811, -831, -901, or -931; which is part of the Honeywell Primus II RNZ-850/-851 INU; to determine if Mod L, N, P, or R is installed. The modification plate located on the bottom of the Honeywell Primus II RNZ-850/-851 INU is labeled NV-850, and contains the part number and serial number for the Honeywell Primus II NV-850 NRM. If Mod L, N, P, or R is installed, the corresponding letter on the modification plate will be blacked out. Honeywell Service Bulletin 7510100-34-A0035, dated July 11, 2003, is an acceptable source of service information for this inspection. Then, before further flight, do all applicable related investigative, corrective, and other specified actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Honeywell Service Bulletin 7510100-34-A0035, dated July 11, 2003. Once the actions in this paragraph are completed, the AFM revision required by paragraph (h) of this AD may be removed from the AFM.
Honeywell Service Bulletin 7510100-34-A0035, dated July 11, 2003, refers to Honeywell Service Bulletin 7510100-34-A0034, dated February 28, 2003, as an additional source of service information for inspecting to determine the NRM part number, marking the modification plates of the NRM and INU accordingly, testing the INU for discrepant signals, and replacing the unit with a new or modified INU, as applicable. Honeywell Service Bulletin 7510100-34-A0034 refers to Honeywell Service Bulletin 7510134-34-A0016, currently at Revision 001, dated March 4, 2003, as an additional source of service information for marking the modification plates of the NRM and INU.
(k) If the inspection to determine whether Mod L is installed, as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, is done within the compliance time specified in paragraph (f) of this AD, paragraph (f) of this AD does not need to be done.
(l) Where Honeywell Service Bulletin 7510100-34-A0035 (or any of the related service information referenced therein) specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
(m) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus models, as specified above. This proposed AD would require installing safety signs on all passenger/crew doors, emergency exit doors, and cargo compartment doors. This proposed AD is prompted by a report of injuries occurring on in-service airplanes when crewmembers forcibly initiated opening of passenger/crew doors against residual pressure causing the doors to rapidly open. We are proposing this AD to ensure that crewmembers are informed of the risks associated with forcibly opening passenger/crew, emergency exit, and cargo doors before an airplane is fully depressurized, which will prevent injury to crewmembers, and subsequent damage to the airplane caused by the rapid opening of the door.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 18, 2005.
Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD.
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to
• Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590.
• By fax: (202) 493-2251.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.
You can examine the contents of this AD docket on the Internet at
Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2797; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at
The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called A300-600); and Model A310 series airplanes. The DGAC advises that accidents occurred on in-service airplanes when crewmembers forcibly initiated opening of passenger/crew doors against residual pressure causing the doors to rapidly open. If cabin crewmembers are not informed of the risks associated with opening passenger/crew and emergency exit doors when an airplane is not fully depressurized, they may attempt to forcibly open the doors. This condition, if not corrected, could result in injury to crewmembers, and subsequent damage to the airplane caused by the rapid opening of the door.
Airbus has issued the following service bulletins:
The service bulletins describe procedures for installing safety signs on the inside and outside of the passenger/crew doors and emergency exit doors, and on the outside of the cargo compartment doors. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The DGAC mandated the service information and issued French airworthiness directive F-2004-003, dated January 7, 2004, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France.
These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of § 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DGAC findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
This proposed AD would affect about 182 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 5 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $59,150, or $325 per airplane.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
(a) The Federal Aviation Administration must receive comments on this AD action by February 18, 2005.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called A300-600); and Model A310 series airplanes; certificated in any category; except those modified in production by either Airbus Modifications 10152 and 10219, or Modifications 8357 and 10151.
(d) This AD was prompted by reports of injuries occurring on in-service airplanes when crewmembers forcibly initiated opening of passenger/crew doors against residual pressure causing the doors to rapidly open. We are issuing this AD to ensure that crewmembers are informed of the risks associated with forcibly opening passenger/crew, emergency exit, and cargo doors before an airplane is fully depressurized, which will prevent injury to crewmembers, and subsequent damage to the airplane caused by the rapid opening of the door.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of the following service bulletins, as applicable:
(1) For Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-11-0027, Revision 01, dated January 30, 2004;
(2) For Model A300-600 airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-11-6001, Revision 01, dated January 30, 2004; and
(3) For Model A310 series airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A310-11-2002, Revision 03, dated February 4, 2004.
(g) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, install safety signs on the inside and outside of the passenger/crew doors and emergency exit doors, and on the outside of the cargo compartment doors, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin.
(h) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-11-0027, dated October 27, 1993; Airbus Service Bulletin A300-11-6001, dated October 27, 1993; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-11-2002, Revision 2, dated January 27, 1995; as applicable; are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(i) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(j) French airworthiness directive F-2004-003, dated January 7, 2004, also addresses the subject of this AD.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes. This proposed AD would require an inspection of the Thales Avionics distance bearing indicator (DBI) to determine part number (P/N) and serial number (S/N), and replacement of the affected DBI with a new or modified DBI. This proposed AD is prompted by a report of defective electrical insulators in DBIs. We are proposing this AD to prevent a short circuit in the DBI due to defective electrical insulation, which could potentially cause a loss of primary navigation instruments (such as airspeed indicator, altimeter, and global positioning system (GPS) information).
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 18, 2005.
Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD.
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to
• Governmentwide rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590.
• By fax: (202) 493-2251.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact British Aerospace Regional Aircraft American Support, 13850 Mclearen Road, Herndon, Virginia 20171.
You can examine the contents of this AD docket on the Internet at
The FAA has implemented new procedures for maintaining AD dockets electronically. As of May 17, 2004, new AD actions are posted on DMS and assigned a docket number. We track each action and assign a corresponding directorate identifier. The DMS AD docket number is in the form “Docket No. FAA-2004-99999.” The Transport Airplane Directorate identifier is in the form “Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-999-AD.” Each DMS AD docket also lists the directorate identifier (“Old Docket Number”) as a cross-reference for searching purposes.
We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We are reviewing the writing style we currently use in regulatory documents. We are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document is clear, and your suggestions to improve the clarity of our communications that affect you. You can get more information about plain language at
You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes equipped with certain Thales Avionics distance bearing indicators (DBI). The CAA advises that a manufacturing fault with the electrical insulation of the transformer in the DBI's power supply unit could result in the propagation of the 115V AC input power supply through the instrument and onto the DBI's Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) 429 Input/Output interfaces (a short circuit). An analysis of this failure concluded that at the airplane level, the effect of this insulation failure/short-circuit could be loss of all airplane primary navigation instruments. Defective electrical insulation, if not corrected, could result in a short circuit in the DBI, and potentially cause a loss of primary navigation instruments (such as airspeed indicator, altimeter, and global positioning system (GPS) information).
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued Modification Service Bulletin SB.34-371-70671A, dated September 19, 2003. The modification service bulletin describes procedures for replacing the DBI with a new or modified DBI. Accomplishing the actions specified in the modification service bulletin is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The CAA mandated the modification service bulletin, and an inspection of Thales Avionics DBIs to determine part number (P/N) and serial number (S/N). The CAA issued British airworthiness directive G-2004-0006, dated March 2, 2004, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the United Kingdom.
The BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Modification Service Bulletin SB.34-371-70671A, dated September 19, 2003 refers to Thales Avionics Service Bulletin 354-34-052, dated September 1, 2003, as an additional source of service information for replacing the DBI.
This airplane model is manufactured in the United Kingdom and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of § 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the CAA's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin.”
In addition to requiring certain actions in accordance with the service bulletin, this proposed AD would require an inspection for identifying the affected DBI's P/N and S/N. The Accomplishment Instructions of the referenced modification service bulletin do not specify to inspect the DBI for P/N and S/N.
Operators should note that, although the Accomplishment Instructions of the referenced modification service bulletin describe procedures for submitting an advice note related to recording compliance with the service bulletin, this proposed AD would not require that action. The FAA does not need this information from operators.
This proposed AD would affect about 54 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $728 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $42,822, or $793 per airplane.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
(a) The Federal Aviation Administration must receive comments on this AD action by February 18, 2005.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes, certificated in any category.
(d) This AD was prompted by a report of defective electrical insulators in distance bearing indicators (DBI). We are issuing this AD to prevent a short circuit in the DBI due to defective electrical insulation, which could potentially cause a loss of primary navigation instruments (such as airspeed indicator, altimeter, and global positioning system (GPS) information).
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) Within four months after the effective date of this AD, inspect the Thales Avionics DBI to determine whether a part number (P/N) and serial number (S/N) listed in the Effectivity of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Modification Service Bulletin SB.34-371-70671A, dated September 19, 2003, is installed. Instead of inspecting the DBI, a review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable if the P/N and the S/N of the DBI can be positively determined from that review.
(1) If the DBI P/N and S/N do not match those listed in the service bulletin, no further action is required by this AD.
(2) If the DBI P/N and S/N do match those listed in the service bulletin, do the actions required in paragraph (g) of this AD within four months after the effective date of this AD.
(g) Replace the DBI with a new DBI having P/N 63543-280-1 with a S/N not listed in the service bulletin, or a DBI having P/N 63543-280-2, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Modification Service Bulletin SB.34-371-70671A, dated September 19, 2003.
(h) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a DBI with a part number (P/N) and serial number (S/N) listed in the Effectivity of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Modification Service Bulletin SB.34-371-70671A, dated September 19, 2003, on any airplane unless it has been modified in accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD.
(i) Although the service bulletin references a reporting requirement in paragraph 2.C.2, “Documentation,” that reporting is not required by this AD.
(j) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(k) British airworthiness directive G-2004-0006, dated March 2, 2004, also addresses the subject of this AD.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This notice proposes to create a Class E surface area at Newton, IA. It also proposes to modify the Class E5 airspace at Newton, IA.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before March 1, 2005.
Send comments on this proposal to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2004-19582/Airspace Docket No. 04-ACE-72, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at
Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2524.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-8783. Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This notice proposes to amend Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) to establish Class E airspace designated as a surface area for an airport at Newton, IA. Controlled airspace extending upward from the surface of the earth is needed to contain aircraft executing instrument approach procedures to Newton Municipal Airport. Weather observations would be provided by an Automatic Weather Observing/Reporting System (AWOS) and communications would be direct with Des Moines Terminal Radar Approach Control Facility.
This notice also proposes to revise the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Newton, IA. An examination of this Class E airspace area for Newton, IA revealed noncompliance with FAA directives. This proposal would correct identified discrepancies by decreasing the area from a 6.7-mile to a 6.5-mile radius of Newton Municipal Airport, decreasing the width of the extension from 2.6 to 1.4 miles each side of centerline, modifying the extension centerline, defining airspace of appropriate dimensions to protect aircraft departing and executing instrument approach procedures to Newton Municipal Airport and bringing the airspace area into compliance with FAA directives. Both areas would be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts.
Class E airspace areas designated as surface areas are published in Paragraph 6002 of FAA Order 7400.9M, dated August 30, 2004, and effective September 16, 2004, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in Paragraph 6005 of the same Order. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DIT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority since it would contain aircraft executing instrument approach procedures to Newton Municipal Airport.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9M, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 30, 2004, and effective September 16, 2004, is amended as follows:
Within a 4-mile radius of Newton Municipal Airport, and within 1.3 miles each side of the Newton VOR/DME 150° radial extending from the 4-mile radius of the airport to 1.4 miles southeast of the VOR/DME.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Newton Municipal Airport, and within 1.4 miles each side of the Newton VOR/DME 150° radial extending from the 6.5-mile radius of the airport to the VOR/DME.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This notice proposes to create a Class E surface area at Ankeny, IA. It also proposes to modify the Class E5 airspace at Ankeny, IA.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before March 1, 2005.
Send comments on this proposal to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2004-19581/Airspace Docket No. 04-ACE-71, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at
Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2524.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2004-19581/Airspace Docket No. 04-ACE-71.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-8783. Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This notice proposes to amend Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class E airspace designated as a surface area for an airport at Ankeny, IA. Controlled airspace extending upward from the surface of the earth is needed to contain aircraft executing instrument approach procedures to Ankeny Regional Airport. Weather observations would be provided by an Automatic Weather Observing/Reporting System (AWOS) and communications would be direct with Des Moines Terminal Radar Approach Control Facility.
This notice also proposes to revise the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ankeny, IA. An examination of this airspace area revealed there is inadequate controlled airspace to protect for diverse departures. The examination also identified that one of the airspace extensions is unnecessary and the other does not comply with FAA airspace directives. This proposal would correct these discrepancies by expanding the area from a 7-mile to a 7.1-mile radius of Ankeny Regional Airport, eliminating the north extension, modifying the northeast extension, defining airspace of appropriate dimensions to protect aircraft departing and executing instrument approach procedures to Ankeny Regional Airport and bringing the airspace area into compliance with FAA directives. Both areas would be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts.
Class E airspace areas designated as surface areas are published in Paragraph 6002 of FAA Order 7400.9M, dated August 30, 2004, and effective September 16, 2004, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. Class E airspace areas extending upward form 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in Paragraph 6005 of the same Order. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority since it would contain aircraft executing instrument approach procedures to Ankeny Regional Airport.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9M, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 30, 2004, and effective September 16, 2004, is amended as follows:
Within a 4.6-mile radius of Ankeny Regional Airport, and within 2.5 miles each side of the 046° bearing from the Ankeny NDB extending from the 7-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles northeast of the NDB, excluding that portion within the Des Moines Class C airspace area.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.1-mile radius of Ankeny Regional Airport, and within 2.5 miles each side of the 046° bearing from the Ankeny NDB extending from the 7.1-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles northeast of the NDB, excluding that portion within the Des Moines Class C and E airspace areas.
Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
On September 30, 2004, the Department of Justice published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the
All comments must be received by May 31, 2005.
Submit electronic comments and other data to
Anne Beckman or Kate Nicholson, Attorneys, Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, at (202) 307-0663 (voice or TTY). This is not a toll-free number. Information may also be obtained from the Department's toll-free ADA Information Line at (800) 514-0301 (voice) or (800) 514-0383 (TTY).
You may obtain copies of this notice in large print, audiotape, or computer disk by calling the ADA Information Line at (800) 514-0301 (voice and (800) 514-0383 (TTY). This notice is also available in an accessible format on the ADA Home Page at
The Department of Justice published an ANPRM in the
Comments on the ANPRM may be provided by May 31, 2005 online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
On June 28, 2004, Ohio submitted an oxides of nitrogen (NO
In the Final Rules Section of this
Comments on this action must be received by February 18, 2005.
Submit comments, identified by Regional Material in e-Docket (RME) ID No. R05-OAR-2004-OH-0003 by one of the following methods:
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
Agency Web site:
John Paskevicz, Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8656.
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” are used we mean the EPA.
The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Ohio NO
1.
2.
a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
b. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of vulgarity or personal threats.
h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
For additional information, see the Direct Final Rule which is located in the Rules section of this
42 U.S.C. 7401
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of public meeting, request for comments.
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), is sponsoring a public meeting on January 21, 2005, to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items that will be discussed at the Eleventh Session of the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene (CCMH). The 11th Session of the CCMH will be held in Christchurch, New Zealand, February 14-18, 2005. The Acting Under Secretary recognizes the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the agenda items that will be discussed at this forthcoming session of the CCMH.
The public meeting is scheduled for Friday, January 21, 2005 from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.
The public meeting will be held in Room 0161, South Agricultural Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250.
Documents related to the 11th Session of the CCMH will be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address:
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this notice. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Mail, including floppy disks or CD-ROMs, and hand- or courier-delivered items: Send to the FSIS Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 300 12th Street, SW., Room 102, Cotton Annex, Washington, DC 20730. All comments received must include the Agency name and docket number 04-052N.
• All comments submitted in response to this notice will be available for public inspection in the FSIS Docket Room at the address listed above between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The comments also will be posted on the Agency's Web site at
U.S. Delegate, Perfecto Santiago, DVM, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Food Security and Emergency Preparedness, Room 3130, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250
Edith Kennard, Codex Committee Analyst, U.S. Codex Office, FSIS, Room 4861, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700, Phone: (202) 720-5261, Fax: (202) 720-3157, e-mail:
The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) was established in 1962 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Codex is the major international standard-setting organization for protecting the health and economic interests of consumers and encouraging fair international trade in food. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to ensure that the world's food supply is sound, wholesome, free from adulteration, and correctly labeled. In the United States, USDA, FDA, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) manage and carry out U.S. Codex activities.
The Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene (CCMH) elaborates worldwide standards and/or codes of practice as appropriate for meat hygiene. The Committee is chaired by New Zealand.
The following items on the agenda for the 11th Session of CCMH will be discussed during the public meeting:
1. Matters referred from the Codex Alimentarius Commission and other Codex Committees.
2. Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat.
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the New Zealand Secretariat to the Meeting. Members of the public may access copies of these documents (
At the January 21, 2005 public meeting, these agenda items will be described, discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate, for the 11th Session of the CCMH, Perfecto Santiago (
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that the public and in particular minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at
FSIS also will make copies of this
Forest Service, USDA.
Cancellation of an environmental statement.
In 2002, the USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, gave notice that the agency would prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the relocation of the existing Grouse Creek Road (Forest Service Road 50325). The road is located on the Payette National Forest, McCall Ranger district, Near the Secesh River and within the Crystal Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area. Because the new road would have been located in an inventoried roadless area, the Regional Forester was the Responsible Official. The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the June 21, 2002
Dan Anderson, Environmental Coordinator, Payette National Forest, McCall Ranger District, P.O. Box 1026, McCall, ID 83638, or by phone at (208) 634-0400, by fax at (208) 634-0433, or by e-mail:
Staff Briefing for the Board of Directors.
10 a.m., Wednesday, January 26, 2005.
Conference Room 104-A, Jamie L. Whitten Federal Building, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 12th & Jefferson Drive, SW., Washington, DC.
Open.
1. FY 2005 Budget.
2. Administrative and other issues.
Board of Directors Meeting.
2 p.m., Wednesday, January 26, 2005.
Conference Room 104-A, Jamie L. Whitten Federal Building, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 12th & Jefferson Drive, SW., Washington, DC.
Open.
The following matters have been placed on the agenda for the Board of Directors meeting:
1. Call to order.
2. Results of the 2004 election and swearing in of new directors.
3. Selection of board officers.
4. Action on Minutes of the November 5, 2004, board meeting.
5. Secretary's Report.
6. Treasurer's Report.
7. Discussion of duties and responsibilities of the board.
8. Privatization update.
9. Establish dates for 2005 board meetings.
10. Acknowledgment of service to the board.
11. Other business.
12. Governor's Remarks.
13. Adjournment.
Jonathan Claffey, Acting Assistant Governor, Rural Telephone Bank, (202) 720-9554.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Baltimore Development Corporation, on behalf of the City of Baltimore, Maryland, grantee of FTZ 74, requesting authority to terminate Subzone 74A at the shipbuilding facilities of Baltimore Marine Industries, Inc. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on January 7, 2005.
Subzone 74A was approved by the Board on March 14, 1985 (Board Order 290, 50 FR 13057; 4/2/85) as Bethlehem Steel Corporation and currently consists of 215 acres located on the lower east bank of the Patapsco River, on the west side of the Sparrows Point Peninsula, some 6 miles southeast of Baltimore.
The applicant is now requesting authority to terminate the subzone stating that Baltimore Marine Industries declared bankruptcy in 1999 and no longer has need for subzone status.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.
Public comment on the application is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at one of the following addresses below:
1. Submissions via Express/Package Delivery Services: Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Franklin Court Building-Suite 4100W, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005; or
2. Submissions via U.S. Postal Service: Foreign Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, FCB-4100W, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230.
The closing period for their receipt is March 21, 2005. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to April 4, 2005.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Baltimore Development Corporation, on behalf of the City of Baltimore, Maryland, grantee of FTZ 74, requesting authority to expand and reorganize its zone in the Baltimore, Maryland area, within the Baltimore Customs port of entry. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on January 7, 2005.
FTZ 74 was approved by the Board on January 21, 1982 (Board Order 183, 47 FR 5737; 2/8/82) and expanded on January 31, 1989 (Board Order 427, 54 FR 5992; 2/7/89) and April 5, 2001 (Board Order 1157, 66 FR 19423; 4/16/01). FTZ 74 currently consists of eleven sites (1,464 acres) in the Baltimore, Maryland, area:
The applicant is now requesting authority to update, expand and reorganize the zone and to add three new sites as described below. The proposal includes a request to restore zone status to parcels located within the existing or proposed zone sites that had been deleted from the zone boundary in earlier changes.
No specific manufacturing requests are being made at this time. Such requests would be made to the Board on a case-by-case basis.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.
Public comment on the application is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at one of the following addresses below:
1. Submissions via Express/Package Delivery Services: Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Franklin Court Building-Suite 4100W, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005; or
2. Submissions via U.S. Postal Service: Foreign Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, FCB-4100W, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230.
The closing period for their receipt is March 21, 2005. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to April 4, 2005).
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at address No. 1 listed above and at the U.S. Department of Commerce Export Assistance Center, 401 E. Pratt Street, Suite 2432, Baltimore, MD 21202.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the City of Sault Ste. Marie, grantee of FTZ 16, requesting special-purpose subzone status for the magnesium and aluminum casting facilities of Northern Imports, LLC (NI), located in Harbor Springs and Newberry, Michigan. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR Part 400). It was formally filed on January 7, 2005.
The proposed subzone would be composed of two subsidiaries' sites: Site 1 Northern Diecast plant (8 acres/93,000 sq. ft., manufacturing plant)—8582 Moeller Drive, Harbor Springs (Emmet County), Michigan, about 100 miles south of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan; and, Site 2 Northern Casting Company plant (5 acres/27,000 sq. ft., manufacturing plant)—6641 County Road 392, Newberry (Luce County), about 70 miles west of Sault Ste. Marie. The facilities (250 employees) are used to manufacture magnesium and aluminum automotive parts, parts of domestic appliances, and sporting goods for the U.S. market and export. The application requests FTZ benefits only for NI's export manufacturing activity. (Inverted tariff benefits on foreign magnesium alloy used in production for the U.S. market are expressly excluded from this proposal.) Under the proposed activity, foreign-origin magnesium alloy (HTSUS 8104.19.00; ASTM: AM50A, AM60B, AZ91 D) and aluminum alloy (HTSUS 7601.20.90, duty free) would be used to diecast automotive components (including steering wheels, columns, boxes; spools, diffusers, end caps, mirror brackets, steering wheels, airbag canisters), housings for domestic vacuum cleaners, and archery bows. The foreign-origin alloys would
FTZ procedures would exempt NI from Customs duty payments on the foreign magnesium alloy not subject to antidumping orders and aluminum alloy used in export production (37% of shipments). NI would be exempt from customs duty payments on foreign magnesium alloy scrap, waste and dross generated during manufacturing of finished products for export (which could be significant). On its domestic sales, the company has elected to forego any inverted tariff benefits on foreign magnesium alloy not subject to antidumping duty orders (these products will be admitted in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41)). The application indicates that subzone status would help improve the facilities' international competitiveness. In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.
Public comment on the application is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and three copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the following addresses:
The closing period for their receipt is March 21, 2005. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to April 4, 2005).
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at address No. 1 listed above and at the Office of the Port Director, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, International Bridge Plaza, Sault Sainte Marie, MI 49783.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to a request from SST Materials, Inc. d/b/a Genesis Chemicals, Inc. (Genesis), a domestic producer of subject merchandise, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on sebacic acid from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for entries of subject merchandise by Tianjin Chemical Import and Export Corporation (Tianjin) and Guangdong Chemical Import and Export Corporation (Guangdong), covering the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. We are now rescinding this review as a result of the petitioner's withdrawal of its request for an administrative review.
January 19, 2005.
Jennifer Moats or Brian Ledgerwood, China/NME Group, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5047 or (202) 482-3836, respectively.
On July 1, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on sebacic acid from the PRC.
The products covered by this order are all grades of sebacic acid, a dicarboxylic acid with the formula (CH
Sebacic acid has numerous industrial uses, including the production of nylon 6/10 (a polymer used for paintbrush and toothbrush bristles and paper machine felts), plasticizers, esters, automotive coolants, polyamides, polyester castings and films, inks and adhesives, lubricants, and polyurethane castings and coatings.
Sebacic acid is currently classifiable under subheading 2917.13.00.30 of the
The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) provide that the Department will rescind an administrative review if the party that requested the review withdraws its request for review within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The Department's regulations further provide that the Secretary may extend this time limit if the Secretary determines that it is reasonable to do so. In this case, the 90-day deadline fell on a non-business day and, therefore, the deadline was the next business day, November 29, 2004. Genesis made a timely withdrawal of its request for an administrative review and the Department has granted the request to rescind the review because Genesis was the only party to request the review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions to U.S. Customs
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 251.213(d)(4).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
On December 14, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the final results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel plate in coils from Belgium for the period May 1, 2002, through April 30, 2003.
January 19, 2005.
Toni Page or Elfi Blum, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1398 or (202) 482-0197, respectively.
Effective March 11, 2003, in accordance with
The product covered by this order is certain stainless steel plate in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject plate products are flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more in thickness, in coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject plate may also be further processed (
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) at subheadings: 7219110030, 7219110060, 7219120005, 7219120020, 7219120025, 7219120050, 7219120055, 7219120065, 7219120070, 7219120080, 7219900010, 7219900020, 7219900025, 7219900060, 7219900080, 7220110000, 7220201010, 7220201015, 7220201060, 7220201080, 7220206005, 7220206010, 7220206015, 7220206060, 7220206080, 7220900010, 7220900015, 7220900060, and 7220900080. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
The product covered by this order is certain stainless steel plate in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject plate products are flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more in thickness, in coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject plate may also be further processed (
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the HTS at subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.06, 7219.12.00.21, 7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.51, 7219.12.00.56, 7219.12.00.66, 7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.81, 7219.31.00.10, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to these orders is dispositive.
On December 14, 2004, the Department published the
First, Respondent states that the Department expressed its intention to correct certain gross unit prices in the home market sales database based on pre-verification corrections, as stated in the
Respondent further states that the Department, in making those changes in the home market (HM) sales program, identifies the sales to be corrected by referring to the observation number of those sales. However, Respondent contends, the observation numbers identified in the Department's HM sales program are not the observation numbers of the sales the Department intended to correct. Respondent provided a list of the observation numbers Respondent claims are the correct numbers,
The Act, and the Department's regulations, define a ministerial error as one involving “addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.”
After reviewing Respondent's allegations, we have determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224, that the three allegations constitute ministerial errors. Regarding its first allegation, we agree with Respondent that the Department inadvertently identified the incorrect observation numbers for those sales with a revised gross unit price.
With respect to Ugine & ALZ, N.V. Belgium (U&A Belgium), the Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) within 15 days of publication of the amended final results of review. Accordingly, the Department will determine, and CBP will assess, antidumping duties on all entries of subject merchandise from U&A Belgium during the period May 1, 2002, through April 30, 2003, in accordance with these amended final results. The revised cash deposit rate for U&A Belgium shown above is effective on all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice, and will remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
Consequently, we are issuing and publishing these amended final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(h), and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.224(f).
11 a.m., Friday, February 25, 2005.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance Matters.
Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.
11 a.m., Friday, February 11, 2005.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance Matters.
Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.
11 a.m., Friday, February 4, 2005.
1155 21st., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance Matters.
Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.
11 a.m., Friday, February 18, 2005.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance Matters.
Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.
Department of Education.
The Leader, Information Management Case Services Team, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 18, 2005.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Carolyn Lovett, Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or faxed to (202) 395-6974.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Information Management Case Services Team, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.
Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Kathy Axt at her e-mail address
Department of Education.
The Leader, Information Management Case Services Team, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 18, 2005.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Carolyn Lovett, Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or faxed to (202) 395-6974.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and
Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Kathy Axt at her e-mail address
Applications Available: January 19, 2005.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: May 19, 2005.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
This priority is:
In making new awards under this program, we give priority consideration to applications for the continuation of tribal programs that have been funded under this program.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
You may also contact ED Pubs at its Web site:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.250F.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the Grants and Contracts Service Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5075, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2550. Telephone: (202) 245-7363.
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• The suggested page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the Budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support.
3.
Applications Available: January 19, 2005.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: May 19, 2005.
Applications for grants under this competition may be submitted electronically using the Electronic Grant Application System (e-Application) accessible through the Department's e-Grants system, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or by mail or hand delivery, please refer to section IV. 6.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
4.
5.
6.
a.
If you submit your application to us electronically, you must use e-Application available through the Department's e-Grants system, accessible through the e-Grants portal page at:
While completing your electronic application, you will be entering data online that will be saved into a database. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us.
Please note the following:
• Your participation in e-Application is voluntary.
• You must complete the electronic submission of your grant application by 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The e-Application system will not accept an application for this competition after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process.
• The regular hours of operation of the e-Grants Web site are 6 a.m. Monday until 7 p.m. Wednesday; and 6 a.m. Thursday until midnight Saturday, Washington, DC time. Please note that the system is unavailable on Sundays, and between 7 p.m. on Wednesdays and 6 a.m. on Thursdays, Washington, DC time, for maintenance. Any modifications to these hours are posted on the e-Grants Web site.
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit an application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including the Application for Federal Education Assistance (ED 424), Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page limit requirements described in this notice.
• Prior to submitting your electronic application, you may wish to print a copy of it for your records.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement that will include a PR/Award number (an identifying number unique to your application).
• Within three working days after submitting your electronic application, fax a signed copy of the ED 424 to the Application Control Center after following these steps:
1. Print ED 424 from e-Application.
2. The applicant's Authorizing Representative must sign this form.
3. Place the PR/Award number in the upper right hand corner of the hard copy signature page of the ED 424.
4. Fax the signed ED 424 to the Application Control Center at (202) 245-6272.
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on other forms at a later date.
1. You are a registered user of e-Application and you have initiated an electronic application for this competition; and
2. (a) The e-Application system is unavailable for 60 minutes or more between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date; or
(b) The e-Application system is unavailable for any period of time between 3:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date;
We must acknowledge and confirm these periods of unavailability before granting you an extension. To request this extension or to confirm our acknowledgement of any system unavailability, you may contact either (1) the persons listed elsewhere in this notice under
Extensions referred to in this section apply only to the unavailability of the Department's e-Application system. If the e-Application system is available, and, for any reason, you are unable to submit your application electronically or you do not receive an automatic acknowledgement of your submission, you may submit your application in paper format by mail or hand delivery in accordance with the instructions in this notice.
b.
If you submit your application in paper format by mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier), you must send the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address:
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.250F), 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center—Stop 4260, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.250F), 7100 Old Landover Road, Landover, MD 20785-1506.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
1. A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark;
2. A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service;
3. A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier; or
4. Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the U.S. Secretary of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
1. A private metered postmark, or
2. A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
Applicants should note that the U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you submit your application in paper format by hand delivery, you (or a courier service) must hand deliver the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.250F), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
1. You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 4 of the ED 424 the CFDA number—and suffix letter, if any—of the competition under which you are submitting your application.
2. The Application Control Center will mail a Grant Application Receipt Acknowledgment to you. If you do not receive the notification of application receipt within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
In addition, this program is part of the Administration's job training and employment common measures initiative. The common measures for job training and employment programs targeting adults are: Entered employment (percentage employed in the first quarter after program exit); retention in employment (percentage of those employed in the first quarter after exit that were still employed in the second and third quarter after program exit); earnings increase (percentage change in earnings pre-registration to post program and first quarter after exit to third quarter after exit); and efficiency (annual cost per participant). The Department is currently working toward implementation of these
Joyce Libby or Alfreda Reeves, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5038, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20204-2800. Telephone: for Joyce Libby (202) 245-7432; for Alfreda Reeves (202) 245-7485.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Notice of proposed information collection and request for comments.
Incompliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(a) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described below.
Comments on the collection of information are due by March 14, 2005.
Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained from the Commission's Web site (
Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in WordPerfect, MS Word, Portable Document Format, or ASCII format. To file the document, access the Commission's Web site at
All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the Internet through FERC's homepage using the
Michael Miller may be reached by telephone at (202) 502-8415, by fax at (202) 273-0873, and by e-mail at
The information collected under the requirements of FERC-561 “Annual Report of Interlocking Positions” (OMB No. 1902-0099) is used by the Commission to implement the statutory provisions of Section 305 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by Title II, section 211 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) (16 U.S.C. 825d). Submission of FERC-561 satisfies the FPA section 305(b) and (c) annual reporting requirements for public utility officers and directors to report officer and director positions they hold with financial institutions, insurance companies, utility equipment providers, utility fuel providers and a utility's top twenty customers of electric energy. FPA section 305(c)(3)(A) defines the public utilities who are required to file. FPA section 305(c)(2) requires that the filed information be made available to the public. FPA section 305(c)(1) requires an annual filing deadline of April 30th. The necessary filing information, the required filers, the requirement to make the information available to the public and the filing deadline are mandated by the FPA. The Commission is not empowered to amend or waive these statutory requirements. Requirement the Commission has the authority to amend, such as format of the filing itself, and the number of required copies are found at 18 CFR 46.1 and 131.31.
The information is collected by the Commission to identify persons holding interlocking position between public utilities and possible conflicts of interest. Through this process, the Commission is able to review and exercise oversight of interlocking directorates of public utilities and their related activities. Specifically, the Commission must determine that individuals in utility operations holding two positions at the same time would adversely affect the public interest. The Commission can employ enforcement proceedings when violations and omissions of the Act's provisions occur. The compliance with these requirements is mandatory.
The estimated total cost to respondents is $21,516. (412 hours divided by 2,080 hours per year per employee times $108,558 per year average per employee = $21,516.) The cost per respondent is $13.
The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; (4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5) searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information.
The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than any one particular function or activity.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) 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 those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(a) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described below.
Comments on the collection of information are due by March 14, 2005.
Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained from the Commission's Web site,
Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in WordPerfect, MS Word, Portable Document Format, or ASCII format. To file the document, access the Commission's Web site at
All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the Internet through FERC's homepage using the
Michael Miller may be reached by telephone at (202) 502-8415, by fax at (202) 273-0873, and by e-mail at
The information collected under the requirements of FERC 566 “Annual Report of a Utility's Twenty Largest Purchasers” (OMB No. 1902-0114) is used by the Commission to implement the statutory provisions of section 305 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), (16 U.S.C. 825d), as amended by Title II, section 211 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). FPA section 305—Officials Dealing in Securities; Interlocking Directorates—defines the annual reporting requirements for public utility officers and directors to report office and director positions they hold with, among other entities, a public utility's top twenty customers of electric energy. FPA section 305(c)(2) states “each public utility shall publish a list, pursuant to rules prescribed by the Commission * * *.” This statutory requirement to publish the customer's list allows the public the opportunity to compare the customers listed with the interlocking directorate information filed in FERC-561 (1902-0099), by public utility officers and directors, for identification of positions where the relationship may be employed, for example to the detriment of the utility, or the public interest. The required public utility filers, the necessary filing information, the requirement to publish the information and the filing deadline are all specifically mandated by the FPA. The Commission is not empowered to amend or waive these statutory requirements. Requirements the Commission has the authority to amend, such as the filing format and the numbers of required copies are found at 18 CFR 46.3.
The estimated total cost to respondents is $57,306. (1,098 hours divided by 2,080 hours per year per employee times $108,558 per year average per employee = $57,306). The cost per respondent is $313.
The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; (4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5) searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information.
The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than any one particular function or activity.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) 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 those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology
Take notice that on January 7, 2005, Alliance Pipeline L.P. (Alliance) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, proposed to become effective January 1, 2005:
Alliance states that the referenced tariff sheets were filed to revise the summaries of Alliance's negotiated rate transactions to reflect the service commencement date, in compliance with the Commission's order issued on December 23, 2004.
Alliance states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all customers, state commissions, and other interested parties.
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
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of its staff may participate in the conference call between the California Independent System Operator Corporation and its stakeholders on January 13, 2005 to discuss issues pertaining to the status of the scheduled refund re-runs.
The discussion may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
The conference call will begin at 12 noon PDT and will last for approximately 1 hour.
For more information contact Heidi Werntz, Office of General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8910 or
Take notice that the Commission will convene a technical conference on Tuesday, February 1, 2005, at 10 a.m., in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The purpose of the conference will be to discuss proposals by Dominion to update tariff provisions in its General Terms & Conditions (GT&C) pertaining to rights of first refusal and the allocation of unsubscribed firm capacity. The Commission directed its staff to convene this technical conference in a November 30, 2004 Order.
FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an e-mail to
All interested persons are permitted to attend. For further information please contact Eric Winterbauer at (202) 502-8329 or e-mail
Take notice that on July 8, 2004, PanEnergy Louisiana Intrastate, LLC tendered for filing a revised Statement of Operating Conditions to comply with the Commission's April 23, 2004 Letter Order in Docket Nos. PR04-5-000 and RP04-5-001.
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 on or before the date as indicated below. 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 January 5, 2005, Portland General Electric Company (PGE) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 63, with an effective date of February 7, 2005.
PGE states it is seeking FERC authority to allow shippers to request up to two transportation nomination changes under any transportation rate schedule in this tariff following the Intraday 2 Nomination Cycle.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on October 6, 2004, Terasen Sumas Inc. (Terasen) filed a notice of cancellation of its FERC Gas Tariff, including its Part 284 rate schedules, effective October 1, 2004. Terasen states that its filing is made pursuant to Paragraph D of the Commission's September 22, 2004 Order in this proceeding and section 154.602 of the Commission's regulations.
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 on or before the date as indicated below. 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
The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, U.S.Gen New England, Inc. (USGen NE), Dominion Energy New England, Inc. and Dominion Energy Marketing Inc. submitted an application pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act seeking authorization for USGen New England, Inc. to transfer certain wholesale power sales agreements to Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, the City of Anaheim, California (Anaheim) submitted corrections to its transmission revenue balancing account adjustment and to Appendix I of its transmission owner tariff filed in Docket No. EL05-33-000 on December 1, 2004. Anaheim requests an effective date of January 1, 2005.
Take notice that on December 23, 2004, Atlantic City Electric Company, Potomac Electric Company, Delmarva Power & Light Company, Pepco Energy Services, Inc., Potomac Power Resources, LLC, Conectiv Energy Supply, Inc., Conectiv Atlantic Generation, LLC, Conectiv Delmarva
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, Southern Company Services, Inc., acting as agent for Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, Savannah Electric and Power Company and Southern Power Company submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's Order issued December 17, 2004, in Docket No. ER97-4166-015,
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, J. Aron & Company and Power Receivable Finance, LLC (together, Applicants) filed a consolidated triennial updated market analysis.
Applicants state that copies of the filing were served on the parties on the service lists in these proceedings.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, ISO New England Inc. (ISO) submitted an Independent Assessment of Demand Response Programs as directed by the Commission in its Order issued June 6, 2003, in Docket No. ER02-2330-004,
The ISO states that copies of the filing have been served on all parties in Docket No. ER02-2330.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, ISO New England Inc. (ISO) submitted a Status Report on Development of Day-Ahead Load Response Program as directed by the Commission in its November 17, 2003, Order in Docket No. ER02-2330-015,
The ISO states that copies of the filing have been served on all parties in Docket No. ER02-2330.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, FirstEnergy Service Company (FirstEnergy) filed revised Notices of Cancellation of certain service agreements under the Open Access Transmission Tariff of American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, which has transferred operations control over its transmission system to the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. First Energy states that the revised Notices of Cancellation replace the Notices of Cancellation filed on December 21, 2004, in the above-referenced docket.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, ISO New England, Inc. (ISO) submitted a Semi-Annual Status Report on Load Response Programs as directed by the Commission in the Order issued February 25, 2003, in Docket Nos. ER01-3086-001 and ER03-345-000, 102 FERC ¶ 61,202.
The ISO states that copies of the filing have been served on all parties to this proceeding.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's January 29, 2004 Order in Docket Nos. ER03-1312-000 and 001, 106 FERC ¶ 61,073 (2004). Midwest ISO has requested a March 1, 2005, effective date for the tariff pages submitted in the compliance filing.
The Midwest ISO states that it has electronically served a copy of the filing on all Midwest ISO Members, Member representatives of Transmission Owners and Non-Transmission Owners, the Midwest ISO Advisory Committee participants, and the state commissions within the region. In addition, Midwest ISO states that the filing has been electronically posted on the Midwest ISO's Web site and that it will provide hard copies to any interested party upon request.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), in compliance with the Commission's order issued March 18, 2004, in Docket No. ER04-375-000, 106 FERC ¶ 61,251, submitted revisions to the Joint Operating Agreement between the Midwest ISO and PJM. The Midwest ISO and PJM request an effective date of March 1, 2005.
The Midwest ISO and PJM state that copies of the filing were served on all persons on the service list in Docket No. ER04-375, all PJM members, and state electric utility regulatory commissions in the PJM regions and, in addition, the filing is available on the Midwest ISO internet site.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) submitted proposed revisions to SCE's TO Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 6, Appendix VI, and to certain Existing Transmission Contracts (ETCs), to increase SCE's Reliability Services Revenue Requirement and Reliability Services rates.
SCE states that copies of the filing were served upon SCE's jurisdictional customers, the California Public Utilities Commission, the California Electricity Oversight Board, the California Independent System Operator, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and the San Diego Gas and Electric Company.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) submitted its response to the Commission's deficiency letter issued
PJM states that copies of the filing were served on all parties in this proceeding.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, Illinois Power Company filed a request to withdraw its Notice of Withdrawal filed on December 22, 2004 in Docket No. ER05-173-000 and also submitted amended tariff sheets which would permit AmerenIP to sell electric energy at certain times between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2006, at prices up to a cost-based cap of $30/MWh, the limited amounts of energy that it purchases in excess of its real-time energy needs.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) filed a substitute Construction Service Agreement (CSA) among PJM, FPL Energy Marcus Hook, L.P. and Delmarva Power & Light Company d/b/a Conectiv Power Delivery superseding the CSA filed on November 12, 2004, in Docket No. ER05-206-000. PJM requests an effective date of October 14, 2004.
PJM states that copies of the filing were served on the parties to the agreement and the state regulatory commissions with the PJM region.
Take notice that on December 28, 2004, Interstate Power and Light Company (Interstate) tendered for filing an Amendment Extending Term of Agreement extending the term of a 1980 joint use agreement between Interstate Power and Light Company and Central Iowa Power Cooperative. Interstate requests an effective date of December 31, 2004.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) submitted for filing two separate Certificates of Concurrence with respect to the December 19, 2004 filing of the New Mexico Transmission Operating Procedures and the associated First Revised Restated Letter of Understanding, among El Paso Electric Company (EPE), PNM, Texas-New Mexico Power Company (TNMP) and Tri State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Tri-State).
PNM states that copies of the filing have been provided to EPE, TNMP, Tri-State, the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, and the New Mexico Attorney General.
Take notice that on December 28, 2004, San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) tendered for filing a change in rate for the Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment and its Transmission Access Charge Balancing Account Adjustment as set forth in its Transmission Owner Tariff. SDG&E states that the effect of the rate change is to increase rates for jurisdictional transmission service utilizing that portion of the California Independent System Operator-controlled grid owned by SDG&E. SDG&E requests an effective date of January 1, 2005.
SDG&E states that copies of this filing were served upon the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California and on the California Independent System Operator Corporation.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) filed a timetable detailing the timeframe to remove rate pancaking from Schedule 1 of its Open Access Transmission Tariff, pursuant to the Commission's order issued October 1, 2004, in Docket Nos. RT04-1-001 and ER04-48-001, 109 FERC ¶ 61,010.
SPP states that it has served a copy of the filing on all parties in these proceedings and, in addition, states that a copy of this filing will be posted on the SPP Web site.
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 online 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 22, 2004, the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy, by Rate Order No. WAPA-115, did confirm and approve on an interim basis, to be effective on January 1, 2005, the Western Area Power Administration
The formula rates in Rate Schedules CV-F11, CPP-1, CV-T1, CV-NWT3, CV-TPT6, COTP-T1, PACI-T1, CV-RFS3, CV-EID3, CV-SPR3, and CV-SUR3 will be in effect pending the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's approval of these or of substitute rates on a final basis, ending September 30, 2009.
Take notice that on January 3, 2005 Entergy Services, Inc., (Entergy) on behalf of the Entergy Operating Companies, filed pursuant to Commission Rule 207, 18 CFR 385.207, a Petition for Declaratory Order. Entergy states that the Petition requests guidance on important issues associated with Entergy's proposal to establish an Independent Coordinator of Transmission.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, Maine Public Service Company (MPS) submitted an amendment to its June 15, 2004 informational filing setting forth the changed open access transmission tariff charges effective June 1, 2004, together with back-up materials).
MPS states that copies of this filing were served on the parties to the Settlement Agreement in Docket No. ER00-1053-000, the Commission Trial Staff, the Maine Public Utilities Commission, the Maine Public Advocate, and current MPS open access transmission tariff customers.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, Delta Energy Center, LLC (Delta) submitted substitute revised rate schedule sheets to Delta's Rate Schedule FERC No. 2 to correct inadvertent errors contained in Delta's November 23, 2004, filing in Docket No. ER03-510-003. Delta requests an effective date of January 1, 2005.
Delta states that copies of the filing were served upon the official service list for this proceeding.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's letter order issued December 22, 2004 in Docket No. ER03-1091-005, 109 FERC ¶ 61,336 (2004).
PG&E states that copies of this filing were served upon Duke Energy Morro Bay, LLC, the California Independent System Operator Corporation, and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) submitted for filing a response to the Commission's November 23, 2004, letter order regarding deficiencies in a compliance filing submitted by Delmarva Power & Light Company in Docket Nos. ER04-509-001 and ER04-1250-003.
PJM states that a copy of the filing has been served by U.S. Mail on all parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding.
Take notice that on January 3, 2005, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) submitted for filing a status report of PJM's stakeholder process regarding expansion of PJM's behind the meter generation program to include generation associated with municipals' and cooperatives' electric distribution systems as required by the Commission's order issued May 6, 2004, in this proceeding, 107 FERC ¶ 61,113,
PJM states that a copy of this report has been served on all parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), submitted a compliance filing pursuant to Commission's order issued November 30, 2004 issued in ER05-12-000, 109 FERC ¶ 61,241. PJM requests an effective date of December 1, 2004.
PJM states that copies of the filing were served on all persons on the service list in Docket No. ER05-12-000, as well as all PJM members, and each state electric utility regulatory commission in the PJM regions.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, the American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEPSC), tendered for filing an Interconnection and Local Delivery Service Agreement between AEPSC and Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation (ORMET) designated as Original Service Agreement No. 568 under the Operating Companies of the American Electric Power System FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 6. AEPSC requests an effective date of November 1, 2004.
AEPSC states that a copy of the filing was served upon ORMET and the Public Service Commission of Ohio.
Please take notice that on January 3, 2005, Central Maine Power Company (CMP) submitted the following entitlement agreements between CMP and Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc. (CECG): System Contract Entitlement Agreement, FERC Rate Schedule No. 202; Waste-to-Energy Entitlement Agreement, FERC Rate Schedule No. 203; Cogeneration Entitlement Agreement, FERC Rate Schedule No. 204; Nuclear Entitlement Agreement, FERC Rate Schedule No. 205; and Hydroelectric Entitlement Agreement, FERC Rate Schedule No. 206. CMP requests an effective date of March 1, 2005.
Take notice that on January 3, 2005, Otter Tail Power Company (Otter Tail) submitted proposed amendments to the following agreements between Otter Tail and City of Newfolden, City of Nielsville, City of Shelly, State of Minnesota on behalf of State Hospital, State of North Dakota on behalf of Grafton State School, State of North Dakota on behalf of School of Forestry, State of North Dakota on behalf of School of Science, State of North Dakota on behalf of School for the Deaf, Fort Totten Indian Agency, Turtle Mountain Indian Agency, Oakes O&M Center, and Town of Badger. Otter Tail states that the proposed amendments are intended to allow for the reimbursement to Otter Tail for certain Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. costs associated with the load of the Customers. Otter Tail requests an effective date of March 1, 2005.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) submitted proposed revisions to SCE's TO Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 6, Appendix VI, and to certain Existing Transmission Contracts to increase SCE's Reliability Services Revenue Requirement and Reliability Services rates.
SCE states that copies of the filing were served upon SCE's jurisdictional customers, the California Public Utilities Commission, the California Electricity Oversight Board, the California Independent System Operator, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and the San Diego Gas and Electric Company.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, Duke Energy Grays Harbor, LLC (Duke Grays Harbor) submitted a Notice of Cancellation of its FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1. Duke Grays Harbor requests an effective date of December 31, 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 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 online 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 December 30, 2004, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), submitted a correction to the tariff revisions filed in this proceeding on November 24, 2004, to ensure that Schedule 13 of the PJM open access transmission tariff, fully complies with the Commission's November 18, 2004, order in this proceeding, 109 FERC ¶ 61,168. PJM states that the corrected sheet has an effective date from May 1, 2004, through November 30, 2004, corresponding to the period that Schedule 13 was effective.
PJM states that copies of this filing were served upon all persons on the service list in this docket, as well as all PJM members, and each state electric utility regulatory commission in the PJM region.
Take notice that on January 5, 2005, Alpena Power Generation, L.L.C. (Alpena Generation) tendered for filing an amendment to its July 9, 2004, filing, which was amended on August 27, 2004, and November 5, 2004, in response to the Commission's deficiency letter issued January 4, 2005.
Alpena Generation states that copies of the filing were served upon the public utility's jurisdictional customers and the Michigan Public Service Commission.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) filed an Interconnection and Operating Agreement among West Pipestone Transmission LLC, Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy and the Midwest ISO. The Midwest ISO requests an effective date of December 15, 2004.
The Midwest ISO states that a copy of the filing was served on the parties to the Interconnection and Operating Agreement.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, MidAmerican Energy Company (MidAmerican) filed a Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement and a Network Operating Agreement between MidAmerican and the Resale Power Group of Iowa (RPGI), as agent for the City of Hudson, Iowa. MidAmerican requests an effective date of January 1, 2005.
MidAmerican states that a copy of the filing has been served on RPGI, the Iowa Utilities Board, the Illinois Commerce Commission and the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, Southern Company Services, Inc. (SCS), on behalf of Alabama Power Company and Georgia Power Company filed a Transmission Facilities Agreement by and between Alabama Power Company and Georgia Power Company.
SCS states that copies of the filing were served on the Alabama Public Service Commission and the Georgia Public Service Commission.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, Southern Company Services, Inc. (SCS), on behalf of Savannah Electric and Power Company and Georgia Power Company, submitted a Transmission Facilities Agreement by and between Savannah Electric and Power Company and Georgia Power Company.
SCS states that a copy of the filing was served on the Georgia Public Service Commission.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed three Generator Special Facilities Agreements and three Generator Interconnection Agreements between PG&E and Tri-Dam Project of the South San Joaquin and Oakdale Irrigation District (Tri-Dam). PG&E requests an effective date of January 1, 2005.
PG&E states that copies of the filing were served on Tri-Dam, California Independent System Operator Corporation and the California Public Utilities Commission.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) Participants Committee filed the One Hundred Tenth Agreement Amending New England Power Pool Agreement which modifies the Financial Assurance Policy for NEPOOL Members. NEPOOL requests a March 1, 2005, effective date.
The Participants committee states that copies of the filing were sent to the New England state governors and regulatory commissions and the Participants in NEPOOL.
Take notice that on December 30, 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 (collectively, Southern Companies) filed a network integrated transmission service agreement between SCS, as agent for Southern Companies and Generation Energy Marketing, a Department of Southern Company Services, Inc., as agent for Mississippi Power Company. SCS requests an effective date of December 1, 2004.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (ISO) filed the District Interim Operations Agreement between the ISO and Turlock Irrigation District to accommodate a planned change in Control Area boundaries related to the decision of the Western Area Power Administration—Sierra Nevada Region (Western) to join the Control Area of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District of (SMUD) as of January 1, 2005. The ISO requests an effective date of January 1, 2005.
The ISO states that the filing has been served on Western, SMUD, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the California Public Utilities Commission, the California Electricity Oversight Board, and all entities on the official service list for Docket No. ER04-693.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, Williams Power Company, Inc. (Williams) submitted a Schedule F Information Filing under its Reliability Must-Run Service Agreements with the California Independent System Operator Corporation (ISO) for the Alamitos and Huntington Beach generating facilities. Williams also submitted revised tariff sheets reflecting the charges and rates contained in the Schedule F Information Filing.
Williams states that copies of the filing have been served on the ISO, the California Electricity Oversight Board, Southern California Edison Company, the California Public Utilities Commission and AES Southland, L.L.C.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (ISO) filed the MID Operations Agreement between ISO and Modesto Irrigation District (MID) between the ISO and MID to accommodate a planned change in Control Area boundaries related to the decision of the Western Area Power Administration—Sierra Nevada Region (Western) to join the Control Area of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District of (SMUD) as of January 1, 2005. The ISO requests an effective date of January 1, 2005.
The ISO states that the filing has been served on Western, SMUD, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the California Public Utilities Commission, the California Electricity Oversight Board, and all entities on the official service list for Docket No. ER04-693.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPSC) filed a depreciation cost study and revised depreciation rates for wholesale production service. WPSC requests an effective date of January 1, 2005.
WPSC states that copies of the filing were served on WPSC's affected wholesale customers, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin and the Michigan Public Service Commission.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, Southern Company Services, Inc. (SCS), acting as agent for Alabama
SCS states that a copy of the filing has been sent to Progress Ventures, Inc.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, American Transmission System, Incorporated (ATSI) filed proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume No.1, intended to correspond with changes in compensation provisions for energy imbalance service and for system losses that will be implemented when the Open Access Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff of Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. becomes effective.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) filed changes to the SPP Open Access Transmission Tariff intended to implement certain rate changes applicable to the Southwestern Power Administration pricing zone. SPP requests an effective date of January 1, 2005.
SPP states that copies of its transmittal letter has been served on each of its members and customers and that a complete copy of the filing will be posted on the SPP web site and served on all affected state commissions.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (ISO) submitted an informational filing as to the ISO's revised transmission Access Charge rates effective January 1, 2005, to implement the revised Transmission Revenue Balancing Accounts of the current Participating Transmission Owners.
The ISO states that the filing has been served on the California Public Utilities Commission, the California Energy Commission, the California Electricity Oversight Board, the Participating Transmission Owners, and all parties with effective Scheduling Coordinator Service Agreements under the ISO Tariff. In addition, the ISO states that it is posting the filing on the ISO home page.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, Duke Energy Grays Harbor, LLC (Duke Grays Harbor) submitted a Notice of Cancellation of its FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1. Duke Grays Harbor requests an effective date of December 31, 2004.
Take notice that on December 30, 2004, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) filed a status report on its efforts to develop a transmission cost allocation plan pursuant to the Commission's order issued February 10, 2004, in this proceeding, 106 FERC ¶ 61,110 (2004). SPP states that it expects that the development process will be completed by the end of February 2005 and that a filing will be made within that timeframe.
SPP states that it has served a copy of its status report on all parties to this proceeding and that a copy of this filing will be posted on the SPP Web site
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
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. We are asking federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the environmental document. Agencies who would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing comments described in paragraph o below.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with: (a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402 and (b) the State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. On March 10, 2004 and November 16, 2004, respectively, we designated Energy Northwest as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Energy Northwest filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD); including a proposed process plan and schedule with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. Copies of the PAD and Scoping Document 1 (SD1) are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (
Register online at
o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and SD1 as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and all communications to Commission staff related to the merits of the potential application (original and eight copies) must be filed with the Commission at the following address: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All filings with the Commission must include on the first page, the project name (Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project) and number (P-2244-012), and bear the heading “Comments on Pre-Application Document,” “Study Requests,” “Comments on Scoping Document 1,” “Request for Cooperating Agency Status,” or “Communications to and from Commission Staff.” Any individual or entity interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so by March 12, 2005.
Comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and other permissible forms of communications with the Commission may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
p. At this time, Commission staff intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment for the project, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. However, there is the possibility that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required. Nevertheless, this meeting will satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or EIS is issued by the Commission.
We will hold two scoping meetings at the times and places noted below. The daytime meeting will focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals, organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:
Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental document, has been mailed to the individuals and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the Web at
A site visit is typically held in conjunction with the scoping meeting. However, anticipating that access to some project facilities would be limited by winter weather, Energy Northwest hosted a project site visit in August 2004. The site visit was noticed by the Commission on July 13, 2004 and attended by Commission staff on August 27, 2004. For these reasons, the Commission will not host its own site visit in conjunction with its NEPA scoping meeting.
At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Present the proposed list of issues to be addressed in the EA; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource agency management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that incorporates the time frames provided for in part 5 of the Commission's regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and (5) discuss requests by any federal or state agency or Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an environmental document.
Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues and/or concerns. Please review the Pre-Application Document in preparation for the scoping meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and
The scoping meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will become part of the formal Commission record on the project.
To assist parties in the development of their study requests (pertaining to format and the study criteria outlined in the Commission's regulation 18 CFR 5.8), and further development of the project's Process Plan we will be hosting a workshop on February 2, 2005, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Sawyer Hall at 510 Desmond Drive SE., Lacey, Washington. The workshop will begin at 9 a.m. (PST). For directions, please contact Laura Schinnell at (509) 372-5123.
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. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
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.
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
Motions to intervene and protests may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
k. This application has been accepted, but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l. The existing Macomb Project consists of: (1) A 106-foot-long, 32-foot-high concrete gravity overflow-type dam having a spillway crest elevation of 570.7 feet above mean sea level; (2) a 38-foot-long, 25-foot-high intake structure along each bank; (3) a 6-foot-diameter, 60-foot-long, riveted-steel, gated waste tube along each bank; (4) a 14-acre reservoir with a net storage capacity of 14 acre-feet at the spillway crest elevation; (5) a 6.5-foot-diameter, 60-foot-long, riveted-steel, concrete-encased, gated pipeline along the left (south) bank; (6) a powerhouse containing one 1,000-kilowatt horizontal Francis turbine; (7) a 370-foot-long, 34.5-kilovolt transmission line; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The applicant estimates that the total average annual generation would be 5,660 megawatt hours.
m. A copy of the application is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Web at
n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests 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 protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application.
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
January 19, 2005, 10 AM.
Room 2C, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Open.
Agenda.
*Note—Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further notice.
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502-8400. For a recorded listing items stricken from or added to the meeting, call (202) 502-8627.
This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all papers relevant to the items on the agenda; however, all public documents may be examined in the Public Reference Room.
The Capitol Connection offers the opportunity for remote listening and viewing of the meeting. It is available for a fee, live over the Internet, via C-Band Satellite. Persons interested in receiving the broadcast, or who need information on making arrangements should contact David Reininger or Julia Morelli at the Capitol Connection (703-993-3100) as soon as possible or visit the Capitol Connection Web site at
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
January 19, 2005 (Within a relatively short time after the Commission's open meeting on January 19, 2005).
Room 3M 4A/B, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Closed.
Non-Public, Investigations and Inquiries, Enforcement Related Matters, and Security of Regulated Facilities.
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. Telephone (202) 502-8400.
Chairman Wood and Commissioners Brownell, Kelliher, and Kelly voted to hold a closed meeting on January 19, 2005. The certification of the General Counsel explaining the action closed the meeting is available for public inspection in the Commission's Public reference room at 888 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20426.
The Chairman and the Commissioners, their assistants, the Commission's Secretary and her assistant, the General Counsel and members of her staff, and a stenographer are expected to attend the meeting. Other staff members from the Commission's program offices who will advise the Commissioners in the matters discussed will also be present. Staff from the Federal Trade Commission is expected to attend the meeting.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the availability of EPA's Tolerance Reassessment Decision (TRED) for the pesticide carbon dioxide, and opens a public comment period on this document, related risk assessments, and other support documents. EPA has reviewed the low risk pesticide carbon dioxide through a modified, streamlined version of the public participation process that the Agency uses to involve the public in developing pesticide tolerance reassessment and reregistration decisions. Through the tolerance reassessment program, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides meet current health and food safety standards.
Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number OPP-2004-0334, must be received on or before March 21, 2005.
Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
Mark Perry, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8024; fax number: (703) 308-7070; e-mail address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute
.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternatives.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
EPA has reassessed the uses of carbon dioxide, reassessed existing tolerances or legal residue limits, and reached a tolerance reassessment decision for this low risk pesticide. The Agency is issuing for comment the resulting Report on Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Interim Risk Management Decision for carbon dioxide, known as a TRED, as well as related risk assessments and technical support documents.
As a pesticide active ingredient, carbon dioxide is used indoors as a fumigant to control insects in stored food and feed by displacing oxygen in the container's atmosphere. It does not accumulate in treated raw agricultural commodities, but rather diffuses into the atmosphere following application. Currently there are four registered end-use products containing carbon dioxide as the active ingredient, as well as one experimental-use and one special local needs registration. As a pesticide inert ingredient, carbon dioxide is used as an aerosol propellant.
EPA developed the carbon dioxide TRED through a modified, streamlined version of its public process for making tolerance reassessment and reregistration eligibility decisions. Through these programs, the Agency is ensuring that pesticides meet current standards under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended by FQPA. EPA must review tolerances and tolerance exemptions that were in effect when the FQPA was enacted, to ensure that these existing pesticide residue limits for food and feed commodities meet the safety standard established by the new law. Tolerances are considered reassessed once the safety finding has been made or a revocation occurs. EPA has reviewed and made the requisite safety finding for the carbon dioxide tolerances included in this notice.
In reassessing tolerances, EPA must consider the cumulative effects of pesticides that have common mechanisms of toxicity. After assessing cumulative risks, the Agency will finalize decisions for carbon dioxide and other pesticides. Risk mitigation may be required for carbon dioxide at that time.
EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public Participation Process, published in the
The tolerance reassessment program is being conducted under congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both to make timely decisions and to involve the public in finding ways to effectively mitigate pesticide risks. Carbon dioxide, however, poses few/no risks that require mitigation. The Agency therefore, is issuing the carbon dioxide TRED, its risk assessments, and related support documents simultaneously for public comment. The comment period is intended to provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any necessary amendments to the TRED. All comments should be submitted using the methods in Unit I. of the
EPA will carefully consider all comments received by the closing date and will provide a Response to Comments Memorandum in the docket and electronic Edocket. If any comment significantly affects the document, EPA also will publish an amendment to the TRED in the
Section 408(q) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(q), requires EPA to review tolerances and exemptions for pesticide residues in effect as of August 2, 1996, to determine whether the tolerance or exemption meets the requirements of section 408(b)(2) or (c)(2) of FFDCA. This review is to be completed by August 3, 2006.
Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA as amended directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, “the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient are eligible for reregistration,” before calling in product-specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering products or taking other “appropriate regulatory action.”
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the availability of EPA's Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for the pesticide D-Limonene, and opens a public comment period on this document, related risk assessments, and other support documents. EPA has reviewed the low risk pesticide D-Limonene through a modified, streamlined version of the public participation process that the Agency uses to involve the public in developing pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment decisions. Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides meet current health and safety standards.
Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP-2004-0335, must be received on or before March 21, 2005.
Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
Mark Perry, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8024; fax number: (703) 308-8024; e-mail address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although, not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternatives.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
Under section 4 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is reevaluating existing pesticides to ensure that they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. Using a modified, streamlined version of its public participation process, EPA has completed a RED for the low risk pesticide, D-Limonene under section 4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA. EPA has determined that the data base to support reregistration is substantially complete and that products containing D-Limonene will be eligible for reregistration, provided the risks are mitigated either in the manner described in the RED or by another means that achieves equivalent risk reduction. Upon submission of any required product-specific data under section 4(g)(2)(B) and any necessary changes to the registration and labeling (either to address any concerns identified in the RED or as a result of product specific data), EPA will make a final reregistration decision under section 4(g)(2)(C) for products containing D-Limonene.
D-limonene has a lemon-like flavor and smell, and occurs naturally in citrus and certain fruits, vegetables, meats and spices. D-limonene is used as both an active and inert ingredient in pesticide products, and as an ingredient in food products, soaps and perfumes. As an active ingredient, it is used as an insecticide, insect repellant, and animal (dog and cat) repellent. As a pesticide inert ingredient it is used as a solvent or fragrance. It is also found in consumer products such as certain foods, soaps, and perfumes. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers D-limonene to be generally recognized as safe (GRAS) as a food additive when used as a synthetic flavoring substance and adjuvant (21 CFR 182.60). D-limonene is not registered for food or feed crop uses as an active ingredient, but can be used on compost and manure.
EPA must review tolerances and tolerance exemptions that were in effect when the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was enacted in August 1996, to ensure that these existing pesticide residue limits for food and feed commodities meet the safety standard established by the new law. Tolerances are considered reassessed once the safety finding has been made or a revocation occurs. EPA has reviewed and made the requisite safety finding for the D-Limonene tolerances included in this notice.
EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public Participation Process, published in the
The reregistration program is being conducted under Congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both to make timely decisions and to involve the public in finding ways to effectively mitigate pesticide risks. D-Limonene, however, poses no risks that require mitigation. The Agency, therefore, is issuing the D-Limonene RED, its risk assessments, and related support materials simultaneously for public comment. The comment period is intended to provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any necessary amendments to the RED. All comments should be submitted using the methods in Unit I. of the
EPA will carefully consider all comments received by the closing date and will provide a Response to Comments Memorandum in the Docket and electronic Edocket. If any comment significantly affects the document, EPA will also, publish an amendment to the RED in the
Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA as amended directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, “the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient are eligible for reregistration,” before calling in product-specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering products or taking other “appropriate regulatory action.”
Section 408(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(q), requires EPA to review tolerances and exemptions for pesticide residues in effect as of August 2, 1996, to determine whether the tolerance or exemption meets the requirements of section 408(b)(2) or (c)(2) of FFDCA. This review is to be completed by August 3, 2006.
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the availability of EPA's Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for the pesticide nitrogen, and opens a public comment period on this document, related risk assessments, and other support documents. EPA has reviewed the low risk pesticide nitrogen through a modified, streamlined version of the public participation process that the Agency uses to involve the public in developing pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment decisions. Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides meet current health and safety standards.
Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP-2004-0333, must be received on or before March 21, 2005.
Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
Mark Perry, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8024; fax number: (703) 308-7070; e-mail address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternatives.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
Under section 4 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is reevaluating existing pesticides to ensure that they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. Using a modified, streamlined version of its public participation process, EPA has completed a RED for the low risk pesticide, nitrogen under section 4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA. EPA has determined that the data base to support reregistration is substantially complete and that products containing nitrogen will be eligible for reregistration, provided the risks are mitigated either in the manner described in the RED or by another means that achieves equivalent risk reduction. Upon submission of any required product specific data under section 4(g)(2)(B) and any necessary changes to the registration and labeling (either to address any concerns identified in the RED or as a result of product specific data), EPA will make a final reregistration decision under section 4(g)(2)(C) for products containing nitrogen.
Nitrogen is used commercially to generate an inert atmosphere usually for product packaging. In the food industry, it is used to preserve packaged foods, such as ground coffee, by displacing oxygen. As a pesticide active ingredient, nitrogen may be used as a fumigant to control insects in structures and on stored food commodities. Currently there is only one registered end-use product containing nitrogen as the active ingredient. As a pesticide inert it is used as an aerosol propellant.
EPA must review tolerances and tolerance exemptions that were in effect when the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was enacted in August 1996, to ensure that these existing pesticide residue limits for food and feed commodities meet the safety standard established by the new law. Tolerances are considered reassessed once the safety finding has been made or a revocation occurs. EPA has reviewed and made the requisite safety finding for the nitrogen tolerances included in this notice.
EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public Participation Process, published in the Federal Register on May 14, 2004, explains that in conducting these programs, the Agency is tailoring its public participation process to be commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide. EPA can expeditiously reach decisions for pesticides like nitrogen, which pose no risk concerns, have low use, affect few if any stakeholders, and require little/no risk mitigation. Once EPA assesses uses and risks for such pesticides, the Agency may go directly to a decision and prepare a document summarizing its findings. The Agency therefore is issuing the low risk nitrogen RED, risk assessments, and related documents simultaneously for public comment.
The reregistration program is being conducted under Congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both to make timely decisions and to involve the public in finding ways to effectively mitigate pesticide risks. Nitrogen, however, poses no risks that require mitigation. The Agency therefore is issuing the nitrogen RED, its risk assessments, and related support materials simultaneously for public comment. The comment period is intended to provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any necessary amendments to the RED. All comments should be submitted using the methods in Unit I. of the
EPA will carefully consider all comments received by the closing date and will provide a Response to Comments Memorandum in the Docket and electronic Edocket. If any comment significantly affects the document, EPA also will publish an amendment to the RED in the
Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA as amended directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, “the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient are eligible for reregistration,” before calling in product specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering products or taking other “appropriate regulatory action.”
Section 408(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(q), requires EPA to review tolerances and exemptions for pesticide residues in effect as of August 2, 1996, to determine whether the tolerance or exemption meets the requirements of section 408(b)(2) or (c)(2) of FFDCA. This review is to be completed by August 3, 2006.
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities.
Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number OPP-2004-0297, must be received on or before February 18, 2005.
Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
Bipin Gandhi, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8380; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS 111)
• Animal production (NAICS 112)
• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408(d)(3). The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous material, or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the findings reflected EPA's position and not the position of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.
EPA has received a pesticide petition (4E6818) from The Associated Octel Company, Limited, P.O. Box 17, Oil Sites Road, Ellesmere Port, South Wirral L65 4HF, United Kingdom proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for [S,S]-ethylene diamine disuccinic acid, CAS Reg. No. 20846-91-7. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
i.
ii.
2.
The potential for [S,S]-ethylene diamine disuccinic acid and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity has been considered. [S,S]-Ethylene diamine disuccinic acid is a naturally occurring substance produced by certain common bacteria, and it is rapidly and completely mineralized in the environment. There is no reliable information to indicate that toxic effects produced by [S,S]-ethylene diamine disuccinic acid would be cumulative with those of any other chemicals, including another pesticide. Therefore, the Associated Octel Corporation, Limited believes that it is appropriate to consider only the potential risks of [S,S]-ethylene diamine disuccinic acid in an aggregate risk assessment.
1.
2.
There are no known international tolerances for residues of [S,S]-ethylene diamine disuccinic acid in food or animal feed.
1. Brady, N. C. 1990. The Nature and Properties of Soils. MacMillan Publishing Company. New York, New York.
2. Goodfellow, M., A. B. Brown, J. Cai, J. Chun and M. D. Collins. 1997.
3. Zwicker, N., U. Theobald, H. Zahner and H-D Fielder. 1997. Optimization of fermantation conditions for the production of ethylene diamine disuccinic acid by
4. Schowanek D., T. C. J. Feijtel, C. M. Perkins F.A. Hartman, T. W. Federle, R. J. Larson. 1997. Biodegradation of [S,S] [R,R] and mixed stereoisomers of ethylene diamine disuccinic acid (EDDS), a transition metal chelator. Chemosphere, Vol. 34, No. 11, pp 2375-2391.
5. Bucheli-Witschel, M. and T. Egli. 2001. Environmental fate and microdegradation of aminopolycarboxylic acids. FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 25pp 69-106.
6. Whitburn, J. S., S. D. Wilkinson and D. R. Williams. 1999. Chemical speciation of ethylene diamine-N, N′-disuccinic acid (EDDS) and its metal complexes in solution. Chemical Speciation and Bioavailability. 11(3) pp 85-93.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of proposed settlement.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to enter into an settlement for the partial reimbursement of past response costs with Custom Drum Services, Inc., McManus and Son Drum Company, and Tallent Drum Company, Inc. pursuant to section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9622(h)(1) concerning the Carolina Steel Drum Superfund Site (Site) located in Rock Hill, York County, South Carolina. EPA will consider public comments on the proposed settlement for February 18, 2005. EPA may withdraw from or modify the proposed settlement should such comments disclose facts or considerations which indicate the proposed settlement in inappropriate, improper or inadequate. Copies of the proposed settlement are available from: Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, U.S. EPA, Region 4, (WMD-SEIMB), 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562-8887,
Written comments may be submitted to Ms. Batchelor within 30 days of the date of this publication.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The State of Utah has revised its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Primacy Program by adopting regulations corresponding to the following six federal rules which revised 40 CFR part 141, the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs): Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions (LCRMR), Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBPR), Public Notification Rule (PNR), Consumer Confidence Rule (CCR), and Radionuclides Rule. Having determined that the State's revisions meet all applicable requirements in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. 300f
Today's approval action does not extend to public water systems in Indian country as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Please see
Any member of the public is invited to request a public hearing on this determination by February 18, 2005. Please see
Requests for a public hearing should be addressed to: Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, c/o Marty Swickard (8P-W-MS), U.S. EPA, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202-2466.
All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection at the following locations: (1) U.S. EPA, Region 8, Municipal Systems Unit, 999 18th Street (4th Floor), Denver, CO 80202-2466; (2) Utah Department of Environment Quality (DEQ), Division of Drinking Water, 1950 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4830.
Marty Swickard, Municipal Systems Unit, EPA, Region 8 (8P-W-MS), 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202-2466, 303-312-7021.
EPA approved Utah's application for assuming primary enforcement authority for the PWSS program, pursuant to section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. 300g-2, and 40 CFR part 142. DEQ administers Utah's PWSS program.
States with primary PWSS enforcement authority must comply with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 142 for maintaining primacy. They must adopt regulations that are at least as stringent as the NPDWRs at 40 CFR Part 141 (
Utah is not authorized to carry out its PWSS program in Indian country. This includes lands within the exterior boundaries of the Skull Valley, Paiute, Navajo, Goshute, Ute Mountain, and Northwestern Shoshoni Indian Reservations; Indian country lands within the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation; and any other areas which are “Indian country” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1151.
Any request for a public hearing shall include the following: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the individual, organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the RA's determination and of information that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; and (3) the signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of the responsible official of the organization or other entity.
Notice of any hearing shall be given not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the time scheduled for the hearing. Such notice will be made by the RA in the
Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing may be denied by the RA. However, if a substantial request is made within thirty (30) days after this notice, a public hearing will be held.
Please bring this notice to the attention of any persons known by you to have an interest in this determination.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005, at 10 a.m.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and title 26, U.S.C.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee.
Thursday, January 27, 2005, at 10 a.m.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (ninth floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Correction and Approval of Minutes.
Draft Advisory Opinion 2004-45: Senator Ken Salazar and Salazar for Senate, by Counsel, Marc E. Elias and Rebecca H. Gordon.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Definition of Agent for BCRA Regulations on Coordinated and Independent Expenditures and Non-Federal Funds or Soft Money (11 CFR 109.3 and 300.2(b)).
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the
Final Rules on Contributions and Donations by Minors.
Routine Administrative Matters.
Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than February 1, 2005.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 12, 2005.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 11, 2005.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 12, 2005.
The General Services Administration (GSA) has published a Final Supplement to the 1992 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Del Rio Border Station Expansion, Del Rio, Texas. The Supplement to the 1992 Final EIS is entitled:
The GSA has decided to increase security at and around the Del Rio Port of Entry (POE) in accordance with measures outlined for heightened security along the nation's borders after the events of September 11, 2001. The
The purpose and need for the proposed action (as described in the 2004 Supplement to the 1992 EIS, pages 1-1-1-3, available at
The 2004 Supplement to the 1992 EIS analyzed the potential impacts of implementing increased security measures at and around the Del Rio POE complex. Issues associated with the proposed increased security measures (identified through scoping) include land use, transportation, air quality, noise, socioeconomic (including environmental justice), and cultural resources. Issues eliminated from detailed analysis (due to relevancy to the proposed action or prior environmental review in the 1992 EIS) include soils, hydrology, vegetation and wildlife (including protected species), and public services and utilities.
The following alternatives were analyzed to determine which best satisfied the purpose and need for the increased security measures.
Under this alternative, no new security measures would be implemented to increase security at and around the Del Rio POE complex. This alternative would be considered environmentally preferable and would result in no land use, transportation, air quality, noise, socioeconomic (including environmental justice), or cultural resources impacts. However, implementing this alternative would not allow the GSA to increase security in accordance with measures outlined for heightened security along the nation's borders. The requirements for increased security were the primary consideration in not choosing this alternative.
Under this alternative, security would be increased at and around the Del Rio POE complex, resulting in the elimination of all pedestrian and vehicular traffic/access east along Rio Grande Road. This would be accomplished by permanently closing a portion of Rio Grande Road (approximately 550 feet of road east of State Spur 239) (page 2-5 of the Supplement). As part of implementing this alternative, the 550-foot stretch of road would be immediately closed (through the placement of “jersey barriers”) to quickly realize increased security and to facilitate construction associated with Phase III expansion activities. Additionally, a new Commercial Exit Control Facility and exit road would be constructed. After construction, a portion of the exit road and corresponding land would be donated to the City of Del Rio as a public right-of-way (figure available at
This alternative would be considered environmentally preferable and would result in no land use, transportation, air quality, noise, or cultural resources impacts. However, eliminating pedestrian access to Rio Grande Road east would result in increased travel time for a small population of low-income and/or minority visitors of the Faith Mission. Access to the Faith Mission would still be possible through alternate traffic routing; however, this would increase the travel time of approximately 42 individuals per service day that walked. Additionally, if the Faith Mission elects to locate some service facilities on the approximately one acre easement, then those services would be directly accessible by pedestrians immediately after processing through the POE. Implementing this alternative would allow the GSA to increase security in accordance with measures outlined for heightened security along the nation's borders. Although implementation of this alternative would increase the travel time to the Faith Mission, the requirements for increased security were the primary consideration in choosing this alternative. In choosing this alternative to implement, the GSA has adopted all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm (pages 2-4-2-7).
Similar to the previous alternative (Alternative 2), under this alternative, security would be increased at and around the Del Rio POE complex, resulting in the elimination of all pedestrian and vehicular traffic/access east along Rio Grande Road. However, pedestrian traffic would be facilitated east through the construction of an elevated walkway. This alternative was not carried forward for detailed analysis because of security concerns and the significant costs associated with constructing and maintaining an elevated walkway. These were the primary considerations in not choosing this alternative.
Similar to the previous alternatives (Alternative 2 and 3), under this alternative, security would be increased at and around the Del Rio POE complex, resulting in the elimination of all pedestrian and vehicular traffic/access east along Rio Grande Road. However, pedestrian traffic would be facilitated east through the construction of a pedestrian tunnel. This alternative was not carried forward for detailed analysis because of security concerns and the significant costs associated with constructing and maintaining a pedestrian tunnel. These were the primary considerations in not choosing this alternative.
During the comment period for the Draft Supplement, the GSA received two comments; both stated no objection to the proposed project. The GSA believes there are no outstanding environmental issues to be resolved with implementing increased security measures at and around the Del Rio POE facility.
Questions regarding the Supplement to the 1992 EIS may be directed to Lisa Schaub, Region 7 Environmental and Safety Group, GSA 819 Taylor Street 7PWM, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, (817) 978-4233.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice with comment period.
This notice with comment period describes the procedure for redistribution of States' unexpended Federal fiscal year (FY) 2002 SCHIP allotments remaining at the end of FY 2004 to those States that fully expended such allotments. These redistributed allotments will be available through the end of FY 2005 (September 30, 2005).
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-2230-NC. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of three ways (no duplicates, please):
1.
2.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-2230-NC, P.O. Box 8010, Baltimore, MD 21244-8010.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201; or 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
(Because access to the interior of the HHH Building is not readily available to persons without Federal Government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
Richard Strauss, (410) 786-2019.
This
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the caption “Background” at the beginning of your comments.]
Title XXI of the Social Security Act (the Act) sets forth the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to enable States, the District of Columbia, and specified Commonwealths and Territories to initiate and expand health insurance coverage to uninsured, low-income children. In this notice, unless otherwise indicated, the terms “State” and “States” refer to any or all of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealths and Territories. States may implement SCHIP through a separate child health program under title XXI of the Act, an expanded program under title XIX of the Act, or a combination of both.
Under section 2104(e) of the Act, the SCHIP allotments for a Federal fiscal year are available to match expenditures under an approved State child health plan for an initial 3-fiscal year “period of availability,” including the fiscal year for which the allotment was provided. After the initial period of availability, the amount of unspent allotments are reallotted and continue to be available during a subsequent period of availability, specified in SCHIP statute. With the exception described below for the allotments made in FYs 1998 through 2001, allotments that are unexpended at the end of the initial 3-year period of availability would be redistributed from the States that did not fully spend such allotments to States that fully spent their allotments for that fiscal year.
The Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA), enacted as part of Pub. L. 106-554 on December 21, 2000, amended title XXI of the Act in part by establishing requirements for a subsequent extended period of availability with respect to the amounts of States' FY 1998 and FY 1999 allotments that were unspent during the initial 3-year period of availability. Under the BIPA amendments, the subsequent period of availability (after the initial 3-year period of availability) for States' unspent FY 1998 and 1999 allotments was extended to the end of FY 2002.
Section 1 of the Extension of Availability of SCHIP Allotments Act, Pub. L. 108-74, enacted on August 15, 2003, amended title XXI of the Act to establish further requirements for the subsequent period of availability associated with the unexpended amounts of States' FYs 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 allotments during the initial 3-year period of availability, or
As amended by Pub. L. 108-74, section 2104(g) of the Act prescribes a methodology and process that includes the retention of certain amounts of unspent FY 2000 and FY 2001 allotments that would remain available to the States that did not fully expend their FY 2000 or FY 2001 allotments (retained allotments), and the redistribution of unspent FY 2000 or FY 2001 allotments that would not be retained but which would be redistributed to those other States that fully spent their FY 2000 or FY 2001 allotments (redistributed allotments).
As discussed previously, section 2104(e) of the Act states that amounts allotted to a State shall remain available for expenditures by the State through the end of the second succeeding fiscal year, except that amounts reallotted to a State are available for expenditure by the State through the end of the fiscal year in which they are reallotted. Section 2104(f) of the Act requires the Secretary to “determine an appropriate procedure for redistribution of allotments” from States that have not expended the allotment for the fiscal year to States that have fully expended their allotments. As discussed previously, section 2104(g) of the Act, as added by BIPA and amended by Pub. L. 108-74, sets forth the process for reallotting unexpended amounts of SCHIP allotments for FY 1998 through FY 2001 (as well as for the extension of the period of time to expend allotments). Section 2104(g) of the Act did not address the treatment of States' unexpended SCHIP allotments for FY 2002 and the following fiscal years. Under sections 2104(e) and (f) of the Act, we are required to establish a procedure that provides for the treatment of States' unused SCHIP allotments for FY 2002 and following fiscal years. In particular, applying section 2104(f) of the Act, following the initial 3-year period of availability referenced in section 2104(e) of the Act, the Secretary must determine an “appropriate procedure for redistribution” of the amounts of States' FY 2002 SCHIP allotments
Under section 2105(a)(1)(A) through (D) and (a)(2) of the Act and before enactment of Pub. L. 108-74, only Federal payments for the following Medicaid and SCHIP expenditures were applied against States' available SCHIP allotments in the following order: (1) Medical assistance provided under title XIX (Medicaid) at the SCHIP enhanced Federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) matching rate with respect to the States' Medicaid SCHIP expansion population; (2) medical assistance provided on behalf of a child during presumptive eligibility under section 1920A of the Act (these funds are matched at the regular Medicaid FMAP rate); (3) child health assistance to targeted low income children that meets minimum benefit requirements under SCHIP; and (4) certain expenditures in the SCHIP that are subject to the 10-Percent Limit on non-primary expenditures (including other child health assistance for targeted low-income children, health services initiatives, outreach, and administrative costs).
However, section 1(b) of Pub. L. 108-74, as amended by Pub. L. 108-127, added new section 2105(g) to the Act under which certain “Qualifying States” that met prescribed criteria may elect to use up to 20 percent of any of the States' available SCHIP allotments for FY 1998, 1999, 2000, or 2001 as additional Federal financial participation for expenditures under their Medicaid program, instead of expenditures under the State's SCHIP. As described in the
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the caption “Provisions of This Notice” at the beginning of your comments.]
The purpose of this notice with comment period is to set forth our procedure for redistributing FY 2002 unexpended allotments. This notice applies solely to the redistribution of FY 2002 unexpended allotments. We anticipate publishing regular notices on redistribution procedures for FY 2003 and subsequent years, unless Congress otherwise amends the Act to set forth procedures for redistributing unexpended allotments.
The implementation by CMS of the provisions of Pub. L. 108-74, including the provisions for extension of unexpended FY 1998 and FY 1999 redistributed and/or retained allotments, the methodologies for retention and/or redistribution of SCHIP allotments for FY 2000 and FY 2001, and the qualifying States provisions, was described in the
Under section 2104(e) of the Act, the amount of a State's allotment for a fiscal year is available to the State for matching allowable State expenditures for an initial 3-year period of availability: the fiscal year for which the funds are allotted, and the two following fiscal years. For the FY 2002 SCHIP allotments, the initial 3-year period of availability is FY 2002 through FY 2004 (October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2004). With respect to the FY 2002 SCHIP allotments, the initial 3-year period of availability (FY 2002 through FY 2004) ended with the end of FY 2004 on September 30, 2004; at that time, the unexpended FY 2002 allotments became unavailable to those States that did not fully expend such allotments. That is, for such States there is no provision under the current SCHIP statute for the
Under section 2104(f) of the Act, the Secretary must determine an appropriate procedure to redistribute the entire amount of States' unexpended SCHIP allotments following the end of the related initial 3-year period of availability
In the FY 2002 redistribution described in this notice, only after accounting for the shortfall amounts of the redistribution States will we further redistribute any remaining unexpended FY 2002 allotments to the redistribution States. For purposes of consistency with previous fiscal year redistribution methodologies, we based the redistribution of the remaining unexpended FY 2002 allotments (after accounting for the total shortfalls for each redistribution State) on the same redistribution methodology as set forth in the BIPA legislation regarding section 2104(g)(1) of the Act. Specifically, we allocated the remaining amounts of the unexpended FY 2002 allotments based on the difference between each of the redistribution States' total SCHIP-related expenditures for the 3-year period of availability related to FY 2002 (that is, FY 2002 through FY 2004) and the State's FY 2002 allotment. The allocation basis is the percentage determined by dividing this difference for each redistribution State (including those redistribution States with a shortfall) by the total of such differences for all redistribution States.
In applying State's expenditures against their available SCHIP allotments, we follow the order of expenditures as provided under section 2105(a)(1)(A) through (D) and (a)(2) of the Act as follows:
(1) Title XIX SCHIP-related expenditures for which payment is made at the enhanced Federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) (section 2105(a)(1)(A) of the Act);
(2) Title XIX expenditures for medical assistance provided during a presumptive eligibility period under section 1920A of the Act (section 2105(a)(1)(B) of the Act);
(3) Child health assistance for targeted low-income children in the form of providing health benefits coverage that meets the requirements of section 2103 (section 2105(a)(1)(C) of the Act);
(4) Expenditures listed in section 2105(a)(1)(D)(i) through (iv) of the Act, respectively: Other child health assistance for targeted low-income children; health services initiatives under the plan for improving the health of children (including targeted low-income children and other low-income children); expenditures for outreach activities; and administration expenditures.
As discussed previously, Pub. L. 108-74, as amended by Pub. L. 108-127, also added new section 2105(g) to the Act, under which a “Qualifying State” meeting specified criteria could, at its option, elect to use up to 20 percent of any of the State's available SCHIP allotments for FY 1998, 1999, 2000, or 2001 for payments under the State's Medicaid program, instead of expenditures under the State's SCHIP. As described in the
In general, in accordance with the ordering of allotments and expenditures provisions, the expenditures of States eligible for the FY 2002 redistribution will be applied against the FY 2002 redistribution amounts.
We believe that the States eligible for the FY 2002 redistribution should be afforded the flexibility to decide whether the FY 2002 redistributed funds would be used before or after other available allotment funds to allow them to optimize the use of such funds. Therefore, we offered States that will receive FY 2002 redistributed amounts the option of choosing the order of when the funds would be expended during FY 2005 among the other available allotments during FY 2005. In the previous redistributions for the unexpended FY 1998, FY 1999, and FY 2000 allotments, the redistribution States had the same ordering of allotment choice for the redistributed allotment.
An FY 2002 redistribution State (a State that has fully expended its FY 2002 allotment) may have a maximum of five possible choices for the order of the application of FY 2002 redistribution funds in FY 2005, depending on what other fiscal year allotments are available to the State in FY 2005: (1) before FY 2001 retained allotments; (2) after FY 2001 retained allotments and before FY 2003 allotments; (3) after FY 2003 and before FY 2004 allotments; (4) after FY 2004 allotments and before FY 2005 allotments; and (5) after FY 2005 allotments.
Note, with respect to the unexpended FY 2001 allotments at the end of FY 2003, the FY 2001 “redistribution States” also had the option of selecting the ordering of the FY 2001 redistributed allotments which were provided to such States in FY 2004. Now, with respect to the FY 2002 redistributed allotments, the FY 2002 redistribution States that also had FY
As specified in section 2104(e) of the Act, the FY 2002 redistributed amounts for a fiscal year will be available for allowable SCHIP expenditures reported by the redistribution States through the end of the fiscal year in which such amounts are redistributed. Therefore, for FY 2002, the redistributed amounts will be available through September 30, 2005 (the end of FY 2005).
As part of the redistribution process, prior to making FY 2002 redistribution funds actually available, we contact all of the States eligible for the FY 2002 redistribution in order to explain the provisions of this notice and to obtain their ordering elections for the FY 2002 redistributed amounts. In this regard, all of the redistribution States must provide their decision to us regarding their elections for the ordering of the FY 2002 redistributed allotments. This is the same process we have used in prior years for obtaining prior fiscal year redistribution States' ordering elections. Consistent with the past fiscal year redistribution processes, under the FY 2002 redistribution methodology, once a State chooses the order of the FY 2002 redistribution amounts, it cannot change that order at a later date. We then include the States' FY 2002 redistributed amounts and their ordering elections on Form CMS-21C (Allocation of Title XIX and Title XXI Expenditures to the SCHIP Fiscal Year Allotment). Form CMS-21C is used for tracking States' expenditures against their available SCHIP allotments. The FY 2002 redistributed allotment amounts will be automatically entered on this form, and the Medicaid and SCHIP expenditure system will automatically apply expenditures reported on the quarterly expenditure reports for the period of October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2005 against the FY 2002 redistributed amounts available through September 30, 2005 and the other SCHIP allotments available in FY 2005.
In Table 2 of this notice, we set forth the amount of States' unexpended FY 2002 allotments as reflected by the States' expenditure submissions through November 30, 2004. These amounts are used in determining the States' FY 2002 redistribution amounts. We established the amount of States' unexpended FY 2002 allotments at the end of the initial 3-year period of availability based on the SCHIP-related expenditures, as reported and certified by States to us on the quarterly expenditure reports (Form CMS-64 and/or Form CMS-21) by November 30, 2004. These expenditures are applied and tracked against the States' FY 2002 allotments (as published in the
By November 30, 2004, all States reported and certified their FY 2004 fourth quarter expenditures (representing the last quarter of the 3-year period of availability for FY 2002). Expenditures reflected in Table 2 below were taken from our Medicaid Budget and Expenditure System/State Children's Health Program Budget and Expenditure System (MBES/CBES) “masterfile”, which represents the State's official certified SCHIP and Medicaid expenditure reporting system records related to FY 2002 allotments. Based on States' expenditure reports submitted and certified through November 30, 2004, the total amounts of States' FY 2002 SCHIP allotments that were unexpended at the end of the 3-year period ending September 30, 2004, is $642,617,724.
The unexpended FY 2002 allotments reflect the application of the “maintenance of effort” (MOE) provisions specified in the SCHIP statute at section 2105(d)(2) of the Act. Under section 2105(d)(2) of the Act, the amount of certain States' allotments in a fiscal year, beginning with fiscal year 1999, is reduced if the State does not meet specified spending levels on children's health insurance. There were no MOE reductions necessary with respect to the FY 2002 allotments.
Section 2104(g)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act specifies the methodology for determining the
Section 2104(f) of the Act requires the Secretary to determine an appropriate procedure for calculating the redistribution amounts for each of those States and the District of Columbia that have fully expended their allotments. This notice sets forth the procedure for the FY 2002 redistribution. The attached tables and table descriptions provide detailed information on how the reallotment amounts are calculated. Generally, the FY 2002 redistribution amounts for the 50 States and the District of Columbia were determined as follows:
First, the total amount available for redistribution nationally was established by determining the total amount of unexpended FY 2002 allotments remaining at the end of FY 2004, as reported by the States through November 30, 2004.
Second, the total amount available for redistribution to the States and the District of Columbia (not including the Commonwealths and Territories) was determined by subtracting the total of the FY 2002 redistribution amounts for the Commonwealths and Territories from the total available nationally for redistribution.
Third, the allocation of this total amount available for redistribution to the States and District of Columbia is determined by determining the “shortfall” amounts (if any) for these redistribution States that would occur in FY 2005, the fiscal year in which the
Fourth, the amount of any unexpended FY 2002 allotments remaining after determining and accounting for the shortfall amounts was multiplied by a percentage specific to each FY 2002 redistribution State. This percentage is determined for each FY 2002 redistribution State by dividing the difference between such State's total reported applicable expenditures for the FY 2002 3-year period of availability and the State's FY 2002 allotment related to that period of availability, by the total of these differences for all redistribution States.
Following, is a description of Table 1 and Table 2, which presents the calculation of each redistribution State's FY 2002 SCHIP redistribution amount.
A total of $3,115,200,000 was allotted nationally for FY 2002, representing $3,082,125,000 in allotments to the 50 States and the District of Columbia, and $33,075,000 in allotments to the Commonwealths and Territories. Based on the quarterly expenditure reports, submitted and certified by November 30, 2003, 28 States fully expended their FY 2002 allotments, 23 States and the District of Columbia did not fully expend their FY 2002 allotments, and all 5 of the Commonwealths and Territories fully expended their FY 2002 allotments. For the States and the District of Columbia that did not fully expend their FY 2002 allotments, their total FY 2002 allotments were $1,413,648,379 and the total expenditures applied against their FY 2002 allotments were $771,030,655. Therefore, the total amount of unexpended FY 2002 allotments at the end of FY 2004 equaled $642,617,724 ($1,413,648,379 minus $771,030,655). In addition, as discussed above, no MOE reductions were necessary with respect to the FY 2002 allotments. Therefore, the total amount of the FY 2002 allotments unexpended at the end of FY 2004 equaled $642,617,724 ($642,617,724 plus $0 related to the MOE provision).
In accordance with the redistribution calculation for FY 2002 described above, $6,747,486 is redistributed to the five Commonwealths and Territories, and $635,870,238 redistributed to the 28 redistribution States. The total $642,617,724 in FY 2002 redistributed allotment amounts will remain available to these States through the end of FY 2005.
Table 1 Presents the FY 2005 shortfall calculation for the 50 States and the District of Columbia.
Column A =
Column B =
Column C =
Column D =
Column E =
Column F =
Column G = Projected Expenditures FY 2005. This column contains the amounts of States' projected FY 2005 SCHIP and SCHIP-related expenditures as contained in the States' November 15, 2004 quarterly budget submission.
Column H =
Table 2 Contains the calculation of States' FY 2002 redistribution.
Column A =
Column B =
Column C =
Column D =
Column E =
Column F =
Column G =
Column H =
Column I =
Column J =
Column K =
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the caption “Regulatory Impact Statement” at the beginning of your comments.]
We have examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 16, 1980 Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any one year). We have determined that this notice is not a major rule. The States' FY 2002 SCHIP allotments, totaling $3,115,200,000 were originally published in a notice in the
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it publishes a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. We have reviewed this notice and have determined that it does not significantly affect States' rights, roles, and responsibilities.
Low-income children will benefit from payments under this program through increased opportunities for health insurance coverage. We believe this notice will have an overall positive impact by informing States, the District of Columbia, and Commonwealths and Territories of the extent to which they are permitted to expend funds under their child health plans using the FY 2002 allotment's redistribution amounts.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this notice was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the caption “Waiver of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Delayed Effective Date” at the beginning of your comments.]
We ordinarily publish a proposed notice in the
We find there is good cause to waive notice of proposed rulemaking and the delay in the effective date of this issuance of the FY 2002 redistributed allotments because such notice of proposed rulemaking and the delay in the effective date would be contrary to the public interest.
We determined the amounts of the FY 2002 redistributed allotments as expeditiously as possible in order to make them available to the States as soon as possible. To that end, all States had until November 30, 2004 to submit their required fourth quarter FY 2004 expenditure reports. In determining the FY 2002 redistributed amounts, we used State projected expenditures as contained in the most recent (November, 2004) States' quarterly budget report submissions. The redistributed FY 2002 allotments make available Federal funds to the recipient redistribution States, which is especially important for those redistribution States that may need such funds.
Furthermore, under section 2104(e) of the Act, redistributed allotments are only available through the end of the fiscal year in which they are redistributed; in the case of the FY 2002 redistributed allotments, that would be until the end of FY 2005 (September 30, 2005). We believe it is important that we issue these redistributed allotments as soon as possible. Therefore, in the interest of ensuring that the FY 2002 redistributed allotments are made available without delay to those States that need such funds, we are waiving notice of proposed rulemaking and the 30-day delay in effective date, and are publishing this issuance of the
Accordingly, we provisionally will make the FY 2002 redistributed funds available to any State that has spent all of its available SCHIP allotments effective immediately upon publication of this notice with comment period. These FY 2002 redistributed funds are subject to final adjustment based on comments received in response to this notice with comment period. Any such adjustments resulting from review and analysis of comments will be published in the
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 Tony Slater 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).
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 William Freas or Sheila D. Langford 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).
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 Aleta Sindelar 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).
The Indian Health Service (IHS) is committed to encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to enter the health professions and to assuring the availability of Indian health professionals to serve Indians. The IHS is committed to the recruitment of students for the following programs:
• The Indian Health Professions Preparatory Scholarships authorized by section 103(b)(1) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA), Public Law 94-437, as amended by Public Law 100-713, Public Law 102-573, and Public Law 104-313, CFDA #93.123.
• The Indian Health Professions Pregraduate Scholarships section 103(b)(2) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA), Public Law 94-437, as amended by Public Law 100-713, Public Law 102-573, and Public Law 104-313, CFDA #93.971.
• The Indian Health Professions Scholarship section 104 of the IHCIA, Public Law 94-437, as amended by Public Law 100-713, by Public Law 102-573, and by Public Law 104-313, CFDA #93.972.
Full-time and part-time scholarships will be funded for each of the three scholarship programs. The Public Health Service (PHS) is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of
Awards under this initiative will be administered using the institutional grant mechanism of the IHS.
Project Period—The project period will vary based on the type of scholarship for which the grantee applies.
Max Project Period—The project period for the Health Professions Preparatory Scholarship support is limited to 2 years for full-time students and the part-time equivalent of 2 years, not to exceed 4 years for part-time students. The project period for the Health Professions Pregraduate Scholarship Support is limited to 4 years for full-time students and the part-time equivalent of 4 years, not to exceed 8 years for part-time students. The Indian Health Professions Scholarship support is limited to 4 years for full-time students and the part-time equivalent of 4 years, not to exceed 8 years for part-time students.
The Health Professions Preparatory Scholarship awards are made to American Indians (state recognized Tribal members, federally recognized Tribal members, and first and second degree descendants of Tribal members), or Alaska Natives who:
• Have successfully completed high school education or high school equivalency; and
• Have been accepted for enrollment in a compensatory, pre-professional general education course or curriculum.
The Health Professions Pregraduate Scholarship awards are made to American Indians (state recognized Tribal members, federally recognized Tribal members, and first and second degree Tribal members), or Alaska Natives who:
• Have successfully completed high school education or high school equivalency; and
• Have been accepted for enrollment or are enrolled in an accredited pregraduate program leading to a baccalaureate degree in pre-medicine or pre-dentistry.
The Indian Health Scholarship (Professions) may be awarded only to an individual who is a member of a federally recognized Indian Tribe as provided by section 4(c), and 4(d) of the IHCIA. Membership in a Tribe recognized only by a state does not meet this statutory requirement. To receive an Indian Health Scholarship (Professions) an otherwise eligible individual must be enrolled in an appropriately accredited school and pursuing a course of study in a health profession as defined by section 4(n) of the IHCIA.
The Scholarship Program does not require matching funds or cost sharing to participate in the competitive grant process.
Applicants are responsible for contacting and requesting an application packet from their IHS Area coordinator. They are listed on the IHS Web site at
Each applicant will be responsible for submitting the completed application (Forms IHS-856-1, through 856-8) to their IHS Area coordinator. Electronic applications are not being accepted for this cycle. The application will be considered complete if the following documents are included.
• Application Checklist.
• Original Signed Complete Application Form IHS-856 (Continuation Students—Data Sheet).
• Letter of Acceptance from College/Proof of Application to Health Professions Program.
• Official Transcripts for All Colleges.
• Cumulative GPA: Applicants Calculation.
• Documents for Indian Eligibility.
A. If you are a member of a federally recognized Tribe (recognized by the Secretary of the Interior), provide evidence of membership such as:
(1) Certification of Tribal enrollment by the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA Certification: Form 4432—Category A or D, which ever is applicable); or
(2) In the absence of BIA certification, documentation that you meet requirements of Tribal membership as prescribed by the charter, articles of incorporation or other legal instrument of the Tribe and have been officially designated as a Tribal member as evidenced by an accompanying document signed by an authorized Tribal official, or
(3) Other evidence of Tribal membership satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior.
B. If you are a member of a Tribe terminated since 1940 or a State recognized Tribe, provide official documentation that you meet the requirements of Tribal membership as prescribed by the charter, articles of incorporation or other legal instrument of the Tribe and have been officially designated as a Tribal member as evidenced by an accompanying document signed by an authorized Tribal official; or other evidence, satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior, that you are a member of the Tribe. In addition, if the terminated or state recognized Tribe of which you are a member is not on a list of such Tribes published by the Secretary of the Interior in the
C. If you are not a Tribal member but are a natural child or grandchild of a Tribal member, you must submit: (1) Evidence of that fact,
If you meet the criteria of B or C you are eligible only for the Preparatory or Pregraduate Scholarships.
• Two Faculty/Employer Evaluations with original signature.
• Reasons for Requesting Scholarship.
• Delinquent Debt Form.
• Course Curriculum Verification with signature.
• Acknowledgment Card.
• Section 103/103P Agreement Signed and Dated (Form IHS-817).
• Curriculum for Major.
Health Professions Applicants Only:
• Section 104 Contract Signed and Dated (Form IHS-818).
• Health Related Experience (MPH only)—Optional Form.
Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.
No more than 5% of available funds will be used for part-time scholarships this fiscal year. Students are considered part-time if they are enrolled for a minimum of 6 hours of instruction and are not considered in full-time status by their college/university. Documentation must be received from part-time applicants that their school and course curriculum allows less than full-time status. Both part-time and full-time scholarship awards will be made in accordance with 42 CFR parts 36.320, 36.370 and 36.330 incorporated in the application materials; and for Health Professions Scholarship Program for Indians.
Applicants are responsible for contacting and requesting an application packet from their IHS Area Coordinator. Electronic applications are not being accepted for this cycle.
Applications will be reviewed and scored with the following criteria:
• Need of the IHS. Applicants are considered for scholarship awards based on their desired career goals and how these goals relate to current Indian health manpower needs. Applications for each health career category are reviewed and ranked separately.
• Academic Performance (40 points). Applicants are rated according to their academic performance as evidenced by transcripts and faculty evaluations. In cases where a particular applicant's school has a policy not to rank students academically, faculty members are asked to provide a personal judgement of the applicant's achievement. Health Professions applicants with a cumulative GPA below 2.0 are not eligible to apply.
• Faculty/Employer Recommendations (30 points). Applicants are rated according to evaluations by faculty members and current and/or former employers regarding the applicant's potential in the chosen health related professions.
• Stated Reasons for Asking for the Scholarship and Stated Career Goals (30 points). Applicants must provide a brief written explanation of reasons for asking for the scholarship and of their career goals. The applicant's narrative will be judged on how well it is written and content.
• Applicants who are closest to graduation or completion are awarded first. For example, senior and junior applicants under the Health Professions Pregraduate Scholarship receive funding before freshmen and sophomores.
• Priority Categories. The following is a list of health professions that will be funded in each scholarship program in FY 2005.
• Health Professions Preparatory Scholarships.
A. Pre-Dietetics.
B. Pre-Engineering (Environmental Health).
C. Pre-Medical Technology.
D. Pre-Nursing.
E. Pre-Pharmacy.
F. Pre-Physical Therapy (Jr and Sr undergraduate years).
G. Pre-Social Work (Jr and Sr undergraduate years).
• Health Professions Pregraduate Scholarships.
A. Pre-Dentistry.
B. Pre-Medicine.
• Indian Health Scholarships (Professions).
A. Associate Degree Nurse.
B. Chemical Dependency Counseling: Baccalaureate and Masters level.
C. Clinical Psychology: Ph.D. only.
D. Counseling Psychology: Ph.D. only.
E. Dental Hygiene: B.S.
F. Dentistry: D.D.S. or D.M.D.
G. Diagnostic Radiology Technology: Certificate, Associate, and B.S.
H. Dietitian: B.S.
I. Engineering (Environmental Health): B.S.
J. Environmental Health (Sanitarian): B.S.
K. Health Care Administration: Masters Level Only.
L. Health Education: Masters Level Only.
M. Health Records: R.H.I.T and R.H.I.A.
N. Injury Prevention Specialist.
O. Medical Technology: B.S.
P. Medicine: Allopathic and Osteopathic.
Q. Nurse: B.S.
R. Nurse: Nurse Anesthetist
*(Priority consideration will be given to Registered Nurses employed by the Indian Health Service; in a program assisted under a contract entered into under the Indian Self-Determination Act; or in a program assisted under Title V of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.)
S. Optometry.
T. Pharmacy: Pharm D.
U. Physician Assistant.
V. Physical Therapy: M.S. and D.P.T.
W. Podiatry: D.P.M.
X. Public Health: M.P.H. only (Applicants must be enrolled or accepted in a school of public health).
Y. Public Health Nutrition: Masters level only.
Z. Respiratory Therapy: Associate.
AA. Social Work: Masters level only (Concentration in Mental Health).
BB. Ultrasonography (Prerequisite: Diagnostic Radiology Technology).
The applications will be reviewed & scored by the IHS Scholarship Programs' Application Review Committee appointed by the IHS. Each reviewer will not be allowed to review an application from his/her area or his/her own Tribe. Each application will be reviewed by 3 reviewers. The average score of the three reviews provide the final Ranking Score for each applicant. To determine the ranking of each applicant, these scores are sorted from the highest to the lowest within each scholarship, health discipline, date of graduation, and score. If several students have the same date of graduation and score within the same discipline, computer ranking list will randomly sort and will not be sorted by alphabetical name. Selections for recommendations to the Director, IHS, are then made from the top of each ranking list to the extent that funds allocated by the IHS among the three scholarships are available for obligation.
Applicants will be notified in writing during the first week of July, 2005. An Award Letter will be issued to successful applicants. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing, which will include a brief explanation of the reasons the application was not successful and provide the name of the IHS official to contact if more information is desired.
Awards for the Indian Health Scholarships (Professions) will be made in accordance with 42 CFR 36.330. Recipients shall incur a service obligation prescribed under section 338A of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l) which shall be met by service:
(1) In the Indian Health Service;
(2) In a program conducted under a contract or compact entered into under the Indian Self-Determination Act and Education Assistance Act (Public Law 93-638) and its amendments.
(3) In a program assisted under Title V of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (Public Law 94-437) and its amendments; and
(4) In private practice of his or her profession, if the practice (a) is situated in a health professional shortage area, designated in regulations promulgated by the Secretary and (b) addresses the health care needs of a substantial number of Indians as determined by the Secretary in accordance with guidelines of the Service.
Pursuant to the Indian Health Amendments of 1992 (Public Law 104-313), a recipient of an Indian Health Professions Scholarship may, at the election of the recipient, meet his/her active duty service obligation prescribed under section 338A of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l) by a program specified in options (1)-(4) above that:
(i) Is located on the reservation of the Tribe in which the recipient is enrolled; or
(ii) Serves the Tribe in which the recipient is enrolled.
In summary, all recipients of the Indian Health Scholarship (Health Professions) are reminded that recipients of this scholarship incur a service obligation. Moreover, this obligation shall be served at a facility determined by the Director, IHS, consistent with IHCIA, Public Law 94-437, as amended by Public Law 100-713, and Public Law 102-573.
Scholarship Program Minimum Academic Requirements. It is the policy of the IHS that a scholarship recipient awarded under the Health Professions Scholarship Program of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act maintain a 2.0 cumulative grade point average (GPA) each semester/quarter and be a full-time student (minimum of 12 credit hours considered by your school as full-time). A recipient of a scholarship under the health Professions Pre-graduate and Health Professions Preparatory Scholarship authority must maintain a good academic standing each semester/quarter and be a full time student (minimum of 12 credit hours or the number of credit hours considered by your school as full-time). In addition to the two requirements stated above, a Health Professions Scholarship program grantee must be enrolled in an approved/accredited school for a health professions degree. Part-time students for the three scholarship programs must also maintain a 2.0 cumulative GPA and must take at least 6 credit hours each semester/quarter but less than the number of hours considered full-time by your school. Scholarship grantees must be approved for part-time status at the time of scholarship award. Scholarship grantees may not change from part-time status to full-time status or vice versa in the same academic year. The following reports must be sent to the IHS Scholarship Program at the identified time frame. Each scholarship grantee will be provided with an IHS Scholarship Handbook where the below needed reports are located. If a scholarship grantee fails to submit these reports as required, they will be ineligible for continuation of scholarship support and scholarship award payments will be discontinued.
Within thirty (30) days from the beginning of each semester or quarter, scholarship grantees must submit a Recipient's Enrollment and Initial Progress Report (Form F-02 of the student handbook).
Within thirty (30) days from the end of each academic period,
If at any time during the semester/quarter, scholarship grantees are advised to reduce the number of credit hours for which they are enrolled below the minimum of 12 (or the number of hours considered by their school as full time) for a full-time student or at least 6 hours for part-time students; or if they experience academic problems, they must submit this report (page F-04 of student handbook).
• Change of Academic Status. Scholarship Grantees must immediately notify the IHS Area Coordinator if they are placed on academic probation, dismissed from school, or voluntarily withdraw for any reason (personal or medical).
• Change of Health Discipline. Scholarship Grantees may not change from the approved IHS Scholarship Program health discipline during the school year. If an unapproved change is made, scholarship payments will be discontinued.
• Change in Graduation Date. Any time that a change occurs in a scholarship grantee's expected graduation date, they must notify their IHS Area Coordinator immediately in writing. Justification must be attached from the school advisor.
Please address application inquiries to the appropriate IHS Area Coordinator. Other programmatic inquiries may be addressed to Mr. Jess Brien, Chief, Scholarship Branch, Indian Health Service, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 120, Rockville, Maryland 20852; Telephone (301) 443-6197. (This is not a toll free number.) For grants information, contact Mr. Bernard Covers Up, Grants Scholarship Coordinator, Division of Grants Policy, Indian Health Service, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 120, Rockville, Maryland 20852; Telephone (301) 443-5204. (This is not a toll-free number.)
Regulations at 42 CFR part 36.304 provide that the IHS shall, from time to time, publish a list of health professions eligible for consideration for the award of Indian Health Professions Preparatory and Pregraduate Scholarships and Indian Health Scholarships (Professions). Section 104(b)(1) of the IHCIA, as amended by the Indian Health Care Amendment of 1988, Public Law 100-713, authorizes the IHS to determine specific health professions for which Indian Health Scholarships will be awarded.
Interested individuals are reminded that the list of eligible health and allied health professions is effective for applicants for the 2005-2006 academic year. These priorities will remain in effect until superseded. Applicants for health and allied health professions not on the above priority list will be considered pending the availability of funds and dependent upon the availability of qualified applicants in the priority areas.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this request for comments announces that the Coast Guard has forwarded three Information Collection Reports (ICRs)—1625-0036, Plan Approval and Records for U.S. and Foreign Tank Vessels Carrying Oil in Bulk, 1625-0058, Application for Permit To Transport Municipal and Commercial Waste, and 1625-0061, Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Regulations—abstracted below, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comment by OIRA ensures that we impose only paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before February 18, 2005.
To make sure that your comments and related material do not enter the docket [USCG-2004-19085] more than once, please submit them by only one of the following means:
(1)(a) By mail to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. (b) By mail to OIRA, 725 17th St NW., Washington, DC 20503, to the attention of the Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
(2)(a) By delivery to room PL-401 at the address given in paragraph (1)(a) above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 366-9329. (b) By delivery to OIRA, at the address given in paragraph (1)(b) above, to the attention of the Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
(3) By fax to (a) the Facility at (202) 493-2298 and (b) OIRA at (202) 395-6566, or e-mail to OIRA at
(4)(a) Electronically through the Web Site for the Docket Management System at
The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet at
Copies of the complete ICR are available through this docket on the Internet at
Ms. Barbara Davis, Office of Information Management, (202) 267-2326, for questions on these documents; or Ms. Andrea M. Jenkins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, (202) 366-0271, for questions on the docket.
The Coast Guard invites comments on the proposed collection of information to determine whether the collections are necessary for the proper performance of
Comments to DMS or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the Information Collection Reports (ICR) addressed. Comments to DMS must contain the docket number of this request, [USCG 2004-19085]. Comments to OIRA are best assured of having their full effect if OIRA receives them on or before the 30th day after the publication of this request.
We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change the documents supporting this collection of information or even the underlying requirements in view of them.
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard has already published the 60-day notice required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2) (69 FR 56782, September 22, 2004). That notice elicited one comment to information collection 1625-0036. The commenter states that the information collection is not adequate to protect the U.S. coastal environment and suggests keeping satellite records of our coastline and requiring foreign ships to notify the Coast Guard prior to entering our waters. In general, the comment is beyond the scope of this information collection. Information collection 1625-0036 aids the Coast Guard in determining if a tank vessel complies with certain safety and environmental protection standards. Tank vessel design, construction and system operating information must be submitted and/or maintained on board for compliance with these standards. Details of the collection can be found in the supporting statement in the docket. COI 1625-0036 is one of a number of Coast Guard information collections related to environmental protection and maritime security. For example, COI 1625-0100—not part of this notice—relates to the Coast Guard requirement that certain vessels report to the Coast Guard 96 hours in advance of arrival to a U.S. port.
1.
2.
3.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of open teleconference meeting.
This notice announces a teleconference meeting of the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee (NOSAC) on the proposed formation of a NOSAC subcommittee. NOSAC will meet to discuss the formation of a subcommittee on the application of the
The teleconference call will take place on Thursday, February 3, 2005, from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. e.s.t. Written comments may be submitted on or before February 2, 2005.
Members of the public may participate by coming to Room 1303, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters Building, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593. We request that members of the public who plan to attend this meeting notify Mr. Jim Magill at (202) 267-1082 so that he may notify building security officials. Written comments should be sent to Commander J. M. Cushing, Executive Director of NOSAC, Commandant (G-MSO-2), 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001; or by faxing (202) 267-4570. This notice is available on the Internet at
Commander John Cushing, Executive Director of NOSAC, or Mr. Jim Magill, Assistant to the Executive Director, telephone (202) 267-1082, fax (202) 267-4570.
Members of the public may participate by dialing (202) 366-3920, Pass code: 9535. Public participation is welcome; however, the number of teleconference lines is limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2.
(1) Introduction of Committee members and the public.
(2) Discussion on forming a subcommittee on the application of the SOLAS Convention to the various types of offshore support vessels working in foreign locations.
(3) Committee vote on the formation of a subcommittee.
(4) Committee nominations and vote on subcommittee chairman.
The Chairman of NOSAC shall conduct the teleconference in a way that will, in his judgment, facilitate the orderly conduct of business. During the teleconference, the Committee welcomes public comment. The committee will make every effort to hear the views of all interested parties. Please note that the teleconference may close early if all business is finished. Written comments may be submitted on or before the day of the teleconference (
The teleconference will be recorded, and a summary will be available for the public review and copying 30 days following the teleconference meeting.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Mr. Jim Magill at (202) 267-1082 as soon as possible.
Office of Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice of Funding Availability from Fiscal Year 2003 Funds for the Public Housing Neighborhood Networks Program.
On April 25, 2003, HUD published a notice of funding availability (NOFA) announcing the availability of Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 funds for the Public Housing Neighborhood Networks (NN) program. This notice announces the availability of $947,098 in FY2003 NN funds. These funds were erroneously awarded to ineligible nonprofit organizations. Subsequently, the awards were cancelled.
Applicants should mail their applications to Dina Lehmann-Kim, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-5000. Applicants should consult the April 25, 2003, NOFA for additional mailing and receipt procedures.
Dina Lehmann-Kim at the above address; telephone (202) 708-4932 ext. 3410 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this telephone number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
On April 25, 2003 (68 FR 21509), HUD published a NOFA announcing the availability of $14,902,500 in FY2003 funds for the NN Program. Among the recipients of this funding were four nonprofit organizations. HUD later determined that these nonprofit organizations were ineligible to receive funding under the 2003 NOFA. Under section 9(d)(1)(E) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437g(d)(1)(E)), the provision of Capital Funds for the Neighborhood Networks program is limited to Public Housing Authorities (PHAs). HUD thus cancelled the awards to the ineligible nonprofit organizations.
This notice announces the availability of $947,098 in FY2003 funds for the Public Housing Neighborhood Networks program. These funds will be awarded under the same criteria published in the SuperNOFA on April 25, 2003 (68 FR 21002). Applicants should refer to the General Section of the SuperNOFA as well as to the Program Section in order to ensure that all application requirements are met. The General Section, Program Section, and required forms of the 2003 SuperNOFA may be downloaded from the following Web site:
This announcement also provides the due date for submitting applications for funding available under this notice.
The competition for the funding under this NOFA will be limited to the following four PHAs: (1) The District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA), (2) the Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee (HACM), (3) Memphis Housing Authority (MHA), and (4) the Schenectady Municipal Housing Authority (SMHA). These are the four PHAs whose residents would have been served by the four ineligible nonprofit organizations. Making these PHAs eligible to apply for this funding will help harmonize the error made by HUD and avoid compromising the benefits that otherwise would have been received by the residents.
The amounts to be awarded under this NOFA to the four PHAs are shown in the table below.
Office of the Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice.
On November 30, 2004, HUD published a notice that designated “Difficult Development Areas” for purposes of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 42). HUD makes new Difficult Development Area designations annually. This notice published in today's
For questions on how areas are designated and on geographic definitions: Alastair McFarlane, Senior Economist, Economic Development and Public Finance Division, Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-6000, telephone (202) 708-0426, e-mail
Copies Available Electronically: This notice and additional information about Difficult Development Areas and Qualified Census Tracts, including the November 30, 2004, publication are available electronically on the Internet (World Wide Web) at
On November 30, 2004 (69 FR 69730), HUD published a notice in the
HUD identified two technical errors in the November 30, 2004, publication, in FR Doc 04-26328, which are corrected by this notice published in today's edition of the
First, the following language was inadvertently included in the “Explanation of HUD Designation Methodology section,” under the heading C. Exceptions to OMB Definitions of MSAs/PMSAs and Other Geographic Matters (See 69 FR 69732 at end of first column continuing to second column.):
Certain nonmetropolitan county equivalent areas in Alaska for which FMRs and VLILs are calculated and thus form the basis of Difficult Development Area determinations are no longer recognized as geographic entities by the Bureau of the Census. Therefore, no 2000 Census population counts are produced for these areas. HUD estimated the 2000 population of these areas as follows:
1. The 2000 Population of Denali Borough (1,893) was allocated entirely to the Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area. The part of Denali Borough created from the Southeast Fairbanks Census Area was deemed uninhabited after examination of Census Block data for, and maps of, the area of Denali Borough formerly in the Southeast Fairbanks Census Area.
2. The population of Yakutat City and Borough (808) was allocated to the former Skagway-Yakutat-Angoon Census Area (680) and the Valdez-Cordova Census Area (128). The populations of Yakutat City and Borough Census Blocks located east of 141° west longitude were allocated to the Skagway-Yakutat-Angoon Census Area. The populations of Yakutat City and Borough Census Blocks located west of 141° west longitude were allocated to the Valdez-Cordova Census Area.
The above language was in error because in fact, HUD computed and published FY2004 Fair Market Rents and Very-Low Income Limits for all of the nonmetropolitan county equivalent areas in Alaska as demarcated in the 2000 Census. HUD used the FY2004 Fair Market Rents and Very-Low Income Limits to designate the 2005 Difficult Development Areas. Therefore, HUD did not use the above population allocation procedure in the designation of the 2005 Difficult Development Areas.
Second, in the table enumerating the 2005 Metropolitan Difficult Development Areas, the name of one of the towns in the Massachusetts part of the Boston, MA-NH PMSA did not appear due to a formatting error. The list of cities and towns in the Massachusetts part of the Boston, MA-NH PMSA
Office of Inspector General, (HUD).
Notice of planned closing of the Memphis, Tennessee post-of-duty station.
This notice advises the public that HUD Office of Inspector General (OIG) plans to close its Memphis, Tennessee post-of-duty station, and also provides a cost-benefit analysis of the impact of this closure.
Bryan Saddler, Counsel to the Inspector General, Room 8260, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-4500, 202-708-1613 (this is not a toll free number). A telecommunications device for hearing- and speech—impaired persons (TTY) is available at 1-800-877-8339 (Federal Information Relay Services).
The Memphis, Tennessee post-of-duty station was opened in the middle 1980s to address fraud throughout the State of Tennessee. Later, the Nashville, Tennessee office—which is centrally located, and, thus, better situated geographically to address fraud statewide—was opened. In September 2004, one of the two agents assigned to Memphis was promoted and transferred to Texas. HUD/OIG has determined that greater efficiency and cost-savings can be achieved by now consolidating staff and resources in the centrally located Nashville office.
Section 7(p) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(p)) provides that a plan for field reorganization, which may involve the closing of any field or regional office, of the Department of Housing and Urban Development may not take effect until 90 days after a cost-benefit analysis of the effect of the plan on the office in question is published in the
Legislative history pertaining to section 7(p) indicates that not all reorganizations are subject to the requirements of section 7(p). Congress stated that “[t]his amendment is not intended to [apply] to or restrict the internal operations or organization of the Department (such as the establishment of new or combination of existing organization units within a field office, the duty stationing of employees in various locations to provide on-site service, or the establishment or closing, based on workload, of small, informal offices such as valuation stations).” (See House Conference Report No. 95-1792, October 14, 1978 at 58.) Through this notice, HUD/OIG advises the public of the closing of the Memphis, Tennessee duty station and provides the cost benefit analysis of the impact of the closure.
Impact Of The Closure Of The Memphis, Tennessee, Post-Of-Duty Station: HUD/OIG considered the costs and benefits of closing the Memphis, Tennessee post-of-duty station, and is publishing its cost-benefit analysis with this notice. In summary, HUD/OIG has determined that the closure will result in a cost savings, and, as a result of the size and limited function of the office, will cause no appreciable impact on the provision of authorized investigative services/activities in the area.
A.
B.
C.
D.
For the reasons stated in this notice, HUD/OIG intends to proceed to close its Memphis, Tennessee post-of-duty station at the expiration of the 90-day period from the date of publication of this notice.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the Osage Tribe's Liquor Control Ordinance. The Ordinance regulates and controls the possession, sale and consumption of liquor within the Osage Indian Reservation and Osage Indian Country. The land is located on trust land and this Ordinance allows for the possession and sale of alcoholic beverages within the Osage Tribe's Reservation and Osage Indian Country and will increase the ability of the tribal government to control the tribe's liquor distribution and possession, and at the same time will provide an important source of revenue for the continued operation and strengthening of the tribal government and the delivery of tribal services.
This Act is effective on January 19, 2005.
Karen Ketcher, Regional Tribal Government Officer, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office, PO Box 8002, Muskogee, OK 74402-8002, Phone 918-781-4685, Fax 918-781-4649; or Ralph Gonzales, Office of Tribal Services, 1951
Pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, Public Law 83-277, 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. 1161, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in
This notice is published in accordance with the authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
I certify that this Liquor Ordinance, of the Osage Tribe, was duly adopted by the Tribal Council on August 4, 2004.
This Act may be cited as the “Osage Tribe Liquor Control Ordinance.”
(a) It is necessary to strengthen the government of the Osage Tribe of Indians by exercising the specific grant of authority contained in Act of June 28, 1906, 34 Stat. 539, as amended, and interpreted by subsequent judicial decisions, to levy and collect taxes and fees, to license and regulate certain conduct within the jurisdiction of the Osage Tribe, to provide financing for the current expenses of the tribal government, and to provide financing for the expansion of tribal government operations and services in order for the Osage Tribe to efficiently and effectively exercise its confirmed inherent sovereignty and governmental responsibilities within the jurisdiction of the Osage Tribe.
(b) The purpose of this Ordinance is to regulate the sale, possession and use of alcoholic liquor on the Osage Indian Reservation and other lands subject to Tribal jurisdiction, and to provide simple, fair, straightforward and efficient procedures for the levy and collection of certain taxes and fees and the licensing and regulation of certain conduct.
(c) The enactment of a tribal ordinance governing liquor possession and sale on the Osage Indian Reservation and Osage Indian Country will increase the ability of the tribal government to control the sale, distribution and possession of liquor and will provide an important source of revenue for the continued operation and strengthening of the tribal government and the delivery of tribal government services.
(a) The introduction, possession, and sale of liquor in the Osage Indian Reservation and Osage Indian Country are a matter of special concern to the Osage Tribe.
(b) Federal law forbids the introduction, possession and sale of liquor in Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1154 and other statutes), except when the same is in conformity both with the laws of the State and Tribe (18 U.S.C. 1161). As such, compliance with this ordinance shall be in addition to, and not a substitute for, compliance with the laws of the State of Oklahoma or other state where the Osage Indian Reservation and/or Osage Indian Country is located.
(c) The Osage Tribal Council finds that a complete ban on liquor within the Osage Indian Reservation and Osage Indian Country is ineffective and unrealistic. However, it recognizes that a need still exists for strict regulation and control over liquor transactions within the Osage Indian Reservation and Osage Indian Country because of the many potential problems associated with the unregulated or inadequately regulated sale, possession, distribution, and consumption of liquor. The Osage Tribal Council finds that tribal control and regulation of liquor is necessary to achieve maximum economic benefit to the Tribe, to protect the health and welfare of tribal members, and to address specific concerns relating to alcohol use on the Osage Indian Reservation and Osage Indian Country.
(d) It is in the best interests of the Osage Tribe to enact a tribal ordinance governing liquor sales on the Osage Indian Reservation and Osage Indian Country, which provides for purchase, distribution, and sale of liquor only on tribal lands within the exterior boundaries of the Osage Indian Reservation and in Osage Indian Country wherever located. Further, the Tribe has determined that said purchase, distribution, and sale shall take place only at a tribally-owned gaming facility complex or at such other location duly licensed by the Osage Tribe.
The Osage Tribal Council, as the sole governing body of the Osage Tribe of Indians, hereby affirmatively declares, asserts, and extends the jurisdiction of the Osage Tribe over the Osage Indian Reservation and all Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151, within the exterior boundaries of the Osage Indian Reservation, as described in the Act of June 5, 1872, 17 Stat. 220, except that portion purchased by the Kaws, and all Osage Indian Country wherever located.
The scope of this ordinance shall extend to all persons or legal entities receiving licenses hereunder, or doing business within the Tribal jurisdiction, or having significant contacts within the Tribal jurisdiction, or residing within the Tribal jurisdiction, or entering or coming within the Tribal jurisdiction, or consuming, possessing, manufacturing or distributing alcohol within the Tribal jurisdiction. All such persons or entities shall be deemed to have consented to the jurisdiction of the Osage Tribe of Indians and to the provisions of this Act, the operation thereof, and to the jurisdiction and authority of the Osage Tribe of Indians, and shall, by virtue of such actions, be deemed to have waived all jurisdictional defenses to the jurisdiction and venue of the Osage Tribe of Indians and the Osage Tribal Court, notwithstanding that such persons or legal entities may be of non-Indian descent or character.
If any provision or application of this ordinance is determined by review to be invalid, such determination shall not be held to render ineffectual the remaining portions of this ordinance or to render such provisions inapplicable to other persons or circumstances. Any and all prior liquor control enactments of the Tribal Council which are inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby rescinded and repealed.
This ordinance may only be amended by a vote of the Osage Tribal Council, the governing body of the Osage Tribe. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to diminish or impair in any way the rights or sovereign powers of the Osage Tribe or its tribal government.
The Osage Tribal Council, as the sole governing body of the Osage Tribe of
The sovereign immunity of the Tribe and any elected Tribal council member or tribal official and the Osage Nation Tax Commission with respect to any action taken in an official capacity under this ordinance, or in the exercise of the official powers of any such office, in any action filed in any court with respect thereto, may only be waived by a formal resolution of the Tribal Council. All waivers shall be unequivocally expressed in such resolution. No waiver of the Tribe's sovereign immunity from suit may be implied from any action or document. Waivers of sovereign immunity in a Tribal Council resolution shall not be general but shall be specific and limited as to duration, grantee, action, and property or funds, if any, of the Tribe or any agency of the tribe subject thereto. No express waiver of sovereign immunity by resolution of the Tribal Council shall be deemed a consent to the levy of any judgment, lien or attachment upon property of the Tribe or any agency of the Tribe other than property specifically pledged or assigned therein. Any consent to arbitration agreed to by the Tribe in any contract shall not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity unless it conforms to this section, and the Tribe hereby expressly retains its sovereign immunity from suit.
This ordinance shall be effective on such date as the Secretary of the Interior certifies this ordinance and publishes the same in the
As used in this Ordinance, the following words shall have the following meaning unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
(a) “
(b) “
(c) “
(d) “
(e) “
(f) “
(g) “
(h) “
(i) “
(j) “
(k) “
(l) “
(m) “
(n) “
(o) “
(p) “
(q) “
(r) “
(s) “
(t) “
(u) “
(v) “
(w) “
(a)
(1) To publish and enforce rules and regulations governing licensing and the sale, manufacture, distribution, and possession of alcoholic beverages on the Osage Indian Reservation and Osage Indian Country. Such rules and regulations shall not be inconsistent with the rules and regulations of the State of Oklahoma and shall be approved by the Osage Tribal Council prior to taking effect;
(2) To employ managers, accountants, security personnel, inspectors and such other persons as shall be reasonably necessary to allow the Osage Nation Tax Commission to perform its function. Such employees shall be tribal employees;
(3) To bring suit in the Tribal Court or other appropriate Court to enforce this ordinance as necessary;
(4) To issue licenses permitting the sale of liquor on the Osage Indian Reservation and other lands subject to Tribal jurisdiction;
(5) To determine and seek damages for violation of the ordinance;
(6) To make such reports as may be required by the Osage Tribal Council;
(7) Keep accurate records, books and accounts; and
(8) To exercise such other powers as is necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of this ordinance.
(b)
(1) Accept any gratuity, compensation or other thing of value from any liquor wholesaler, retailer, or distributor or from any licensee; or
(2) Waive the immunity of the Osage Tribe from suit without the express written consent and resolution of the Tribal Council in accordance with Section 8.
(c)
(a)
(b)
(1) Satisfactory proof that the applicant is duly licensed by the State of Oklahoma to sell alcoholic beverages;
(2) The description and location of the premises in which the alcoholic beverages are to be sold and proof that the applicant is entitled to use such premises for such purposes for the duration of the time period of the license;
(3) Agreement by the applicant to accept and abide by all conditions of the license as established by the Osage Nation Tax Commission; and
(4) Payment of a fee established by the Osage Nation Tax Commission;
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
The introduction and possession of liquor consistent with this ordinance shall be lawful within Indian Country under the jurisdiction of the Osage Tribe and within the exterior boundaries of the Osage Indian Reservation only when such activities are in conformity with this Ordinance. All other purchases and sales of liquor within the Osage Indian Reservation and Osage Indian Country shall be prohibited.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a) In any proceeding under this ordinance, conviction of one unlawful sale or distribution of liquor shall establish prima facie intent of unlawfully keeping liquor for sale, selling liquor or distributing liquor in violation of this ordinance.
(b) Any person who buys liquor within the boundaries of the Osage Indian Reservation and Osage Indian Country contrary to this ordinance shall be guilty of a violation of this ordinance.
(c) Any person who sells or offers for sale any liquor within the boundaries of the Osage Indian Reservation and Osage Indian Country contrary to this ordinance shall be guilty of a violation of this ordinance.
(d) Any person who shall operate a liquor product outlet or tavern within the boundaries of the Osage Indian Reservation and Osage Indian Country without first obtaining a current and valid Tribal license under this Ordinance shall be considered to be in violation of all federal Indian liquor laws and regulations as well as in violation of this Ordinance.
(e) Any person who keeps or possesses liquor upon his person or in any place or on premises conducted or maintained by his principal or agent with the intent to sell or distribute it contrary to the provisions of this title, shall be guilty of a violation of this ordinance.
(f) Any person who knowingly sells liquor to a person under the influence of liquor shall be guilty of a violation of this ordinance. No person shall sell liquor to any buyer when, from the physical appearance of the buyer at the time of the sale, it could be reasonably believed or understood that the buyer was intoxicated.
(g) Any person engaged wholly or in part in the business of carrying passengers for hire, and every agent, servant, or employee of such person, who shall knowingly permit any person to drink liquor in any public conveyance, shall be guilty of an offense. Any person who shall drink liquor in a public conveyance shall be guilty of a violation of this ordinance.
(h) No person under the age of 21 years shall consume, acquire or have in his possession any liquor or alcoholic beverage. No person shall permit any other person under the age of 21 to consume liquor on his premises or any premises under his control except in those situations set out in this section. Any person who shall sell or provide any liquor to any person under the age of 21 years shall be guilty of a violation of this ordinance for each sale or drink provided. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a separate violation of this ordinance for each and every drink so consumed.
(i) Any person who transfers in any manner an identification of age to a person under the age of 21 years for the purpose of permitting such person to obtain liquor shall be guilty of an offense, provided that corroborative testimony of a witness other than the underage person shall be a requirement of finding a violation of this ordinance.
(j) Any person who attempts to purchase an alcoholic beverage through the use of false or altered identification which falsely purports to show the individual to be over the age of 21 years shall be guilty of violating this ordinance.
(k) When requested by the provider of liquor, any person shall be required to present official documentation of the bearer's age, signature and photograph. Official documentation includes any one or more of the following:
(1) Driver's license or identification card issued by any state department of motor vehicles;
(2) Tribal enrollment card, Tribal identification card or Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) card showing date of birth and photograph;
(3) United States Active Duty Military; or
(4) Passport.
(l) Liquor which is possessed, including for sale, contrary to the terms of this ordinance is declared to be contraband. Any tribal agent, employee or officer who is authorized by the Tribal Council or Osage Nation Tax Commission, including law enforcement officers under a cross-deputization agreement, to enforce this section shall seize all contraband and preserve it in accordance with the provisions established for the reservation of impounded property. Upon being found in violation of this ordinance, the party shall forfeit all right, title and interest in the items seized which shall become the property of the Osage Tribe.
(m) Alcoholic liquor shall not be given as a prize, premium or consideration for a lottery, contest, game of chance or skill, or competition of any kind.
(n) For the purpose of obtaining information concerning any matter related to the administration or enforcement of this ordinance, the Tribe or any person appointed by it in writing for that purpose, may inspect the books and records of any licensee doing business on the Osage Indian Reservation and Osage Indian Country. Every person who neglects or refuses to produce or submit to inspection any records referred to in this section when requested to do so shall be guilty of a violation of this ordinance.
(o) Any person guilty of a violation of this ordinance, except non-payment of liquor taxes due, shall be liable to pay to the Osage Tribe the amount of up to $5,000 per violation as civil damages to defray the Tribe's cost of enforcement of this ordinance, and may be subject to criminal prosecution under tribal law, or under state law if non-Indian. The Tribal Court shall not issue any order or injunction closing any business for a violation of this ordinance without granting to the defendant the opportunity to have a full evidentiary and adversary hearing before the Tribal Court.
(p) All persons found to have violated this ordinance, except for non-payment of liquor taxes, shall be reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney for the purpose of requesting a federal criminal prosecution of such persons or entities for violation of Federal Indian liquor laws.
(a) Nothing in this Ordinance shall apply to or prevent the sale of liquor by any person to the Tribe.
(b) Nothing in this Ordinance shall apply to alcoholic beverages used in a bona fide religious ceremony.
(c) Nothing in this Ordinance shall apply to or prevent sale, purchase or consumption of:
(1) Any pharmaceutical preparation containing liquor which is prepared by a druggist according to a formula of the pharmacopoeia of the United States, or the dispensatory of the United States; or
(2) Away proprietary or patent medicine; or
(3) Wood alcohol or denatured alcohol, except in the case or the sale, purchase, or consumption of wood alcohol or denatured alcohol for beverage purposes, either alone or combined with any other liquid or substance.
(4) Cooking Wine used in cooking.
(d) Nothing in this Ordinance shall apply to wine or beer manufactured in any home for consumption therein, and not for sale.
(e) Nothing in this Ordinance shall apply to alcoholic beverages possessed by an individual in his/her home for private consumption therein.
(a) Any room, house, building, vehicle, structure, or other place where liquor is sold, manufactured, bartered, exchanged, given away, furnished, or otherwise disposed of in violation of the provisions of this ordinance or of any other tribal law relating to the manufacture, importation, transportation, possession, distribution and sale of liquor, and all property kept in and used in maintaining such place, is hereby declared to be a nuisance.
(b) The Osage Nation Tax Commission shall institute and maintain an action in the Tribal Court in the name of the Tribe to abate and perpetually enjoin any nuisance declared under this article. In addition to other remedies at tribal law, the Tribal Court may also order the room, house, building, vehicle, structure, or place closed for a period of 1 year or until the owner, lessee, tenant, or occupant thereof shall give bond of a sufficient sum from $1,000 to $15,000, depending upon the severity of past offenses, the risk of offenses in the future and other appropriate criteria, payable to the Tribe and conditions that liquor will not be thereafter manufactured, kept, sold, bartered, exchanged, given away, furnished, or otherwise disposed of in violation of the provisions of this ordinance or of any other violation of this ordinance or other tribal liquor laws. If any conditions of the bond are violated, the bond may be applied to satisfy any amount due to the Tribe under this ordinance.
(c) In all cases where any person has been found in violation of this ordinance relating to the manufacture, importation, transportation, possession, distribution, and sale of liquor, an action may be brought to abate as a nuisance any real estate or other property involved in the violation of the ordinance and violation of this ordinance shall be prima facie evidence that the room, house, building, vehicle, structure, or place against which such action is brought is a public nuisance.
Prior to a liquor license being granted to any applicant, and prior to renewal of any liquor license, the applicant must provide proof of liability insurance to the Osage Nation Tax Commission.
Revenue received by the Tribe under this ordinance, from whatever source, shall be expended for administrative costs incurred in the enforcement of this ordinance. Excess funds shall be subject to appropriation by the Tribal Council for essential governmental and social services, including the use of revenues to combat alcohol abuse and its debilitating effects among individuals and family members with the Osage Tribe.
I hereby certify that the above and foregoing Liquor Control Ordinance is the Ordinance adopted by the Osage Tribal Council on the 4th day of August 2004, pursuant to Resolution No. 3846.
Attested by:
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
In order to facilitate temporary operations and protect resources in the event of severe seasonal storms and/or natural disasters, the Ukiah Field Office is hereby serving notice that it will be adopting a temporary closure policy to be enacted on an as-needed basis when basic criteria are met. The policy will be in place for up to one year, or upon completion of the Ukiah RMP. The closure will be invoked or lifted through notices in news media outlets, information hot lines and on-the-ground postings. The lands covered by this temporary closure include all public lands administered by the Ukiah Field Office within the South Cow Mountain Recreation Area. Public notices listed on information lines will specify which public lands will be temporarily closed, and will reflect local conditions. One of the following criteria shall be met to temporarily close the area:
(1) State, County or Federal road access to the area is closed or restricted to residents and emergency personnel;
(2) BLM or emergency response personnel cannot access and/or perform their duties in a given location;
(3) Roads or trails are saturated with moisture to the point where vehicle traffic causes ruts or bogs leading to increased erosion. Moisture criteria are detailed in the
(1) Federal, State, or local law enforcement officers, while engaged in the execution of their official duties.
(2) BLM personnel or their representatives while engaged in execution of their official duties.
(3) Any member of an organized rescue, fire-fighting force, and/or emergency medical services organization while in the performance and execution of an official duty.
(4) Any member of a Federal, State, or local public works department while in the performance of an official duty.
(5) Any person in receipt of a written authorization of exemption obtained from the Ukiah Field Office.
(6) Local landowners, persons with valid existing rights or lease operations, or representatives thereof, who have a responsibility or need to access their property or to continue their operations on public land.
(7) Human use and associated foot traffic into the area during the closure period are exempt from this closure restriction.
This policy will become effective October 1, 2004, and shall remain in effect for up to one year, or upon completion of the Ukiah RMP.
Rich Burns, field manager, BLM Ukiah Field Office, 2550 North State St., Ukiah, CA 95482. Telephone: (707) 468-4000.
These closures and restrictions are under the authority of 43 CFR 8364.1. Persons violating this closure shall be subject to the penalties provided in 43 CFR 8360.0-7, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment not to exceed 12 months. Parties exempt from the closure action shall be responsible for mitigating any resource damage caused by entering the closed area. Waivers can be granted for emergency circumstances; however, in the event an emergency is caused by a negligent action, the responsible party would then be responsible for the mitigation.
Criteria for weather-related emergency closures at the South Cow Mountain Off-Highway-Vehicle Recreation area are as follows: No action would be taken until the annual total precipitation exceeds 6 inches. The rain year would be the same as that used by the National Weather Service and rainfall data would be acquired from the California Water Resources Board, nearest available rain gauge. Once 6 inches of precipitation has been exceeded, the following would apply: Additional rainfall exceeding
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of emergency closure.
Notice is hereby given that certain lands are temporarily closed to motor vehicle use, discharge of firearms, and livestock grazing.
The closed area is locally known as the Poison Spider Shooting Area. The public lands affected by this closure are lands administered by the BLM and described as: part of the North
The Poison Spider Shooting Area has been subject to various uses that cumulatively present a hazard to the general public and has resulted in the destruction of public resources. Unrestricted shooting endangers persons traveling on Poison Spider Road (Natrona County Road 201), Natrona County employees working at a gravel pit to the northwest of the site, employees of the Casper-Alcova Irrigation District performing maintenance on the Casper Canal, and threatens livestock authorized to graze on the public lands.
Various items of refuse such as refrigerators and propane tanks have been dumped at the site and used as targets for firearms. This may lead to the release of toxic substances into the air and/or soil and may result in explosive situations. The shooting of illegally dumped materials poses a potentially dangerous health hazard to individuals who live and work in this area.
Uncontrolled vehicle use has resulted in the destruction of public resources, including vegetation loss, soil compaction, intensive rutting and soil erosion.
The Natrona County Road and Bridge Department has agreed to assist the BLM in cleaning up the site. Upon completion of the clean-up, fencing the perimeter and posting signs, acts prohibited by this notice will be enforced.
The closure will be effective when published in the
Don Whyde, Casper Field Office, 2987 Prospector Drive, Casper, Wyoming, 82604, telephone (307) 261-7600.
1. Motor vehicle use is prohibited in the closed area.
2. Discharging of firearms is prohibited in the closed area.
3. Livestock grazing is prohibited in the closed area.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
Notice is hereby given, in accordance with Pub. L. 92-463 and 94-579, that the California Desert District Advisory Council to the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, will meet in formal session on Friday, April 1, 2005, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Saturday, April 2 from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. The meeting will be held in the conference room in the Ramada Inn, located at 1511 East Main Street in Barstow, California.
Tentative agenda items include the following:
All Desert District Advisory Council meetings are open to the public. Time
Written comments may be filed in advance of the meeting for the California Desert District Advisory Council, c/o Bureau of Land Management, Public Affairs Office, 22835 Calle San Juan De Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, California 92553. Written comments also are accepted at the time of the meeting and, if copies are provided to the recorder, will be incorporated into the minutes.
Doran Sanchez, BLM California Desert District Public Affairs Specialist (951) 697-5220.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Boise District Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will meet as indicated below.
The meeting will be held February 8, 2005, beginning at 9 a.m. and adjourning at 4 p.m. at the Marsing Community Center, located at 126 Bruneau Highway, Marsing, ID. Public comment periods will be held after topics on the agenda.
MJ Byrne, Public Affairs Officer and RAC Coordinator, Boise District, 3948 Development Ave., Boise, ID 83705, Telephone (208) 384-3393.
The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in southwestern Idaho. At this meeting, the following actions will occur/topics will be discussed:
• Election of officers;
• Subcommittee Reports:
○ Sage Grouse Habitat Management;
○ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service “Not Warranted” listing decision regarding Sage-Grouse;
○ Wind Energy Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, and an overview of Wind Energy projects in Idaho;
○ Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV) and Transportation Management;
○ Update on Off-Highway Vehicle Route Designation progress in the Boise District;
○ Resource Management Plans;
○ Update on draft alternatives for the Bruneau and Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area Resource Management Plans, and;
• River and Recreation Management.
• Tour of new Marsing Field Office;
• Hot Topics;
• Three Field Office Managers and District Fire Manager provide updates on current issues and planned activities in their Field Offices and the District.
Agenda items may change due to changing circumstances. All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided below. Expedited publication is requested to give the public adequate notice.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent to amend the Challis Resource Management Plan, Idaho.
Pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), this notice is to advise the public that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to amend the Challis Resource Management Plan (RMP). The amendment and associated environmental analysis would allow for the potential disposal of public land to Custer County for a solid waste disposal and transfer area near Mackay, Idaho.
The public scoping period for the proposal will commence with publication of this notice. Comments regarding this proposal must be submitted in writing to the address below within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Written comments regarding the proposed plan amendment and disposal of public land should be sent to: Attention: Realty Specialist. Challis Field Office, 801 Blue Mountain Road, Challis, Idaho 83226-9358; or they may be faxed to (208) 879-6219; or e-mailed to
Gail O'Neill, Associate Field Manager, at (208) 879-6250. To have your name added to our mailing list, contact Brenda Buckland at (208) 879-6200 or via e-mail at:
Custer County has asked the BLM to help them locate and acquire land that is suitable for a solid waste transfer site. Potential land disposal areas for this purpose are
The BLM will work collaboratively with interested parties to identify the management decisions that are best suited to local and regional needs as well as national needs and concerns. This notice initiates the public scoping process to identify specific issues related to the proposed amendment and NEPA process and the appropriate level of NEPA analysis that may be required.
At least one public meeting will be held in or near Mackay, Idaho to ensure the opportunity for local community participation and input. Early participation is encouraged. In addition to the public meeting, opportunities for public participation will be available during the development of alternatives and upon publication of the BLM proposed plan amendment and Notice of Realty Action. Notification of the proposal and updates will be sent to various State and local government agencies, interest groups, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, permittees, and other interested publics. All public meetings will be announced through the local news media and will be posted on the BLM Web site (
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The plats of survey described below are scheduled to be officially filed in the Arizona State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona, (30) thirty calendar days from the date of this publication.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines, homestead entry survey no. 401 and tract 37 and 38, and metes-and-bounds surveys in section 24, Township 30 North, Range 2 East, accepted November 18, 2004, and officially filed November 30, 2004, for Group 875 Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the United States Forest Service.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and the subdivision of section 17, Township 10 South, Range 9 East, accepted November 1, 2004, and officially filed November 5, 2004, for Group 931 Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Land Management.
The plat (3 sheets) representing the survey of the eighth standard parallel north (south boundary), the third guide meridian east (west boundary), the east and the north boundaries and the subdivisional lines, Townships 33 North, Range 13 East, accepted November 1, 2004, and officially filed November 10, 2004 for Group 885 Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western Region and Navajo Regional Office.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the north boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines, and a portion of the subdivision of section 3; and the subdivision of section 3 and the metes-and-bounds survey in section 3, Township 9 North, Range 23 East, accepted October 4, 2004, and officially filed October 8, 2004 for Group 929 Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the United States Forest Service.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of the sixth standard parallel north (south boundary), the sixth guide meridian east (east boundary) and a portion of the north boundary, and the survey of a portion of the north boundary, and the subdivisional lines, Township 25 North, Range 24 East, accepted November 12, 2004, and officially filed November 19, 2004 for Group 863 Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo Regional Office.
The plat (2 sheets) representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and a portion of the subdivision of sections 22, 23, 26 and 35 and the subdivision of a portion of sections 22, 23, and 26, and the metes-and-bounds survey in sections 23, 26, and 35, Township 8 North, Range 27 East, accepted December 8, 2004, and officially filed December 14, 2004 for Group 910 Arizona.
This plat was prepared at the request of the United States Forest Service.
The supplemental plat representing sections 27, 28k, 33 and 34 in Township 16 South, Range 30 East, accepted November 8, 2004, and officially filed November 19, 2004.
This supplemental plat was prepared at the request of the United States Forest Service.
If a protest against a survey, as shown on any of the above plats is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed and become final or appeals from the dismissal affirmed.
A person or party who wishes to protest against any of these surveys must file a written protest with the Arizona State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest.
A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest to the State Director, or the statement of reasons must be filed with the State Director within thirty (30) days after the protest is filed.
These plats will be available for inspection in the Arizona State Office, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 1552, Phoenix, Arizona, 85001-1552.
Minerals Management Service, Interior.
Preparation of an environmental assessment.
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) is issuing this notice to advise the public, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321
Mr. Dennis Chew, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, MS 5410, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394. You may also contact Mr. Chew by telephone at (504) 736-2793.
In November 2002, MMS prepared a Multisale EIS that addressed nine proposed Federal actions that offer for lease areas on the GOM OCS that may contain economically recoverable oil and gas resources. Federal regulations allow for several related or similar proposals to be analyzed in one EIS (40 CFR 1502.4). Since each proposed lease sale and its projected activities are very similar each year for each planning area, a single EIS was prepared for the nine Central Planning Area (CPA) and WPA lease sales scheduled in the OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2002-2007 (the 5-Year Program). Under the 5-Year Program, five annual areawide lease sales are scheduled for the CPA (Lease Sales 185, 190, 194, 198, and 201) and five annual areawide lease sales are scheduled for the WPA (Lease Sales 184, 187, 192, 196, and 200). Lease Sale 184 was not addressed in the Multisale EIS; a separate EA was prepared for that proposal. The Multisale EIS addressed CPA Lease Sales 185, 190, 194, 198, and 201 scheduled for 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, respectively, and WPA Lease Sales 187, 192, 196, and 200 scheduled for 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, respectively. Although the Multisale EIS addresses nine proposed lease sales, at the completion of the EIS process, decisions were made only for proposed CPA Lease Sale 185 and proposed WPA Lease Sale 187. In the year prior to each subsequent proposed lease sale, an additional NEPA review will be conducted to address any new information relevant to that proposed action. After completion of the EA, MMS will determine whether to prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or a Supplemental EIS. The MMS will then prepare and send Consistency Determinations (CD's) to the affected States to determine whether Lease Sale 196 is consistent with their federally-approved State coastal zone management programs. Finally, MMS will solicit comments via the Proposed Notice of Sale (PNOS) from the governors of the affected States on the size, timing, and location of Lease Sale 196. The tentative schedule for the pre-lease decision process for Lease Sale 196 is as follows: EA FONSI or Supplemental EIS decision, March 2005; CD's sent to affected States, March 2005; PNOS sent to governors of the affected States, March 2005; Final Notice of Sale published in the
1. Comments may be submitted using MMS's new Public Connect on-line commenting system at
2. Written comments may be enclosed in an envelope labeled “Comments on WPA Lease Sale 196 EA” and mailed (or hand carried) to the Regional Supervisor, Leasing and Environment (MS 5410), Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394.
3. Comments may be sent to the MMS e-mail address:
To obtain single copies of the Multisale EIS, you may contact the Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, Attention: Public Information Office (MS 5034), 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, Room 114, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394 (1-800-200-GULF). You may also view the Multisale EIS or check the list of libraries that have copies of the Multisale EIS on the MMS Web site at
Pursuant to the authority contained in the “Act to establish the Point Reyes National Seashore in the State of California, and for other purposes, approved September 13, 1962” (Pub. L. 87-657; 76 Stat. 538, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 459c-1(a)), notice is hereby given that the boundary of Point Reyes National Seashore is modified to include approximately 2.50 acres of real property adjacent to the park's prior boundary. This adjustment is accomplished to include private property that the owners wish to sell to the United States for the use of Point Reyes National Seashore and which the National Park Service has concluded would be a valuable addition to the Seashore. The property is described below:
All that certain real property situate in the County of Marin, State of California, described below as follows:
Beginning at a point distant South 39° 56′ 50″ East 328 feet; South 79° 51′ 10″ West 208.98 feet; South 46° 22′ 20″ West 78.33 feet; North 88° 57′ 30″ West 23.68 feet; South 64° 00′ West 20.0 feet and South 69° 00′ East 102.0 feet from the Westerly extremity of the course in the center line of Dover Road described as South 50° 03′ 10″ West 61.25 feet in the Deed from Western Title Guaranty Company to Sanford Hirshen, recorded September 11, 1967, in Book 2156 O.R. at Page 524, Marin County Records, and running thence North 69° 00′ West 102.0 feet to the center line of a 40 foot roadway, thence along said center line of said 40 foot roadway North 64° 00′ East 20.0 feet; thence leaving said center line South 88° 57′ 30″ East 23.68 feet North 46° 22′ 20″ East 78.33 feet and North 79° 51′ 10″ East 208.98 feet; thence South 39° 56′ 50″ East 164 feet more or less, to a point on the Southerly line of the tract of land conveyed to Marin County Abstract Company by Deed recorded November 16, 1951, in Book 717 O.R. at Page 409, Marin
An easement for roadway and utilities 40 feet wide, the center line of which is described as follows:
Beginning at the Westerly extremity of a course in the center line of Dover Road described as South 11° 42′ West 87.78 feet in the Deed from Western Title Guaranty Company to Sanford Hirshen, recorded September 11, 1967 in Book 2156 of Official Records, at page 524, Marin County Records, and running thence South 11° 42′ West 46.12 feet; South 62° 54′ West 92.0 feet; South 18° 00′ East 22.0 feet; South 49° 40′ East 59.0 feet; South 31° 21′ East 46.0 feet; South 64° 00′ West 90.0 feet; South 44° 30′ West 73.51 feet and North 61° 16′ West 96.67 feet.
Beginning at the Southwesterly extremity of the course set forth as “South 50° 03′ 10″ West 61.25 feet” in the Deed to Sanford Hirshen, recorded September 11, 1967 in Book 2156 of Official Records, at Page 524, being the centerline of a 50 foot roadway known as Dover Road, and running thence along said centerline on a curve to the left whose radius is 125 feet and whose center bears South 39° 56′ 50″ East a distance of 83.67 feet; thence South 11° 42′ West 133.9 feet to the centerline of a 40 foot roadway; thence along said centerline, South 62° 54′ West 92.0 feet, South 18° 00′ East 22.0 feet; South 49° 40′ East 59.0 feet and South 31° 21′ East 46.0 feet to an angle point in the Northerly line of Parcel One as described in the Deed to Christopher D. Burdick, et ux, recorded March 3, 1969 in Book 2278 of Official Records, at page 213; thence along the Northerly line of said Parcel, South 88° 57′ 30″ East 23.68 feet, North 46° 22′ 20″ East 78.33 feet and North 79° 51′ 20″ East 208.98 feet to the Northeasterly corner of said parcel so conveyed to Burdick and thence North 39° 56′ 50″ West 328.0 feet to the point of beginning.
An easement for roadway over Dover Road, Sunnyside Drive and Drakes View Drive as the same are established by deeds of record.
These revisions in the park boundary are depicted on Drawing No. 612/80,500 A, Segment Map 14, revised March 2, 2004. This map is on file and available for inspection, and further information regarding this boundary change is available, at the following addresses: Director, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 20240; Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service, 1111 Jackson St., Ste. 700, Oakland, CA 94607; Superintendent, Point Reyes National Seashore, Point Reyes Station, CA 94956.
In conducting the San Gabriel Watershed Special Resource Study, the NPS will evaluate the national significance of the area's natural and cultural resources. The NPS will also assess the area's suitability and feasibility to be a unit of the National Park System. Factors which the NPS study team will evaluate include: Whether the study area includes types or quality of resources not already adequately represented in the National Park System; whether long-term protection and public use of the area are feasible; and whether the area can be adequately protected and administered at a reasonable cost. The NPS's conclusions may vary for different portions of the study area.
The NPS will also consider: Alternative strategies for the management, protection and use of significant resources within the overall study area, including management by other public agencies or the private sector; technical or financial assistance available from established programs or special initiatives and partnerships; alternative designations to a national park unit and; cooperative management by NPS and other entities.
The authorizing statute directs the NPS to consider regional flood control and drainage needs and publicly owned infrastructure such as wastewater treatment facilities. Opportunities for increased open space and recreational opportunities will also be considered in the study.
For initial scoping and alternatives development, the most useful comments are those that provide the NPS with assistance in identifying issues and concerns which should be addressed, or providing important information germane to this study. All responses to this Notice will also be used to establish a mailing list of interested persons, organizations, and agencies that desire to receive further information as the environmental document is developed.
The public scoping period for the San Gabriel River Watershed Special Resource Study will conclude 90 days after the publication of this Scoping Notice in the
National Park Services, Department of the Interior.
Notice of availability of a record of decision on the final environmental impact statement for the final commercial services plan, Glacier National Park, Montana.
Pursuant to § 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Stat. 852, 853, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service announces the availability of the Record of Decision for the Final Commercial Services Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Glacier National Park, Montana. On August 20, 2004, the Director, Intermountain Region approved the Record of Decision for the project. As soon as practicable the National Park Service will begin to implement the Preferred Alternatives contained in the FEIS issued on July 9, 2004. The following actions were summarized from the Record of Decision and will occur under the preferred alternatives. The Final Commercial Services Plan identified a vision for commercial services in the park, identified those services that are “necessary and appropriate” according to criteria developed in accordance with Title IV of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998. Standards and prescriptions were developed to further describe how each service will be provided. The Plan also refined the visitor services zone as conceptually described in Glacier National Park's
These actions and alternatives were analyzed in the Draft and Final
The Record of Decision includes a statement of the decision made, synopses of other alternatives considered, the basis for the decision, a description of the environmentally preferable alternative, a finding on impairment of park resources and values, a listing of measures to minimize environmental harm, an overview of public involvement in the decision-making process, and a Statement of Findings.
Mary Riddle, Glacier National Park, West Glacier, Montana, 59936. (406) 888-7898,
Copies of the Record of Decision may be obtained from the contact listed above or online at
National Park Service, Interior.
Announcement of the National Park Subsistence Resource Commission (SRC) meetings.
The National Park Service (NPS) announces the SRC meeting schedule for the following NPS areas within the Alaska Region: Aniakchak National Monument, Cape Krusenstern National Monument, Denali National Park, Kobuk Valley National Park, Lake Clark National Park and Wrangell-St. Elias National Park. The purpose of each meeting is to continue work authorized and proposed in subsistence hunting program recommendations and other related subsistence management issues. Each meeting is open to the public. Each SRC meeting will have time allocated for hearing public comments. The public is welcomed to present written or oral comments to the SRC. Draft meeting minutes will be available for public inspection approximately six weeks after each meeting.
The NPS SRC program is authorized under Title VIII, Section 808, of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Public Law 96-487, to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The meeting times and locations are:
1. Kobuk Valley National Park SRC, Monday, February 7, 2005, from 9:30 a.m. to approximately 5 p.m. at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Conference Room in Kotzebue, AK.
2. Cape Krusenstern National Monument SRC, Tuesday, February 8, 2005, from 9:30 a.m. to approximately 5 p.m. at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Conference Room in Kotzebue, AK.
3. Lake Clark National Park SRC, Wednesday, February 16, 2005, from 1 p.m. to approximately 5 p.m. at the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve Visitor's Center, Port Alsworth, AK.
4. Wrangell-St. Elias National Park SRC, Wednesday, February 16 and Thursday, February 17, 2005, from 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Chistochina Community Hall, Chistochina, AK (approximately Mile Post 33.7 on the Tok Cut-Off Road).
5. Denali National Park SRC, Friday, February 18, 2005, from 9 a.m. to approximately 5 p.m. at the Cantwell Community Hall in Cantwell, AK.
6. Aniakchak National Monument SRC, Tuesday, February 22, 2005, from 1 p.m. to approximately 5 p.m. at the Chignik Lake Subsistence Office.
Locations and dates may need to be changed based on weather or local circumstances. Notice of each meeting will be published in local newspapers and announced on local radio stations prior to the meeting dates. The agendas for each meeting include the following:
1. Call to order (SRC Chair).
2. SRC roll call and confirmation of quorum.
3. SRC Chair and Superintendent's welcome and introductions.
4. Review and approve agenda.
5. Review and adopt minutes from last meeting.
6. Review Commission purpose and status of membership.
7. Commission member reports.
8. Superintendent and NPS staff reports.
9. Federal Subsistence Board: Review wildlife and fisheries proposals, reports and board actions.
10. 2004 SRC Chairs workshop update.
11. New business.
12. Agency and public comments.
13. SRC work session. Prepare correspondence and recommendations.
14. Set time and place of next SRC meeting.
15. Adjournment.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of availability of the draft environmental impact statement (EIS).
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (as amended), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), as lead Federal agency, has made available for public review and comment a Draft EIS for the Central Valley Project Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewals—American River Division. The Draft EIS describes and presents the environmental effects of four alternatives, including no action, for renewal of water service contracts to American River Division contractors that include; the City of Roseville, East Bay Municipal District, El Dorado Irrigation District, Placer County Water Agency, Sacramento County Water Agency, Sacramento Municipal Utilities District, and San Juan Water District.
Written comments on the Draft EIS will be accepted on or before March 21, 2005.
Send comments on the Draft EIS to Mr. David Robinson, Bureau of Reclamation, American River Division LTCR, 7794 Folsom Dam Road, Folsom, CA 95630-1799.
Copies of the Draft EIS may be requested from Ms. Sammie Cervantes, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825 or by calling 916-978-5104, TDD 916-978-5608. See Supplementary Information section for locations where copies of the Draft EIS are available for public review.
David Robinson, Environmental Specialist, Bureau of Reclamation, at 916-989-7179, TDD 916-989-7285.
The Draft EIS will address impacts related to renewal of long-term water service contracts delivering Central Valley Project water for irrigation and municipal and industrial uses to seven districts in the American River Division. The Draft EIS will describe and analyze the effects of contract renewals on fish resources, vegetation and wildlife, hydrology and water quality, recreation, visual and cultural resources, land use, geology and soils, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, and hazards and hazardous materials.
Copies of the Draft EIS are available for public review at the following locations:
• Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Office Library, Building 67, Room 167, Denver Federal Center, 6th and Kipling, Denver, CO 80225, 303-445-2072;
• Bureau of Reclamation, Office of Public Affairs, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825-1898, 916-978-5100;
• Bureau of Reclamation, Central California Area Office, 7794 Folsom Dam Road, Folsom, CA 95630, 916-988-1707;
• Natural Resources Library, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Main Interior Building, Washington, DC 20240-0001.
Reclamation's practice is to make comments including names and home addresses of respondents available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from public disclosure, which will be honored to the extent allowable by law. There may be circumstances in which a respondent's identity may also be withheld from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish to have your name and/or address withheld, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
International Trade Commission.
Institution of investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 17, 2004, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Marvell International, Ltd. of Bermuda. A supplement to the complaint was filed on January 3, 2005. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain network controllers and products containing same by reason of infringement of claims 68, 70, and 71 of U.S. Patent No. 6,462,688, and claims 22-32, 54, and 55 of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,529. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order.
The complaint and supplement, except for any confidential information contained therein, are available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
Rett Snotherly, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone 202-205-2599.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2004).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain network controllers and products containing same by reason of infringement of claims 68, 70, or 71 of U.S. Patent No. 6,462,688, or claims 22-32, 54, or 55 of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,529, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is—Marvell International, Ltd., Canon's Court, 22 Victoria Street, Hamilton HM 12, Bermuda.
(b) The respondents are the following companies alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
Realtek Semiconductor Corporation, No. 2, Industry East Road IX, 41 Science-Based Industrial Park, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan.
Real Communications, Inc., 2870 Zanker Road, Suite 110, San Jose, CA 95134.
(c) Rett Snotherly, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 401-O, Washington, DC 20436, who shall be the Commission investigative attorney, party to this investigation; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Honorable Charles E. Bullock is designated as the presiding administrative law judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received no later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter both an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of a limited exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against such respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, 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 requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed revision of the “Consumer Price Index Commodities and Services Survey.” A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
Send comments to Amy A. Hobby, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 4080, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Washington, DC 20212, telephone number 202-691-7628. (This is not a toll free number.)
Amy A. Hobby, BLS Clearance Officer, telephone number 202-691-7628. (
Under the direction of the Secretary of Labor, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is directed by law to collect, collate, and report full and complete statistics on the conditions of labor and the products and distribution of the products of the same; the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is one of these statistics. The collection of data from a wide spectrum of retail establishments and government agencies is essential for the timely and accurate calculation of the Commodities and Services (C&S) component of the CPI.
The CPI is the only index compiled by the U.S. Government that is designed to measure changes in the purchasing power of the urban consumer's dollar. The CPI is a measure of the average change in prices over time paid by urban consumers for a market basket of goods and services.
The CPI is used most widely as a measure of inflation, and serves as an indicator of the effectiveness of government economic policy. It also is used as a deflator of other economic series, that is, to adjust other series for price changes and to translate these series into inflation-free dollars. A third major use of the CPI is to adjust income payments. Almost two million workers are covered by collective bargaining contracts which provide for increases in wage rates based on increases in the CPI.
The continuation of the collection of prices for the CPI is essential since the CPI is the nation's chief source of information on retail price changes. If the information on C&S prices were not collected, Federal fiscal and monetary policies would be hampered due to the lack of information on price changes in a major sector of the U.S. economy, and estimates of the real value of the Gross National Product could not be made. The consequences to both the Federal and private sectors would be far-reaching and would have serious repercussions on Federal government policy and institutions.
The Telephone Point of Purchase Survey (TPOPS) is a household survey used to identify the universe of outlets from which sampled outlets are selected. A quarter of the CPI's priced geographic areas are surveyed each year, so that over a four year period the entire outlet sample is reselected.
A new initiative to reinitiate a subset of the currently priced item sample in existing outlets to account for new goods has recently been deployed. This initiative is referred to as Item Rotation. Item rotation is a process that allows for the inclusion of new goods when reinitiating existing quotes within currently priced outlets and enables the item sample to be refreshed without the expense and delay of a full TPOPS rotation. Item rotation is completed at
A key element completed during 2004 was to convert all on going data collection and transmission to electronic systems. The introduction of a Computer-Assisted Data Collection (CADC) for the C&S portion of the CPI has resulted in significant advantages by increasing productivity and improving the overall quality of the CPI. Electronic data collection and transmission provide long-term savings through a major reduction of mail, paperwork, and printing costs. Electronic systems allow for price collection to cover the entire month, reduce data capture mistakes, speed up review time, and to improve survey logistics management.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:
• 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,
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 also will become a matter of public record.
Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Public notice.
The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress is announcing receipt of three notices of intent to audit preexisting subscription services that transmit sound recordings under statutory licenses. The audits intend to verify statements of account for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003.
Tanya M. Sandros, Associate General Counsel, or Abioye E. Oyewole, CARP Specialist, Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP), P.O. Box 70977, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024-0977. Telephone: (202) 707-8380. Telefax: (202) 707-3423.
Section 114(d)(2) of title 17 of the United States Code provides statutory licensing requirements for subscription services that perform sound recordings by means of digital audio transmissions. Those that were in existence and were performing sound recordings by means of interactive audio-only subscription digital audio transmissions to the public for a fee on or before July 31, 1998, are known as “preexisting subscription services.” Three services fall within this category: DMX Music, Inc., Muzak LLC, and Music Choice (“the Services”). These services make payments of royalty fees to and file reports of sound recording performances with SoundExchange. SoundExchange is a collecting rights entity that was designated by the Librarian of Congress to collect and distribute royalty fee payments made under section 114(d)(2) by the three preexisting subscription services.
Pursuant to section 260.5 of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, an interested party may initiate an audit of any one of the three preexisting services. SoundExchange, as the designated collector and distributor of royalties paid by preexisting subscription services to interested copyright parties, is an interested party and may conduct one audit per calendar year of one or all of the Services for the purpose of verifying their statements of account. As a preliminary matter, the interested party is required to submit a notice of its intent to audit a preexisting subscription service with the Copyright Office and to serve this notice on the service to be audited. 37 CFR 260.5(c).
On December 21, 2004, SoundExchange filed with the Copyright Office three notices of intent to audit the preexisting subscription
In accordance with this regulation the Office is publishing today's notice to fulfill this requirement with respect to SoundExchange's notices of intent to audit.
9:30 a.m., Tuesday, January 25, 2005.
NTSB Board Room, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20594.
The one item is Open to the Public.
7686 Railroad Accident Report—Derailment of Canadian National Freight Train M33371-08 and Subsequent Release of Hazardous Materials in Tamaroa, Illinois, February 9, 2003.
Telephone: (202) 314-6100.
Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Ms. Carolyn Dargan at (202) 314-6305 by Friday, January 21, 2005.
The public may view the meeting via a live or archived Web cast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at
Vicky D'Onofrio, (202) 314-6410.
Safety Light Corporation (the Licensee or SLC) is the holder of two Byproduct Material Licenses issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR part 30 for the facility at 4150-A Old Berwick Road near Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania. License No. 37-00030-02 authorizes the Licensee to characterize and decommission its contaminated facilities, equipment, and land. License No. 37-00030-08 authorizes, among other things, the Licensee to manufacture self-luminous signs and foils using tritium. The licenses were last renewed on December 28, 1999, and are due to expire on December 31, 2004.
On December 28, 1999, License Nos. 37-00030-02 and 37-00030-08 were renewed. As part of these renewals, License Conditions were included that exempted the Licensee from certain of the Commission's financial assurance requirements and required the Licensee to develop plans which would address the License Termination Rule (10 CFR part 20, subpart E). This exemption was granted in response to the Licensee's request to the Commission to exempt the Licensee from the financial assurance decommissioning requirements set forth in 10 CFR 30.32 and 10 CFR 30.35, based on the lack of sufficient funds available at the time to assure that adequate financial ability existed to decommission the facility. In lieu of complying with 10 CFR 30.35, the Licensee committed to (1) develop a schedule and plan, for NRC review and approval, for additional site characterization and to develop revised cost estimates including strategies for site decommissioning that would comply with the criteria specified in the license termination rule, 10 CFR 30.36, and (2) contribute specified monthly payments ($7,000 per month in 2000; $8,000 per month in 2001 and 2002; and $9,000 per month in 2003 and 2004) to a decommissioning trust fund over the life of the license to support decommissioning activities. The NRC specifically approved an exemption, in Condition 16 of Amendment No. 51 for License 37-00030-02 and Condition 20.A of Amendment No. 13 for License 37-00030-08, provided that the licensee make the specified monthly payments into a decommissioning trust fund. The NRC granted the renewal of the two licenses based on the Licensee's continued ability to provide sufficient remediation funding and adequate security of radioactive materials at the facility.
On November 21, 2003, the NRC learned, during telephone conversations with Licensee management, that the Licensee had not made all payments into its decommissioning trust fund, as required by Condition 16 (License No. 37-00030-02) and Condition 20.A (License No. 37-00030-08). The Licensee failed to make several prescribed deposits into the decommissioning trust fund over the period from May 2001 to December 2002. The Licensee made all overdue payments by February 2003 to address the deficit that existed at the end of 2002. However, starting in January 2003, the Licensee again failed to make the total prescribed payments into the decommissioning trust fund, resulting in a deficit of $81,000 by the end of November 2003.
Upon learning of the foregoing, on December 19, 2003, the NRC issued a Demand for Information to SLC which required the Licensee to submit to the NRC the following information:
1. Detailed schedule for making all overdue payments, with interest, to the decommissioning trust fund;
2. Reasons why the Licensee did not make the required payments, as scheduled, to the decommissioning trust fund;
1. Reasons why the NRC should have confidence that the Licensee will, in the future, make the required monthly deposits to the decommissioning trust fund;
2. Assurance from the Licensee, that, should it encounter any difficulty making required monthly deposits in the future, it will promptly notify the NRC that there will be a delay in making a specific deposit, and provide the reasons for the delay;
3. Reasons why the NRC should have confidence that in the future, the Licensee will adhere to license conditions and applicable NRC requirements;
4. Reasons why, in light of the Licensee's past failure to make all required payments to the trust fund, License Nos. 37-00030-02 and 37-00030-08 should not be modified, suspended, or revoked.
On January 16, 2004, the Licensee responded to the Demand for Information and indicated, in part, that the Licensee could not submit a detailed schedule for making overdue payments given the Licensee's inability to
The Licensee made all of the prescribed deposits from December 2003 through November 2004. In addition, the Licensee made payments of amounts in arrears in December 2003, February 2004, and October 2004, resulting in a deficit of $36,000 plus interest to the decommissioning trust fund as of November 30, 2004.
The Licensee submitted license renewal applications for License Nos. 37-00030-02 and 37-00030-08 on April 22, 2004. As noted in the letter transmitting this Order to the Licensee, the NRC denied the renewal applications based on the Licensee's failure to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 30.35, as well as the Licensee's violation of several conditions of its licenses, including the failure to make the required monthly payments into the decommissioning trust fund.
The NRC Office of Investigations conducted an investigation into the Licensee's failure to make the required monthly payments to the decommissioning trust fund, and concluded that the Licensee's management had deliberately violated the requirement to make the prescribed payments to the trust fund. In a July 1, 2004 letter, the NRC informed the Licensee of this apparent deliberate violation of the License Conditions and invited the licensee to a predecisional enforcement conference to discuss this matter. At the pre-decisional enforcement conference held on July 20, 2004, SLC management stated that a general downturn in business conditions led to the Licensee's failure to make payments. Nonetheless, the NRC maintains that the violation was deliberate in that the Licensee admitted knowledge of the requirement to make payments to the trust fund, yet failed to do so. The obligation to make the specified payments set forth in the license conditions is unqualified and is not subject to the state of SLC's business conditions, and was material to the granting of an exemption to the Licensee in connection with the renewal of its licenses in 1999. The Licensee's deliberate failure to make the required payments to the trust fund, as required by license conditions 16 and 20.A, voided the exemption from the financial assurance requirements of 10 CFR 30.35, and placed the Licensee in continued violation of these license conditions and 10 CFR 30.35. This deliberate failure by the Licensee has significant health and safety implications in that these regulatory requirements are intended to ensure the availability of adequate funds for characterization, packaging, and disposal of radioactive waste from the Licensee's site.
Based on the Licensee's willful failure to make the required scheduled payments into the decommissioning trust fund as required by its licenses, and the resultant implication for public health and safety, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that the Licensee's current operations can be conducted under License Nos. 37-00030-02 and 37-00030-08 in compliance with the Commission's requirements and that the health and safety of the public, including the Licensee's employees, will be protected. Therefore, the public health, safety, and interest require that License Nos. 37-00030-02 and 37-00030-08 be suspended and that the Licensee must develop a plan for the orderly shutdown of its licensed activities. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that given the willful nature of the violation of Conditions 16 and 20.A. of License Nos. 37-00030-02 and 37-00030-08, respectively, and 10 CFR 30.35, as well as the related effect on public health and safety, this Order shall be immediately effective.
In accordance with 10 CFR 30.36 (b) and (c), these licenses will continue in effect beyond the expiration date with respect to possession of byproduct material until the Commission notifies the Licensee in writing that the licenses are terminated. During this time, the Licensee shall limit actions involving byproduct material to those related to decommissioning and continue to control entry to restricted areas until they are suitable for release in accordance with NRC requirements. The Licensee is not authorized to receive any additional licensed material beyond the license expiration date but shall continue to take such actions as are needed to facilitate the decommissioning of the site, including the processing of the existing inventory of tritium to produce devices for transfer to authorized recipients. These actions are described in Section V below.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 81, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR part 30,
A. License Nos. 37-00030-02 and 37-00030-08 are suspended on January 1, 2005, excepting those activities addressed in the shutdown plan prepared in accordance with item B. below and 10 CFR 30.36(b) and (c), pending further Order.
B. The Licensee shall, by December 20, 2004, submit to the Regional Administrator, Region I, for approval, a plan for the orderly shutdown of its licensed activities over a period beginning on January 1, 2005, to be completed by March 31, 2005. This plan shall include provisions to:
1. Cease receipt of licensed material at the Licensee's Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania site;
2. Process existing inventory of licensed material into finished products for transfer to authorized recipients;
3. Transfer, or maintain in secure storage, the remaining inventory of tritium at the site;
4. Notify SLC customers of exit signs, or other devices containing licensed material, that they may not return these signs or devices to the licensee's Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania facility;
5. Provide continued security for the Licensee's Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania facility to assure safe conditions at the site; and
6. Provide continued heating, electrical power and other utility service.
The Regional Administrator, Region I, may, in writing, relax or rescind this order upon demonstration by the Licensee of good cause.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the Licensee must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this order and set forth the matters of fact and law on which the Licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
If a hearing is requested by the Licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), the Licensee, or any other person adversely affected by this Order, may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section V above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section V shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact.
James Shepherd, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T7E18, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone: (301) 415-6712; e-mail
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering approval of a request to dispose of demolition debris contaminated with polychlorobiphenyl (PCB) in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 20.2002 for Facility Operating License No. DPR-6, issued to Consumers Energy Company, ((CE) or the licensee), for the possession of the Big Rock Point (BRP) Plant, located in Charlevoix County, Michigan. This authorization will revise CE's existing authority to dispose of low-contamination material in a State of Michigan Type II landfill in accordance with 10 CFR 20.2002 by authorizing CE to dispose of such waste that also has PCB at a landfill licensed to accept PCBs. This proposed action would also exempt the low-contaminated material authorized for disposal from further Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and NRC licensing requirements. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Based upon the EA, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate.
On March 14, 2001, in accordance with 10 CFR 20.2002, the licensee submitted a request to dispose of low-activity demolition debris from the Big Rock Point (BRP) Restoration Site in a Type II sanitary landfill approximately 100 km (60 mi) from the site, licensed by the State of Michigan, in accordance with 10 CFR 20.2002. The licensee later revised the request on May 18, 2001 and June 20, 2001. NRC approved the request in May, 2002, and BRP began shipping material to the landfill.
Subsequently, debris coated with polychlorobiphenyl (PCB)-contaminated paint, mainly structural steel, was identified during demolition. The State of Michigan Type II landfill that is currently accepting the debris contaminated with residual radioactivity does not accept PCB bulk product waste. Therefore, on September 15, 2004, the licensee submitted a revised request to dispose of about 1.4 million kilograms (three million pounds) of low-activity PCB bulk product waste in an alternate landfill, approximately 445 km (275 mi) from the site, licensed by the State of Michigan and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to accept PCBs.
The licensee will continue to ship low-activity demolition debris that is not contaminated with PCB to the original Type II landfill.
A comparison of the estimates of waste to be disposed and the time for disposal is given in the table below. As discussed below, there will be lighter loads, thus a slightly lower dose rate for the drivers, but more total shipments than was estimated in the 2001 request. Because of the increase in total waste, there will also be slight increases in dose rate to the landfill workers and postulated resident farmer compared to the 2001 estimates.
The purpose of this EA is to assess the environmental impacts of CE's request to modify its existing authority to dispose of low-contaminated waste in a licensed landfill that would allow it to dispose of similar waste that is also contaminated with PCBs in another landfill licensed to receive PCBs. The scope of this EA is limited to evaluating potential environmental effects due to the longer shipping distance to the PCB-licensed landfill.
The proposed action would approve the disposal of BRP Plant demolition debris that could contain trace quantities of licensed materials and PCB at a landfill licensed by the State of Michigan and the (EPA) to accept PCBs. An approval would also exempt the low-contamination material from further Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and NRC licensing requirements. The material comprises structural steel coated with PCB-contaminated paint, potentially including exterior steel from the containment building, classified by the EPA as PCB bulk product waste, originating from decommissioning activities. The existing radiological survey process will be used to determine if the debris is acceptable for landfill disposal. The licensed disposal site is located approximately 445 km (275 mi) from Big Rock Point. Landfill design and institutional controls for this facility are equal or more restrictive than the requirements placed on a State of Michigan licensed Type II landfill currently used.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application requesting approval dated September 15, 2004.
The proposed action is needed to dispose of structural steel coated with PCB-contaminated paint, potentially including exterior steel from the containment building, classified by the EPA as PCB bulk product waste, that may contain trace quantities of licensed material in a landfill licensed by the State of Michigan and EPA to accept PCBs prior to license termination. Currently, the BRP Plant is authorized to dispose of material at a State of Michigan Type II landfill. However, this landfill is not licensed to accepted PCBs. Therefore, BRP is seeking to modify its existing § 20.2002 authorization granted in 2002, so it can dispose of materials with PCB-contaminated paint in a landfill licensed to receive it.
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action, and concludes that the environmental impacts of disposing up to 1.4 million kilograms (3 million pounds) of painted structural steel in which non-liquid PCBs are contained within the dried paint matrix, at a disposal facility licensed to accept PCB waste, are bounded by the previous EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML013370344). Adherence to the radiological survey process ensures that the potential radiological dose posed by the demolition debris to a transport worker, a landfill worker, or a member of the public is conservatively estimated at less than 10 μSv/yr (1 mrem/yr). The transportation worker scenario results in revised doses of 3.20 μSv/yr (0.320 mrem/yr), because of the lighter loads for a driver to the current State of Michigan licensed Type II landfill, and 1.78 μSv/yr (0.178 mrem/yr) for a driver to the alternate licensed PCB landfill. The landfill worker scenario results in revised doses of 2.91 μSv/yr (0.291 mrem/yr) for a worker at the current State of Michigan licensed Type II landfill, and 0.182 μSv/yr (0.0182 mrem/yr) for a worker at the alternate licensed PCB landfill because of the small amount of radioactive waste to be disposed at this landfill. The calculated doses for the landfills are 0.178 μSv/yr (0.0178 mrem/yr) for a resident living at the Type II landfill site, and 0.01 μSv/yr (0.001 mrem/yr) for a resident living at the licensed PCB landfill site. Disposal of the demolition debris in the manner proposed is protective of public health and safety, is consistent with as low as reasonably achievable, complies with EPA requirements, and is the most cost-effective alternative.
The proposed action and attendant exemption of the material from further AEA and NRC licensing requirements will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released off site, and 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 nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not involve any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and, because the waste will be disposed in a facility licensed to receive PCBs, it has no other environmental impacts. Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental 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 not previously considered in BRP's Environmental Report for Decommissioning, dated February 27, 1995, or in the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities” (NUREG-0586, Supplement 1).
On December 29, 2004, the staff consulted with the Michigan State official, Mr. Pete Quackenbush of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Waste and Hazardous Materials Division regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
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
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated September 15, 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML042640208). As of October 25, 2004, the NRC initiated an additional security review of publicly available documents to ensure that potentially 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. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Library component on the NRC Web site,
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of January 17, 24, 31, February 7, 14, 21, 2005.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 7, 2005.
This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address—
*The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)—(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Dave Gamberoni, (301) 415-1651.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301) 415-1969. In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to
Pursuant to Rule 11Aa3-2
The proposed amendments would modify the procedures pursuant to which a new national securities exchange or new national securities association may join the Plans as a new Participant. More specifically, the proposed amendments would modify the process for determining the fees that a new national securities exchange or a new national securities association must pay in order to join the Plans.
Currently, both Plans require a new entrant to pay the Participants an amount that “attributes an appropriate value to the assets, both tangible and intangible, that CTA has created and will make available to such new Participant.”
In 1999, the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) Plan Participants sought to adopt the same criteria adopted by the CTA to determine the appropriate participation fee to join the OPRA Plan.
In 2002, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (“Nasdaq”) and Island ECN expressed interest in joining the Plans and inquired as to the amount of the entry fee. In response, the Participants engaged Deloitte & Touche, asking it to assign a value to each of the six current Plan criteria for determining a new entrant's fee. The Division expressed concerns to the Participants regarding the methodology contemplated by the CTA and Deloitte & Touche because it believed that the methodology contained factors that should not be considered in determining a proper entrance fee for new entrants.
In light of the Division's concerns that the current Plan standards do not provide an objective basis for determining entrance fees for new Participants and that the fees should be based solely on objective criteria and costs that could be easily calculated and that could be readily discernable (similar to the methodology currently used for determining such fees in the OPRA Plan),
Finally, the proposed amendments would perform the “housekeeping” function of updating the names and addresses of the Plans” Participants. In the last few years, the “Pacific Stock Exchange, Inc.” has become the “Pacific Exchange, Inc.,” the “American Stock Exchange, Inc.” has become the “American Stock Exchange, LLC,” and the Cincinnati Stock Exchange, Inc.” has become the “National Stock Exchange.”
Not applicable.
The Participants have manifested their approval of the proposed amendments to the Plans by means of their execution of the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments would become effective upon Commission approval of the amendments.
Not applicable.
The Participants believe that the proposed amendments do not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Participants do not believe that the proposed Plan amendments introduce terms that are unreasonably discriminatory for the purposes of Section 11A(c)(1)(D)
Not applicable.
Upon the Commission's receipt of executed versions of the proposed amendments by each of the Plans' Participants, each of the Participants shall have approved the proposed amendments in accordance with Section IV(b) of the CTA Plan and Section IV(c) of the CQ Plan.
Not applicable.
See Item I(A) above.
See Item I(A) above.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed Plan amendment 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-CTA/CQ-2004-01. 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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Temporary order and notice of application for a permanent order under section 9(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”).
Applicants have received a temporary order exempting them from section 9(a) of the Act, with respect to an injunction entered against Wachovia Corporation (“Wachovia”)
Wachovia, Evergreen Investment Management Co, LLC (“EIMCO”), Evergreen Investment Services, Inc. (“EIS”), First International Advisors, LLC (d/b/a Evergreen International Advisors) (“FIA”), JL Kaplan Associates, LLC (“Kaplan”), SouthTrust Investment Advisors, A Division of SouthTrust Bank (“STIA”), and Tattersall Advisory Group, Inc. (“TAG”) (EIMCO, FIA, Kaplan, STIA and TAG are collectively referred to as the “Advisers”), and Evergreen Investment Services, Inc. (“EIS”) (the “Underwriter” and, together with the Advisers and Wachovia, the “Applicants”).
The application was filed on November 5, 2004, and amended on January 5, 2005.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing or further extends the temporary exemption. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on February 7, 2005, and should be accompanied by proof of service on Applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Applicants, c/o Mark C. Treanor, Esq., Wachovia Corporation, 301 South College Street, Suite 4000, One Wachovia Center, Charlotte, NC 28288-0013.
Janis F. Kerns, Senior Counsel, or Todd F. Kuehl, Branch Chief, at 202-942-0564 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation).
The following is a temporary order and a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (telephone 202-942-8090).
1. Wachovia is a holding company that, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, provides banking, investment, financing, advisory, and related products and services on a global basis. Wachovia is the ultimate parent company of the Advisers and Underwriter. Each Adviser is an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and serves as investment adviser or sub-adviser to certain registered investment companies (“Funds”). The Underwriter is a broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) that acts as a principal underwriter for certain Funds.
2. On or about November 12, 2004, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered the Injunction against Wachovia in a matter brought by the Commission.
1. Section 9(a)(2) of the Act, in relevant part, prohibits a person who has been enjoined from engaging in or continuing any conduct or practice in connection with the purchase or sale of a security from acting, among other things, as an investment adviser or depositor of any registered investment company or a principal underwriter for any registered open-end investment company, registered unit investment trust or registered face-amount certificate company. Section 9(a)(3) of the Act makes the prohibition in section 9(a)(2) applicable to a company, any affiliated person of which has been disqualified under the provisions of section 9(a)(2). Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines “affiliated person” to include any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, the other person. Applicants state that Wachovia is an affiliated person of each of the other Applicants within the meaning of section 2(a)(3) of the Act. Applicants state that, as a result of the Injunction, they became subject to the prohibitions of Section 9(a).
2. Section 9(c) of the Act provides that the Commission shall grant an application for exemption from the disqualification provisions of section 9(a) if it is established that these provisions, as applied to Applicants, are unduly or disproportionately severe or that Applicants' conduct has been such as not to make it against the public interest or the protection of investors to grant the application. Applicants have filed an application pursuant to section 9(c) seeking temporary and permanent orders exempting them from the disqualification provisions of section
On November 12, 2004, the Applicants received a temporary conditional order from the Commission exempting them from section 9(a) of the Act with respect to the Injunction until the Commission takes final action on an application for a permanent order or, if earlier, January 12, 2005 (“Existing Temporary Order”).
3. Applicants believe they meet the standards for exemption specified in section 9(c). Applicants state that the prohibitions of section 9(a) as applied to them would be unduly and disproportionately severe and that the conduct of Applicants has been such as not to make it against the public interest or the protection of investors to grant the exemption from section 9(a).
4. Applicants state that the conduct alleged in the Complaint did not involve any of the Applicants acting in the capacity of investment adviser, subadviser, depositor or principal underwriter for any Fund. Applicants state that none of the current or former officers, directors or employees of the Advisers or the Underwriter who are or were involved in providing investment advisory, subadvisory, or underwriting services to the Funds were involved in the conduct underlying the Injunction.
5. Applicants state that the inability of the Advisers to continue providing advisory or subadvisory services to the Funds, and of the Underwriter from serving as principal underwriter to the Funds, would result in potentially severe hardships for the Funds and their shareholders. Applicants assert that section 9(a) disqualifications would deprive Fund shareholders of the services they selected in investing in the Funds, cause uncertainty by frustrating efforts to effectively manage Fund assets, and could increase the Funds' expense ratios to the detriment of the Funds' shareholders. The Advisers and Underwriter have distributed, or will distribute as soon as reasonably practical, written materials, including an offer to meet in person to discuss the materials, to the boards of directors or trustees of the Funds (the “Boards”), including the directors or trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, of such Funds and their independent legal counsel as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under the Act, if any, regarding the Injunction, any impact on the Funds, and the application. Applicants will provide the Boards with all information concerning the Injunction and the application that is necessary for the Funds to fulfill their disclosure and other obligations under the federal securities laws.
6. The Advisers and Underwriter also state that, if they were barred from providing services to the Funds, the effect on their businesses and employees would be severe. The Advisers and Underwriter state that they have committed substantial resources to establish an expertise in advising, subadvising, and distributing the Funds. The Advisers and Underwriter state that prohibiting them from providing advisory and distribution services to the Funds would adversely affect not only the viability of their businesses, but also the livelihoods of the hundreds of employees of the Advisers and Underwriter. Applicants state that they have not received any orders under section 9(c) of the Act in the past.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following condition:
Any temporary exemption granted pursuant to the application shall be without prejudice to, and shall not limit the Commission's rights in any manner with respect to, any Commission investigation of, or administrative proceedings involving or against, Applicants, including without limitation, the consideration by the Commission of a permanent exemption from section 9(a) of the Act requested pursuant to the application, or the revocation or removal of any temporary exemptions granted in connection with the application.
The Commission has considered the matter and finds that Applicants have made the necessary showing to justify granting a temporary exemption.
Accordingly,
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change establishes a cut-off date for processing securities transactions and implements procedures for EMCC to exit open fail positions prior to its dissolution.
In its filing with the Commission, EMCC 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. EMCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
At EMCC's October 27, 2004, Board of Directors (“Board”) meeting, the Board authorized EMCC's dissolution and deregistration as a clearing agency effective no later than March 31, 2005. In order to accomplish this, EMCC has
EMCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
EMCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have an impact on or impose a burden on competition.
No written comments relating to the proposed rule change have been solicited or received by EMCC. EMCC will notify the Commission of any written comments it receives.
The Commission finds that EMCC's proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder and particularly with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
EMCC has requested that the Commission find good cause for approving the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of filing. The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of filing because such approval will afford EMCC sufficient time to give its members notice of its decision to cease operations and to wind down its clearing agency operations in an orderly fashion.
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-EMCC-2005-01. 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 MSRB is filing with the Commission an interpretive reminder notice regarding Rule G-17, on disclosure of material facts—disclosure of original issue discount bonds. The text of the notice follows, with
In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The MSRB has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The MSRB is publishing the proposed rule change to remind dealers of their affirmative disclosure obligations when effecting transactions with customers in original issue discount bonds.
The MSRB previously has alerted dealers of their obligation to make original issue discount disclosures to customers and has stated that, “The Board believes that the fact that a security bears an original issue discount is material information (since it may affect the tax treatment of the security); therefore, this fact should be disclosed to a customer prior to or at the time of trade.”
The MSRB has adopted the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,
The MSRB has always interpreted its Rule G-17, on fair dealing, to encompass two general principles. First, the rule imposes a duty on dealers not to engage in deceptive, dishonest, or unfair practices. In addition to the basic antifraud provisions in the rule, the rule imposes a duty to deal fairly with all persons. As part of a dealer's obligation to deal fairly, the MSRB has interpreted the rule to create affirmative disclosure obligations for dealers. The proposed rule change will further the purposes of Section 15B(b)(2)(C) by reminding dealers of their obligations to deal fairly with customers and affirmatively disclose, at or before the sale of municipal securities to a customer, all material facts concerning the transaction including a security's original issue discount feature.
The MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition among dealers not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it applies equally to all dealers in municipal securities.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The MSRB has designated this proposed rule change as constituting a stated policy, practice or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration or enforcement of an existing MSRB rule under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act,
At any time within 60 days of this filing, the Commission may summarily abrogate this proposal if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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-MSRB-2005-01. 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)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
NASD is proposing to amend NASD Rule 3360 to change references from “SEC Rule 3b-3” to “SEC Rule 200,” thereby conforming the rule language in Rule 3360 in light of the SEC's new short sale regulation, Regulation SHO. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
(a) No change.
(b) For purposes of this Rule, “short” positions to be reported are those resulting from “short sales” as that term is defined in SEC Rule
In its filing with the Commission, NASD 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. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On June 23, 2004, the SEC adopted certain provisions of a new short sale regulation, designated Regulation SHO (Reg SHO).
Given that SEC Rule 3b-3 is now incorporated in the new SEC Rule 200 established by Reg SHO, NASD is proposing to amend Rule 3360 to replace the reference to “SEC Rule 3b-3” with “SEC Rule 200,” thereby conforming the rule language in Rule 3360 in light of Reg SHO. NASD has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The effective date and the implementation date will be the date of filing, January 7, 2005.
NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. NASD requests that the Commission waive both the 5-day notice and 30-day pre-operative requirements contained in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
The Commission believes that waiving the 5-day notice and 30-day pre-operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Commission believes that accelerating the operative date does not raise any new regulatory issues, significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest, or impose any significant burden on competition. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as effective and operative immediately.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether 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-NASD-2005-001. 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”)
NASD is proposing to amend NASD Rule 2212, to require a member that seeks to qualify for the safe harbor set forth in NASD Rule 2212 to, among other things, use a process to prevent telephone solicitations to any telephone number in a version of the national do-not-call registry obtained from the administrator of the registry no more than thirty-one (31) days prior to the date any call is made. This proposed amendment is consistent with recent amendments to the comparable do-not-call rules of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in
(a) No Change.
(b) No Change.
(c) Safe Harbor Provision.
(1)-(3) No Change.
(4) Accessing the national do-not-call database. The member uses a process to prevent telephone solicitations to any telephone number on any list established pursuant to the do-not-call rules, employing a version of the national do-not-call registry obtained from the administrator of the registry no more than [three months]
(d)-(g) No Change.
In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it had received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In 2003, the FTC, via its Telemarketing Sales Rule, and the FCC, via its Miscellaneous Rules Relating to Common Carriers, established requirements for sellers and telemarketers to participate in a national do-not-call registry.
In July 2003, the SEC requested that NASD amend its telemarketing rules to require NASD members to participate in the national do-not-call registry.
The FCC and FTC each provided persons subject to their respective do-not-call rules a “safe harbor” providing that a seller or telemarketer is not liable for a violation of the do-not-call rules that is the result of an error if the seller or telemarketer's routine business practice meets certain specified standards. NASD has provided a parallel safe harbor in paragraph (c) of NASD Rule 2212; this safe harbor is limited to a violation of subparagraph (a)(3) of NASD Rule 2212, which prohibits initiating any telephone solicitation to any person who has registered his or her phone number with the national do-not-call registry.
Today, to be eligible for this NASD Rule 2212 safe harbor, a member or person associated with a member must demonstrate that the member's routine business practice meets four standards. First, the member must have established and implemented written procedures to comply with the national do-not-call rules. Second, the member must have trained its personnel, and any entity assisting it in its compliance, in procedures established pursuant to the national do-not-call rules. Third, the member must have maintained and recorded a list of telephone numbers that the member may not contact. Fourth, the member must use a process to prevent telephone solicitations to any telephone number on any list established pursuant to the do-not-call rules, employing a version of the national do-not-call registry obtained from the FTC no more than
Shortly after NASD's rules were approved, Congress instructed the FTC to amend its telemarketing rules to require use of a national do-not-call registry no more than thirty-one days old.
NASD is proposing to amend NASD Rule 2212 to conform to this change in the rules of the FTC and FCC. NASD believes that this change is necessary to maintain the consistency between the telemarketing rules of NASD and the FTC and FCC (particularly given that the FCC's rules already directly apply to broker-dealers), and that investors generally expect NASD's telemarketing standards to be comparable to those of the FTC and FCC. Additionally, under The Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 1994 the SEC has requested that NASD amend its do-not-call rules to conform to the recent amendments to the FTC's do-not-call rules.
NASD's proposed rule change would take effect on March 1, 2005. Accordingly, under the proposed rule change, effective March 1, 2005, an NASD member seeking to qualify for the safe harbor in NASD Rule 2212 would be required to use a process to prevent telephone solicitations to any telephone number in a version of the national do-not-call registry obtained from the administrator of the registry (
NASD will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a
NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A of the Act,
NASD believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2004-174. 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 (
NASD has requested that the Commission find good cause pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act for approving the proposed rule change prior to the 30th day after publication in the
Based on the above, the Commission believes that there is good cause, consistent with Section 15A(b)(6)
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On October 21, 2004, the National Stock Exchange (“NSX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On November 14, 1986, the Cincinnati Stock Exchange (“CSE”), now known as the NSX, and CBOE entered into an agreement of affiliation pursuant to which CBOE currently holds 162 certificates of proprietary membership of NSX and CBOE and its members have certain rights associated with NSX. The rights CBOE gained as a result of the affiliation include the right for CBOE members to become Proprietary Members of NSX without having to purchase or own certificates of proprietary membership, provided that each such CBOE member meets all other eligibility requirements for NSX membership (such CBOE members are referred to as “Proprietary Members without certificates” or “CBOE Exerciser Members”). CBOE also gained the right to hold six out of the thirteen seats on the NSX's Board of Directors and the right to hold three of the six seats on the newly created Special Nominating Committee, which is tasked with nominating the Public Directors to the NSX board. Furthermore, as part of the agreement of affiliation, the NSX agreed to adopt special restrictions on amending certain provisions of the NSX by-laws and rules. These terms of the agreement of affiliation were implemented through changes to NSX's by-laws and rules.
NSX and CBOE recently agreed to amend and terminate certain aspects of their affiliation and entered into a termination of rights agreement on September 27, 2004 (“Termination Agreement”). Under the Termination Agreement, CBOE agreed to transfer certain of its certificates of proprietary membership to NSX and to relinquish certain rights associated with NSX in exchange for certain cash payments and other undertakings by NSX, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Termination Agreement. The initial closing for the Termination Agreement is conditioned upon Commission approval of the amendments to the NSX by-laws and rules contained in this proposed rule change.
Under the proposal, NSX would eliminate the CBOE Exerciser Member membership class and the related special privilege for CBOE members to become NSX members without purchasing certificates of proprietary membership. In eliminating this class of membership and this special privilege, the Exchange would provide a transition period whereby all CBOE Exerciser Members would have ninety days from the date of the approval of this proposed rule change to purchase certificates of proprietary membership from NSX. During such ninety day period, a CBOE Exerciser Member who has not purchased a certificate of propriety membership would continue to have the rights and obligations of a Proprietary Member without certificate as those rights and obligations existed prior to
In addition, the proposal would eliminate NSX's Special Nominating Committee, which is composed of two Designated Dealer Directors, the At-Large Director and three of the six CBOE Directors and which has the responsibility of nominating candidates for Public Director positions on the NSX board. NSX proposes to re-assign the responsibility of nominating Public Directors to the NSX's Nominating Committee, which currently nominates candidates for the Designated Dealer Director and At-Large Director board positions. Finally, the proposal would eliminate the special limitations on changes to certain NSX by-laws and rules contained in Article XII of the NSX by-laws.
The Commission has reviewed the proposed rule change and finds that it is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission notes that NSX and CBOE have recently agreed to the Termination Agreement, which would amend and terminate certain aspects of their affiliation. The Commission also notes that NSX seeks to eliminate provisions of its by-laws and rules that were adopted to implement the terms of the original agreement of affiliation between NSX and CBOE.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with Sections 6(b)(1)
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The PCX proposes to amend PCX Rule 6.67 to allow for an exception to the Electronic Order Capture System (“EOC”) or Electronic Tablet Entry Requirement for any option order on the Standard and Poor's Depository Receipts (“SPY”) until March 28, 2005. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in
Rule 6.67(a)-(c)—No Change.
Rule 6.67(d)(1)—Exceptions to EOC or Electronic Tablet Entry Requirement. The EOC or Electronic Tablet entry requirement provision of subsection (c) will not apply to the following:
(A) Any EOC or Electronic Tablet system disruption or malfunction as confirmed by two Trading Officials or
In its filing with the Commission, PCX included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this rule change is to adopt a provision that exempts option orders for SPY from the requirements of EOC or Electronic Tablet Entry Requirement as set forth in PCX Rule 6.67 until March 28, 2005. This exemption is similar to an exemption provided by the Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”) rules.
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.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing rule change: (1) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition; and (3) does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Commission believes that waiving the five-day pre-filing provision and the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether 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-PCX-2005-04. 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”),
Phlx proposes to amend its schedule of fees to increase the current cap of $50,000 per month per member organization to $60,000, to be imposed on all “firm-related” equity option and index option comparison and transaction charges combined.
This proposal is scheduled to become effective for transactions settling on or after January 3, 2005. The text of the proposed rule change is available at Phlx and at the Commission.
In its filing with the Commission, Phlx included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for its proposal and discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Currently, the Exchange imposes a cap of $50,000 per member organization on all “firm-related” equity option and index option comparison and transaction charges combined.
Pursuant to this proposal, the cap would increase from $50,000 to $60,000. No other changes to the firm-related equity option and index option cap are being proposed at this time.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to raise revenue, while continuing to promote equity option and index option business on the Phlx. Specifically, the Exchange believes that imposing a cap of $60,000 (rather than $50,000) will continue to offer an incentive for member organizations to transact more volume on the Phlx floor. An increase in firm orders should provide more trading opportunities for floor members, thereby increasing revenue potential to the membership, in addition to increasing revenue to the Exchange. Because the $50,000 cap was established over one year ago,
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 inappropriate burden on competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing proposal 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-Phlx-2004-94. 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 Phlx proposes to amend Phlx Rule 1063, Responsibilities of Floor Brokers, and Option Floor Procedure Advice (“OFPA”) C-2, Options Floor Broker Management System (“FBMS”), to extend the date on which Floor Brokers would be required to create an electronic audit trail for non-electronic orders in options overlying the Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipts (“SPDRs”) until March 28, 2005. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in
Rule 1063. (a)-(d)—No change.
(e)
Options Floor Broker Management System. In order to create an electronic audit trail for options orders represented by Floor Brokers on the Exchange's Options Floor, a Floor Broker or such Floor Broker's employees shall, contemporaneously upon receipt of an order and prior to the representation of such an order in the trading crowd, record all options orders represented by such Floor Broker onto the electronic Options Floor Broker Management System (as described in Rule 1080, Commentary .06). The following specific information with respect to orders represented by a Floor Broker shall be recorded by such Floor Broker or such Floor Broker's employees: (i) the order type (i.e., customer, firm, broker-dealer); (ii) the option symbol; (iii) buy, sell, or cancel; (iv) call, put, complex (i.e., spread, straddle), or contingency order as described in Rule 1066; (v) number of contracts; (vi) limit price or market order or, in the case of a complex order, net debit or credit, if applicable; (vii) whether the transaction is to open or close a position; and (viii) The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) clearing number of the broker-dealer that submitted the order (collectively, the “required information”). Upon the execution of such an order, the Floor Broker shall enter the time of execution of the trade. Floor Brokers or their employees shall enter clearing information onto the Options Floor Broker Management System no later than five minutes after the execution of a trade. In the event of a malfunction in the Options Floor Broker Management System, Floor Brokers shall record the required information on trade tickets, and shall not represent an order for execution which has not been time stamped with the time of entry on the trading floor. Such trade tickets shall be time stamped upon the execution of such an order. Floor Brokers or their employees shall enter the required information that is recorded on such trade tickets into AUTOM for inclusion in the electronic audit trail.
Floor Brokers or their employees shall enter the required information (as described above) for FLEX and foreign currency options, including customized foreign currency options, or ensure that such information is entered, into the Exchange's electronic audit trail in the same electronic format as the required information for equity and index options. Floor Brokers or their employees shall enter the required information for FLEX and foreign currency options, including customized foreign currency options, into the electronic audit trail on the same business day that a specific event surrounding the lifecycle of an order in FLEX and foreign currency options, including customized foreign currency options (including, without limitation, orders, price or size changes, execution or cancellation) occurs.
FINE SCHEDULE No change.
In its filing with the Commission, Phlx included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Phlx Rule 1063(e) and OFPA C-2 to reflect that the requirement that Floor Brokers create an electronic audit trail for non-electronic orders in options overlying SPDRs will commence on March 28, 2005.
The Commission recently approved, on a permanent basis, amendments to Phlx Rule 1063 and OFPA C-2 to require that, contemporaneously upon receipt of an order and prior to the representation of such an order in the trading crowd, Floor Brokers must record all options orders represented by such Floor Broker onto the electronic Options Floor Broker Management System.
The requirements of Phlx Rule 1063(e) and OFPA C-2 that Floor Brokers record the “required information” as defined therein commenced on January 10, 2005. Options overlying SPDRs began trading on the Exchange on January 10, 2005. The Exchange believes that the extension of the date for compliance with the electronic audit trail requirements for non-electronic orders in options overlying SPDRs until March 28, 2005 is reasonable and appropriate, because the manner in which these options trade, and the trading environment that exists in these options, is significantly different than that of equity options, and since options overlying SPDRs only very recently began trading on the Exchange, as described above.
The Exchange believes that its proposal 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.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing rule change: (1) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) does not impose any
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether 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-Phlx-2005-04. 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.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Small Business Administration's intentions to request approval on a new and/or currently approved information collection.
Submit comments on or before March 21, 2005.
Send all comments regarding whether these information collections are necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, whether the burden estimates are accurate, and if there are ways to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the collections, to Sandra Johnston, Program Analyst, Office of Financial Assistance, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 8300, Washington, DC 20416
Sandra Johnston, Program Analyst, 202-205-7528,
Send all comments regarding whether this information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, whether the burden estimates are accurate, and if there are ways to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the collection, to Carol Walker, Director, Civil Rights Compliance, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 5000, Washington, DC 20416.
Carol Walker, Program Analyst, 205-7149,
Small Business Administration.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the U.S. Small Business Administration's currently approved information collections.
Curtis B. Rich, Management Analyst, 202-205-7030,
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages that will require clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. The information collection packages that may be included in this notice are for new information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and on ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments and recommendations regarding the information collections should be submitted to the SSA Reports Clearance Officer. The information can be mailed and/or faxed to the address and fax number listed below: (SSA), Social Security Administration, DCFAM, Attn: Reports Clearance Officer, 1338 Annex Building, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235. Fax: 410-965-6400.
The information collections listed below are pending at SSA and will be submitted to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. Therefore, your comments should be submitted to SSA within 60 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain copies of the collection instruments by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454 or by writing to the address listed above.
1.
Individuals who receive these subsidies may ask SSA to redetermine the amount of help they receive if they experience a “subsidy-changing event,” including marriage, separation, divorce, an annulment, or the death of a spouse. Until late 2006, when redetermination forms will become available, SSA will use form SSA-1020-SC, the Application for Help with Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Costs, to make redeterminations based on subsidy-changing events. The respondents are individuals whose application for help toward the costs for this program has been approved and are requesting a redetermination of their subsidy based on a subsidy-changing event.
2.
We are proposing electronic versions of the SSA-1020, which will collect the information via the Intranet (the information is provided by the respondent during an interview at a Social Security field office) or the Internet (i1020) (if respondents complete the Internet screens on their own and submit them electronically). The respondents are individuals who are eligible for enrollment in the Medicare Part D program and are requesting assistance with the related costs.
Social Security Administration (SSA).
Notice of a modification to a computer matching program.
In accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act, as amended, this notice announces a modification of a computer matching program that SSA conducts with DHS.
SSA will file a report of the subject matching program with the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, the Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The matching program will be effective as indicated below.
Interested parties may comment on this notice either by telefax to (410) 965-5961 or writing to the Associate Commissioner for Income Security Programs, 245 Altmeyer Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401. All comments received will be available for public inspection at this address.
The Associate Commissioner for Income Security Programs as shown above.
The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Public Law (P. L.) 100-503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) by describing the manner in which computer matching involving Federal agencies could be performed and adding certain protections for individuals applying for and receiving Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for such individuals.
The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching
(1) Negotiate written agreements with the other agency or agencies participating in the matching programs;
(2) Obtain the approval of the matching agreement by the Data Integrity Boards (DIB) of the participating Federal agencies;
(3) Publish notice of the computer matching program in the
(4) Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;
(5) Notify applicants and beneficiaries that their records are subject to matching; and
(6) Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating or denying an individual's benefits or payments.
We have taken action to ensure that all of SSA's computer matching programs comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act, as amended.
SSA and DHS.
The purpose of this matching program is to establish conditions under which DHS agrees to the disclosure of information regarding certain aliens who may, as a result of their current or planned absences from the United States, be subject to nonpayment of benefits in programs administered by SSA. The disclosure will provide SSA with information useful in determining claim and benefit status under both Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act, governing Social Security Retirement, Survivors and Disability Insurance Benefits, and Supplemental Security Income, in that certain persons who are outside the United States, or similarly lack appropriate statutorily specified residency and citizenship/alienage status, may not be paid benefits under specific statutory provisions of those titles. The purpose of this modification is to expand the language of the relevant computer matching agreement to encompass a wider definition of persons ineligible to receive Title II Social Security benefits. Public Law (Pub. L.) 108-203 (The Social Security Protection Act of 2004), section 412, expands section 202(n) of the Social Security Act to prohibit payment of retirement or disability benefits to number holders removed from the United States under section 237(a) or under section 212(a)(6)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), as amended.
Legal authority for the relevant disclosures of this matching operation is contained in sections 202(n) of the Social Security Act as amended by section 412 of Pub. L. 108-203, 1611(f), and 1614(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(n) 1382(f) and 1382c (a)(1) (the Act) and 8 U.S.C. 1611 and 1612). Section 1631(e)(1)(B) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1383(e)(1)(B) requires SSA to verify declarations of applicants for, and recipients of, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments before making a determination of eligibility or payment amount. Section 1631(f) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1383(f)) requires Federal agencies to provide SSA with information necessary to verify SSI eligibility or benefit amounts or to verify other information related to these determinations. In addition, section 202(n)(2) of the Act specifies that the “Attorney General or the Secretary of the [Department of Homeland Security]” notify the Commissioner of Social Security when certain individuals are removed under specified provisions of section 237(a) or under section 212(a)(6)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
DHS will disclose to SSA two data files as described below:
DHS will provide SSA with an electronic file from its Computer Linked Application Information Management System (CLAIMS) (Justice/INS 013 system of records, most recently published at 62 FR 59734, dated 11/04/97, which is electronically formatted for transmission to SSA). CLAIMS contains information on resident aliens who are SSI recipients and who have left or plan to leave the United States for any period of 30 consecutive days. SSA will then match the DHS CLAIMS data with: Social Security number (SSN) applicant and holder information, maintained in SSA's Master Files of Social Security Number (SSN) Holders and SSN Applications, SSA/OEEAS 60-0058 (most recently published at 65 FR 66279, dated 11/03/2000); and, SSA's Supplemental Security Income Record and Special Veterans Benefits (SSR) (most recently published at 66 FR 11079 SSA/OEEAS 60-0103, dated 02/21/2001).
DHS will also provide SSA with an electronic file containing information on deported number holders from its Deportable Alien Control System (DACS) (Justice/INS-012, full text published at 65 FR 46738, dated 07/31/2000, modified at 66 FR 66712, dated 01/22/2001). Electronically formatted for transmission to SSA, DACS is scheduled to be replaced by the Enforce Removal Module (EREM). After such transition, EREM will be the system of records used in the match. SSA will then match the DHS EREM data with: applicant and holder information maintained in SSA's Master Files of Social Security Number (SSN) Holders and SSN Applications SSA/OEES 09-60-0058, published at 65 FR 66279 (11/03/00), the Master Beneficiary Record SSA/OEEAS 09-60-0090, most recently published at 66 FR 11080, dated 02/21/2001); and the Supplemental Security Record.
The matching agreement for this program shall become effective no sooner than 40 days after notice of the matching program is sent to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) or 30 days after publication of this notice in the
Department of Transportation.
Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2005-1-11), Dockets OST-2003-16773 and OST-2003-16774.
The Department of Transportation is directing all interested persons to show cause why it should not issue orders finding Ameristar Air Cargo, Inc. d/b/a Ameristar Charters fit, willing, and able, and awarding it amended certificates of public convenience and necessity to engage in interstate and foreign charter air transportation of persons, property and mail.
Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than January 25, 2005.
Objections and answers to objections should be filed in Dockets OST-2003-16773 and OST-2003-16774 and addressed to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room PL-401), 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the order.
Vanessa R. Wilkins, Air Carrier Fitness Division (X-56, Room 6401), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-9721.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to rule on land release request.
Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(c), notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the City of Gulf Shores, Alabama to release for future sale to commercial or industrial users a parcel containing 15.35 acres of surplus property, located at the Jack Edwards Airport.
Comments must be received on or before February 18, 2005.
Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Jackson Airports District Office, 100 West Cross Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208-2307.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to The Honorable Billy Duke, Mayor of Gulf Shores, Alabama at the following address: Post Office Box 299, Gulf Shores, AL 36547-0299.
William Schuller, Program Manager, Jackson Airports District Office, 100 West Cross Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208-2307, (601) 664-9883. The land release request may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA is reviewing a request by the City of Gulf Shores to release 15.35 acres of surplus property at the Jack Edwards Airport. The property will be sold in whole or in part to commercial users for fair market value. The property is contiguous with the existing industrial park located in the southeast corner of the airport. The net proceeds from the sale of this property will be used for airport projects approved by the FAA.
Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the request, notice and other documents germane to the request in person at the City Hall, City of Gulf Shores, Alabama.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of intent; Notice of Scoping Meetings.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is issuing this Notice of Intent to announce publicly that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared and considered for the proposed extension of Runway 9R/27L including associated improvements described below at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport.
Ms. Virginia Lane, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, Florida 32822-5024, (407) 812-6331 extension 129.
This notice announces that the FAA, in cooperation with Broward County, Florida, will prepare an EIS for a proposed project to lengthen and widen Runway 9R/27L at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport to a full length of 8,600 feet by 150 feet wide. The existing dimension of Runway 9R/27L is 5,276 feet by 100 feet, which accommodates both general aviation and commuter aircraft. The proposed project would allow commercial jet aircraft to utilize the extended runway.
An extension of the existing parallel taxiway and connecting taxiways to Runway 9R/27L is also proposed. The proposed project would entail construction activity on airport property and in Florida East-Coast Railway and Florida Department of Transportation rights-of-way (
The EIS will include the evaluation of a no-build alternative and other reasonable alternatives that may be identified during the agency and public scoping meetings. The proposed runway extension would accommodate the forecast traffic at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport through the year 2017. Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport has experienced growth in aircraft activity in recent years that has led to delays in aircraft operations. The FAA's Airport Capacity Benchmark Report of 2001 identified Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport as a congested airport. The Airport Master Plan accepted on April 19, 1995, and more recently the Leigh Fisher Associates Report of November 2003 indicated that significant future airfield congestion and aircraft delay could be anticipated without some modification to the existing airfield facilities.
Increased use of the extended runway by air carrier aircraft will result in changes in runway use. The EIS will determine any noise impacts associated with changes in runway use. In addition to noise impacts, the EIS will determine
An Agency Scoping meeting for all Federal, state, and local environmental regulatory agencies will be held on February 23, 2005. This meeting will take place at 1 p.m. in the Sheraton Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel, 1825 Griffin Road, Dania, Florida 33004.
A Public Scoping meeting for the general public will be held on February 24, 2005. This meeting will be conducted between 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. in the Paramount Ballroom and Foyer at the Sheraton Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel, 1825 Griffin Road, Dania, Florida 33004.
Written comments may be mailed to the Informational contact listed above within 30 days following the scoping meeting.
Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading,
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of public environmental scoping meetings.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is issuing notice to advise the public that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for airport projects proposed by the Rhode Island Airport Corporation (RIAC). These projects include an extension of Runway 5-23 and other projects included in the T.F. Green Airport Master Plan. To ensure that all significant issues related to the proposed action are identified, public scoping meetings will be held.
John Silva, Manager, Environmental Programs, Airports Division, New England Region, Federal Aviation Administration, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803. Telephone number: (617) 238-7602.
Public scoping meeting were first held on July 25, 2002. After initial work commenced on the EIS for the Airport Improvements at T.F. Green Airport, the EIS was postponed while additional airport master planning was undertaken, and the Airport Master Plan was revised to advance a long-term need for a major extension of Runway 5-23 to a reasonably foreseeable project in the nearer term. Because an environmental evaluation of a major extension of Runway 5-23 was not part of the 2002 Scope of Work for the EIS, FAA is conducting additional public scoping. This project and other proposed projects have the potential for significant adverse environmental effects, including aircraft noise, community disruption, and wetlands fill. Comments and suggestions are invited from federal, state, and local agencies and other interested parties in order to ensure that a full range of issues related to the proposed projects are identified and addressed in the scope of work for the EIS. Comments and suggestions may be mailed to FAA at the above address.
An additional meeting to receive general public input will be held the same day at the same location, between 5 and 8 p.m. The format of this meeting will permit attendance anytime during this period. Attendees should allow for at least one hour. FAA recommends that commenters place emphasis on the extension of Runway 5-23 at these scoping meetings, since other projects in the EIS were the subject of public comment and input in 2002. Representatives of Federal, State, and local governmental agencies are encouraged to attend both events. Additional information may be obtained by contacting FAA at the above address or telephone number.
Federal Aviation Administration, (DOT.
Notice of public meeting.
The FAA will hold two informational meetings to discuss the proposed policy (Draft Order 8110.RC) that the FAA's Aircraft Certification Service personnel, Flight Standards Service Personnel, persons designated by the Administrator, and organizations associated with the certification process required by Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) will use during the certification evaluation of restricted category aircraft. These public meetings will be a continuation of information gathering for the evaluation of Restricted Category Aircraft Applications originally offered to the public for comments in the
The first meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 8, 2005, from 9 am.m. to 12 noon. The second public meeting will be held on the east coast of the U.S., at a date and location to be determined.
The first meeting will be held at the Anaheim Convention Center (concurrent with HAI Heli-Expo), located at 800 W. Katella Ave., Anaheim, CA 92802.
To obtain additional details on these meetings, please contact Mr. Graham Long, AIR-110, Room 815, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Aircraft Engineering Division, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267-3715, FAX: (202)
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). Note: The following notice is an update to replace the notice published in the
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the City of Tucson, Department of Transportation (TDOT), intend to prepare an Alternatives Analysis (AA) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on a proposal by the City of Tucson to provide additional transit service to the urban core of the City of Tucson. The AA/EIS will consider the following alternatives: (1) A No-Build Alternative, consisting of improvements contained in the Pima Association of Governments (PAG) 2025 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP); (2) Transportation System Management Alternative (TSM), consisting of all reasonable cost-effective transit service improvements within the urban core short of a major investment in a New Starts project; (3) Rubber Tired Rapid Bus Circulator operating in mixed traffic (4) Modern Streetcar operating in mixed traffic; and (5) Heritage Trolley in mixed traffic. The type, location, and need for ancillary facilities, such as maintenance facilities, will also be considered for each alternative. In addition, alternatives that are identified from the scoping process will be evaluated in the AA. This notice is an update to replace the notice published in the
Scoping will be accomplished through correspondence and discussions with interested persons; organizations; and Federal, State, and local agencies; and through public and agency meetings. Depending on the outcome of the scoping process and the analysis of a wide range of transit alternatives in the Draft EIS (DEIS), a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) will be selected and evaluated in the Final EIS (FEIS). The FEIS will evaluate the potential impacts of the selected investment strategy (the Build Alternative) and a No-Build Alternative.
Comment Due Date: Written comments on the scope of alternatives and impacts to be considered in the AA/EIS must be received no later than March 28, 2005, and must be sent to the City of Tucson at the address indicated below.
Scoping Meeting Date: A public scoping meeting will be held from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 at the Historic Depot, 400 N. Toole Avenue. Oral and written comments may be given at the scoping meeting; a stenographer will record oral comments. Persons with disabilities should contact Joan Beckim (see
Written comments should be sent to Ms. Shellie Ginn, Tucson Urban Corridor Study Project Manager, City of Tucson, Department of Transportation, 201 N. Stone Avenue, 6th Floor, Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210. E-mail:
To be added to the mailing list, contact Ms. Shellie Ginn at the address listed above. Please specify the mailing list of the Tucson Urban Corridor Study Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (AA/DEIS). Persons with special needs such as sign language interpretation should contact Joan Beckim, Public Involvement Coordinator, 110 S. Church, #3350, Tucson, Arizona 85701. E-mail:
To request a scoping information packet, contact Ms. Shellie Ginn, Tucson Urban Corridor Study Project Manager, City of Tucson, Department of Transportation, 201 N. Stone Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210. E-mail
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), as joint lead agency with the City of Tucson, will prepare an AA/EIS on a proposal to improve transit service in an approximately five-mile long corridor in central Tucson, Arizona. The study area for the Tucson Urban Corridor Study is bounded by 22nd Street to the south; Campbell Avenue to the east; Grant Road to the north; and Grande Avenue to the west. Most of the study area is densely developed with a mixture of urban land uses and includes the University of Arizona main and medical campuses, Main Gate retail area, Fourth Avenue retail area, downtown Tucson and the emerging Rio Nuevo area. Although not a part of the formal AA/EIS process for the corridor study, results and recommendations will be coordinated with the Pima Association of Government's effort to prepare a multi-modal comprehensive transportation plan identifying opportunities for future transportation connections throughout the Tucson metropolitan area. The City of Tucson will perform conceptual engineering for transit alternatives within the Tucson Urban Corridor for the AA/DEIS that satisfies NEPA requirements. In addition, a financial plan will be developed that examines alternative funding sources.
The Tucson Urban Corridor area is a major employment and activity center. The study corridor continues to experience significant growth in population and jobs. The city's largest activity center, the University of Arizona, is included in the study area and attracts over 50,000 trips daily and whose master plan includes significant expansion while holding parking to a constant 2004 level. The University is a land locked urban campus whose primary mode of access in the future will need to be transit. Along with this growth, traffic congestion and capacity deficiencies are expected to increase. Roadway capacity options would be difficult given the urban nature of the area and the magnitude of historic structures and neighborhoods in the study area. Inadequate transit service has hampered access to this area and to other study area destinations. A major transit investment is recognized as a feasible alternative to providing additional capacity within this area.
The project is included in the PAG 2025 RTP as an unfunded project. Funding would be considered as part of a proposed 2006 RTP financing proposal.
Alternatives have been considered to address transportation issues in the study corridor, connecting major activity centers in the central core, including downtown Tucson, the Rio Nuevo Master Plan area, the 4th Avenue/Main Gate retail corridors, the University of Arizona, and the Arizona Health Sciences Center (AHSC).
The Tucson Urban Corridor Study will be consistent with Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Alternatives Analysis and Section 5309 New Start Program requirements for determining future federal funding in recommended programs and be consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The alternatives being considered will analyze mobility needs and identify and compare the costs, benefits, and impacts of a range of transit alignment and technology alternatives. At a minimum, the following alternatives will be considered:
• No-Build.
• Transportation System Management (TSM).
• Rubber Tired Rapid Bus Circulator.
• Heritage Trolley.
• Modern Streetcar.
Specific alignment alternatives include, but are not limited to: (1) 2nd Street through the University of Arizona, University Boulevard, Fourth Avenue, Congress and Pennington streets in the downtown area, and Church Avenue to Granada to serve the emerging Rio Nuevo area. These alternatives will be developed further during the preparation of the AA/DEIS. Additional reasonable Build Alternatives suggested during the scoping process, including those involving other modes, may be considered.
The purpose of the EIS is to fully disclose the environmental consequences of building and operating a major capital investment in the Tucson Urban Corridor in advance of any decisions to commit substantial financial or other resources towards its implementation. sThe EIS will explore the extent to which study alternatives and alignment options result in environmental impacts and will discuss actions to reduce or eliminate such impacts.
Environmental issues to be examined in the EIS include: Potential changes to the physical environment (natural resources, air quality, noise, water quality, geology, visual); changes in the social environment (land use, development, business and neighborhood disruptions); changes in bicycle traffic, and pedestrian circulation; changes in transit service and patronage; associated changes in traffic congestion; and impacts on parklands and historic sites. Impacts will be identified both for the construction period and for the long-term operation of the alternatives. The proposed evaluation criteria include transportation, social, economic, and financial measures, as required by current federal (NEPA) environmental laws and the implementing regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality and of FTA.
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action will be addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the City of Tucson, Department of Transportation, Manager as noted in the
To streamline the NEPA process and to avoid duplication of effort, the agencies involved in the scoping process will consider the results of any previous planning studies or financial feasibility studies prepared in support of a decision by the Pima Association of Governments (PAG) to include a particular alternative in the RTP for metropolitan Tucson. Prior transportation planning studies may be pertinent to establishing the purpose and need for the proposed action and the range of alternatives to be evaluated in detail in the AA/EIS. Depending on the outcome of the scoping process and the analysis of a wide range of transit alternatives, a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) will be selected and evaluated in the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS will be prepared simultaneously with conceptual engineering for the alternatives, including station and alignment options. The Draft EIS process will address the potential use of federal funds for the proposed action, as well as assess the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the station and alignment alternatives. Station designs and any alignment options will be refined to minimize and mitigate any adverse impacts.
After publication, the Draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment, and a public hearing will be held. Based on the Draft EIS and comments received, the LPA may be refined, and the City of Tucson will further assess the LPA in the Final EIS and will apply for FTA approval to initiate Preliminary Engineering of the LPA.
Watco Companies, Inc. (Watco) has filed a verified notice of exemption to continue in control of Mission Mountain Railroad, Inc. (MMT), upon MMT's becoming a Class III rail carrier.
The transaction was expected to be consummated on or shortly after December 28, 2004.
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in STB Finance Docket No. 34634,
Watco, a Kansas corporation, is a noncarrier that currently controls nine Class III rail carriers: South Kansas and Oklahoma Railroad Company (SKO), Palouse River & Coulee City Railroad, Inc. (PRCC), Timber Rock Railroad, Inc. (TIBR), Stillwater Central Railroad (SLWC), Eastern Idaho Railroad, Inc. (EIRR), Kansas & Oklahoma Railroad, Inc. (K&O), Pennsylvania Southwestern Railroad, Inc. (PSWR), Great Northwest Railroad, Inc. (GNR), and Kaw River Railroad, Inc. (KRR).
Applicant states that: (1) The rail lines operated by SKO, PRCC, TIBR, SLWC, EIRR, K&O, PSWR, GNR, and KRR do not connect with the rail lines being purchased or leased by MMT; (2) the
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. Section 11326(c), however, does not provide for labor protection for transactions under sections 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not impose labor protective conditions here, because all of the carriers involved are Class III carriers.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34635, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Karl Morell, Of Counsel, Ball Janik LLP, 1455 F Street, NW., Suite 225, Washington, DC 20005.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board,
Mission Mountain Railroad, Inc. (MMT), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire by purchase and lease from The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) rail lines in the State of Montana. The rail line being purchased is between milepost 1249.35, near Stryker, and milepost 1272.22, near Eureka, in Lincoln County, MT, a distance of approximately 22.87 miles. The rail line being leased is between milepost 1211.86, near Columbia Falls, and milepost 1227.58, near Kalispell, in Flathead County, MT, a distance of approximately 15.72 miles.
The transaction is related to STB Finance Docket No. 34635,
MMT certifies that its projected revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in MMT's becoming a Class II or Class I rail carrier, and further certifies that its projected annual revenues will not exceed $5 million.
The transaction was expected to be consummated on or shortly after December 28, 2004.
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the transaction.
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34634, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Karl Morell, Of Counsel, Ball Janik LLP, 1455 F Street, NW., Suite 225, Washington, DC 20005.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
The Stillwater Central Railroad, Inc. (SLWC), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41
SLWC certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in the creation of a Class II or Class I rail carrier. But, because SLWC's projected annual revenues will exceed $5 million, SLWC has certified to the Board on October 29, 2004, that it sent the required notice of the transaction to the national offices of all labor unions representing employees on the affected lines and posted a copy of the notice at the workplace of the employees on the affected lines on the same date.
The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on or after December 28, 2004 (which is 60 days or more after SLWC's certification to the Board that it
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 36410, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Karl Morell, Ball Janik LLP, Suite 225, 1455 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Sioux Valley Regional Railroad Authority (SVRRA), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire from the State of South Dakota (the State)
SVRRA certifies that its projected revenues as a result of the SVRRA-South Dakota transaction will not result in SVRRA becoming a Class I or Class II rail carrier, and further certifies that its projected revenues will not exceed $5 million. The SVRRA-South Dakota transaction was scheduled to be consummated on or after January 5, 2005.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34646, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on SVRRA's representative: Russell Hazel, Sioux Valley Regional Railroad Authority, c/o Sioux River Ethanol, 29619 Spur Avenue, Hudson, SD 57034.
The notice of exemption filed with respect to the SVRRA-South Dakota transaction in this docket is related to a notice of exemption concurrently filed in a related docket: STB Finance Docket No. 34646 (Sub-No. 1),
SVRRA and D&I have advised that the Elk Point-Sioux City line, which is owned by the State, is now operated on behalf of the State by BNSF, pursuant to a 1986 Operating Agreement. SVRRA and D&I have also advised: That, under the Operating Agreement, the State has the right to grant trackage rights on the Elk Point-Sioux City line subject to certain BNSF consent; that, although the State has the right to grant trackage rights to SVRRA for operations by SVRRA's third-party operator (D&I), BNSF has not consented to the grant of those rights; and that the failure to provide this consent is now the subject of litigation between the State and BNSF in
By letter filed December 30, 2004, BNSF has advised that it has not given its consent to the third-party trackage rights operation contemplated by SVRRA and D&I, which (BNSF adds) would violate the 1986 Operating Agreement. BNSF has further advised that, in its view, the filings by SVRRA and D&I in this docket and in the related docket are intended to improperly influence the pending State court litigation. BNSF has asked that the Board stress that issuance by the Board of the notices filed in this docket and in the related docket does not represent a determination, by the Board, concerning either the right of the State to grant the Elk Point-Sioux City trackage rights without BNSF's consent or the right of D&I to operate over the Elk Point-Sioux City line without BNSF's consent.
In view of the ongoing litigation concerning the right of the State to grant the trackage rights contemplated in this docket and in the related docket, it seems best to note that the Board has made no determination, one way or the other, concerning either the right of the State to grant the Elk Point-Sioux City trackage rights without BNSF's consent or the right of D&I to operate over the Elk Point-Sioux City line without BNSF's consent. The contractual dispute respecting the scope of the rights retained by or granted to the State and/or BNSF under the 1986 Operating Agreement must be resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Board decisions and notices are available on its Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF), a Class I rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to
The Core Lines were once part of the rail system operated by the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company (the Milwaukee Road). The Milwaukee Road entered bankruptcy in 1977, and, in 1980, it received, both from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and from the bankruptcy court, approval to abandon the Core Lines. In 1981, the abandoned Core Lines were acquired by the State, and, since on or about July 6, 1981, BNSF has provided common carrier rail service over the Core Lines pursuant to various agreements (the most recent of which is the 1986 Operating Agreement) with the State, and pursuant to a Modified Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (the modified certificate) issued by the ICC.
Because the Core Lines were abandoned by the Milwaukee Road, BNSF has invoked the notice of exemption procedures at 49 CFR part 1150, subpart D (§ 1150.31
Under the modified certificate regulations at § 1150.21
BNSF's § 1150.31 exemption notice was filed to be effective on December 30, 2004. However, by decision served December 29, 2004, the effective date of the exemption was stayed until 11:59 p.m., January 14, 2005. The question of whether the exemption will be stayed beyond that date will be addressed by the Board in a separate decision.
As noted in the decision served December 29, 2004, in this docket, BNSF's asserted right to acquire the Core Lines is disputed by the State, and is now the subject of litigation in
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34645, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on BNSF's representative: Adrian L. Steel, Jr., Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, 1909 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-1101.
Board decisions and notices are available on its Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
The State of South Dakota (the State) and Sioux Valley Regional Railroad Authority (SVRRA) have agreed to grant overhead trackage rights to D&I Railroad Company (D&I) over a State-owned line of railroad extending between milepost (MP) 533.4 near Elk Point, SD (also known as MP 0.0 at East Wye Jct.) and MP 511.90 in Sioux City, IA, including such yard tracks, sidetracks, and connecting tracks (existing or to be constructed) as are reasonable to interchange railcars with The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF), Union Pacific Railroad Company, and Canadian National Railway Company at Sioux City. The total distance of the trackage rights to be granted to D&I is approximately 21.5 miles. The D&I-SVRRA transaction contemplated by the parties was scheduled to be consummated on or after January 5, 2005.
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. Section 11326(c), however, does not provide for labor protection for transactions under sections 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not impose labor protective conditions here, because all of the carriers involved are Class III carriers.
The notice of exemption filed in this docket was filed under 49 CFR
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34646 (Sub-No. 1), must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on D&I's President: Jack Parliament, D&I Railroad Company, P.O. Box 5829, Sioux Falls, SD 57117.
The notice of exemption filed with respect to the D&I-SVRRA transaction in this docket is related to a notice of exemption concurrently filed in a related docket: STB Finance Docket No. 34646,
SVRRA and D&I have advised that the Elk Point-Sioux City line, which is owned by the State, is now operated on behalf of the State by BNSF, pursuant to a 1986 Operating Agreement. SVRRA and D&I have also advised: That, under the Operating Agreement, the State has the right to grant trackage rights on the Elk Point-Sioux City line subject to certain BNSF consent; that, although the State has the right to grant trackage rights to SVRRA for operations by SVRRA's third-party operator (D&I), BNSF has not consented to the grant of those rights; and that the failure to provide this consent is now the subject of litigation between the State and BNSF in
By letter filed December 30, 2004, BNSF has advised that it has not given its consent to the third-party trackage rights operation contemplated by SVRRA and D&I, which (BNSF adds) would violate the 1986 Operating Agreement. BNSF has further advised that, in its view, the filings by SVRRA and D&I in this docket and in the related docket are intended to improperly influence the pending state court litigation. BNSF has asked that the Board stress that issuance by the Board of the notices filed in this docket and in the related docket does not represent a determination, by the Board, concerning either the right of the State to grant the Elk Point-Sioux City trackage rights without BNSF's consent or the right of D&I to operate over the Elk Point-Sioux City line without BNSF's consent.
In view of the ongoing litigation concerning the right of the State to grant the trackage rights contemplated in this docket and in the related docket, it seems best to note that the Board has made no determination, one way or the other, concerning either the right of the State to grant the Elk Point-Sioux City trackage rights without BNSF's consent or the right of D&I to operate over the Elk Point-Sioux City line without BNSF's consent. The contractual dispute respecting the scope of the rights retained by or granted to the State and/or BNSF under the 1986 Operating Agreement must be resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Board decisions and notices are available on its Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR) has filed a notice of exemption
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) have been met.
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 February 18, 2005, 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 Railway Company, 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 January 24, 2005. 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 January 19, 2006, 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.
Tennessee Railway Company (TNR)
TNR 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 government agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by this 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 February 18, 2005,
Petitions to reopen or requests for public use conditions under 49 CFR 1152.28 must be filed by February 8, 2005, with: the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001.
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to NSR's representative: James R. Paschall, Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Three Commercial Place, Norfolk, VA 23510.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
TNR has filed an environmental report which addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. SEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by January 24, 2005. 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), TNR 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 TNR's filing of a notice of consummation by January 19, 2006, 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.
Office of Management, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Office of Management (OM), 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 March 21, 2005.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to David Sturm, VA Debt Management Center, Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, P.O. Box 11930, St. Paul, MN 55111-0930 or e-mail to:
David Sturm at (612) 970-5702 or FAX (612) 970-5687.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, OM invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OM's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of OM'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 March 21, 2005.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail:
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
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 March 21, 2005.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20S52), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail:
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), 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 March 21, 2005.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20S52), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail:
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C., 3501-3520), 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.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans will be held from Wednesday, February 16, 2005, through Friday, February 18, 2005. The Committee will meet at 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. each day in the Tropical Room at the Caribe Hilton Hotel, San Geronimo Grounds, Las Rosales Street, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with an ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the policies, organizational structures, and services of the Department in assisting homeless veterans. The Committee shall assemble and review information relating to the needs of homeless veterans and provide ongoing advice on the most appropriate means of providing assistance to homeless veterans. The Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary regarding such activities.
On February 16, 2005, the Committee will receive reports from program experts, assess the availability of health care and benefit services, review the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) project and other initiatives designed to assist veterans who are homeless. On February 17 and 18 the Committee will review legislative recommendations and work on its annual report.
Those wishing to attend the meeting should contact Mr. Pete Dougherty, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 273-5764. No time will be allocated for receiving oral presentations during the public meeting. However, the Committee will accept written comments from interested parties on issues affecting homeless veterans. Such comments should be referred to the Committee at the following address: Advisory committee on Homeless Veterans, Homeless Veterans Programs Office (075D), U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420.
By Direction of the Secretary.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4) agencies are required to publish a notice in the
January 19, 2005.
Charlotte Moment, Office of Human Resources Management (052B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-8165.
In rule document 05-53 beginning on page 1506 in the issue of Friday, January 7, 2005, make the following correction:
On page 1522, the table is corrected in part to read as follows:
Federal Trade Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) issues its Statement of Basis and Purpose and final Rule pursuant to the requirement imposed by the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (“CAN-SPAM” or “the Act”) for the Commission, not later than 12 months after December 16, 2003, to “issue regulations pursuant to section 7711 [of the Act] defining the relevant criteria to facilitate the determination of the primary purpose of an electronic mail message.”
May 19, 2004, except for § 316.3, which will become effective on March 28, 2005.
Requests for copies of the “primary purpose” provisions of the Rule and the Statement of Basis and Purpose should be sent to Public Records Branch, Room 130, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. Copies of these documents are also available at the Commission's Web site:
Michael Goodman, Staff Attorney, (202) 326-3071; or Catherine Harrington-McBride, Staff Attorney, (202) 326-2452; Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.
The “primary purpose” provisions of the Rule implement the CAN-SPAM Act by defining the relevant criteria to determine the primary purpose of an electronic mail message. These provisions describe types of electronic mail messages that contain commercial content or what the Act terms “transactional or relationship” content, and establish different criteria for each type. These provisions also clarify that the definitions of certain terms taken from the Act and appearing in the Rule are prescribed by particular referenced portions of the Act. The Rule also includes a severability provision that provides that if any portion of the Rule is found to be invalid, the remaining portions will survive.
On December 16, 2003, the President signed into law the CAN-SPAM Act.
In enacting the CAN-SPAM Act, Congress made the following determinations of public policy, set forth in section 7701(b) of the Act: (1) There is a substantial government interest in regulation of commercial electronic mail on a nationwide basis; (2) senders of commercial electronic mail should not mislead recipients as to the source or content of such mail; and (3) recipients of commercial electronic mail have a right to decline to receive additional commercial electronic mail from the same source.
Based on these policy determinations, Congress, in section 7704(a) and (b) of the CAN-SPAM Act, outlawed certain commercial e-mail acts and practices. Section 7704(a)(1) of the Act prohibits transmission of any e-mail that contains false or misleading header or “from” line information. Section 7704(a)(1) also clarifies that a header will be considered materially misleading if it fails to identify accurately the computer used to initiate the message because the person initiating the message knowingly uses another protected computer to relay or retransmit the message in order to disguise its origin.
The Act authorizes the Commission to enforce violations of the Act in the same manner as an FTC trade regulation rule.
Congress directed the Commission to issue regulations, not later than 12 months after December 16, 2003, “defining the relevant criteria to facilitate the determination of the primary purpose of an electronic mail message.”
On March 11, 2004, the Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”) that solicited comment on a number of issues raised by the CAN-SPAM Act, most importantly, the definition of “primary purpose.”
On August 13, 2004, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) proposing criteria to facilitate the determination of the primary purpose of an e-mail message.
In response to this NPRM, the Commission received 226 comments from e-mail marketers and their associations, e-mail recipients, and others interested in CAN-SPAM's application to e-mail messages.
Section 316.1 of the final Rule states, “[t]his part implements the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (‘CAN-SPAM Act’ [or ‘the Act’]), 15 U.S.C. 7701-7713.” A number of commenters requested express findings that CAN-SPAM does not apply to their e-mail messages.
The proposed Rule included definitions of a number of key terms, nearly all of which were defined by references to the corresponding sections of the Act. These terms include: “affirmative consent,” “commercial electronic mail message,” “electronic mail address,” “initiate,” “Internet,” “procure,” “protected computer,” “recipient,” “routine conveyance,” “sender,” “sexually oriented material,” and “transactional or relationship message.”
In the NPRM, the Commission set forth its rationale for defining by reference those definitions included in both the Act and the Rule, stating “that by referencing the definitions found in the Act, and any future modifications to those definitions, the Rule will accurately and effectively track any future changes made to the definitions in the Act.”
None of the small number of the NPRM comments concerning the definitions challenged the Commission's proposal to incorporate by reference definitions included in the Act. Several commenters urged modifications that the Commission theoretically could effectuate under the discretionary rulemaking authority of section 7711 of the Act.
A few comments suggested definitions of the term “spam.”
ECFCU, without offering any definition of its own, recommended that the Commission define the phrase “reasonably interpreting,” used in section 316.3 of the Rule, “to alleviate different interpretations of this term.”
As noted above, section 7702(2)(C) of the CAN-SPAM Act directs the Commission to “issue regulations pursuant to section 7711 of this [Act] defining the relevant criteria to facilitate the determination of the primary purpose of an electronic mail message.” The term “primary purpose” comes into play in the Act's definition of “commercial electronic mail message,” which is “any electronic mail message the
(i) To facilitate, complete, or confirm a commercial transaction that the recipient has previously agreed to enter into with the sender;
(ii) To provide warranty information, product recall information, or safety or security information with respect to a commercial product or service used or purchased by the recipient;
(iii) To provide—
(I) Notification concerning a change in the terms or features of;
(II) Notification of a change in the recipient's standing or status with respect to; or
(III) At regular periodic intervals, account balance information or other type of account statement with respect to, a subscription, membership, account, loan, or comparable ongoing commercial relationship involving the ongoing purchase or use by the recipient of products or services offered by the sender;
(iv) To provide information directly related to an employment relationship or related benefit plan in which the recipient is currently involved, participating, or enrolled; or
(v) To deliver goods or services, including product updates or upgrades, that the recipient is entitled to receive under the terms of a transaction that the recipient has previously agreed to enter into with the sender.”
In the August 13, 2004, NPRM, the Commission's proposed criteria to facilitate the determination of when an e-mail message has a commercial primary purpose contemplated three categories of e-mail messages containing “commercial” content and applied different criteria to each category. The three categories proposed were: (1) e-mail messages that contain
The final Rule, however, slightly modifies the proposed Rule's description of what constitutes “commercial” content. Under the proposed Rule, “commercial content” was described as “content that advertises or promotes a product or service.”
Three commenters argued that the Commission had erred in dropping these additional inclusions of the term “commercial” from its proposed criteria, and urged the Commission to rectify this in its final Rule.
The Commission is persuaded by these comments that the language of the Rule should adhere more closely to the language of the Act to avoid the possibility of overbreadth. Reviewing the matter in light of the comments, the Commission has concluded that the repeated inclusion of the modifying word “commercial” in section 7702(2)(A) of the Act is not merely tautological, but evidences an intention to ensure that the CAN-SPAM regulatory scheme would not reach isolated e-mail messages sent by individuals who are not engaged in commerce,
In the NPRM, the Commission proposed that “if an e-mail message contains only content that advertises or promotes a product or service (‘commercial content’), then the ‘primary purpose’ of the message would be deemed to be commercial.” Only a few commenters addressed this component of the proposed primary purpose criteria, and those commenters generally supported the Commission's approach.
In the NPRM, the Commission proposed that section 316.3(a)(2) would set out criteria for determining the primary purpose of messages containing both commercial content and transactional or relationship content. The proposal was that this type of dual-purpose message would have a commercial primary purpose if: “(1) A recipient reasonably interpreting the subject line of the electronic mail message would likely conclude that the message advertises or promotes a product or service; or (2) The electronic mail message's [transactional or relationship content] does
In the NPRM, the Commission stated: “[T]he subject line is important because consumers reasonably use the information it contains to decide whether to read a message or delete it without reading it. For this reason,
Some commenters claimed that the subject line criterion did not provide enough guidance regarding how CAN-SPAM would apply to e-mail messages that contained commercial content but did not refer to this commercial content in the subject line.
It is worth noting, however, that section 7704(a)(2) of CAN-SPAM prohibits the use of “a subject heading * * * [that] would be likely to mislead a recipient, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about a material fact regarding the contents or subject matter of the message (consistent with the criteria used in enforcement of section [5 of the FTC Act]).”
CAN-SPAM's focus on subject lines that misrepresent the content or subject matter of the message is in accord with case law developed under section 5 of the FTC Act with respect to deceptive “door-openers.”
In response to the Commission's proposal, many comments from e-mail senders opposed any standard by which the subject line alone could be the basis for determining the primary purpose of an e-mail message.
A second group of commenters objecting to the subject line criterion argued that it fails as a “primary purpose” test because it looks at only one component of an e-mail message.
A third group of commenters argued that, if the Commission were determined to use the subject line in its criteria, it must look at whether the
A fourth group of commenters claimed the subject line is not a reliable indicator because Internet service providers, by limiting the length of the subject line actually presented to a recipient, may alter how a subject line appears on a recipient's computer in a manner that is beyond the sender's control.
Under the Commission's second proposed criterion governing e-mail messages containing both commercial content and transactional or relationship content, this type of dual-purpose message would have a commercial primary purpose if the transactional or relationship content “does
Finally, in referring to “transactional or relationship” content, the proposed Rule used the phrase “content that
In the NPRM, the Commission asked commenters to propose alternative criteria to determine the primary purpose of messages containing commercial content and transactional or relationship content. Commenters responded with several proposals that the Commission had already considered and rejected in the NPRM. Some commenters also proposed modifications to the Commission's existing proposal.
Approximately 30 comments submitted by e-mail senders argued that dual-purpose messages
CAN-SPAM clearly rejects the hard-and-fast approach advocated by these commenters, which is that any modicum of transactional or relationship content ought to place even an overwhelmingly commercial message beyond the ambit of the modest requirements that the Act imposes on commercial messages. The Act distinguishes between messages the “primary purpose” of which is “commercial” and messages the “primary purpose” of which is “transactional or relationship.”
A number of commenters requested guidance regarding CAN-SPAM's regulation of periodicals (such as newsletters and catalogs) delivered via e-mail, many of which contain information and advertising.
When a sender delivers an unsolicited newsletter or other periodical via e-mail, and there is no subscription, the situation is materially different for purposes of CAN-SPAM than when such content is delivered with the consent of the recipient. In such a scenario, the content likely would not be “transactional or relationship” within the meaning of section 7702(17)(A)(v). Instead, if the message contains both commercial content and content that is neither commercial nor transactional or relationship, the criteria set out in section 316.3(a)(3) would apply. Under that standard, discussed in detail below, an e-mail message will be deemed to have a commercial primary purpose if either: (1) A recipient reasonably interpreting the subject line would likely conclude that the message contains the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service; or (2) a recipient reasonably interpreting the body of the message would likely conclude that the primary purpose of the message is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service.
Some commenters responding to the NPRM advocated “primary purpose” criteria based on the sender's intent.
Some commenters argued that a “sender intent” standard would be more consistent with Congress's intent than the criteria the Commission proposed.
Many senders of commercial e-mail advocated their own “primary purpose” standards for e-mail messages containing both commercial content and transactional or relationship content. Some of these commenters proposed that an e-mail message should have to satisfy
The Commission believes that its criteria better preserve recipients' right to opt out of messages that are “primarily” commercial and that they therefore better fulfill Congress's intentions. Under the commenters' approach, if the subject line referred to transactional or relationship content, the e-mail message would always be considered “transactional or relationship.” (As noted above, under their approach, both subject line
Other commenters proposed that the Commission reformulate the “primary purpose” criteria as a safe harbor.
Under this alternative, as long as the subject line included any reference to transactional or relationship content, a message would not have a commercial primary purpose even if a recipient reasonably interpreting the subject line would likely conclude that the message contained commercial content. A message would not have a commercial primary purpose even if it opened with a block of commercial content and closed with a mere line of transactional or relationship content, provided the subject line referred to transactional or relationship content. These results abandon CAN-SPAM's dual objectives to enable recipients to opt-out of unwanted commercial content and to ensure that recipients receive important transactional or relationship content. The Commission's criteria, on the other hand, protect the opt-out rights that CAN-SPAM created and encourage e-mail senders to present transactional or relationship content with sufficient prominence to ensure that recipients will notice it. At the same time, the Commission's criteria allow e-mail senders, before initiating any message, to determine with a fair level of certainty whether CAN-SPAM will regulate the message as commercial or “transactional or relationship.” These senders simply need to satisfy themselves of two things: that a recipient reasonably interpreting the subject line of the message will not likely conclude that the message contains commercial content; and that the transactional or relationship content appears, in whole or in substantial part, at the beginning of the body of the message.
Some commenters suggested determining the primary purpose of messages containing both commercial content and transactional or relationship content by applying a “net impression” standard.
In addition to the subject line criterion applicable to all dual-purpose messages, discussed above, the NPRM proposed a separate criterion to determine the primary purpose of a message that contains commercial content and content that is neither commercial nor “transactional or relationship” in nature. This criterion would come into play for messages with subject lines that likely would not prompt a recipient to conclude that the message advertises or promotes a product or service. In such a case, the primary purpose of the message still would be deemed to be commercial if a recipient reasonably interpreting the
The following is an example of how the “net impression” criterion for the body of an e-mail message would be applied along with the separate subject line criterion. Consider a newsletter sent to consumers with whom the sender had no previous dealings. Because the newsletter is not sent pursuant to a subscription or similar arrangement whereby the recipient has agreed to receive such content, the message does not constitute transactional or relationship content.
Based on the record in this proceeding, the Commission has adopted the proposed Rule provision with minor changes, including substituting, in section 316.3(a)(3)(ii), the phrase “the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service,” in place of the phrase “that advertises or promotes a product or service.”
A number of commenters responded to proposed section 316.3(a)(3)(ii). The general themes that emerged from the comments are discussed in detail below. A few commenters supported the approach taken in the proposed section 316.3(a)(3)(ii). These commenters acknowledged that it is important that the Rule not permit senders of e-mail messages to evade CAN-SPAM simply by adding “padding” to their messages to dilute their commercial nature and thereby escape regulation.
The vast majority of commenters who addressed this issue did so with at least some reservations.
Other commenters expressed concern that the net impression test was flawed because it depends on the effect of the message on the recipient rather than the intent of the sender.
Some commenters suggested that if the Commission were to retain this standard, that a safe harbor be created as well to protect companies “that undertake a good-faith effort to comply with the rules * * *
Finally, MPA criticized the proposal, opining that it will restrict senders of commercial and “other” content from referring to a product or service in the subject line or including third-party advertisements at or near the top of the message or in “exciting eye catching graphics and text” if they intend to avoid regulation as commercial messages under the proposed Rule.
A few comments focused on the specific factors set forth in the proposed Rule as illustrative of those that can be used to determine the net impression of an e-mail message. These factors include the placement of content that advertises or promotes a product or service at or near the beginning of the body of the message; the proportion of the message dedicated to such content; and how color, graphics, type size, and style are used to highlight the commercial content.
NAR sought clarification of the net impression factor regarding placement of content that advertises or promotes a product or service at or near the beginning of the body of the message, noting that “it is now commonplace to create an e-mail message that is formatted like a Web page using similar multi-layered commercial and noncommercial text. Sidebars that contain commercial and noncommercial content and span the full length of the e-mail message are regularly used in web-like e-newsletter messages.”
As noted above in the section discussing the placement standard for e-mail messages containing commercial and transactional or relationship content, the Commission wishes to provide the clearest possible standards in the final Rule to facilitate compliance. Thus, in response to the concerns raised by commenters regarding possible confusion over the proposed Rule's “at or near the top” placement factor within the net impression analysis, the Commission has modified this language. In the final Rule, the phrase “at or near the top” has been replaced by the phrase “in whole or in substantial part, at * * *.” In addition, as noted above, the term “commercial” has been added as a modifier of the terms “advertisement or promotion” and “product or service,” to conform the text of the final Rule to that of the Act.
NAR also sought clarification regarding the net impression factor that looks to the proportion of the message dedicated to such content. In its comment, NAR urged the Commission to provide compliance guidance that would elucidate the proportion of an e-mail devoted to commercial advertisement or promotion that would cause an e-mail message to be viewed as commercial. As noted in the NPRM, the Commission rejects a “rigidly mechanical ‘proportion’ standard for determining the primary purpose of a message” because such a standard could easily be evaded by those seeking to avoid regulation under CAN-SPAM.
NAR also requested clarification regarding the extent to which color, graphics, type size, and style will influence the determination that a particular e-mail message is commercial, and whether each would be considered independently or the factors would be considered as a whole.
NFCU recommended eliminating this criterion altogether because the formatting of the message text is beyond the sender's control in instances where, for example, an e-mail message sent in HTML format may be converted to plain text by the recipient's e-mail program, altering the sender's original formatting. The comments merely asserted that conversion of an e-mail message by an ISP or a recipient's e-mail program could result in a message that was non-commercial in its HTML form becoming commercial once it is converted to plain text. However, as NCL points out, “no matter what media they use, marketers spend considerable time and resources trying to anticipate how consumers will react to all aspects of their advertisements, including the placement of information, type size and style, wording, color, graphics, etc.”
A small number of commenters also addressed the issue of whether the identity of the sender should be considered in determining the primary purpose of an e-mail message. CASRO suggested adding the identity of the sender to the net impression factors in the Rule noting that “[t]he sender's identity could provide critical information as to the nature of its business or non-commercial activities * * * .”
Finally, some commenters addressed the question of deceptive advertising format. In the NPRM, the Commission noted that it declined to evaluate the status of an e-mail message based solely on the intent of the sender, but highlighted the possibility that sender intent could be useful in ensuring coverage when a sender structures a commercial e-mail message in such a way as to deceive the recipient into believing that a message is non-commercial. NetCoalition strongly objected to the idea that sender's intent could impact on whether an e-mail message is commercial or not, stating “[s]uch a test is inappropriate, because it undermines the Net Impression test, sows enforcement uncertainty, is unfair to senders by not rewarding senders who have positive intentions when sending messages, and could discourage companies from adopting a robust CAN-SPAM compliance program because of the fear that actions intended to comply with CAN-SPAM could be wrongly construed as ‘deliberately structuring.' ”
On the other hand, spammers may try to evade CAN-SPAM by presenting the commercial content of their e-mail messages in the guise of informational content, deliberately structuring their messages to create the mistaken impression in the minds of reasonable recipients that the messages do not have a commercial primary purpose. A spammer might try to argue that, applying the Commission's criteria, CAN-SPAM does not cover such a message, because a recipient reasonably interpreting the message would not likely conclude that the primary purpose of the message is commercial. The Commission believes this strategy may tempt some spammers, although it is unclear whether e-mail messages are as conducive to deceptive format ploys as are other media.
A handful of alternative proposals were suggested by commenters. MBNA suggested framing the test in terms of when messages are non-commercial and non-transactional/relationship rather than in terms of when they are commercial.
The final Rule determines whether an e-mail message is commercial based on a reasonable recipient's interpretation of the subject line, and, if necessary, the net impression made by the body of the message. Therefore, if the subject line of a dual-purpose message only references the “other” content included in the message, then the recipient could not reasonably interpret the subject line as commercial. Rather, a recipient would reasonably view it as “other.” Substituting the inverse test proposed by MBNA would not materially modify this analysis, but rather would add a duplicative criterion for determining when a subject line refers to “other” content. The Commission declines to add this criterion as it is unnecessary.
The Commission also rejects MBNA's suggestion regarding the use of a “placement only” test in lieu of the net impression standard. As discussed above, the placement criterion is used to evaluate dual-purpose e-mail messages that involve commercial content and transactional or relationship content. An objective test that focuses only on placement of the transactional or relationship content at the beginning of the message is proper because Congress identified this content as being important to consumers.
Experian suggested making the test conjunctive by joining the subject line and net impression criteria clauses with an “and” rather than an “or.” For this type of dual-purpose message to be considered commercial under Experian's proposal, a reasonable recipient would need to interpret the subject line of an e-mail message as demonstrating that a message is commercial
As discussed in detail above, the proposed Rule included a provision addressing how to determine the primary purpose of an e-mail message that contains only commercial content, as well as provisions dealing with two types of dual purpose messages: (1) Those containing commercial plus transactional or relationship content, and (2) those containing commercial plus “other,” non-transactional or relationship content.
A small number of commenters raised this omission, and sought clarification regarding the treatment of an e-mail message that contains only transactional or relationship content.
In applying the term “transactional or relationship message” defined in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(17), the “primary purpose” of an electronic mail message shall be deemed to be transactional or relationship if the electronic mail message consists exclusively of transactional or relationship content as set forth in paragraph (c) of this section.
By including this provision, the Commission believes at least two purposes are served. First, the mandate of the CAN-SPAM Act is carried out. The Act requires that the Commission set forth regulations defining the criteria by which the primary purpose of an e-mail message may be discerned. This “primary purpose” language is found in the Act in both the definition of “commercial electronic mail message”
Secondly, the inclusion of this provision is directly responsive to commenters who expressed concern that, without it, certain transactional messages could be mis-categorized as commercial under the dual purpose test for commercial plus transactional messages.
Therefore, the final Rule includes section 316.3(b) to ensure that messages containing only transactional or relationship content are categorized as such.
Commenters' constitutional arguments addressed two primary aspects of CAN-SPAM's regulation of e-mail messages: whether the
Some commenters claimed that CAN-SPAM cannot withstand First Amendment scrutiny.
CAN-SPAM regulates commercial e-mail messages, and it does not regulate non-commercial e-mail.
Second, CAN-SPAM directly advances these substantial government interests. CAN-SPAM protects consumers' privacy by allowing individual e-mail recipients to choose whether to opt-out of receiving additional commercial e-mail messages from any particular sender and by requiring commercial e-mail messages to clearly and conspicuously disclose the opt-out mechanism. CAN-SPAM protects consumers from fraudulent or deceptive e-mail marketing by prohibiting false, misleading, or deceptive transmission or subject line information. In addition, CAN-SPAM advances the governmental interest in promoting e-mail as a communication tool by allowing individual recipients to opt-out of future unwanted commercial messages, thus reducing the likelihood that wanted electronic mail messages “will be lost, overlooked, or discarded amidst the larger volume of unwanted messages.”
Third, CAN-SPAM is not more extensive than necessary to serve the government's interests.
Commenters responding to the Commission's proposed criteria in the NPRM also argued that the Commission's criteria—as opposed to the Act itself—were unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has articulated its understanding of what constitutes commercial speech in various ways in various decisions. For example, the speech at issue in
As it developed its “primary purpose” criteria, the Commission was mindful of judicial holdings governing the regulation of periodicals. As set forth above,
Commenters advocating a
This provision of the final Rule is retained from the proposed Rule. Section 316.4 of the proposed Rule included the Sexually Explicit Labeling Rule. In the August 13, 2004, NPRM, the only change proposed to the Sexually Explicit Labeling Rule was to renumber it as section 316.4. The Sexually Explicit Labeling rule was originally numbered section 316.1 when it was promulgated on April 19, 2004. The Commission requested comment on this proposed change and did not receive any responsive comments.
This provision of the final Rule is retained from the proposed Rule. The Commission did not receive any comment on this provision in response to the NPRM. This provision, which is identical to the analogous provision included in the Sexually Explicit Labeling Rule, provides that if any portion of the final Rule is found invalid, the remaining portions will
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506 (“PRA”), the Commission reviewed the proposed and final Rule. The Rule does not impose any recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements, nor does it otherwise constitute a “collection of information” as defined in the regulations implementing the PRA.
The NPRM included an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (“IRFA”) under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”),
This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”) incorporates the Commission's initial findings, as set forth in the August 13, 2004, NPRM; addresses the comments submitted in response to the IRFA notice; and describes the steps the Commission has taken in the final Rule to minimize its impact on small entities consistent with the objectives of the CAN-SPAM Act.
The final Rule was created pursuant to the requirement imposed by the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (“CAN-SPAM” or “the Act”) that the Commission, not later than 12 months after December 16, 2003, “issue regulations pursuant to section 7711 [of the Act] defining the relevant criteria to facilitate the determination of the primary purpose of an electronic mail message.”
In the IRFA, the Commission sought comment regarding the impact of the proposed Rule and any alternatives the Commission should consider, with a specific focus on the effect of the Rule on small entities. The public comments on the proposed Rule are discussed above throughout the Statement of Basis and Purpose, as are the minor changes that have been made in the final Rule. After reviewing the comments, including the very small number that specifically addressed the impact of the Rule on small entities, the Commission does not believe that the final Rule will unduly burden the entities who send commercial electronic mail messages or transactional or relationship mail messages.
Determining a precise estimate of the number of small entities subject to the proposed Rule, or describing those entities, is not readily feasible for two reasons. First, there is insufficient publicly available data to determine the number and type of small entities currently using e-mail in any commercial setting. As noted in the IRFA, the Rule will apply to “ ‘senders' of ‘commercial electronic mail messages,’ and, to a lesser extent, to ‘senders’ of ‘transactional or relationship messages.’ ”
The second reason that determining a precise estimate of the number of small entities subject to the proposed Rule is not readily feasible is that the assessment of whether the primary purpose of an e-mail message is “commercial,” “transactional or relationship,” or “other” turns on a number of factors that will require factual analysis on a case-by-case basis. Thus, even if the number of entities who use e-mail in commercial dealings were known, the extent to which the messages they send will be regulated by the Rule depends upon the primary purpose of such messages, a determination which cannot be made absent factual analysis.
The final Rule sets forth the criteria for determining the primary purpose of a commercial e-mail message and, thus, does not itself impose any reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Indeed, because the final Rule imposes no substantive requirements, it is unlikely to impose any costs whatsoever. Any costs attributable to CAN-SPAM are the result of the substantive requirements of the Act itself—such as the requirement that commercial e-mail messages include an opt-out mechanism and certain disclosures—not the Commission's interpretive final Rule. While one commenter expressed concerns about the additional costs that may be associated with implementing the requirements of the Rule,
Through the NPRM, the Commission sought to gather information regarding the economic impact of CAN-SPAM's requirements on all businesses, including small entities. The Commission requested public comment on whether the proposed Rule would unduly burden either entities who use e-mail to send messages defined as “commercial” or “transactional or relationship” messages under the Act and the FTC's CAN-SPAM Rule; whether this burden is justified by offsetting benefits to consumers; what effect the Rule will have on small entities that initiate messages the primary purpose of which is commercial or transactional or relationship; what costs will be incurred by small entities to “implement and comply” with the Rule; and whether there are ways the Rule could be modified to reduce the costs or burdens for small entities while still being consistent with the requirements of the Act.
As explained earlier in the statement of basis and purpose, the Commission has considered the comments and alternatives proposed by such commenters, and continues to believe that the final Rule will not create a significant economic impact on small entities or others who send or initiate commercial e-mail messages or transactional or relationship messages. The criteria adopted in the final Rule for determining the primary purpose of a commercial e-mail message reflect the Act's express requirements, which the Commission has no authority to waive, as well as its determination that these criteria entail a reasonable and relatively minimal compliance burden, when balanced against the offsetting benefit of allowing e-mail recipients to choose to limit further unwanted commercial electronic mail messages from particular senders. The Commission has not received any comments that lead it to believe that the final Rule will unduly burden either the entities who sell, or those consumers who purchase, commercial products and services through e-mail messages.
Advertising, Business and industry, Computer technology, Consumer protection, Labeling.
15 U.S.C. 7701-7713.
This part implements the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (“CAN-SPAM Act”), 15 U.S.C. 7701-7713.
(a) The definition of the term “affirmative consent” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(1).
(b) “Character” means an element of the American Standard Code for Information Interchange (“ASCII”) character set.
(c) The definition of the term “commercial electronic mail message” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(2).
(d) The definition of the term “electronic mail address” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(5).
(e) The definition of the term “electronic mail message” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(6).
(f) The definition of the term “initiate” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(9).
(g) The definition of the term “Internet” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(10).
(h) The definition of the term “procure” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(12).
(i) The definition of the term “protected computer” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(13).
(j) The definition of the term “recipient” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(14).
(k) The definition of the term “routine conveyance” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(15).
(l) The definition of the term “sender” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(16).
(m) The definition of the term “sexually oriented material” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7704(d)(4).
(n) The definition of the term “transactional or relationship message” is the same as the definition of that term in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(17).
(a) In applying the term “commercial electronic mail message” defined in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(2), the “primary purpose” of an electronic mail message shall be deemed to be commercial based on the criteria in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) and (b) of this section:
(1) If an electronic mail message consists exclusively of the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service, then the “primary purpose” of the message shall be deemed to be commercial.
(2) If an electronic mail message contains both the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service as well as transactional or relationship content as set forth in paragraph (c) of this section, then the “primary purpose” of the message shall be deemed to be commercial if:
(i) A recipient reasonably interpreting the subject line of the electronic mail message would likely conclude that the message contains the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service; or
(ii) The electronic mail message's transactional or relationship content as set forth in paragraph (c) of this section does
(3) If an electronic mail message contains both the commercial
(i) A recipient reasonably interpreting the subject line of the electronic mail message would likely conclude that the message contains the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service; or
(ii) A recipient reasonably interpreting the body of the message would likely conclude that the primary purpose of the message is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service. Factors illustrative of those relevant to this interpretation include the placement of content that is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service, in whole or in substantial part, at the beginning of the body of the message; the proportion of the message dedicated to such content; and how color, graphics, type size, and style are used to highlight commercial content.
(b) In applying the term “transactional or relationship message” defined in the CAN-SPAM Act, 15 U.S.C. 7702(17), the “primary purpose” of an electronic mail message shall be deemed to be transactional or relationship if the electronic mail message consists exclusively of transactional or relationship content as set forth in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Transactional or relationship content of e-mail messages under the CAN-SPAM Act is content:
(1) To facilitate, complete, or confirm a commercial transaction that the recipient has previously agreed to enter into with the sender;
(2) To provide warranty information, product recall information, or safety or security information with respect to a commercial product or service used or purchased by the recipient;
(3) With respect to a subscription, membership, account, loan, or comparable ongoing commercial relationship involving the ongoing purchase or use by the recipient of products or services offered by the sender, to provide—
(i) Notification concerning a change in the terms or features;
(ii) Notification of a change in the recipient's standing or status; or
(iii) At regular periodic intervals, account balance information or other type of account statement;
(4) To provide information directly related to an employment relationship or related benefit plan in which the recipient is currently involved, participating, or enrolled; or
(5) To deliver goods or services, including product updates or upgrades, that the recipient is entitled to receive under the terms of a transaction that the recipient has previously agreed to enter into with the sender.
(a) Any person who initiates, to a protected computer, the transmission of a commercial electronic mail message that includes sexually oriented material must:
(1) Exclude sexually oriented materials from the subject heading for the electronic mail message and include in the subject heading the phrase “SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT:” in capital letters as the first nineteen (19) characters at the beginning of the subject line;
(2) Provide that the content of the message that is initially viewable by the recipient, when the message is opened by any recipient and absent any further actions by the recipient, include only the following information:
(i) The phrase “SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT:” in a clear and conspicuous manner;
(ii) Clear and conspicuous identification that the message is an advertisement or solicitation;
(iii) Clear and conspicuous notice of the opportunity of a recipient to decline to receive further commercial electronic mail messages from the sender;
(iv) A functioning return electronic mail address or other Internet-based mechanism, clearly and conspicuously displayed, that—
(A) A recipient may use to submit, in a manner specified in the message, a reply electronic mail message or other form of Internet-based communication requesting not to receive future commercial electronic mail messages from that sender at the electronic mail address where the message was received; and
(B) Remains capable of receiving such messages or communications for no less than 30 days after the transmission of the original message;
(v) Clear and conspicuous display of a valid physical postal address of the sender; and
(vi) Any needed instructions on how to access, or activate a mechanism to access, the sexually oriented material, preceded by a clear and conspicuous statement that to avoid viewing the sexually oriented material, a recipient should delete the e-mail message without following such instructions.
(b)
The provisions of this part are separate and severable from one another. If any provision is stayed or determined to be invalid, it is the Commission's intention that the remaining provisions shall continue in effect.
By direction of the Commission, Commissioner Leibowitz not participating.
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Final rule.
The General Services Administration (GSA) is amending the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) to delete the specific requirements of the Interagency Reports Management Program.
The Regulatory Secretariat, Room 4035, GS Building, Washington, DC, 20405, (202) 208-7312, for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. For clarification of content, contact Mr. David Pritzker, Regulatory Information Service Center (MI), at (202) 482-7340. Please cite FMR Amendment 2005-02, FMR case 2004-102-6.
This final rule deletes from the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) the specific requirements of the Interagency Reports Management Program. GSA has determined that these requirements no longer serve a useful purpose, in view of the evolution of Federal records management practices affecting records creation and Federal policies that encourage agencies to share information electronically, when authorized by law and regulation, particularly as an alternative to collecting additional information from the public. This action is being published as a final rule because it applies only to agency management and, therefore, is not required to be published in the
For more than 30 years, GSA has had an Interagency Reports Management Program, which has governed reporting requirements imposed by a Federal agency on one or more other Federal agencies. Regulations of this program were part of a centralized implementation of Governmentwide reports management policies and guidelines specifically intended to ensure that interagency reports were cost-effective, non-duplicative, and complied with applicable information laws and regulations. The GSA regulations adopted in 1973 were amended several times but remained substantially similar in content until September 2001. They provided for a system of oversight and approval that included a procedure for advance approval by GSA of proposed interagency reporting requirements, assignment of GSA control numbers and expiration dates, and maintenance of an inventory of approved interagency reporting requirements. Agencies were asked to refrain from responding to non-approved reporting requirements and to inform GSA of any such requests.
In September 2001, GSA substantially revised its regulations for the Interagency Reports Management Program, eliminating the requirement for agencies to obtain GSA's approval before initiating an interagency report (66 FR 48357, September 20, 2001). GSA noted that this change would shorten the time between when an agency determines a need for interagency information and when the agency could initiate an interagency report to obtain that information. The change was intended to let agencies take advantage of information technology to get the information they need to accomplish their missions. However, the revised regulations (41 CFR Part 102-195) still require agencies to do an annual review of the reporting requirements they impose on other agencies to assure that they remain necessary, and to submit certain data to GSA and other agencies, if requested. The 2001 rules also require agencies to notify GSA when a report is no longer needed and to submit to GSA every three years cost information and other details about all reporting requirements they impose upon other agencies for which responding agencies as a whole would need more than 100 hours to comply.
The current GSA regulations on interagency reporting requirements have their roots in an era when almost all such reporting was done on paper and was relatively labor-intensive. They were originally adopted under a directive of the Office of Management and Budget that was eliminated in 1995 as “no longer pertinent” (see 60 FR 30444, June 8, 1995). With the development of electronic information technology and the shifting of focus to emphasize electronic information sharing among agencies, retention of even the reduced requirements of the 2001 rules places an unnecessary burden on agencies that seems to have minimal benefit, if any.
The General Services Administration (GSA) has determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to the FMR do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
This final rule is exempt from Congressional review under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely to agency management.
Archives and records, Computer technology, Government property management.
40 U.S.C. 486(c).
For information on records and standard and optional forms, see FMR parts 102-193 and 102-194 (41 CFR parts 102-193 and 102-194).
Deputy Director for Management;
Executive Associate Director;
Associate Director (National Security Programs);
Associate Director (General Government Programs);
Associate Director (Human Resource Programs);
Associate Director (Natural Resource Programs);
General Counsel;
Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy;
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs;
Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management; and
Administrator of the Office of Electronic Government.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of this order, the President retains discretion, to the extent permitted by law, to depart from this order in designating an acting Director.