Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Commodity Credit Corporation
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Army Department
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Western Area Power Administration
Presidential Documents
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Reclamation Bureau
Antitrust Division
Employment and Training Administration
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Federal Aviation Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA.
Interim final rule.
This rule amends and requests comment on the Extra Long Staple (ELS) Cotton Competitiveness Payment Program of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). This rule changes the ELS cotton price used to calculate the payment rate from the “average domestic spot price quotation for base quality U.S. Pima cotton” to the “American Pima c.i.f. Northern Europe” price. The change is intended to reduce the cost to the Federal Government of operating the program by incorporating a reference price more indicative of actual ELS cotton world market prices.
This interim rule is effective August 5, 2005. The first announcement of a payment rate under the new price mechanism will be on Thursday, August 4, 2005. Written comments via letter, facsimile, or Internet are invited from interested individuals and organizations and must be received on or before July 20, 2005 in order to be assured consideration.
FSA invites interested persons to submit comments on this interim final rule. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Steve Neff at the above address or by telephone at (202) 720-7954.
The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) has decided to change the regulations governing how payment rates are calculated under its Extra Long Staple (ELS) Cotton Competitiveness Payment Program to provide that the price currently used, “U.S. spot quotes,” will be replaced by the “American Pima c.i.f. Northern Europe quote.” The current ELS payment rate is determined by the difference between U.S. spot prices, as reported by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), and the lowest foreign quote, c.i.f. Northern Europe, as published by
The increase in the payment rate is attributed principally to increases in U.S. spot market quotes. The market for ELS is susceptible to price swings because it is a thin market. ELS production of 736,000 bales in 2004 is only 4 percent of total U.S. cotton production and 90 percent of ELS is produced in the San Joaquin Valley of California. The ELS market also has relatively few participants. For example, two trading companies have received nearly 60 percent of the payments under this program in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. Further, growing conditions in 2004 likely contributed to a short supply of high-quality ELS cotton, as excess moisture led to color deterioration and consequent Grade 3 classification. These circumstances exposed a program weakness which allows high prices and high payment rates to influence each other with no market-like, self-correcting mechanism. AMS collects transaction data from market participants whose payments depend on the reported prices. If a sale is made at a relatively low price, the merchant has no incentive to report that transaction. With a high payment rate in effect for a week, the merchant can bid more for existing supplies and report higher transaction prices to AMS, which lead to a higher payment rate in the following week. With the higher payment rate, the merchant can source from the United States and remain competitive in international markets.
This rule is expected to reduce future payment rates by comparing foreign quotes to quotes from
This rule makes additional non-substantive changes to the subpart governing this program for clarity, structure, and readability.
Section 1601(c) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (2002 Act) provides that the regulations needed to implement Title I of the 2002 Act, which includes this rule, shall be promulgated without regard to the notice and comment provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553 or the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture effective July 24, 1971 relating to notices of
This rule is issued in conformance with Executive Order 12866, was determined to be not significant and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management Budget.
It has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not applicable to this rule because CCC is not required by 5 U.S.C. 533 or any other law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for the subject matter of this rule.
The environmental impacts of this rule have been considered in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988. This rule preempts State laws that are inconsistent with it. Before any legal action may be brought regarding a determination under this rule, the administrative appeal provisions set forth at 7 CFR parts 11 and 780 must be exhausted.
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to 7 CFR part 3014, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983).
The rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Section 1601(c) of the 2002 Act provides that the promulgation of regulations and the administration of Title I of the 2002 Act shall be made without regard to chapter 35 of title 44 of the United States Code (the Paperwork Reduction Act). Accordingly, these regulations and the forms and other information collection activities needed to administer the program authorized by these regulations are not subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The provisions contained in this rule will not have substantial direct effect on States or their political subdivisions or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
CCC and FSA are committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) and the Freedom to E-File Act, which require Government agencies in general and FSA in particular to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. The forms and other information collection activities required for participation in the program are available electronically through the USDA eForms Web site at
The title and number of the Federal assistance program found in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance to which this final rule applies are Commodity Loans and Loan Deficiency Payments, 10.051.
Agricultural commodities, Cotton, Price support programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 7231-7237 and 7931
(a) These regulations set forth the terms and conditions under which CCC shall make payments to eligible domestic users and exporters of extra long staple cotton who have entered into an ELS Cotton domestic User/Exporter Agreement with CCC.
(b) CCC will issue payments to domestic users and exporters in any week following a consecutive 4-week period in which:
(1) The LFQ is less than the APNE; and
(2) Adjusted LFQ is less than 134 percent of the current crop year loan level for the base quality U.S. Pima cotton.
(c) CCC shall prescribe the forms and information collections necessary in administering the ELS cotton competitiveness payment program. Additional terms and conditions for the program are set forth in the ELS Cotton Domestic User/Exporter Agreement.
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a) For the purposes of this subpart, eligible ELS cotton is domestically produced baled ELS cotton that is:
(1) Opened by an eligible domestic user on or after October 1, 1999, or
(2) Exported by an eligible exporter on or after October 1, 1999, during a Friday through Thursday period in which a payment rate determined under § 1427.1207 is in effect, and that meets the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section;
(b) Eligible ELS cotton must be either:
(1) Baled lint, including baled lint classified by USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service as Below Grade; or
(2) Loose.
(c) Eligible ELS cotton must not be:
(1) ELS for which a payment, under the provisions of this subpart, has been made available;
(2) Imported ELS cotton;
(3) Raw, unprocessed motes;
(4) Textile mill wastes; or
(5) Semi-processed or re-ginned, processed motes.
(a) For the purposes of this subpart, the following persons shall be considered eligible domestic users and exporters of ELS cotton:
(1) A person regularly engaged in the business of opening bales of eligible ELS cotton to manufacturing such cotton into cotton products in the United States (a domestic user), who has entered into an agreement with CCC to participate in the ELS Cotton Competitiveness Payment Program; or
(2) A person, including a producer or a cooperative marketing association approved under part 1425 of this chapter, regularly engaged in selling eligible ELS cotton for exportation from the United States (an exporter), who has entered into an agreement with CCC to participate in the ELS Cotton Competitiveness Payment Program.
(b) Payment applications must contain the documentation required by this subpart, an ELS Cotton Domestic User/Exporter Agreement and additional information that may be requested by CCC.
(a) Payments under this subpart shall be made available to eligible domestic users and exporters who have entered into an ELS Cotton Domestic User/Exporter Agreement with CCC and who have complied with the terms and conditions in this subpart, the ELS Cotton Domestic User/Exporter Agreement and CCC-issued instructions.
(b) ELS Cotton Domestic User/Exporter Agreements may be obtained from CCC. To participate in the program authorized by this subpart, domestic users and exporters must execute the ELS Cotton Domestic User/Exporter Agreement and forward the original and one copy to CCC.
Payments under this subpart shall be made available in the form of commodity certificates issued under part 1401 of this chapter, or in cash, at the option of the participant, as CCC determines and announces.
(a) The payment rate for payments made under this subpart shall be determined as follows:
(1) Beginning the Friday on or following August 1 and ending the week in which the LFQc, the LFQf, the APNEc, and the APNEf prices first become available, the payment rate shall be the difference between the APNE and the LFQ in the fourth week of a consecutive 4-week period in which the APNE exceeded the LFQ each week, and the adjusted LFQ was less than 134 percent of the current crop year loan level for U.S. base quality Pima cotton in all weeks of the 4-week period; and
(2) Beginning the Friday-through-Thursday week after the week in which the LFQc, the LFQf, the APNEc, and the APNEf prices first become available and ending the Thursday following July 31, the payment rate shall be the difference between the APNEc and the LFQc in the fourth week of a consecutive 4-week period in which the APNEc exceeded the LFQc each week, and the adjusted LFQc was less than 134 percent of the current crop year loan level for base quality U.S. Pima in all weeks of the 4-week period. If either or both the APNEc and the LFQc are not available, the payment rate may be the difference between the APNEf and the LFQf.
(b) Whenever a 4-week period under paragraph (a) of this section contains a combination of LFQ, LFQc, and LFQf for only one to three weeks, such as may occur in the spring when the LFQ is succeeded by the LFQc and the LFQf (spring transition), and at the start of a new marketing year when the LFQc and the LFQf are succeeded by the LFQ (marketing year transition), under paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, during both the spring transition and the marketing year transition periods, the LFQc and APNEc, in combination with the LFQ and APNE, shall, to the extent practicable, be considered during such 4-week periods to determine whether a payment is to be issued. During both the spring transition and the marketing year transition periods, if either or both APNEc price and the LFQc are not available, the APNEf and the LFQf in combination with the APNE price and LFQ shall be taken into consideration during such 4-week periods to
(c) For purposes of this subpart, regarding the determination of the APNE, APNEc, APNEf, the LFQ, the LFQc, and the LFQf:
(1) If daily quotations are not available for one or more days of the 5-day period, the available quotations during the period will be used;
(2) If none of the APNE, APNEc, or APNEf prices is available, or if none of the LFQ, LFQc, or LFQf is available, the payment rate shall be zero and shall remain zero unless and until sufficient APNE prices or the LFQ again becomes available, the APNE, APNEc, or APNEf price exceeds the LFQ, the LFQc, or the LFQf, as the case may be, and the LFQ, the LFQc, or the LFQf, as the case may be, adjusted for transportation, is less than 134 percent of the current crop year loan rate for base quality U.S. Pima for 4 consecutive weeks.
(d) Payment rates for loose, re-ginned motes and semi-processed motes that are of a suitable quality, without further processing, for spinning, papermaking or bleaching, shall be based on a percentage of the basic rate for baled lint, as specified in the ELS Cotton Domestic User/Exporter Agreement.
(a) Payments under this subpart shall be determined by multiplying:
(1) The payment rate, determined under § 1427.127, by
(2) The net weight (gross weight minus the weight of bagging and ties) determined under paragraph (b) of this section, of eligible ELS cotton bales that an eligible domestic user opens or an eligible exporter exports during the Friday through Thursday period following a week in which a payment rate is established.
(b) For the purposes of this subpart, the net weight shall be based upon:
(1) For domestic users, the weight on which settlement for payment of the ELS cotton was based (landed mill weight);
(2) For re-ginned motes processed by an end user who converted such motes, without re-baling, to an end use in a continuous manufacturing process, the net weight of the re-ginned motes after final cleaning;
(3) For exporters, the shipping warehouse weight or the gin weight if the ELS cotton was not placed in a warehouse, of the eligible cotton unless the exporter obtains and pays the cost of having all the bales in the shipment re-weighed by a licensed weigher and furnishes a copy of the certified weights.
(c) For the purposes of this subpart, eligible ELS cotton will be considered:
(1) Consumed by the domestic user on the date the bale is opened for consumption; and
(2) Exported by the exporter on the date that CCC determines is the date on which the cotton is shipped for export.
(d) Payments under this subpart shall be made available upon application for payment and submission of supporting documentation, as required by this subpart, CCC instructions, and the ELS Cotton Domestic User/Exporter Agreement.
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) Model LC41-550FG airplanes. This AD requires both visual and dye penetrant inspections of the elevator torque tube assembly for cracks. If a crack is found, this AD requires replacement with a modified assembly that incorporates a steel doubler. This AD also requires replacement of the modified elevator torque tube assembly every 300 hours time-in-service or 18 months (whichever occurs first). This AD results from cracks found in the weld area of the elevator torque tube assembly. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the elevator torque tube assembly, which could result in failure of the elevator torque tube assembly and subsequent loss of control of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective on June 21, 2005.
As of June 21, 2005, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulation.
We must receive any comments on this AD by August 10, 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.
This incident prompted an inspection of the elevator torque tube assemblies held in inventory at Lancair. The inspection revealed 70 percent of the factory inventory had cracks.
A combination of design aspects and manufacturing flaws caused the cracks. These flaws lead to rapid fatigue failure of the elevator torque tube assembly.
Since the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other Lancair Model LC41-550FG airplanes of the same type design, we are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the elevator torque tube assembly. This failure could cause loss of control of the airplane.
In preparing 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, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective on June 21, 2005.
(b) None.
(c) This AD affects Model LC41-550F airplanes, serial numbers 41001 through 41082, that are certificated in any category.
(d) This AD results from cracks found in the weld area of the elevator torque tube assembly. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the elevator torque tube assembly, which could result in failure of the elevator torque tube assembly and subsequent loss of control of the airplane.
(e) To address this problem, you must do the following:
The Lancair Company Certified Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-05-005A, Model 400, dated May 20, 2005, allows the pilot to perform the visual inspection of the elevator torque tube assembly. The Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.3) only allow the pilot to perform preventive maintenance as described in 14 CFR part 43, App. A, paragraph (c). These visual inspections are not considered preventive maintenance under 14 CFR part 43, App. A, paragraph (c). Therefore, an appropriately-rated mechanic must perform all actions of this AD.
The compliance times in this AD take precedence over the compliance times in the service information.
(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 must do the actions required by this AD following the instructions in The Lancair Company Certified Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-05-005A, Model 400, dated May 20, 2005. 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. To get a copy of this service information, contact The Lancair Company 22550 Nelson Road, Bend Oregon 97701; telephone: (541) 330-4191; e-mail:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is amending its regulations to provide for electronic filing of Applications for Authorization for the Issuance of Securities or the Assumption of Liabilities. The Commission is making these changes as part of its effort to modernize its reporting and filing requirements and to eliminate unnecessary filing burdens for those entities that file applications or reports with the Commission pursuant to 18 CFR part 34. The proposed revisions will reduce the Commission's and the respondent's costs by allowing the submission of financial information in electronic format in lieu of the present hard copy format; the type of financial data that jurisdictional entities submit in this application is already routinely stored in electronic format, making hard copy filing of such information burdensome. In this Final Rule the Commission continues to move toward electronic filing, as the Government Paperwork Elimination Act mandates.
The modifications in this Final Rule are the result of a review conducted by the Commission's Information Assessment Team (FIAT), identifying the Commission's current information collections, evaluating their original purposes and current uses, and proposing ways to reduce the reporting burden on industry through the elimination, reduction, streamlining or reformatting of current collections.
The rule will become effective at the time of the next e-filing release during the Commission's next fiscal year,
1. This Final Rule revises the Commission's regulations found in 18 CFR part 34 and part 131 to require the electronic filing of Applications for Authorization for the Issuance of Securities or the Assumption of Liabilities (FERC-523). The filing is now made entirely in paper format. Commencing with the Commission's next e-filing release, which is presently slated to occur in the Commission's next fiscal year,
2. This rulemaking yields significant benefits to the respondents and the Commission. These benefits include a reduction in filers' printing and handling costs and a reduction in the Commission's processing and maintenance costs. The move to electronic filing also helps achieve the Commission's goal of vigilant oversight by providing the Commission with more timely and usable information.
3. Under Federal Power Act (FPA) section 204, 16 U.S.C. 824c, no public utility or licensee shall issue any security, or assume any obligation or liability as guarantor, endorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person, unless and until, upon application by the public utility, the Commission by order authorizes the issuance of the securities or the assumption of the liability. The Commission implements this statute through its regulations, which are found at 18 CFR part 34; sections 131.43 and 131.50 of 18 CFR part 131 prescribe the required format for the filings.
4. FERC-523 collects the following: a description of the securities that the company proposes to issue, the purpose of the securities, whether or not the company will file any part of the application with any state, a detailed statement of the facts upon which the applicant relies, a statement of the bond indentures or other limitations on interest and dividend coverage, the effects of such limitations on the issuance of additional debt or equity securities, and a brief statement of any rate changes made effective during the subject period. The Commission uses this information to determine whether to approve an application for authorization to issue securities or to assume an obligation or liability by the public utilities and their licensees who make these applications. The Commission receives about sixty applications annually.
5. In this Final Rule, the Commission is eliminating the requirement to make paper submissions of FERC-523, and to substitute a requirement to file FERC-523 electronically.
6. Current filing regulations for FERC-523 require the respondents to make paper submissions, which the Commission then scans into its document management system (the Commission's Electronic Library (eLibrary)). The scanned filing is converted to PDF format. Those wishing to view the filed information can access and view it through eLibrary; all publicly-available documents are viewable in eLibrary. Currently, most of the FERC-523 submissions, while filed as hardcopy, are originally created by electronic means and are thus already in an electronic format. Allowing submitters to “eFile” reduces the burden of converting an electronic document into a paper submission which the Commission then converts back to an electronic document; and eliminates the cost of sending paper submissions, the Commission's elimination of the FERC-523 paper submissions should benefit those making such filings and should not have an adverse impact on information users.
7. This Final Rule is part of the Commission's efforts to revise and streamline its existing reporting requirements, reduce the filing burden on reporting companies, and meet the requirements of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act of 1998, 44 U.S.C. 35.
8. The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulations require OMB to approve certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule.
9. The current reporting burden for this information collection is as follows:
The Commission expects a burden reduction of 22 hours per response as a result of the electronic filing implementation. This reduces total annual hours to 5,280, a reduction of 1320 hours annually.
10. Interested persons may obtain information on the information requirements by contacting the following: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director, ED-33, Phone (202) 502-8415, Fax: (202) 273-0873, e-mail:
11. To submit comments concerning the collection of information(s) and the associated burden estimate(s), please send your comments to the contact listed above and to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone: (202) 395-4650, fax: (202) 395-7285].
12. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires rulemakings to contain either a description and analysis of the effect that the rule will have on small entities or to contain a certification that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
13. The Commission concludes that this rule would not have such an impact on small entities. Most public utilities to which the Final Rule would apply do not fall within the RFA's definition of a small entity.
14. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
15. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
16. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available in eLibrary. The full text of this document is available in the eLibrary both in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number, excluding the last three digits of this document, in the docket number field.
17. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours. For assistance contact FERC Online Support at
18. This Final Rule will take effect commencing with the Commission's next e-filing release, which is presently slated to occur in the Commission's next fiscal year,
Statements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Forms, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
By the Commission.
16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
Each applicant shall submit to this Commission an electronic version of each application pursuant to this part 34. The electronic version shall be considered a “qualified document” in accordance with § 385.2003(c)(1) and (2) of this chapter. As a qualified document, no paper copy version of the filing is required unless there is a request for privileged or protected treatment or the document is combined with another document as provided in § 385.2003(c)(3) or (4). Submit each application in electronic format in accordance with § 385.2003.
An application verification shall be signed under oath by an authorized representative of the applicant, who has knowledge of the matters set forth therein and as provided in § 385.2005 of this chapter, and retained at the applicant's business location until the relevant proceeding has been concluded.
Each application shall be accompanied by the submission of a filing fee if one is prescribed in part 381 of this chapter.
16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
(See § 34.10 of this chapter)
(Submit in electronic format in accordance with § 385.2003 of this chapter.)
(a) No later than 30 days after the sale or placement of long-term debt or equity securities or the entry into guarantees or assumptions of liabilities (collectively referred to as “placement”) pursuant to authority granted under Part 34 of this chapter, the applicant must file, in electronic format, a summary of each proposal or proposals received for the placement. The proposal or proposals accepted must be indicated. The information to be filed must include:
(1) Par or stated value of securities;
(2) Number of units (shares of stock, number of bonds) issued;
(3) Total dollar value of the issue;
(4) Life of the securities, including maximum life and average life of sinking fund issue;
(5) Dividend or interest rate;
(6) Call provisions;
(7) Sinking fund provisions;
(8) Offering price;
(9) Discount or premium;
(10) Commission or underwriter's spread;
(11) Net proceeds to company for each unit of security and for the total issue;
(12) Net cost to the company for securities with a stated interest or dividend rate.
(b) This report must be filed with the Commission as prescribed in § 385.2003 of this chapter and as indicated in the instructions set out in this report. This report is an electronic file that is classified as a “qualified document” in accordance with § 385.2003(c)(1) and (2). As a qualified document, no paper copy version of the filing is required unless there is a request for privileged or protected treatment or the document is combined with another document as provided in § 385.2003(c)(3) or (4).
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Final rule.
Among other changes to patent and trademark fees, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Consolidated Appropriations Act), splits the national fee for Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications entering the national stage into a separate national fee, search fee and examination fee, during fiscal years 2005 and 2006. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is reducing the search fee and examination fee for certain PCT applications entering the national stage.
Robert W. Bahr, Senior Patent Attorney, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, by telephone at (571) 272-8800, by mail addressed to: Mail Stop Comments—Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450, or by facsimile to (571) 273-7735, marked to the attention of Robert W. Bahr.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act (section 801 of Division B) provides that 35 U.S.C. 41(a), (b), and (d) shall be administered in a manner that revises patent application fees (35 U.S.C. 41(a)) and patent maintenance fees (35 U.S.C. 41(b)), and provides for a separate filing or national fee (35 U.S.C. 41(a)), search fee (35 U.S.C. 41(d)(1)), and examination fee (35 U.S.C. 41(a)(3)) during fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
35 U.S.C. 376 provides that: “[t]he Director may also refund any part of the search fee, the national fee, the preliminary examination fee and any additional fees, where he determines such refund to be warranted.”
Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1, is amended as follows:
Section 1.492(c) sets forth the examination fee for an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. Section 1.492(c)(1) provides that the examination fee for an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 is $0.00 (small or non-small entity), if an international preliminary examination report on the international application prepared by the United States International Preliminary Examining Authority or a written opinion on the international application prepared by the United States International Searching Authority states that the PCT Article 33(1) to (4) criteria have been satisfied for all of the claims presented in the application entering the national stage. Section 1.492(c)(2) provides that the examination fee for an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 is $200.00 ($100.00 for a small entity) in all other situations.
The Office reduced the search fee to $400.00 ($200.00 for a small entity) for applications entering the national stage in the United States with an international search report provided by an International Searching Authority other than the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The United States Patent and Trademark Office 21st Century Strategic Plan contemplates significant national stage search fee reductions for international applications in which the international search report was done by an intellectual property authority with which the United States Patent and Trademark Office has a multilateral or bilateral search exchange agreement. The multilateral or bilateral search exchange agreements contemplated by the United States Patent and Trademark Office 21st Century Strategic Plan, however, are not currently in place. Therefore, a greater reduction in the search fee for applications entering the national stage in the United States with an international search report provided by an International Searching Authority other than the United States Patent and Trademark Office is not warranted at this time.
35 U.S.C. 41(g) provides that: “[n]o fee established by the Director under [35 U.S.C. 41]; shall take effect until at least 30 days after notice of the fee has been published in the
Accordingly, the changes in this final rule may be adopted without thirty-day
Interested persons are requested to send comments regarding this information collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Robert J. Spar, Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450, or to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Freedom of Information, Inventions and patents, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Small Businesses.
35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2).
(b) Search fee for an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 if the basic national fee was not paid before December 8, 2004:
(1) If an international preliminary examination report on the international application prepared by the United States International Preliminary Examining Authority or a written opinion on the international application prepared by the United States International Searching Authority states that the criteria of novelty, inventive step (non-obviousness), and industrial applicability, as defined in PCT Article 33(1) to (4) have been satisfied for all of the claims presented in the application entering the national stage:
(2) If the search fee as set forth in § 1.445(a)(2) has been paid on the international application to the United States Patent and Trademark Office as an International Searching Authority:
(3) If an international search report on the international application has been prepared by an International Searching Authority other than the United States International Searching Authority and is provided, or has been previously communicated by the International Bureau, to the Office:
(4) In all situations not provided for in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of this section:
(c) The examination fee for an international application entering the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 if the basic national fee was not paid before December 8, 2004:
(1) If an international preliminary examination report on the international application prepared by the United States International Preliminary Examining Authority or a written opinion on the international application prepared by the United States International Searching Authority states that the criteria of novelty, inventive step (non-obviousness), and industrial applicability, as defined in PCT Article 33(1) to (4) have been satisfied for all of the claims presented in the application entering the national stage:
(2) In all situations not provided for in paragraph (c)(1) of this section:
(b) National stage applications having paid therein the search fee as set forth in § 1.492(b)(1) and the examination fee as set forth in § 1.492(c)(1) may be amended subsequent to the date of entry into the national stage only to the extent necessary to eliminate objections as to form or to cancel rejected claims. Such national stage applications will be advanced out of turn for examination.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision consists of the removal of the exemption from volatile organic compound (VOC) emission standards for sources located in the Hampton Roads VOC Emissions Control Area localities of James City County, York County, Poquoson City, and Williamsburg City. This action is necessary in order for Virginia to meet its obligation to implement contingency measures as a result of the area's violation of the 1-hour ozone standard. This action is being taken in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
This rule is effective on August 19, 2005 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by July 20, 2005. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in EDocket (RME) ID Number R03-OAR-2005-VA-0008, by one of the following methods:
A. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
B. Agency Web site:
C. E-mail:
D. Mail: R03-OAR-2005-VA-0008, David Campbell, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
E. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Ellen Wentworth, (215) 814-2034, or by e-mail at
On February 22, 2005, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a formal revision to its SIP. This SIP revision consists of the removal of the exemption from VOC emission standards for sources located in the Hampton Roads VOC Emissions Control Area localities of James City County, York County, Poquoson City, and Williamsburg City. Sources of VOC emissions in these localities will now be required to meet the emission standards set forth in Chapter 40 of the Regulations for Control and Abatement of Air Pollution. This action is necessary in order for Virginia to implement contingency measures specified in the maintenance plan established for Hampton Roads. The Hampton Roads Area was designated attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard on June 26, 1997 (62 FR 34408), but subsequently violated the standard between 1999 and 2001.
The Hampton Roads Area, consisting of the localities of James City County, Poquoson City, York County, Portsmouth City, Chesapeake City, Suffolk City, Hampton City, Virginia Beach City, Newport News City, Williamsburg City, and Norfolk City, was classified as a marginal nonattainment area in 1991 (56 FR 56694). The Area was able to achieve the 1-hour ozone standard and was designated attainment for the 1-hour standard on June 26, 1997 (62 FR 34408). The maintenance plan submitted and approved at the time of the redesignation included specific strategies aimed at maintaining air quality and contingency measures in the event the Area measured ozone concentrations above allowable levels. One of the potential measures available was to remove the exemption to meet existing VOC standards provided to sources located in the Hampton Roads Area localities of James City County, York County, Poquoson City, and Williamsburg City. Since the initial promulgation of the VOC emissions control areas in 1979, these four localities had been exempt from meeting the VOC emission standards in 9 VAC-5-40-10,
As stated previously, between 1999 and 2001, Hampton Roads recorded four exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard. As a result, Virginia is required to implement the contingency measures specified in the maintenance plan established for Hampton Roads. One of these measures is the removal of the exemption provided to four localities in the area from existing requirements for limiting VOC emissions. Removal of the exemption will allow Virginia to implement contingency measures required by the maintenance plan with the expectation that the additional VOC reductions provided will ensure that the Area continues to achieve the 1-hour ozone standard.
Chapter 40 of the Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution contains a number of regulations with VOC emission standards. The geographic applicability of these rules is defined by establishing VOC emissions control areas in a list located in 9 VAC 5-20-206 of Chapter 20. This list currently exempts existing stationary sources located in James City County, York County, Poquoson City, and Williamsburg City from the applicable VOC standards as set forth in several articles in Chapter 40. This SIP revision amends 9 VAC 5-20-206.1.c. by removing the exemption from the VOC emission standards in Chapter 40 for the four aforementioned localities. These four localities will now be subject to the VOC standards for existing sources as is the case in the other jurisdictions within the Hampton Roads VOC Emissions Control Area. Existing sources of VOC emissions in these localities will now be required to meet the emissions standards set forth in Chapter 40 of the regulations for the control of air pollution.
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information (1) that are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts * * *.” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”
Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
EPA is approving the SIP revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia on February 22, 2005, amending 9 VAC 5-20-206.1.c. by removing the exemption provided to the counties of James City and York, and the cities of Poquoson and Williamsburg, located in the Hampton Roads VOC Emissions Control Area, from existing VOC emission standards. Removal of this exemption will allow Virginia to implement a contingency measure required by its maintenance plan to address a violation of the 1-hour ozone standard.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's
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
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 19, 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, removing the VOC emission standards exemption for four localities located in the Hampton Roads Emissions Control Area, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Office of Personnel Management.
Proposed rule.
On behalf of the President's Pay Agent, the Office of Personnel Management is issuing proposed regulations on the locality pay program for General Schedule employees. The proposed regulations would merge the Kansas City, St. Louis, and Orlando locality pay areas with the Rest of U.S. locality pay area; create new locality pay areas for Buffalo, NY; Phoenix, AZ; and Raleigh, NC; add Fannin County, TX, to the Dallas-Fort Worth locality pay area; and make minor changes in the official description of the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside and Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia locality pay areas. The new locality pay area definitions would become effective in January 2006.
We must receive comments on or before August 19, 2005.
Send or deliver comments to Donald J. Winstead, Deputy Associate Director for Pay and Performance Policy, Office of Personnel Management, Room 7H31, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415-8200; FAX: (202) 606-4264; or e-mail:
Allan Hearne, (202) 606-2838; FAX: (202) 606-4264; e-mail:
Section 5304 of title 5, United States Code, authorizes locality pay for General Schedule (GS) employees with duty stations in the contiguous United States and the District of Columbia. By law, locality pay is set by comparing GS pay rates with non-Federal pay rates for the same levels of work in each locality pay area. Non-Federal pay levels are estimated by means of salary surveys conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Currently, there are 32 locality pay areas: 31 separate metropolitan locality pay areas and a “Rest of U.S.” (RUS) locality pay area that consists of all locations in the contiguous United States that are not part of one of the 31 separate metropolitan locality pay areas.
Section 5304(f) of title 5, United States Code, authorizes the President's Pay Agent (the Secretary of Labor, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)) to determine locality pay areas. The boundaries of locality pay areas must be based on appropriate factors, which may include local labor market patterns, commuting patterns, and the practices of other employers. The Pay Agent must give thorough consideration to the views and recommendations of the Federal Salary Council, a body composed of experts in the fields of labor relations and pay policy and representatives of Federal employee organizations. The President appoints the members of the Federal Salary Council, which submits annual recommendations to the President's Pay Agent about the locality pay program. Based on recommendations of the Federal Salary Council, we use Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and Combined Statistical Area (CSA) definitions established by the Office of Management and Budget as the basis for locality pay area definitions.
The Federal Salary Council recommended in 2003 that the Pay Agent merge the Kansas City, St. Louis, and Orlando locality pay areas with the RUS locality pay area in 2005 and ask BLS to reallocate its survey resources to cover other areas. The Council made this recommendation because pay comparisons between General Schedule pay and non-Federal pay show that the overall pay disparity in those areas has been below that for the RUS locality pay area for several years. The RUS area serves as the “base” rate, since it is not reasonable to allow a locality pay rate in a metropolitan area to be below the catch-all RUS area rate that would apply just outside the metropolitan area. The Council determined that BLS survey resources would be better used in other locations currently in the RUS locality pay area where non-Federal pay levels might warrant higher locality pay and where large numbers of GS employees work. The Pay Agent concurred with this recommendation in its 2003 report to the President, but later requested that the Council review the matter further.
After reviewing more recent salary survey data, the Council recommended in 2004 that the Kansas City, St. Louis, and Orlando locality pay areas be merged with the RUS locality pay area in 2006. The Pay Agent concurred with this recommendation in its 2004 report to the President. This proposed regulation would implement the Council's recommendation by merging the Kansas City, St. Louis, and Orlando locality pay areas with the Rest of U.S. locality pay area in January 2006.
The Council also recommended in 2004 that existing BLS surveys in the Austin, Buffalo, Louisville, Memphis, Phoenix, and Raleigh metropolitan areas be redesigned as full-scale locality pay surveys and that Buffalo, Phoenix, and Raleigh be made separate locality pay areas in 2006. This proposed regulation follows the Council's recommendation and would make Buffalo (Cattaraugus, Erie, and Niagara Counties, NY), Phoenix (Maricopa and Pinal Counties, AZ), and Raleigh (Chatham, Durham, Franklin, Harnett, Johnston, Orange, Person, and Wake Counties, NC) separate locality pay areas in 2006.
The six metropolitan areas listed above each have 2,500 or more GS employees and 375,000 or more non-farm workers in the local economy (a sufficient base for measuring local pay levels). In addition, smaller-scale BLS salary surveys indicated that pay levels in each area were above those found in the RUS locality pay area. For the 2004 review of locality pay, the Pay Agent asked BLS to produce data for these six metropolitan areas (including modeled data as done for the existing locality pay areas) and compared the survey results to base GS rates using its standard locality pay methodology. The Council based its recommendation to add three new locality pay areas in 2006 on pay comparisons showing that Buffalo, Phoenix, and Raleigh each had a Federal/non-Federal pay disparity
Based on the Council's recommendations, the Pay Agent established criteria for evaluating areas adjacent to metropolitan locality pay areas for inclusion in that locality pay area.
The criteria are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
To calculate commuting rates, OPM uses the “Employment Interchange Measure” which is defined by the Bureau of the Census as “the sum of the percentage of employed residents of the smaller entity who work in the larger entity and the percentage of the employment in the smaller entity that is accounted for by workers who reside in the larger entity.”
Based on the above criteria, no additional areas would be added to the new Buffalo or Phoenix locality pay areas, and the following additional areas would be included in the new Raleigh locality pay area:
• The Fayetteville, NC, Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), consisting of Hoke and Cumberland Counties, NC;
• The Goldsboro, NC, MSA, consisting of Wayne County, NC; and
• The Federal Correctional Complex Butner, NC.
The proposed regulations would include the Federal Correctional Complex Butner, NC, in the new Raleigh locality pay area. Based on information provided by the Wardens of the prison complex, about 1,050 General Schedule employees are stationed at the prison, with an additional 375 to be added in the spring of 2006. The Durham/Granville County line runs through the prison complex. In fact, the county line runs through several of the buildings at the facility, and many employees work in more than one building on a daily basis. Most of the prison land area and buildings are located in Durham County, inside the Raleigh CSA, but the Low Security Institute, with approximately 285 GS employees, is in Granville County, outside of the Raleigh CSA but less than a mile from the county line. Granville County, with approximately 295 GS employees, does not pass the GS employment criterion for including an adjacent county in a higher-paying locality pay area. Likewise, the portion of the prison in Granville County, with 285 GS employees, does not pass the 750 GS employment criterion for including all of a Federal facility in a locality pay area. However, the Pay Agent believes it would not be administratively feasible or desirable to include only part of the prison facility in the new Raleigh locality pay area and proposes to include the entire correctional facility in that area. We request that the Federal Salary Council consider this matter when it meets later this year and will defer a final decision on this matter until after we hear the Council's views.
On February 22, 2005, OMB published OMB Bulletin 05-02 updating MSAs. The bulletin adds the Bonham, TX Micropolitan Statistical Area (Fannin County, TX) to the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CSA, and adds the Culpeper, VA Micropolitan Statistical Area (Culpeper County, VA) to the Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA. The Bulletin also changes the name of the Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA MSA to the Santa Barbara-Santa Maria, CA MSA.
In keeping with these changes, the proposed regulations would add the Bonham, TX Micropolitan Statistical Area (Fannin County, TX) to the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX locality pay area. Under 5 CFR 531.606, any additions made by OMB in MSA or CSA definitions affecting locality pay areas will result in changes in the affected locality pay area that become effective at the beginning of the next calendar year. Because Culpeper County, VA already is part of the Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia locality pay area, the boundaries of the Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia area will not change. Finally, we have updated the definition of the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA locality pay area to reflect the new name of the Santa Barbara-Santa Maria, CA MSA.
The Pay Agent plans to implement the changes in locality pay area boundaries, as described above, in January 2006. Overall, the proposed changes in locality pay area boundaries would move about 34,000 GS employees to the RUS locality pay area and move about 25,000 GS employees to a separate metropolitan locality pay area from the RUS locality pay area.
The Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this rule in accordance with E.O. 12866.
I certify that these regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they would apply only to Federal agencies and employees.
Government employees, Law enforcement officers, Wages.
Accordingly, OPM is proposing to amend 5 CFR part 531 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 531 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 5115, 5307, and 5338; sec. 4 of Pub. L. 103-89, 107 Stat. 981; and E.O. 12748, 56 FR 4521, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 316; Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5303(g), 5333, 5334(a), and 7701(b)(2); Subpart C also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5304, 5305, and 5553; sections 302 and 404 of
1. In § 531.603, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
(b) The following are locality pay areas for purposes of this subpart:
(1) Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL—consisting of the Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL CSA;
(2) Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-NH-ME-RI—consisting of the Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-NH CSA, plus the Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA MSA, Barnstable County, MA, and Berwick, Eliot, Kittery, South Berwick, and York towns in York County, ME;
(3) Buffalo-Niagara-Cattaraugus, NY—consisting of the Buffalo-Niagara-Cattaraugus, NY Combined Statistical Area;
(4) Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI—consisting of the Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI CSA;
(5) Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, OH-KY-IN—consisting of the Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, OH-KY-IN CSA;
(6) Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, OH—consisting of the Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, OH CSA;
(7) Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe, OH—consisting of the Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe, OH CSA;
(8) Dallas-Fort Worth, TX—consisting of the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CSA;
(9) Dayton-Springfield-Greenville, OH—consisting of the Dayton-Springfield-Greenville, OH CSA;
(10) Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO—consisting of the Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO CSA, plus the Ft. Collins-Loveland, CO MSA and Weld County, CO;
(11) Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI—consisting of the Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI CSA, plus Lenawee County, MI;
(12) Hartford-West Hartford-Willimantic, CT-MA—consisting of the Hartford-West Hartford-Willimantic, CT CSA, plus the Springfield, MA MSA and New London County, CT;
(13) Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX—consisting of the Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX CSA;
(14) Huntsville-Decatur, AL—consisting of the Huntsville-Decatur, AL CSA;
(15) Indianapolis-Anderson-Columbus, IN—consisting of the Indianapolis-Anderson-Columbus, IN CSA, plus Grant County, IN;
(16) Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA—consisting of the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA, plus the Santa Barbara-Santa Maria, CA MSA and all of Edwards Air Force Base, CA;
(17) Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL—consisting of the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL MSA, plus Monroe County, FL;
(18) Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI—consisting of the Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI CSA;
(19) Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud, MN-WI—consisting of the Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud, MN-WI CSA;
(20) New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA—consisting of the New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA, plus Monroe County, PA, and Warren County, NJ;
(21) Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD—consisting of the Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA, plus Kent County, DE, Atlantic County, NJ, and Cape May County, NJ;
(22) Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ—consisting of the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area;
(23) Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA—consisting of the Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA CSA;
(24) Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA—consisting of the Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA MSA, plus Marion County, OR, and Polk County, OR;
(25) Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC—consisting of the Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC Combined Statistical Area, plus the Fayetteville, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area, the Goldsboro, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area, and the Federal Correctional Complex Butner, NC;
(26) Richmond, VA—consisting of the Richmond, VA MSA;
(27) Sacramento—Arden—Arcade—Truckee, CA-NV—consisting of the Sacramento—Arden-Arcade'Truckee, CA-NV CSA, plus Carson City, NV;
(28) San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA—consisting of the San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA MSA;
(29) San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA—consisting of the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA, plus the Salinas, CA MSA and San Joaquin County, CA;
(30) Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA—consisting of the Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA CSA;
(31) Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV—consisting of the Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA, plus the Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV MSA, and King George County, VA; and
(32) Rest of U.S.—consisting of those portions of the continental United States not located within another locality pay area.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Raytheon Aircraft Company (Raytheon) Model 390 airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to replace the rudder pedal arm assemblies used in the rudder control system with parts of improved design. This proposed AD results from reports of cracks found on the rudder pedal arm assemblies. We are issuing this proposed AD to prevent failure of the rudder pedal arm assemblies caused by fatigue cracks. This failure could lead to loss of rudder control, loss of nose gear steering, and loss of toe brakes on the side on which the failure occurs.
We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by August 19, 2005.
Use one of the following to submit comments on this proposed AD:
•
•
•
•
•
To get the service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Raytheon Aircraft Company, 9709 E. Central, Wichita, Kansas 67201-0085; telephone: (800) 429-5372 or (316) 676-3140.
To view the comments to this proposed AD, go to
David Ostrodka, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4129; facsimile: (316) 946-4107; e-mail:
While maneuvering the aircraft from a right turn to neutral with toe brake applied during an on-ground compass swing, the rudder pedal arm assembly cracked.
Further investigation revealed another airplane with a crack on the copilot's outboard rudder pedal arm assembly.
Raytheon has determined that loading of the rudder pedals off the centerline of the rudder pedal arm assembly results in overload, which causes fatigue cracking of the rudder pedal arm assembly.
What would be the cost impact of this proposed AD on owners/operators of the affected airplanes? We estimate the following costs to do the proposed modification:
Raytheon will provide warranty credit for parts and labor to extent stated in the service information. Therefore, the proposed actions, if done following the service information, would have little or no cost to the owners/operators of the affected airplanes.
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 proposed AD (and other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
(a) We must receive comments on this proposed airworthiness directive (AD) by August 19, 2005.
(b) None.
(c) This AD affects the following serial-numbered Model 390 airplanes that are certificated in any category:
(d) This AD is the result of reports of cracks found on the rudder pedal arm assemblies used in the rudder control system. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent failure of the rudder pedal arm assemblies caused by fatigue cracks. This failure could lead to loss of rudder control, loss of nose gear steering, and loss of toe brakes on the side on which the failure occurs.
(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 David Ostrodka, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4129; facsimile: (316)
946-4107; e-mail:
(g) To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, contact Raytheon Aircraft Company, 9709 E. Central, Wichita, Kansas 67201-0085; telephone: (800) 429-5372 or (316) 676-3140. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs proposes to revise its rules regarding the reconsideration of decisions on claims for benefits based on newly discovered service records received after the initial decision on a claim. The proposed revision would provide consistency in adjudication of certain types of claims.
Comments must be received on or before August 19, 2005.
Written comments may be submitted by: mail or hand-delivery to Director, Regulations Management (00REG1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; fax to (202) 273-9026; e-mail to
Maya Ferrandino, Consultant, Compensation and Pension Service (211A), Policy and Regulations Staff, Veterans Benefits Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-7232.
To provide consistency in adjudication, we propose to revise current 38 CFR 3.156(c), to establish clearer rules regarding reconsideration of decisions on the basis of newly discovered service department records. We propose to include the substance of current 38 CFR 3.400(q)(2) in revised § 3.156(c). Current § 3.400(q)(2) governs the effective date of benefits awarded when VA reconsiders a claim based on newly discovered service department records. We propose to redesignate current § 3.400(q)(1) as new § 3.400(q)(1) and (2) without substantive change.
Current §§ 3.156(c) and 3.400(q)(2) together establish an exception to the general effective date rule set forth in § 3.400, which provides that the effective date of an award of benefits will be the date of claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is the later. The exception applies when VA receives official service department records that were unavailable at the time that VA previously decided a claim for benefits and those records lead VA to award a benefit that was not granted in the previous decision. Under this exception, the effective date of such an award may relate back to the date of the original claim or date entitlement arose even though the decision on that claim may be final under § 3.104.
The provisions in current §§ 3.156(c) and 3.400(q)(2) are also an exception to the general rule in § 3.156(a) concerning claims to reopen based upon “new and material evidence.” Generally, § 3.156(a) and current § 3.400(q)(1) provide that a claimant must submit new and material evidence to reopen a finally denied claim, and the effective date for the award of benefits based upon such evidence may be no earlier than the date VA received the claim to reopen. Current § 3.156(c) states that new and material evidence may consist of supplemental service department records received before or after the decision has become final. Current § 3.156(c) is confusing because including a “new and material” requirement infers that VA may reopen a claim when service department records that were unavailable at the time of the prior decision are received, and the effective date would be the date of the reopened claim. In practice, when VA receives service department records that were unavailable at the time of the prior decision, VA may reconsider the prior decision, and the effective date assigned will relate back to the date of the original claim, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. We propose to revise § 3.156(c) to clarify VA's current practice regarding newly received service department records. To eliminate possible confusion regarding the effective date assigned based on newly received service department records, we propose to remove the “new and material” requirement in current § 3.156(c).
We also propose to revise current § 3.156(c) by revising the statement in current § 3.156(c) that states that VA will reconsider its decision regarding a claim for benefits if it receives misplaced service department records or certain corrected service department records. In proposed paragraph § 3.156(c)(1), we propose to elaborate on this statement and generally describe service department records as including any official service department records relating to the claimed in-service event, injury, or disease, regardless of whether such records mention the veteran by name, as long as the other requirements of paragraph (c) are met. We intend that this broad description of “service department records” will also include unit records, such as those obtained from the Center for Research of Unit Records (CRUR) that pertain to military experiences claimed by a veteran. Such evidence may be particularly valuable in connection with claims for benefits for post traumatic stress disorder.
We also propose to clarify the language in current § 3.156(c), which suggests that reconsideration may occur only if the service department records “presumably have been misplaced and have now been located.” Even though the current language can be read as a limitation, in practice, VA does not limit its reconsideration to “misplaced” service department records. Rather, VA intended the reference to misplaced records as an example of the type of service department records that may have been unavailable when it issued a decision on a claim. The proposed revision to § 3.156(c) removes this ambiguity.
Proposed § 3.156(c)(1)(iii), adds “declassified records that could not have been obtained because the records were classified when VA decided the claim” as an example of service department records that may have been unavailable at the time of the prior decision. Declassified records may provide evidence of injuries, exposures, or other events in service that may support a claim for VA benefits. Classified service department records are similar to misplaced records and subsequently corrected records in that
We propose in § 3.156(c)(2) to limit the application of this rule by stating that it “does not apply to records that VA could not have obtained when it decided the claim because the records did not exist when VA decided the claim, or the claimant failed to provide VA sufficient information for VA to identify and obtain the records from the respective service department, the Center for Research of Unit Records, or from any other official source.” Reconsideration based upon service department records would not be available in cases where the claimant did not provide information that would have enabled VA or another federal agency to identify and search for relevant records. This limitation would allow VA to reconsider decisions and retroactively evaluate disability in a fair manner, on the basis that a claimant should not be harmed by an administrative deficiency of the government, but limited by the extent to which the claimant has cooperated with VA's efforts to obtain these records.
We also propose to limit the application of § 3.156(c) to avoid conflict with 38 U.S.C. 5110(i), which specifically limits the effective date of an award based on corrected service department records to no earlier than one year before the date on which the previously disallowed claim was reopened.
We propose to remove the language in current § 3.156(c) requiring the submission of “a supplemental report from the service department” as a prerequisite to reconsideration and retroactive evaluation of disability, because VA does not require such supplemental reports in its current administrative proceedings. If, for example, VA itself had been in possession of the records during the prior adjudication but did not associate the records with the claim before a final denial, then the evidence would still warrant reconsideration and a retroactive evaluation of disability or entitlement to benefits under this rule. For the same reason, we propose to eliminate the third sentence of current § 3.156(c), which refers to the same type of report.
Current §§ 3.156(c) and 3.400(q)(2) may be read as requiring an earlier effective date for the award of benefits upon reconsideration only when the basis for the award is newly discovered service department records. Proposed § 3.156(c)(3) eliminates this ambiguity and clarifies that “[a]n award based all or in part on the records identified by paragraph (c)(1) of this section is effective on the date entitlement arose or the date VA received the previously decided claim, whichever is later, or such other date as may be authorized by the provisions of this part applicable to the previously decided claim.” This provision would apply, for example, in cases where a veteran files a claim for disability compensation, which VA denies because there is no evidence of an in-service injury. Years later, if VA receives service department records that show an in-service injury, and obtains a medical opinion that links that injury to the claimant's current disability, it would grant service connection. Although the doctor's opinion is not a document that meets the definition of proposed § 3.156(c)(1), the service department record showing incurrence, which provided the basis for the medical opinion, is such a document. Therefore, the veteran in this example would be entitled to reconsideration of the prior decision and retroactive evaluation of disability. Any award of benefits as a result of such reconsideration would be effective on the date entitlement arose or the date of claim, whichever is later, or any other date made applicable by law or regulation to previously decided claims.
Benefits awarded upon reconsideration of a claim and/or retroactive evaluations of disability under current § 3.156(c) are effective on the dates specified in current § 3.400(q)(2).
Because we propose to include the rule regarding the effective date of an award of benefits based all or in part on newly discovered service department records in § 3.156(c), we additionally propose to remove that effective date provision from current § 3.400(q).
This document contains no new collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). To the extent the proposed revision to § 3.156(c) applies to service department records obtained by VA or provided by a service department, it does not involve a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act. To the extent the proposed revision applies to service department records submitted by individual claimants, the collection of information has been approved by OMB in connection with the VA forms governing applications for compensation, pension, and dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC). Those forms govern the submission of evidence, including service department records, that are relevant to claims for those benefits. This proposed rule would merely explain what actions VA will take when such evidence is submitted after VA has made its initial decision on the claim. The OMB approval numbers for those information collections are 2900-0001 (VA Form 21-526, Veterans' Application for Compensation and/or Pension); 2900-004 (VA Form 21-534, Application for DIC, Death Compensation, and Accrued Benefits by a Surviving Spouse or Child); and 2900-005 (VA Form 21-535, Application for DIC by Parent(s)).
The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed regulatory amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This proposed amendment would not affect any small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed amendment is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
This document has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before developing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any given year. This rule would have no such effect on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers for this proposal are 64.100, 64.101, 64.102, 64.104-106, 64.109, and 64.110.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, Health care, Pensions, Veterans.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA proposes to amend 38 CFR part 3 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 3, subpart A continues to read as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 3.156 is amended by:
a. Adding a paragraph heading to paragraph (a).
b. Adding a paragraph heading to paragraph (b).
c. Revising paragraph (c).
The additions and revision read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(i) Service records that are related to a claimed in-service event, injury, or disease, regardless of whether such records mention the veteran by name, as long as the other requirements of paragraph (c) of this section are met;
(ii) Additional service records forwarded by the Department of Defense or the service department to VA any time after VA's original request for service records; and
(iii) Declassified records that could not have been obtained because the records were classified when VA decided the claim.
(2) Paragraph (c)(1) of this section does not apply to records that VA could not have obtained when it decided the claim because the records did not exist when VA decided the claim, or the claimant failed to provide sufficient information for VA to identify and obtain the records from the respective service department, the Center for Research of Unit Records, or from any other official source.
(3) An award made based all or in part on the records identified by paragraph (c)(1) of this section is effective on the date entitlement arose or the date VA received the previously decided claim, whichever is later, or such other date as may be authorized by the provisions of this part applicable to the previously decided claim.
(4) A retroactive evaluation of disability resulting from disease or injury subsequently service connected on the basis of the new evidence from the service department must be supported adequately by medical evidence. Where such records clearly support the assignment of a specific rating over a part or the entire period of time involved, a retroactive evaluation will be assigned accordingly, except as it may be affected by the filing date of the original claim.
3. Section 3.400 is amended by:
a. Revising the heading of paragraph (q).
b. Removing paragraph (q)(1) heading.
c. Redesignating paragraph (q)(1)(i) as new paragraph (q)(1).
d. Removing paragraph (q)(2).
e. Redesignating paragraph (q)(1)(ii) as new paragraph (q)(2).
The revision reads as follows:
(q)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. This revision removes the volatile organic compound (VOC) emission standards exemption for sources located in the Hampton Roads VOC Emissions Control Area localities of James City County, York County, Poquoson City, and Williamsburg City. Sources located in these jurisdictions will now be subject to the VOC emission standards for existing sources as is the case in the other jurisdictions within the Area. This action is necessary in order for Virginia to meet its obligation to implement contingency measures as a result of the area's violation of the 1-hour ozone standard. In the Final Rules section of this
Comments must be received in writing by July 20, 2005.
Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in EDocket (RME) ID Number R03-OAR-2005-VA-0008 by one of the following methods:
A. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
B. Agency Web site:
C. E-mail:
D. Mail: R03-OAR-2005-VA-0008, David Campbell, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
E. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Ellen Wentworth, (215) 814-2034, or by e-mail at
For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, approving the Control of VOC Emission Standards Within the Hampton Roads VOC Emissions Control Area, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule: notification of public hearing.
On April 6, 2005, NMFS proposed threatened status for the Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of North American green sturgeon (
The hearing will be held on July 6, 2005, from 6:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m.
Written comments on the proposed threatened listing for the Southern green sturgeon DPS must be received by July 6, 2005.
The hearing will be held in the Stanford Room at 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 8-300 Sacramento, CA 95814. Please enter the building through the main entrance, which is located on the Capitol Mall side of the building.
You may submit comments on the proposed threatened listing of the Southern green sturgeon DPS, identified by Docket Number 050323081-5081-01 and RIN 0648-AT02, by any of the following methods:
• E-mail:
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
• Mail: Submit written comments and information to Assistant Regional Administrator, NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, California, 90802-4213. You may hand-deliver written comments to our office during normal business hours at the address given above.
• Fax: 562-980-4027.
Melissa Neuman, NMFS, Southwest Region, (562) 980-4115; or Lisa Manning, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 713-1401.
On April 6, 2005, NMFS proposed threatened status for the Southern DPS of green sturgeon under the ESA (70 FR 17386). The Southern DPS of green sturgeon includes coastal and Central Valley populations south of the Eel River, with the only known population in the Sacramento River. The public comment period for this proposal opened on April 6, 2005, and was originally scheduled to close on July 5, 2005. NMFS is extending the deadline for written comments to coincide with the date of the public hearing (July 6, 2005).
Joint U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of the Interior ESA implementing regulations state that the Secretary shall promptly hold at least one public hearing if any person requests one within 45 days of publication of a proposed regulation to list a species or to designate critical habitat (see 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3)). Although no requests were received, NMFS is holding a public hearing to provide an additional opportunity for the public and other interested parties to comment on the subject proposal. One public hearing will be held in California on the specific date and at the specific location listed here:
Please be advised that weapons, cameras, and cell phones with cameras are prohibited in the building. Members of the public attempting to enter 650 Capitol Mall with any of these items will be denied access and will be asked to return said item(s) to their vehicle before entering the building.
NMFS has scheduled this hearing to allow affected stakeholders and members of the public the opportunity to provide comments directly to agency staff. However, this public meeting is not the only opportunity for the public to provide input on this proposal. The public and stakeholders are encouraged to provide written input to NMFS on the proposal (via correspondence, e-mail, fax, and the Internet; see
Copies of the
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. Comments regarding (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Proposed collection; comment request.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506 (2) (A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 19, 2005.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. E-mail: dHynek@doc.gov.
Request for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to: Joseph Carter, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; Phone number: (202) 482-3342; E-mail:
The International Trade Administration's U.S. Commercial Service is mandated by Congress to help U.S. businesses, particularly small and medium-sized companies, export their products and services to global markets.
As part of its mission, the U.S. Commercial Service currently uses “Quality Assurance Surveys” to collect feedback from the U.S. business clients it serves. These surveys ask the client to evaluate the U.S. Commercial Service on its customer service provision. Results from the surveys are used to make improvements to the agency's business processes in order to provide better and more effective export assistance to U.S. companies. In
Recruit firms over phone using Commercial Service domestic offices (USEACs). Data collection will be conducted during face-to-face interview forums (6-8 participants per focus group) by a client focus group moderator who will transcribe via computer. All comments from participants will be anonymous
Comments are invited on (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Correction to Notice of First Request for Panel Review.
The Notice of First Request in NAFTA Case No. USA-CDA-2005-1904-04 published in the
Notice.
The Department of Commerce (DOC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the continuing and proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 19, 2005.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or a copy of the collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Ami Carbaugh, Management Analyst, NIST, 301-975-4064 or via e-mail to
In accordance with Executive Order 12862, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a non-regulatory agency of the Department of Commerce, proposes to conduct a number of surveys, both quantitative and qualitative.
The surveys will be designed to determine the type and quality of the products, services, and information our key customers want and expect, as well as their satisfaction with and awareness of existing products, services, and information. In addition, NIST proposes other customer service satisfaction data collections that include, but may not be limited to focus groups, reply cards that accompany product distributions, and web-based surveys and dialog boxes that offer customers the opportunity to express their level of satisfaction with NIST products, services, and information and for ongoing dialogue with NIST. NIST will limit its inquiries to data collections that solicit strictly voluntary options and will not collect information that is required or regulated. No assurances of confidentiality will be given. However, it will be completely optional for survey participants to provide their name or affiliation information if they wish to provide comments for which they elect to receive a response. In addition, NIST will not have electronic tracking and will not set cookies for web-based customer responses.
NIST will collect this information by electronic means, as well as by mail, fax, telephone, and person-to-person interaction.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), DOC.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before August 19, 2005.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Beverly D. Lambert, 727-824-5347 or
Any person using fish traps to participate in the commercial reef fish fishery in the Gulf of Mexico must make an appointment with NMFS in order for the fish traps to be inspected. This is a one-time requirement. Fishermen will also be required to make telephone reports when initiating and terminating fishing trips. This information is needed to monitor fish trap fishing.
The information is submitted via a toll-free telephone call.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Approval of amendments to fishery management plans.
NMFS announces the approval of Amendment 83 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) and Amendment 75 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). The amendments make housekeeping revisions to the FMPs. The revisions update harvest, ecosystem, and socioeconomic information, consolidate text, and reorganize the documents. The intent of this action is to update information in the FMPs and to make them easier to read. This action promotes the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMPs, and other applicable laws.
The amendments were approved on June 13, 2005.
Copies of Amendments 83 and 75 are available from the Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Lori Durall, or from the Alaska Region website at
Melanie Brown, 907-586-7228 or
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each Regional Fishery Management Council submit any FMP amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial
Amendments 83 and 75 revise the FMPs by (1) updating harvest, ecosystem, and socioeconomic information, (2) consolidating text, and (3) reorganizing the documents. These revisions update information in the FMPs and make them easier to read.
Amendments 83 and 75 also revise the harvest specifications process set forth in the FMPs to be consistent with Amendments 81 and 74 to the groundfish FMPs (69 FR 31091, June 2, 2004). Amendments 81 and 74 were approved by the Secretary on August 23, 2004, and added new policy objectives to the FMPs, including the objective to adopt conservative harvest levels for multi-species and single species fisheries. Amendments 83 and 75 revise the FMPs' description of the harvest specifications process by requiring total allowable catch for species or species groups to be set equal to or less than the acceptable biological catch. This revision ensures that harvest levels are conservative and consistent with the FMP management policy and objectives to prevent overfishing.
A notice of availability (NOA) for Amendments 83 and 75 to the FMPs, which described the proposed amendments and invited comments from the public, was published in the
The intent of a NOA is to provide the public with notice of a pending decision by the Secretary and to allow for prior public review and comment. The details of proposed FMP amendments are readily available, if more information is needed beyond that provided in the NOA. Because the action was described in enough detail in the NOA to allow the public to understand the nature of the action and additional information was available by mail, phone, NMFS Alaska Region website, and NMFS staff contacts listed in the NOA, the NOA was sufficient to notify the public of the proposed action and to allow for public comments. Therefore, no additional
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that John Wise, Ph.D., Maine Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health, University of Southern Maine, P.O. Box 9300, Portland, ME 04104, has applied in due form for an amendment to Permit No. 1008-1637-01.
Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before July 20, 2005.
The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment (See
Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate.
Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301) 427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period.
Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing email comments is
Amy Sloan or Jennifer Skidmore, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2289.
The subject permit amendment is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
Permit No. 1008-1637-01 authorizes Dr. Wise to receive and import and export (to and from Canada) hard and soft parts from all marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction for purposes of developing cell lines to determine tissue levels of metals in marine mammal species and to establish a national resource of cell lines for use as model systems in the investigation of various factors related to marine mammal health (e.g., toxicity of metals, virology, etc.). The cell lines may not be sold for profit or used for commercial purposes. Marine mammal parts may be obtained and cell lines developed from the following sources: import from stranded dead marine mammals collected as part of government-authorized marine mammal stranding response operations along the coast of British Columbia, Canada; stranded dead marine mammals in the United States (U.S.); marine mammals that have died during rehabilitation efforts in the U.S.; animals killed during subsistence harvests; soft parts that are discharged naturally by a living threatened or endangered species in the wild; animals that died incidental to commercial fishing if such taking is legal, or other legal operations of the U.S. and Canada; and specimens collected during permitted research activities in the U.S. Exports to Canada of such parts or cell lines are authorized.
The applicant requests authorization to (1) import and export parts and cell lines worldwide; and (2) add USFWS species to the permit, including walrus (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
Documents may be reviewed in the following locations:
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 713-2289; fax (301) 427-2521;
Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206) 526-6150; fax (206) 526-6426;
Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; phone (907) 586-7221; fax (907) 586-7249;
Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562) 980-4001; fax (562) 980-4018;
Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Rm 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700; phone (808) 973-2935; fax (808) 973-2941;
Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978) 281-9200; fax (978) 281-9371;
Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; phone (727) 824-5312; fax (727) 824-5309; and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, VA 22203 (1-800-358-2104).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability; response to comments.
NMFS has incorporated public comments into revisions of marine mammal stock assessment reports (SARs) and the guidelines for preparing marine mammal stock assessment reports. The 2004 final SARs and the revised guidelines are now complete and available to the public.
Send requests for copies of reports or revised guidelines to: Chief, Marine Mammal Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226, Attn: Stock Assessments. Copies of the Pacific Regional SARs may be requested from Cathy Campbell, Southwest Regional Office, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213.
Tom Eagle, Office of Protected Resources, 301-713-2322, ext. 105, e-mail
Stock assessment reports and the revised guidelines for preparing them are available via the Internet at
Section 117 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361
The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information is available, and at least once every 3 years for non-strategic stocks. NMFS and the FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined. NMFS, in conjunction with the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific Scientific Review Groups (SRGs), reviewed the status of marine mammal stocks as required and revised reports in the Pacific region.
The SARs in the Alaska and Atlantic regions were reviewed along with new information on these stocks of marine mammals. Although new abundance or mortality estimates were available for some stocks in these regions, the status of no stocks in these regions would be changed. Furthermore, NMFS could not determine the status of marine mammal stocks in the Alaska or Atlantic regions with substantially improved accuracy. Completion of the draft 2004 reports was delayed due to several factors, and the draft 2005 reports are now being completed. Therefore, the reports in these two regions were not revised, and updated information will be included in the 2005 reports.
NMFS convened a workshop in June 1994, including representatives from NMFS, FWS, and the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), to prepare draft guidelines for preparing SARs. The report of this workshop (Barlow et al., 1995) included the guidelines for preparing SARs and a summary of the discussions upon which the guidelines were based. The draft guidelines were made available, along with the initial draft SARs, for public review and comment (59 FR 40527, August 9, 1995).
In 1996, NMFS convened a second workshop to review the guidelines and to recommend changes, if appropriate, to them. Workshop participants included representatives from NMFS,
In September 2003, NMFS again convened a workshop to review guidelines for SARs and again has proposed minor changes to the guidelines. Participants at the workshop included representatives of NMFS, FWS, the Commission, and the regional SRGs. Changes to the guidelines resulting from the 2003 workshop were directed primarily toward identifying population stocks and estimating PBR for declining stocks of marine mammals.
The draft 2004 SARs and the proposed revisions to guidelines were available for public review (69 FR 67541, November 18, 2004) for a 90-day comment period, which ended on February 16, 2005. NMFS received five letters (two from the Commission, one each from the Center for Biological Diversity and the Ocean Conservancy, and one from a marine mammal scientist) with substantive comments on the Pacific SARs or on the proposed revisions of guidelines for preparing stock assessment reports. Two letters addressed Pacific SARs, and three addressed the proposed revisions to the guidelines.
Unless otherwise noted, comments suggesting editorial or clarifying changes were included in the reports. Such editorial comments and responses to them are not included in the summary of comments and responses below.
In the past, NMFS has updated reports to include the latest information whether or not this information changed the status or allowed the status to be determined with improved accuracy. Because the 2004 reports were updated so late in 2004, NMFS limited its updates to the reports in the Pacific region where significant new information (the results of the first comprehensive cetacean survey in the Hawaii Exclusive Economic Zone) was available. NMFS has updated reports in all three regions in its 2005 reports and will soon have the draft reports available for public review and comment.
Total fishery mortality for each stock of Alaska marine mammals did not change because NMFS split existing fisheries on the basis of target species and location of operation. Rather, the total mortality is partitioned differently; thus, the status of the stocks would not have changed. NMFS will respond to comments on the draft 2005 List of Fisheries in a separate notice in the
NMFS realizes the limitations of prospective stock identities for management purposes. However, NMFS maintains that identifying prospective stocks has conservation value by showing areas where mortality may be higher than the local aggregation of marine mammals can sustain or where abundance trends indicate the potential for localized depletions. Thus, prospective stocks would be included in SARs as an interim measure during the period when additional information supporting a change in stock identity can be collected, analyzed, and interpreted.
In 1996, NMFS evaluated its initial guidelines in a workshop, including representatives from NMFS, FWS, the Commission, and the regional SRGs, and changed them to explicitly include demographic isolation as a basis for stock identity. Again, the proposed guidelines were made available for public review and comment. Thus, the concept of demographic isolation as the basis for stock identity has been in existence since NMFS and FWS initially complied with MMPA section 117.
The statutory text related to distinct population segments in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is similar to the MMPA's definition of population stock. NMFS and FWS implement these concepts differently based upon the purposes and policies of the two statutes and on Congressional reports (see responses to Comments 7 and 8).
The comments received on these proposed changes to the guidelines are sufficient to question the proposed interpretation of “interbreed when mature”. Therefore, NMFS has removed that statement, and its example related to humpback whales, from the final revised guidelines.
FWS and NMFS jointly developed a policy to identify distinct population segments under the ESA (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). The agencies, in consultation with the Commission, also jointly developed its policies for identifying population stocks under the MMPA. These policies were developed with careful consideration of the specific wording of pertinent definitions within the statutes, the purposes and policies of the statutes, and appropriate legislative history.
As noted in Barlow
As noted in their final policy statement, FWS and NMFS also included a discreteness criterion to identify distinct population segments under the ESA. However, the purposes of the ESA are different from those of the MMPA, and the agencies added a second criterion, significance, to their consideration. Thus, to be considered a distinct population segment, a group of vertebrates would have to be discrete from other aggregations of the same species or subspecies, and it would have to be important (or significant) in an evolutionary sense to the species or subspecies. The significance criterion was based somewhat upon Congressional guidance to list distinct populations segments sparingly and only when the biological evidence indicates that such action is warranted (Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st session). The policy for identifying distinct population segments under the ESA has been legally challenged and has withstood judicial review.
However, the MMPA defines PBR explicitly; therefore, the use of “undefined” is in conflict with wording of the statute. In some cases, a calculated maximum number of marine mammals that may be removed from the stock while allowing the stock to achieve or maintain its OSP cannot be determined; therefore, NMFS has altered the final guidelines to use the term “undetermined” rather than the proposed term “undefined”. NMFS maintains its position that the “undetermined” label for PBR of declining stocks is appropriate in some cases and will include it in the final guidelines. The use of an undetermined PBR will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and explained in the affected SAR. NMFS agrees that the statement quoted in the comment may be misleading or confusing and removed it from the final guidelines.
Establishing a PBR of zero for all declining stocks of marine mammals could have adverse consequences for marine mammal conservation as well as for commercial, defense-related, or recreational activities within marine ecosystems. On one hand, a PBR of zero would highlight even a minor level of incidental mortality as a substantial conservation issue and would, therefore, have the potential to take resources away from other, more immediate, factors affecting the stock. On the other hand, a PBR of zero for all declining stocks of marine mammals would mean that even a very small level of incidental mortality and serious injury could not be authorized under the MMPA. Thus, commercial or recreational opportunity could be diminished with little or no benefit to the affected marine mammal stock or stocks. NMFS, therefore, will maintain the ability to label PBR as undetermined in a limited number of cases, and, when such a label occurs, NMFS will include a justification for it in the affected SAR.
NMFS has not investigated the limits of mortality or serious injury that would have a negligible impact on a declining stock. However, such an investigation is necessary to establish a policy on levels of mortality of declining stocks that can be authorized. NMFS is initiating research to identify and evaluate the consequences to populations of options for a negligible impact threshold for declining populations and will use a notice-and-comment process in implementing an approach when the initial research is complete.
The other situation occurs when mortality estimates are higher than a PBR calculated with the default recovery factor and the population is increasing (for stocks for which the principal mortality factor is subsistence harvest, the population is not known to be decreasing). For this situation, the guidelines state, “Values other than the defaults for any stock should usually not be used without the approval of the regional [SRG], and scientific justification for the change should be provided in the Report”. The current guidelines provide reasonable assurances related to increasing recovery factors from default values in only a few limited situations; therefore, NMFS does not plan to change them at this time.
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 20, 2005.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Mr. Oleinick at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Toppings, WHS/ESD Information Management Division, 1225 South Clark Street, Suite 504, Arlington, VA 22202-4326.
Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Pub. L. 104-164 dated July 1996.
Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/OPS-ADMIN, (703) 604-6575.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 05-27 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
DoD, Retirement Board of Actuaries.
Notice of meeting.
A meeting of the Board has been scheduled to execute the provisions of Chapter 74, Title 10, United States Code (10 U.S.C. 1464 et. seq.), The Board shall review DoD actuarial methods and assumptions to be used in the valuation of the Military Retirement System. Persons desiring to: (1) attend the DoD Retirement Board of Actuaries meeting, or (2) make an oral presentation or submit a written statement for consideration at the meeting, must notify Inger Pettygrove at (703) 696-7413 by July 8, 2005.
Notice of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
August 11, 2005, 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
4040 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 270, Arlington, VA 22203.
Inger Pettygrove, DoD Office of the Actuary, 4040 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 308, Arlington, VA 22203, (703) 696-7413.
DoD, Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee.
Notice of revised non-foreign overseas per diem rates.
The Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee is publishing Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 240. This bulletin lists revisions in the per diem rates prescribed for U.S. Government employees for official travel in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands and Possessions of the United States. AEA changes announced in Bulletin Number 194 remain in effect. Bulletin Number 240 is being published in the
June 1, 2005.
This document gives notice of revisions in per diem rates prescribed by the Per Diem Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee for non-foreign areas outside the continental United States. It supersedes Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 239. Distribution of Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletins by mail was discontinued. Per Diem Bulletins published periodically in the
Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army, (OAA-RPA), DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department of the Army announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 19, 2005.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to USACE, Directorate of Civil Works, Institute for Water Resources, 7701 Telegraph Road/Casey Building, Alexandria, Virginia 22315-3868. ATTN: (Virginia R. Pankow). Consideration will be given to all comments received within 60 days of the date of publication of this notice.
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the above address, or call Department of the Army Reports Clearance Officer at (703) 602-0636.
The data is used by the Corps of Engineers, in conjunction with other navigation information of waterway freight and passenger traffic, to evaluate the impact of redefining “the justified level of service” of the channel maintenance program. These data are also essential to the Waterborne Commerce Statistic Center in exercising their enforcement and quality control responsibilities in the collection of data from vessel reporting companies.
Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army, (OAA-RPA), DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department of the Army announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents; including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 19, 2005.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to USACE, Directorate of Civil Works, Institute for Water Resources, 7701 Telegraph Road/Casey Building, Alexandria, Virginia 22315-3868. ATTN: (Virginia R. Pankow). Consideration will be given to all comments received within 60 days of the date of publication of this notice.
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the above address, or call Department of the Army Reports Clearance Officer at (703) 602-0636.
The data is used primarily by the Corps of Engineers in conducting a system wide approach to planning and management on the waterway. The Headquarters, Division and District Offices use the information specifically to assist in making determinations on: Adequate staffing for operations and maintenance of the navigation locks and
Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army, (OAA-RPA), DoD
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department of the Army announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 19, 2005
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Directorate of Civil Works, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC. 20314-1000 ATTN: (Charles Stark). Consideration will be given to all comments received within 60 days of the date of publication of this notice.
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the above address, or call Department of the Army Reports Clearance Officer at (703) 602-0636.
The Corps will conduct surveys of customers at our districts, division and headquarters offices, currently a total of 49 offices. Most customer responses will be solicited by the 38 districts. These elements will tabulate their survey results and send copies to headquarters for a Corps wide tabulation. The survey form will be provided to the public when they receive a regulatory product, primarily a permit decision or wetland determination.
Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army, (OAA-RPA), DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction of 1995, the Department of the Army announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 19, 2005.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, 7701 Telegraph Road, (CEIWR-MD), Alexandria, Virginia 22315-3868. ATTN: (Stuart A. Davis). Consideration will be given to all comments received within 60 days of the date of publication of this notice.
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the above address, or call Department of the Army Reports Clearance Officer at (703) 602-0636.
All survey questionnaires are carefully selected to minimize undue burden on the public and are subject to internal controls and pre-testing before actual use. Duplication is avoided by close coordination with state and local agencies as well as other Federal agencies and, whenever possible, participation in joint data collection efforts. Most of the Corps of Engineers civil works survey information is collected for very unique circumstances, such as visitor information at Corps recreation areas or flood damage information related to the Corps evaluation procedures. Much of this information is required to be very current and must be updated every one to two years.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice of proposed information collection.
The Navy Recruiting Command announces a proposed extension of an approved public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 19, 2005.
Send written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection to Commander, Navy Recruiting Command (N35B), 5722 Integrity Drive, Millington, TN 38054-5057.
To request additional information or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, contact Mr. Robert Phillips at (901) 874-9048.
The information provided on the NAVCRUIT Form 1130/13 is used by the Navy recruiter and by recruiting management personnel in assessing the Navy applicant's ability to meet financial obligations, thereby preventing the enlistment of, and subsequent management difficulties with people who cannot reasonably expect to meet their financial obligations on Navy day.
On June 3, 2005, the Department published in the
On page 32589, third column, the additional requirement under the heading “6.
6.
The plan must (1) detail the composition of the board by name and affiliation in accordance with the requirements described in section 203 of the TA Act and in the application instructions found in the application package, and (2) include a letter of commitment from each proposed board member. In the alternative to submitting a plan that meets the requirements in (1) and (2) in the previous sentence, an applicant may include, in its plan, a statement of commitment that it will comply with section 203(g) of the TA Act as well as a narrative statement of how the board will operate.
Enid Simmons, Office of School Support and Technology Programs, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E307, Washington, DC 20202-6135. Telephone: (202) 708-9499 or via the Internet:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) 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
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Ms. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-2221-033) on any comments or motions filed. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
l.
m.
n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
o.
p.
q.
On June 2, 2003, the Grand River Dam Authority, licensee for the Markham Ferry Project No. 2183, filed an application for a new or subsequent license pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's regulations. Project No. 2183 is located on the Grand River in Mayes County, Oklahoma.
The license for Project No. 2183 was issued for a period ending May 31, 2005. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year to year an annual license to the then licensee under the terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on Section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2183 is issued to the Grand River Dam Authority for a period effective June 1, 2005 through May 31, 2006, or until the issuance of a new license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before June 1, 2006, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed automatically without further order or notice by the Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that the Grand River Dam Authority is authorized to continue operation of the Markham Ferry Project No. 2183 until such time as the Commission acts on its application for subsequent license.
On May 2, 2003, the City of Marshall, Michigan, licensee for the City of Marshall Project No. 6514, filed an application for a new or subsequent license pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's regulations. Project No. 6514 is located on the Kalamazoo River in Calhoun County, Michigan.
The license for Project No. 6514 was issued for a period ending May 31, 2005. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year to year an annual license to the then licensee under the terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 6514 is issued to the City of Marshall, Michigan for a period effective June 1, 2005 through May 31, 2006, or until the issuance of a new license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before June 1, 2006, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed automatically without further order or notice by the Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that the City of Marshall, Michigan is authorized to continue operation of the City of Marshall Project No. 6514 until such time as the Commission acts on its application for subsequent license.
Take notice that Questar Pipeline Company (Questar Pipeline), 180 East 100 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 and Questar Gas Management Company (Questar Gas Management), 1050 17th Street, Suite 500 Denver, Colorado 80265, jointly filed in Docket No. CP05-366-000 on June 3, 2005, an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), for authorization for Questar Pipeline to abandon, by sale, 16.5-miles of 12-inch diameter pipeline located in Uintah County, Utah, including associated receipt and delivery points and appurtenances to a non-jurisdictional affiliate, Questar Gas Management. Applicants also request a determination under section 1(b) of the NGA that upon abandonment the subject facilities will be non-jurisdictional gathering facilities, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may be also viewed on the Web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Lenard G. Wright, Manager, Federal Regulatory Affairs, Questar Pipeline Company, 180 East 100 South, P.O. Box 45360, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-0360. Mr. Wright also may be contacted at (801) 324-2459, (801) 324-5834 (fax).
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings 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) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other and the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Description: Carolina Power & Light Company d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc and Florida Power Corporation d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc. submits corrections to their April 28, 2005 filing in ER05-882-000.
Description: LG&E Energy Market Inc.; Louisville Gas & Electric Company; Kentucky Utilities Company; and Western Kentucky Energy Corp. provide their first filing in compliance with FERC's 5/5/05 Order, 111 FERC ¶ 61,153 (2005).
Description: Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co. dba Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana submits Original Sheet 4A to its FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume 4 in compliance with the Commission's 5/5/2005 order.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings 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) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other and the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in
The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification.
Take notice that on June 3, 2005, Entergy Services, Inc. (Entergy Services) submitted for filing on behalf of Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (EAI), certain corrected pages to EAI's 2005 Wholesale Formula Rate Update filed on March 23, 2005 in Docket No. ER05-719-000. Entergy Services states that the amended pages correct the distribution rate applicable to the City of North Little Rock, Arkansas.
Take notice that on June 8, 2005, James S. Pignatelli tendered for filing an application for authority to hold interlocking positions among ISO New England Inc., Tucson Electric Power Company, and UNS Electric, Inc.
Take notice that on June 6, 2005, the Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) filed revisions to its non-jurisdictional Large Generator Interconnection Procedures and Large Generator Interconnection Agreement to comply with Order No. 2003-B,
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protests to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available to review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings 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) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of Freeport LNG Development, L.P.'s (Freeport LNG) proposal to amend its authorization for its Freeport LNG Project. Freeport LNG proposes to change the diameter of its previously approved pipeline from 36 inches to 42 inches. The larger pipeline would use the same right-of-way and workspaces as the previously approved route from Quintana Island to Stratton Ridge in Brazoria County, Texas. Freeport LNG is not requesting any additional work areas for the construction of the larger pipeline.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping period that will be used to gather environmental input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Please note that the scoping period will close on July 13, 2005.
This notice is being sent to potentially affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes, other interested parties; local libraries and newspapers. State and local government representatives are asked to notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC website (
In the Commission's June 18, 2004 Order, Freeport LNG was authorized to construct and operate a 9.6 mile, 36-inch-diameter pipeline and a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal. At this time the authorized LNG terminal is under construction. Pipeline construction is planned to start in December 2005.
Freeport LNG filed its original application on March 28, 2003. At that time Freeport LNG did not foresee a potential for additional customer demand. Since the project was authorized by the Commission other customers have expressed interest in using the LNG facility to import natural gas. Freeport proposes to meet this increased demand by expanding its authorized facilities. The proposal under consideration in this docket is only Freeport LNG's proposal to increase the diameter of its outlet pipeline from 36 inches to 42 inches.
We are looking at the increased pipeline diameter separately from the proposed expansion of the LNG terminal for several reasons. First, since the larger pipeline would be constructed in the same footprint as the previously authorized pipeline it appears that there would be no additional environmental impact from that described in the environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared for the original Freeport LNG Project. Second, although the increase in diameter would benefit future expansion, it would also benefit the already authorized terminal. The increase in diameter would provide Freeport LNG with more operational flexibility by maintaining higher delivery pressures at the Stratton Ridge delivery point at the terminus of the line. Staff estimates that the increase in pipe diameter would increase delivery pressures at the Stratton Ridge delivery point by as much as 13 percent. Higher delivery pressures at the Stratton Ridge delivery would enable Freeport LNG to respond to larger hourly swings in demand on its pipeline system. Finally, there is a timing issue. In order to meet the in-service date for the authorized project, construction of the pipeline must start in December 2005. If the authorized 36-inch-diameter pipeline is installed and the Commission decides to approve the expansion of the terminal a second pipeline would need to be installed to meet the volume requirements of the expansion. This would result in increased environmental impact. If the Commission decides not to approve the expansion the 42-inch-diameter pipeline would continue to be used for the existing customers.
The location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix 1.
Construction of the 42-inch-diameter pipeline would disturb the same 87.9 acres of land that would have been disturbed by the previously approved 36-inch-diameter pipeline. Following construction, about 37.3 acres would be maintained as permanent right-of-way. The remaining 50.6 acres of land would be restored and allowed to revert to its former use.
We
Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners, newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission.
Since the proposed increase in pipeline diameter would not result in any environmental impacts that were not described in the Freeport LNG Environmental Impact Statement, in the EA, we will summarized the impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the project. We will also evaluate possible alternatives to increasing the diameter of the pipeline.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission. You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the proposal, alternatives to the proposal (including alternative locations and routes), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
• Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
• Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 2.
• Reference Docket Number CP03-75-002.
• Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before July 13, 2005.
Please note that the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments or interventions or protests to this proceeding. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an official party to the proceeding known as an “intervenor”. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process. Among other things, intervenors have the right to receive copies of case-related Commission documents and filings by other intervenors. Likewise, each intervenor must send one electronic copy (using the Commission's eFiling system) or 14 paper copies of its filings to the Secretary of the Commission and must send a copy of its filings to all other parties on the Commission's service list for this proceeding. If you want to become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene according to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214, see Appendix 2).
Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your environmental comments considered.
If you wish to remain on our environmental mailing list, please return the Information Request Form included in Appendix 2. If you do not return this form, you will be removed from our mailing list.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC Internet website (
In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to the documents. Go to
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions is 60 days from the issuance of this notice; reply comments are due 105 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.
Comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions 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 for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l. The Santa Felicia Project is operated as a flood control dam during the winter with a primary purpose of storing water to recharge alluvium aquifers downstream of the project. Typically, the project acts as a hydroelectric project only during the conservation releases that serve to recharge the aquifers, normally a period of approximately 50 days during September and October. Power is also generated in anticipation of or during reservoir spill periods. The existing Santa Felicia Project consists of (1) A 200-foot-tall, 1,260-foot-long earth-fill dam; (2) an 87,187 acre-foot reservoir with a useable storage capacity of 67,669 acre-feet; (3) an ungated spillway and associated works; (4) a powerhouse with two units having a total installed capacity of 1,434-kilowatts; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The Santa Felicia powerhouse is operated manually.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
n. Public notice of the filing of the initial development application, which has already been given, established the due date for filing competing applications or notices of intent. Under the Commission's regulations, any competing development application must be filed in response to and in compliance with public notice of the initial development application. No competing applications or notices of intent may be filed in response to this notice.
All filings must (1) Bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “REPLY COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (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 submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
Notice of proposed rate.
The Western Area Power Administration (Western) is proposing an adjustment for its Regulation and Frequency Response Service (Regulation) rate. The current rate, Rate Schedule No. L-AS3, will expire February 28, 2009.
Western is undertaking this rate adjustment in response to anticipated load and resource growth and the corresponding impact on the Western Area Colorado Missouri (WACM) Balancing Authority (WACM Balancing Authority). Prior to April 1, 2005, the WACM Balancing Authority was known as the WACM Control Area.
This proposed rate adjustment will ensure that users of Regulation service within the WACM Balancing Authority are appropriately assessed for their Regulation usage and that sufficient revenue is collected to cover provision of the service. Publication of this
The consultation and comment period begins today and will end September 19, 2005. Western will present a detailed explanation of the proposed rate adjustment at the public information forum, to be held on the following date and time:
1. July 27, 2005, 10 a.m. MDT, Denver, CO.
Western will accept oral and written comments at the public comment forum, to be held on the following date and time:
1. July 27, 2005, 1 p.m. MDT, Denver, CO.
Western will accept written comments at any time during the consultation and comment period.
Send written comments to Edward F. Hulls, Operations Manager, Rocky Mountain Customer Service Region (RMR), Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 3700, Loveland, CO 80539-3003, e-mail
1. Radisson Hotel, Stapleton Plaza, 3333 Quebec Street, Denver, CO 80207, (303) 321-3500.
Mr. Edward F. Hulls, Operations Manager, RMR, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 3700, Loveland, CO 80539-3003, telephone (970) 461-7566, e-mail
The current Rate Schedule L-AS3 was approved by the Deputy Secretary of Energy as part of Rate Order No. WAPA-106 (69 FR 1723-1738) on January 12, 2004, which placed formula rates for Loveland Area Projects (LAP) transmission and ancillary services into effect on an interim basis effective March 1, 2004. On January 31, 2005, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) confirmed and approved the formula rates under FERC Docket No. EF04-5182-000 (110 FERC 62,084). The approval of Rate Schedule L-AS3 covers the five (5) year period beginning on March 1, 2004, and ending on February 28, 2009.
The existing formula rate methodology for this rate will change under the proposed adjustment. Additionally, the proposed rate includes four different applications: (1) Load-based assessment; (2) generator-based assessment; (3) load-based with non-dispatchable resource(s) in the generation portfolio; and (4) assessment of self-provision for Regulation service, as follows:
The first application of the Regulation rate will be assessed to entities serving load within the WACM Balancing Authority. This load-based rate will be assessed on an entity's auxiliary load (total metered load less Federal entitlements).
Western will periodically evaluate each entity's load and generation patterns and determine whether or not they are within normal limits (conforming vs. non-conforming). Based on these periodic evaluations, Western may adjust the Regulation charges for an entity.
The second application of this Regulation rate will be assessed to entities that have a generating resource, but serve no load, within the WACM Balancing Authority.
Based on the characteristics of the specific generator, Western will determine the amount of Regulation required for the resource. Based on Western's periodic evaluation of the resource's performance, the Regulation requirements for the resource may be adjusted.
The third application of this rate will be assessed much like the load-based assessment, but will apply specifically to entities that also have non-dispatchable resource(s) in their generation portfolio.
In addition to the load-based charges outlined above, the entity will also be assessed the load-based Regulation charge for its non-dispatchable resource(s) equal to or less than 10 percent of that entity's auxiliary load. For non-dispatchable resource(s) beyond 10 percent of an entity's auxiliary load, Western will determine the amount of required Regulation and charge Western's pass-through cost for providing the service.
The fourth application of this rate will allow for the self-provision of Regulation service. The WACM Balancing Authority will allow entities serving load inside the Balancing Authority to self-provide Regulation service for their load(s) and resource(s). These entities will be known as Sub-Balancing Authorities. The Sub-Balancing Authorities must meet all of the following criteria to be eligible for self-provision of Regulation service:
1. Have a well-defined boundary with the WACM Balancing Authority equipped with revenue-quality metering accuracy as defined by the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC), to include megawatt (MW) flow data availability at 1-minute or smaller intervals.
2. Have Automatic Generation Control (AGC) capability.
3. Demonstrate Regulation capability.
4. Execute a contract with the Balancing Authority that requires the entity to:
a. Provide all requested necessary data to the Balancing Authority
b. Meet Sub-Balancing Authority Error Criteria (SBAEC)
The type of operating system that the entity has in place will determine the level of self-provision provided. A requesting Sub-Balancing Authority must participate in regular performance testing and must provide sufficient documentation to receive full or partial credit for self-provision of Regulation service.
Sub-Balancing Authorities with automatic control of generation in response to an internal error signal within the subject system may wish to provide for their own Regulation requirements. The internal error signal will consist of the measurement of a schedule across a known boundary, compared to the actual flow across the known boundary. For these entities, Western will require one of the following criteria:
1. The Sub-Balancing Authority must be willing and able to respond to the WACM Balancing Authority's dynamic signal, proportional to the Sub-Balancing Authority's load within the Balancing Authority.
2. The Sub-Balancing Authority must allow the WACM Balancing Authority direct access to pulse the Sub-Balancing Authority's regulating units, proportional to their share of the Regulation requirement from the Balancing Authority.
3. The Sub-Balancing Authority and the WACM Balancing Authority may mutually agree to any other proven methodology and process.
A Sub-Balancing Authority that does not have automatic control of the generation, with all control reactions to an error signal processed manually, may desire to self-provide Regulation service. This type of entity will have its Regulation service usage determined by an hourly calculation that measures the first derivative of the averaged 1-minute change in the Sub-Balancing Authority's error signal. The only exception will be those hours when there is a reserve activation response call in which the entity either receives or provides energy to the reserve group.
For those entities operating automated generation control in a tie-line bias mode, subject to the requirements for Frequency Responsive Reserves (FRR), the WACM Balancing Authority intends to offset the calculated Regulation requirement by an amount equal to the weighted average hourly frequency multiplied by an entity's frequency response bias factor. This will eliminate any Regulation costs incurred due to the provision of frequency support to the interconnection.
For a requesting entity to qualify for this accommodation, it must provide the WACM Balancing Authority with data required for physical confirmation of FRR participation. Minimum data that must be provided in real time includes the scan-by-scan information regarding individual unit capability, real MW output, and reactive megavolt-ampere output. Engineering data commonly used for system modeling must also be provided. Other data may be required and will be requested in writing. No credit(s) will be allowed for frequency bias contributions until the requested real-time and engineering data is provided to the WACM Balancing Authority.
Western will work with entities unwilling to take Regulation service from the WACM Balancing Authority, self-provide it, or provide it from a third party, to meter their resources and/or loads out of the Balancing Authority. Until such time as that meter reconfiguration is accomplished, the WACM Balancing Authority will charge the entity for Regulation service under the rate then in effect.
Western has determined that the proposed rate constitutes a minor rate adjustment as defined by 10 CFR part 903, and has established a 90-day comment period. During that time, Western will hold both a public information forum and a public comment forum. After review of public comments, and possible amendments or adjustments, Western will recommend that the Deputy Secretary of Energy approve the proposed rate on an interim basis.
Western is establishing this proposed rate adjustment for Regulation and Frequency Response Service under the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152); the Reclamation Act of 1902 (ch 1093, 32 Stat. 388), as amended and supplemented by subsequent enactments, particularly section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)) and section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s); and other acts specifically applicable to the projects involved.
By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00, effective December 6, 2001, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The authority to develop power and transmission rates to Western's Administrator; (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand, or to disapprove such rates to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Existing DOE procedures for public participation in power rate adjustments (10 CFR part 903) were published on September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37835).
All brochures, studies, comments, letters, memoranda, e-mail, or other documents made or kept by Western for developing the proposed rate will be made available for inspection and copying at the Rocky Mountain Customer Service Region office located at 5555 East Crossroads Boulevard, Loveland, CO 80538.
Western's Customer Rate Brochure for this rate adjustment is available on Western's Web site at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601,
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321,
Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required.
Western has determined that this rule is exempt from congressional notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 801 because the action is a rulemaking of particular applicability relating to rates or services and involves matters of procedure.
This notice is to inform the public that the Export-Import Bank of the United States has received an application to finance the export of approximately $22.3 million in U.S. equipment to a producer of denim in Turkey. The exports will expand the Turkish buyer's current production of denim by about 15 million square meters per year. Available information indicates that the denim will be sold in Turkey, Europe and the Former Soviet Union, starting in the latter part of 2005. Interested parties may submit comments on this transaction by e-mail to
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
The following information collection, which is being handled under this delegated authority, has received initial Board approval and is hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collection, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 19, 2005.
You may submit comments, identified by FR 1379 using any of the following methods:
• Agency Web site:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail:
• FAX: 202/452-3819 or 202/452-3102.
• Mail: Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20551.
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
A copy of the proposed form and instructions, the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission (OMB 83-I), supporting statement, and other documents that will be placed into OMB's public docket files once approved may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears below.
Michelle Long, Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer (202-452-3829), Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202-263-4869), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
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 July 1, 2005.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 14, 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 July 13, 2005.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 14, 2005.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 1, 2005.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 14, 2005.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice.
The Board is inviting the public to nominate qualified individuals for appointment to its Consumer Advisory Council, whose membership represents interests of consumers, communities, and the financial services industry. New members will be selected for three-year terms that will begin in January 2006. The Board expects to announce the selection of new members by year-end 2005.
Nominations must be received by August 26, 2005.
Nominations Not Received By August 26 May Not Be Considered.
Nominations must include a
If electronic submission is not feasible, the nominations can be mailed (not sent by facsimile) to Terri Johnsen, Associate Director, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
Ann Bistay, Secretary of the Council, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, (202) 452-6470, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The Consumer Advisory Council was established in 1976 at the direction of the Congress to advise the Federal Reserve Board on the exercise of its duties under the Consumer Credit Protection Act and on other consumer-related matters. The Council by law represents the interests both of consumers and of the financial services industry (15 U.S.C. 1691(b)). Under the Rules of Organization and Procedure of the Consumer Advisory Council (12 CFR 267.3), members serve three-year terms that are staggered to provide the Council with continuity.
New members will be selected for terms beginning January 1, 2006, to replace members whose terms expire in December 2005. The Board expects to announce its appointment of new members in early January. Nomination letters should include:
• A resume;
• Information about past and present positions held by the nominee, dates, and description of responsibilities;
• A description of special knowledge, interests, or experience related to community reinvestment, consumer protection regulations, consumer credit, or other consumer financial services;
• Full name, title, organization name, organization description for both the nominee and the nominator;
• Current address, telephone and fax numbers for both the nominee and the nominator; and
• Positions held in community organizations, and on councils and boards.
Individuals may nominate themselves.
The Board is interested in candidates who have familiarity with consumer financial services, community reinvestment, and consumer protection regulations, and who are willing to express their views. Candidates do not have to be experts on all levels of consumer financial services or community reinvestment, but they should possess some basic knowledge of the area. They must be able and willing to make the necessary time commitment to participate in conference calls, and prepare for and attend meetings three times a year (usually for two days, including committee meetings). The meetings are held at the Board's offices in Washington, DC. The Board pays travel expenses, lodging, and a nominal honorarium.
In making the appointments, the Board will seek to complement the background of continuing Council members in terms of affiliation and geographic representation, and to ensure the representation of women and minority groups. The Board may consider prior years' nominees and does not limit consideration to individuals nominated by the public when making its selection.
Council members whose terms end as of December 31, 2005, are:
Council members whose terms continue through 2006 and 2007 are:
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before July 9, 2005.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to “Chevron Corporation,
The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at http:www.ftc.gov. As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at
Dennis Johnson, Bureau of Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2712.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for June 10, 2005), on the World Wide Web, at
Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”) has issued a complaint (“Complaint”) alleging that the proposed merger of Chevron Corporation (“Chevron,” formerly ChevronTexaco Corporation) and Unocal Corporation (“Unocal”) (collectively “Respondents”) would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, and has entered into an agreement containing consent order (“Agreement Containing Consent Order”) pursuant to which Respondents agree to be bound by a proposed consent order (“Proposed Consent Order”). The Proposed Consent Order remedies the likely anticompetitive effects arising from Respondents' proposed merger, as alleged in the Complaint.
Chevron is a major international energy firm with operations in North America and about 180 foreign countries in Europe, Africa, South America, Central America, Indonesia, and the Asia-Pacific region. Its petroleum operations consist of exploring for, developing and producing crude oil and natural gas; refining crude oil into finished petroleum products; marketing crude oil, natural gas, and various finished products derived from petroleum; and transporting crude oil, natural gas, and finished petroleum products by pipeline, marine vessels, and other means. The company operates light petroleum refineries for products such as gasoline, jet fuel, kerosene and fuel oil at Pascagoula, Mississippi; El Segundo, California; Richmond, California; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Kapolei, Hawaii. Chevron is a major refiner and marketer of gasoline that meets the requirements of the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”). Chevron also has operations for the manufacture and marketing of commodity petrochemicals for industrial uses and additives for fuels and lubricants. For 2004, the company had total revenues of approximately $155.3 billion and total assets of approximately $93.2 billion.
Unocal is also a major international energy firm with operations in North America, Asia, and other locations around the world. Its primary activities are oil and gas exploration, development and production. It has oil and gas operations located in various countries, including Thailand, Myanmar, Indonesia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, and Vietnam. Unocal sold most of its downstream operations in the United States to another company in the mid-1990's. As a result, Unocal has no downstream operations in refining or gasoline retailing, and with a few exceptions almost all of Unocal's operations are in the upstream segment of the industry, i.e., exploration and production. The company had total revenues for 2004 of approximately $8.2 billion and total assets of approximately $13.1 billion.
Pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated April 4, 2005, Chevron plans to acquire 100% of the voting securities of Unocal. Unocal will merge into a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Chevron, with the subsidiary continuing as the surviving entity and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chevron. Under the terms of the agreement, Unocal shareholders may elect to receive 1.03 shares of Chevron stock, $65 in cash, or the combination of $16.25 in cash and 0.7725 of a share of Chevron common stock. The election is subject to the limitation that 75% of the outstanding shares of Unocal common stock will be exchanged for Chevron common stock and 25% will be exchanged for cash, with prorationing in the event the cash election is oversubscribed or undersubscribed. The total value of the transaction is estimated at approximately $18 billion, which includes approximately $1.6 billion in assumed debt.
The transaction is subject to various closing conditions, including the approval of Unocal shareholders and the
The Complaint alleges that the merger of Chevron and Unocal would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by substantially lessening competition in the refining and marketing of reformulated gasoline that has been approved by the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) for sale in California. Through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Union Oil Company of California (“Union Oil”), Unocal owns a portfolio of five U.S. patents relating to reformulated gasoline (“RFG”). These patents (the “Relevant U.S. Patents”) cover the production and supply of CARB RFG, particularly in warmer weather months. To remedy the alleged anticompetitive effects of the merger, the Proposed Consent Order requires Respondents to take certain actions, including (1) to cease and desist from any efforts to assert or enforce any of the Relevant U.S. Patents against any person, to recover any damages or costs for alleged infringements of any of the Relevant U.S. Patents, or to collect any fees, royalties or other payments for the practice of the Relevant U.S. Patents; and (2) to take the necessary actions to dedicate to the public the remaining terms of the patents.
According to the Complaint, gasoline is a motor fuel used in automobiles and other vehicles. It is produced in various grades and formulations, including conventional unleaded gasoline, low emissions reformulated gasoline (“RFG”), California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) compliant reformulated gasoline, and others. CARB compliant reformulated gasoline (“CARB RFG”) is a type of gasoline that meets the specifications of the California Air Resources Board. CARB RFG is cleaner burning and causes less air pollution than conventional unleaded gasoline. The sale of any gasoline other than CARB RFG is prohibited in California, and there is no substitute for CARB RFG as a fuel for automobiles and other vehicles that use gasoline purchased in California. As a result, CARB RFG is a relevant line of commerce in which to analyze the potential effects of the merger.
CARB RFG is produced primarily in California and at a few other locations on the West Coast. The Complaint alleges that the state of California, and smaller areas contained therein, are relevant sections of the country in which to analyze the potential effects of the merger.
Chevron is a leading refiner and marketer of CARB RFG. Unocal does not refine or market CARB RFG. However, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Union Oil, Unocal owns Relevant U.S. Patents relating to CARB RFG. Refiners must use the technology covered by the Unocal Relevant U.S. Patents for producing CARB RFG during warmer weather months—
Unocal licenses its RFG patents to others in exchange for payments ranging from 1.2 to 3.4 cents per gallon. In addition, Unocal has won a patent infringement suit against major refiners of CARB RFG and obtained a court judgment awarding Unocal royalties of 5.75 cents per infringing gallon produced in California.
There are relatively few producers of CARB RFG. As a result, the relevant markets for the refining and marketing of CARB RFG are either highly concentrated or moderately concentrated. The Complaint further alleges that entry into the relevant lines of commerce in the relevant sections of the country is difficult and would not be timely, likely or sufficient to prevent anticompetitive effects resulting from the proposed merger.
The Complaint states that, because of factors such as Unocal's perception of possible actions by the California Air Resources Board or other governmental authorities, Unocal is likely to be constrained in charging the full monopoly level price to licensees of the Unocal patents. Moreover, Unocal has no operations at downstream levels of the industry through which it could attempt to recoup any additional profits.
Because of its significant operations at the refining and marketing levels, Chevron will have a greater ability than Unocal to obtain additional profits by coordinating with its competitors at the downstream refining and marketing levels. As part of Unocal's license agreements, Unocal regularly collects detailed reports from licensees about their production of CARB RFG and other refinery operations. By obtaining the Unocal patents, Chevron would receive additional information about the production of competitors and other information not otherwise available to members of the industry. Chevron could facilitate coordination among refiners and marketers of CARB RFG by using this information to monitor a collusive agreement and thus detect cheating on a collusive agreement. The anticompetitive effects from such coordination would be likely to outweigh any efficiencies that would be obtained by the integrated firm.
As a result, the Complaint charges that the effect of the proposed merger, if consummated, may be substantially to lessen competition in the marketing and refining of CARB RFG in the relevant sections of the country, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45.
The Commission has provisionally entered into an Agreement Containing Consent Order with Chevron and Unocal in settlement of the Complaint. The Agreement Containing Consent Orders contemplates that the Commission would issue the Complaint and enter the Proposed Consent Order requiring the relief described below.
In order to remedy the anticompetitive effects that have been identified, Chevron and Unocal have agreed to take several actions. First, they will cease and desist from any and all efforts, and will not undertake any new efforts, to assert or enforce any of Unocal's Relevant U.S. Patents against any person, to recover any damages or costs for alleged infringements of any of the Relevant U.S. Patents, or to collect any fees, royalties or other payments, in cash or in kind, for the practice of any of the Relevant U.S. Patents, including but not limited to fees, royalties, or other payments, in cash or in kind, to be collected pursuant to any License Agreement. These obligations become effective as of the “Merger Effective Date,” which is defined as the earlier of (1) the date that the certificate of merger for the Merger is filed with the Secretary of State of Delaware or such later time as specified in such certificate of merger, or (2) the date that Chevron acquires control of Unocal Corporation, as “control” is defined by 16 CFR 801.1(b).
Second, the Proposed Consent Order requires that, within thirty (30) days following the Merger Effective Date, Respondents shall file, or cause to be filed, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the necessary documents pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 253, 37 CFR 1.321, and the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure to disclaim or dedicate to the public the remaining term of the Relevant U.S. Patents. The Proposed Consent Order further requires
Third, the order requires that, within thirty (30) days following the Merger Effective Date, Respondents shall move to dismiss, with prejudice, all pending legal actions relating to the alleged infringement of any Relevant U.S. Patents, including but not limited to the following actions pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California:
Paragraph V of the Proposed Consent Order requires Respondents to distribute a copy of the Order and the Complaint in this matter to certain interested parties, including (1) any person that either Respondent has contacted regarding possible infringement of any of the Relevant U.S. Patents, (2) any person against which either Respondent is, or was, involved in any legal action regarding possible infringement of any of the Relevant U.S. Patents, (3) any licensee or other person from which either Respondent has collected any fees, royalties or other payments, in cash or in kind, for the practice of the Relevant U.S. Patents, and (4) any person that either Respondent has contacted with regard to the possible collection of any fees, royalties or other payments, in cash or in kind, for the practice of the Relevant U.S. Patents.
Paragraph V also requires Respondents to distribute a copy of the Order and the Complaint to present and future officers and directors of Respondents having responsibility for any of Respondents' obligations under the Order, and to employees and agents having managerial responsibility for any of Respondents' obligations under the Order.
Paragraphs VI, VII and VIII of the Proposed Consent Order contain standard reporting, access, and notification provisions designed to allow the Commission to monitor compliance with the order. Paragraph IX provides that the Order shall terminate twenty (20) years after the date it becomes final.
The Proposed Consent Order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this thirty day comment period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the Proposed Order and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the Proposed Order or make final the agreement's Proposed Order.
By accepting the Proposed Order subject to final approval, the Commission anticipates that the competitive problems alleged in the Complaint will be resolved. The purpose of this analysis is to invite public comment on the Proposed Order, and to aid the Commission in its determination of whether it should make final the Proposed Order contained in the agreement. This analysis is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the Proposed Order, nor is it intended to modify the terms of the Proposed Order in any way.
The Federal Trade Commission has voted unanimously (4-0-1, with Chairman Majoras recused) to accept two linked consent agreements that resolve both the Commission's monopolization case against Unocal Corporation's subsidiary Union Oil Company of California and any antitrust concerns arising from Chevron Corporation's pending acquisition of Unocal. The key element in the settlements, which will become effective when the acquisition is completed, is Chevron's agreement not to enforce certain Union Oil patents that potentially could have increased gasoline prices in California by over $500 million a year (or almost six cents per gallon). This agreement provides the full relief that the Commission sought in its administrative litigation with Union Oil and also addresses the only possible objection to the Chevron/Unocal acquisition.
On April 4, 2005, Chevron agreed to acquire Unocal in a transaction valued at approximately $18 billion. Chevron and Unocal both have extensive oil and gas operations. However, nearly all of Unocal's operations are in the so-called “upstream” segment of the business—namely, the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas. Unocal has no refineries or gasoline stations in the United States or anywhere else in the world, and has few other “downstream” operations. As a result, virtually all of the competitive overlaps between the two firms are in unconcentrated upstream markets, and the merger thus creates no competitive risk. For example, Chevron and Unocal combined have only 2.7 percent of world crude oil production, 0.77 percent of world crude oil reserves, 11.3 percent of U.S. crude oil production, and 11.4 percent of U.S. crude oil reserves.
The only potential competitive concern with Chevron's proposed acquisition of Unocal involved patents held by Union Oil—the same group of patents involved in the Commission's monopolization case against Union Oil. In order to explain why this is so, it is necessary first to discuss the issues in this monopolization case.
The Commission's administrative complaint against Union Oil charged that the firm had illegally acquired monopoly power in the technology market for producing certain low-emission gasoline mandated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for sale and use in California for up to eight months of the year. According to the complaint, Union Oil misrepresented to CARB that certain gasoline research was non-proprietary and in the public domain, while at the same time it pursued a patent that would enable it to charge substantial royalties if the research results were used by CARB in the development of regulations. The complaint further asserted that Union Oil similarly misled its fellow members of private industry groups, which were also participating in the CARB rulemaking process. As a result, if Union Oil were permitted to enforce its patent rights, companies producing this low-emission CARB gasoline would be required to pay royalties to Union Oil, the bulk of which would be passed on to California consumers in the form of higher gasoline prices. The Commission estimated that Union Oil's enforcement of these patents could potentially result in over $500 million of additional consumer costs each year. The complaint sought an order requiring Union Oil to cease and desist from all efforts to assert these patents against those manufacturing, selling, distributing, or otherwise using motor gasoline to be sold in California. In the
The consent orders also resolve any possible antitrust objections to the merger. Although Unocal does not engage in any refining or retailing itself, it had claimed the right to collect patent royalties from companies that did so (including Chevron). If Chevron had unconditionally inherited these patents by acquisition, it would have been in a position to obtain sensitive information and to claim royalties from its own horizontal downstream competitors. We have reason to believe that this scenario would likely have an adverse effect on competition and, in any event, would inevitably have required an extensive inquiry and possible litigation.
For example, Union Oil regularly collects detailed reports from licensees about their production of CARB gasoline and other refinery operations. If Chevron had continued these license agreements after inheriting Union Oil's patents, it would have received information not otherwise available to members of the industry. Chevron could have used this information to facilitate coordinated interaction and detect any deviations. Chevron might also have been able to use the patents to discourage maverick behavior. Our present knowledge suggests that the likely competitive harm from this potential coordination and discipline would outweigh any likely efficiency gains from the vertical integration of a merged Chevron-Unocal. Now, a further inquiry into that belief is not necessary.
The settlement of these two matters is thus a double victory for California consumers. The Commission's monopolization case against Unocal was complex and, with possible appeals, could have taken years to resolve. The stakes were high, and substantial royalties could have been paid in the meantime—with an immediate impact on consumers. If the Commission lost the case, the dollar costs to consumers ultimately would have been immense. At the same time, a challenge against the acquisition of Unocal by Chevron would itself be a complex case, with high stakes and an uncertain outcome. The settlement provides the full relief sought in the monopolization case and resolves the only competitive issue with the proposed merger. With the settlement, consumers will benefit immediately from the elimination of royalty payments on the Union Oil patents, and potential merger efficiencies could result in additional savings at the pump.
By direction of the Commission, Chairman Majoras recused.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before July 1, 2005.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to “Tropicana Products, Inc., File No. 042 3154,” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room 159-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. Comments containing confidential material must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). 16 CFR 4.9(c) (2005).
The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at
Michelle Rusk, (202) 326-3148, or Karen Muoio, (202) 326-2491, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for June 2, 2005), on the World Wide Web, at
Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the
The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Tropicana Products, Inc.
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty
This matter involves the advertising and promotion of Tropicana's “Healthy Heart” orange juice. According to the FTC complaint, Tropicana represented that (1) drinking three glasses of “Healthy Heart” a day for one month will raise good cholesterol by twenty-one percent and improve the ratio of good to bad cholesterol by sixteen percent; (2) drinking twenty ounces of “Healthy Heart” a day for one month will increase blood folate levels by forty-five percent and decrease homocysteine levels by eleven percent; and (3) drinking two glasses of orange juice a day for eight weeks will lower blood pressure an average of ten points. The complaint alleges that these claims are unsubstantiated. Tropicana also represented that the above three claims were clinically proven. The complaint alleges that this claim is false. Although Tropicana refers to three studies in its advertising, the studies are limited and do not support the claims made. The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent Tropicana from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future.
Part I of the order requires Tropicana to possess competent and reliable scientific evidence before making the three challenged efficacy claims.
Part II requires Tropicana to possess competent and reliable scientific evidence before making certain representations that any food will affect: any biological marker or health-related endpoint by any specific amount; blood cholesterol levels, blood folate levels, blood homocysteine levels, or blood pressure; or the risk of developing heart disease, stroke, or cancer. Furthermore, Part II provides that a mere statement that a product contains a particular nutrient will not, by itself, be considered to be a health benefit claim covered by Part II.
Part III of the proposed order prohibits Tropicana from misrepresenting the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions, or interpretations of any test or study.
Part IV permits any representation for any product that is permitted in labeling for such product pursuant to regulations promulgated by FDA pursuant to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990.
Parts V through VIII of the order require Tropicana to keep copies of relevant advertisements and materials substantiating claims made in the advertisements; to provide copies of the order to certain of its current and future personnel for three years; to notify the Commission of changes in corporate structure; and to file compliance reports with the Commission. Part IX provides that the order will terminate after twenty (20) years under certain circumstances.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any way their terms.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before July 9, 2005.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to “Union Oil Company of California, Docket No. 9305,” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room 159-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20580. Comments containing confidential material must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). 16 CFR 4.9(c) (2005).
The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at
Chong S. Park, Bureau of Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20580, (202) 326-2372.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 3.25(f) of the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 3.25(f), notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for June 10, 2005), on the World Wide Web, at
Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the
The Federal Trade Commission has accepted for public comment an Agreement Containing Consent Order (“Agreement”) with Union Oil Company of California (“Union Oil”) to resolve matters charged in an Administrative Complaint issued by the Commission on March 4, 2003 (“Complaint”). Pursuant to the Agreement, Union Oil provisionally has agreed to be bound by a proposed consent order (“Proposed Consent Order”).
The Agreement has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments from interested members of the public. The Agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by Union Oil that the law has been violated as alleged in the Complaint or that the facts alleged in the Complaint, other than jurisdictional facts, are true. The Proposed Consent Order remedies alleged anticompetitive effects arising from Union Oil's conduct, as alleged in the Complaint.
The Complaint alleges that Respondent Union Oil engaged in a series of acts to subvert state regulatory standard-setting procedures relating to low emissions gasoline. To address California's serious air pollution problems, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) initiated proceedings in the late 1980s to set regulations and standards governing the composition of low emissions, reformulated gasoline (“RFG”). The Complaint alleges that Union Oil actively participated in CARB RFG rulemaking proceedings and engaged in a pattern of bad-faith, deceptive conduct, exclusionary in nature, that enabled it to undermine competition and harm consumers. The Complaint states that Union Oil also engaged in deceptive and exclusionary conduct through its participation in two private industry groups—the Auto/Oil Air Quality Improvement Program (“Auto/Oil”) and the Western States Petroleum Association (“WSPA”). According to the Complaint, Union Oil thereby illegally monopolized, attempted to monopolize, and otherwise engaged in unfair methods of competition in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act in both the technology market for the production and supply of CARB-compliant “summer-time” gasoline, and the downstream “summer-time” gasoline product market.
Union Oil is a public corporation, organized in, and doing business under, the laws of California. Union Oil is a wholly-owned operating subsidiary of Unocal Corporation, a holding company incorporated in Delaware. Prior to 1997, Union Oil owned and operated refineries in California as a vertically-integrated producer, refiner, and marketer of petroleum products. In 1997, Union Oil sold its west coast refining, marketing, and transportation assets. Currently, Union Oil's primary business activities involve oil and gas exploration and production.
The Complaint alleges that during the CARB “Phase 2” RFG rulemaking proceedings in 1990-1994, Union Oil made a series of materially false and misleading statements. According to the allegations in the Complaint, Union Oil willfully and intentionally:
a. Represented to CARB and other participants that Union Oil's emissions research results showing,
b. Represented to CARB that a “predictive model”—i.e., a mathematical model that predicts whether the emissions that would result from varying certain gasoline properties in a fuel are equivalent to the emissions resulting from a specified and fixed fuel formulation—would be “cost-effective” and “flexible,” without disclosing that Union Oil's assertion of its proprietary interests would undermine the cost-effectiveness and flexibility of such a model; and
c. Made statements and comments to CARB and other industry participants relating to the cost-effectiveness and flexibility of the regulations that further reinforced the materially false and misleading impression that Union Oil had relinquished or would not enforce any proprietary interests in its emissions research results.
According to the Complaint, Union Oil continued to conceal its intention to obtain a competitive advantage through the enforcement of its proprietary interests relating to RFG even after Union Oil received notice that the pending patent claims were allowed and issued. The Complaint alleges that Union Oil thereby led CARB and two private industry groups—Auto/Oil and WSPA (and their respective industry members)—to believe that Union Oil did not have, or would not enforce, any proprietary interests or intellectual property rights associated with its emissions research results.
The Complaint alleges that Union Oil's conduct caused CARB to adopt Phase 2 “summer-time” RFG regulations that substantially overlapped with Union Oil's concealed pending patent claims. But for Union Oil's deception, according to the Complaint, CARB would not have adopted RFG regulations substantially incorporating Union Oil's proprietary interests; the terms on which Union Oil was later able to enforce its proprietary interests would have been substantially different; or both.
The Complaint alleges that but for Union Oil's deceptive conduct, industry participants in Auto/Oil and WSPA would have taken actions including, but not limited to, (a) advocating that CARB adopt regulations that minimized or avoided infringement of Union Oil's patent claims; (b) advocating that CARB negotiate license terms substantially different from those that Union Oil was later able to obtain; and/or (c) incorporating knowledge of Union Oil's pending patent rights in their capital investment and refinery reconfiguration decisions to avoid and/or minimize potential infringement.
According to the Complaint, Union Oil did not announce the existence of its proprietary interests and patent rights relating to RFG until January 1995—shortly before the relevant CARB Phase 2 RFG regulations were to go into effect. The Complaint alleges that, by that time, the refining industry had spent billions of dollars in capital expenditures to modify their refineries to comply with the CARB Phase 2 RFG regulations, in reliance on Union Oil's representations that its research results were in “the public domain.” The Complaint states that once CARB and the refiners had become locked into the Phase 2 regulations, Union Oil commenced vigorous enforcement of its patent rights through litigation and licensing, and obtained four additional patents based on the same RFG research results.
Union Oil's misrepresentations, according to the Complaint, have harmed competition and led directly to the acquisition of monopoly power for the technology to produce and supply
According to the Complaint, Union Oil's enforcement of its RFG patents has resulted,
The Complaint alleges that Unocal's conduct could result in an estimated annual cost of more than $500 million to the refining industry. According to the Complaint, Union Oil's own economic expert has testified under oath that 90 percent of any royalty would be passed through to consumers in the form of higher gasoline prices.
The Commission has provisionally entered into an Agreement with Union Oil in settlement of the Complaint. As discussed below, the provisions of the Agreement are conditioned upon the completion of certain steps in Chevron Corporation's merger with Unocal Corporation, as contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of April 4, 2005, among Unocal Corporation, ChevronTexaco Corporation, and Blue Merger Sub Inc.
In order to remedy the alleged anticompetitive effects, Union Oil has agreed to take several actions. First, it will cease and desist from any and all efforts, and will not undertake any new efforts to: (a) Assert or enforce any of Union Oil's Relevant U.S. Patents against any person; (b) recover any damages or costs for alleged infringements of any of the Relevant U.S. Patents; or (c) collect any fees, royalties or other payments, in cash or in kind, for the practice of any of the Relevant U.S. Patents, including but not limited to fees, royalties, or other payments, in cash or in kind, to be collected pursuant to any License Agreement. These obligations become effective as of the “Merger Effective Date,” which is defined as the earlier of (1) the date that the certificate of merger for the Merger is filed with the Secretary of State of Delaware or such later time as specified in such certificate of merger, or (2) the date that Chevron Corporation acquires control of Unocal Corporation, as “control” is defined by 16 CFR 801.1(b).
Second, the Proposed Consent Order requires that, within thirty (30) days following the Merger Effective Date, Union Oil shall file, or cause to be filed, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the necessary documents pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 253, 37 CFR 1.321, and the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure to disclaim or dedicate to the public the remaining term of the Relevant U.S. Patents. The Proposed Consent Order further requires that Union Oil shall correct as necessary, and shall not withdraw or seek to nullify, any disclaimers or dedications filed pursuant to the Proposed Consent Order.
Third, the Proposed Consent Order requires that, within thirty (30) days following the Merger Effective Date, Union Oil shall move to dismiss, with prejudice, all pending legal actions relating to the alleged infringement of any Relevant U.S. Patents, including but not limited to the following actions pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California:
Paragraph V of the Proposed Consent Order requires Union Oil to distribute a copy of the Proposed Consent Order and the Complaint in this matter to certain interested parties, including (1) any person that Union Oil has contacted regarding possible infringement of any of the Relevant U.S. Patents, (2) any person against which Union Oil is, or was, involved in any legal action regarding possible infringement of any of the Relevant U.S. Patents, (3) any licensee or other Person from which Union Oil has collected any fees, royalties or other payments, in cash or in kind, for the practice of the Relevant U.S. Patents, and (4) any person that Union Oil has contacted with regard to the possible collection of any fees, royalties or other payments, in cash or in kind, for the practice of the Relevant U.S. Patents.
Paragraph V also requires Union Oil to distribute a copy of the Proposed Consent Order and the Complaint to Union Oil's present and future officers and directors having responsibility for any of its obligations under the Proposed Consent Order, and to employees and agents having managerial responsibility for any of its obligations under the Proposed Consent Order.
Paragraphs VI, VII and VIII of the Proposed Consent Order contain standard reporting, access, and notification provisions designed to allow the Commission to monitor compliance with the order. Paragraph IX provides that the Proposed Consent Order shall terminate twenty (20) years after the date it becomes final.
The Proposed Consent Order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this thirty-day comment period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the Proposed Consent Order and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the Proposed Consent Order or make final the Agreement's Proposed Consent Order.
By accepting the Proposed Consent Order subject to final approval, the Commission anticipates that the competitive problems alleged in the Complaint will be resolved. The purpose of this analysis is to invite public comment on the Proposed Consent Order, and to aid the Commission in its determination of whether it should make final the Proposed Consent Order contained in the Agreement. This analysis is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the Proposed Consent Order, nor is it intended to modify the terms of the Proposed Consent Order in any way.
The Federal Trade Commission has voted unanimously (4-0-1, with Chairman Majoras recused) to accept two linked consent agreements that resolve both the Commission's monopolization case against Unocal Corporation's subsidiary Union Oil Company of California and any antitrust concerns arising from Chevron Corporation's pending acquisition of Unocal. The key element in the settlements, which will become effective when the acquisition is completed, is Chevron's agreement not to enforce certain Union Oil patents that potentially could have increased gasoline prices in California by over
On April 4, 2005, Chevron agreed to acquire Unocal in a transaction valued at approximately $18 billion. Chevron and Unocal both have extensive oil and gas operations. However, nearly all of Unocal's operations are in the so-called “upstream” segment of the business—namely, the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas. Unocal has no refineries or gasoline stations in the United States or anywhere else in the world, and has few other “downstream” operations. As a result, virtually all of the competitive overlaps between the two firms are in unconcentrated upstream markets, and the merger thus creates no competitive risk. For example, Chevron and Unocal combined have only 2.7 percent of world crude oil production, 0.77 percent of world crude oil reserves, 11.3 percent of U.S. crude oil production, and 11.4 percent of U.S. crude oil reserves.
The only potential competitive concern with Chevron's proposed acquisition of Unocal involved patents held by Union Oil—the same group of patents involved in the Commission's monopolization case against Union Oil. In order to explain why this is so, it is necessary first to discuss the issues in this monopolization case.
The Commission's administrative complaint against Union Oil charged that the firm had illegally acquired monopoly power in the technology market for producing certain low-emission gasoline mandated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for sale and use in California for up to eight months of the year. According to the complaint, Union Oil misrepresented to CARB that certain gasoline research was non-proprietary and in the public domain, while at the same time it pursued a patent that would enable it to charge substantial royalties if the research results were used by CARB in the development of regulations. The complaint further asserted that Union Oil similarly misled its fellow members of private industry groups, which were also participating in the CARB rulemaking process. As a result, if Union Oil were permitted to enforce its patent rights, companies producing this low-emission CARB gasoline would be required to pay royalties to Union Oil, the bulk of which would be passed on to California consumers in the form of higher gasoline prices. The Commission estimated that Union Oil's enforcement of these patents could potentially result in over $500 million of additional consumer costs each year. The complaint sought an order requiring Union Oil to cease and desist from all efforts to assert these patents against those manufacturing, selling, distributing, or otherwise using motor gasoline to be sold in California. In the settlement announced today, Unocal and Chevron have agreed to all of this requested relief.
The consent orders also resolve any possible antitrust objections to the merger. Although Unocal does not engage in any refining or retailing itself, it had claimed the right to collect patent royalties from companies that did so (including Chevron). If Chevron had unconditionally inherited these patents by acquisition, it would have been in a position to obtain sensitive information and to claim royalties from its own horizontal downstream competitors. We have reason to believe that this scenario would likely have an adverse effect on competition and, in any event, would inevitably have required an extensive inquiry and possible litigation.
For example, Union Oil regularly collects detailed reports from licensees about their production of CARB gasoline and other refinery operations. If Chevron had continued these license agreements after inheriting Union Oil's patents, it would have received information not otherwise available to members of the industry. Chevron could have used this information to facilitate coordinated interaction and detect any deviations. Chevron might also have been able use the patents to discourage maverick behavior. Our present knowledge suggests that the likely competitive harm from this potential coordination and discipline would outweigh any likely efficiency gains from the vertical integration of a merged Chevron-Unocal. Now, a further inquiry into that belief is not necessary.
The settlement of these two matters is thus a double victory for California consumers. The Commission's monopolization case against Unocal was complex and, with possible appeals, could have taken years to resolve. The stakes were high, and substantial royalties could have been paid in the meantime—with an immediate impact on consumers. If the Commission lost the case, the dollar costs to consumers ultimately would have been immense. At the same time, a challenge against the acquisition of Unocal by Chevron would itself be a complex case, with high stakes and an uncertain outcome. The settlement provides the full relief sought in the monopolization case and resolves the only competitive issue with the proposed merger. With the settlement, consumers will benefit immediately from the elimination of royalty payments on the Union Oil patents, and potential merger efficiencies could result in additional savings at the pump.
By direction of the Commission, Chairman Majoras recused.
The purpose of this announcement is to report the availability of funds to support cooperative agreements for area poverty research centers. HHS has had a long history supporting research and evaluation of important and emerging social policy issues associated with the nature, causes, correlates, and effects of income dynamics, poverty, individual and family functioning and child well-being. ASPE supports a national poverty center at the University of Michigan. The national poverty center conducts a broad program of policy research and mentoring of emerging scholars to describe and analyze national, regional and state environment (
These awards (cooperative agreements) replace the current cooperative agreements with the Institute for Research on Poverty (IRP) at the University of Wisconsin, the Rural Poverty Research Center at the University of Missouri and the Center for Poverty Research at the University of Kentucky. Central to the mission of the area poverty research centers is capacity building-supporting faculty research and faculty training; enhancing campus-wide awareness of issues related to poverty; and supporting and mentoring students in poverty and low-income policy related careers. Work of the current poverty centers includes: (1) Expanding the knowledge of the causes and consequences of poverty as well as responses to ameliorate poverty and its impacts on Americans, (2) providing a core of multi-disciplinary researchers, as well as a network of scholars who focus their research on poverty and the poor, (3) developing and training of future social science researchers whose work focuses on poverty and the poor, (4) continuation of the work on the improvement of methods and data to permit a fuller understanding of the causes and consequences of poverty and the social policies and programs meant to alleviate it, and (5) maintaining a network for the dissemination of findings to the policy and research communities through newsletters, working papers, special reports and briefings. Information on the current centers is available on their respective Web sites:
Section 1110 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1310) and awards will be made from funds appropriated under Public Law 108-447.
The U.S. continues to experience social changes relating to the economy, demographics, social and behavioral functioning of individuals, families and the well-being of children. The manner by which government and others react to or precipitates these changes also is in a state of evolution. In order to inform the public about these social trends and their causes, consequences, and cures, HHS is soliciting applications for cooperative agreements to university-based institutions. The Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) expects to fund the Area Poverty Research Centers for a period of three (3) years. The first year of funding for an Area Poverty Research Center will be approximately a maximum of $500,000 (combined direct and indirect funding). Subject to the availability of future funds we expect total funding of no more than $1.5 million over the three year period for each center.
Cooperative Agreements are assistance mechanisms and subject to the same administrative requirements as grants. However, they are different from either a grant or a contract. Compared to a grant, they allow more involvement and collaboration by the government in the affairs of the project, but provide less direction of project activities than a contract. The Terms of Award are in addition to, not in lieu of, otherwise applicable guidelines and procedures.
ASPE plans to fund up to three Area Poverty Research Centers. The Area Poverty Research Center cooperative agreements are for qualified institutions to provide a focused agenda expanding our understanding of the causes, consequences and effects of poverty in local geographic areas or specific substantive areas, especially in states or regional areas of high concentrations of poverty. These cooperative agreements are intended to create a research opportunity for scholars and institutions otherwise unlikely to participate extensively in HHS programs to support the Nation's poverty research effort. It is anticipated that investigators supported under the Area Poverty Research Centers will benefit from the opportunity to conduct independent research; that the grantee institutions will benefit from participation in the diverse extramural programs of HHS; and that students will benefit from exposure to and participation in research and be encouraged to pursue graduate studies and careers in the social and behavioral sciences with a focus on poverty.
Applications for renewal or supplementation of existing projects are eligible to compete with applications for new awards.
The purpose of the Area Poverty Research Centers is to support inter-disciplinary research leading to an understanding and reduction of poverty, income inequality and its correlates. Central to the mission of the area poverty research centers is capacity building—supporting faculty research and faculty training; enhancing campus-wide awareness of issues related to poverty; and supporting and mentoring students in poverty and low-income policy related careers. Applicants are invited to propose multi-level, integrated research projects that will shed light on the complex interactions of the social and physical environment, and mediating behavioral factors, which determine poverty and income inequality. Area Poverty Research Centers are expected to create an environment conducive to interdisciplinary collaborations among
ASPE has identified five priority areas the applicant may address: (1) Strategies to encourage work, self-reliance, parent responsibility, community, and child well-being, (2) The changing labor market and its influence on low-income families with children, (3) Non-marital child-bearing, teen pregnancy, and healthy marriage, (4) Youth transition to adulthood, and (5) State- and local-level policy, programs and interventions, particularly those targeted to geographic concentrations of poverty, to enhance self-sufficiency and well-being. Applications may address all, some, or none of these. If applications do not address any of these priority areas, they must address other important aspects of poverty.
The awardees will perform the following specific tasks:
Each Area Poverty Research Center will be expected to plan, initiate and maintain a research program of high caliber. It may include small-scale, new or ongoing social, behavioral, policy-related research projects, including pilot research projects and feasibility studies; development, testing, and refinement of research techniques; secondary analysis of available data sets; or similar research projects. Each Center will be expected to carry out or support at least two projects, as well as develop or expand the Center's presence on campus and in the broader research community and involve students in the ongoing research of the center.
Each Area Poverty Research Center is expected to develop and expand a diverse corps of young scholars/researchers who focus career goals on policy, research and programs focused on poverty populations. The Area Poverty Research Centers will be expected to develop an awareness and interest in students of the opportunities in poverty research through such activities as research internships, seminars and related experiences. Applicants should demonstrate how students will benefit from exposure to and participation in the ongoing research of Area Poverty Research Center faculty and staff and be encouraged to pursue graduate studies in the social and behavioral sciences with a focus on poverty related studies.
Making knowledge and information available to interested parties is to be another integral feature of each Area Poverty Research Center's responsibilities. The Centers will be expected to develop and maintain a dissemination system. Applicants are encouraged to propose use of innovative methods of disseminating data and information. Applications should show a sensitivity to the different dissemination strategies which may be appropriate for different audiences—such as policy makers, practitioners, and academics.
ASPE will be involved with each Center in jointly establishing broad research priorities and planning strategies to accomplish the objectives of this announcement. ASPE, or its representatives, will provide the following types of support to the Centers: (1) Consultation and technical assistance in planning, operating, and evaluating the Center's program of research, mentoring and dissemination activities, (2) information about HHS programs, policies, and research priorities, (3) assistance in collaborating with appropriate federal, state and local government officials in the performance of program activities, (4) assistance in identifying HHS information and technical assistance resources pertinent to the Center's success, (5) assistance in the transfer of information to appropriate federal, state, and local entities, (6) review of Center activities and feedback to ensure that objectives and award conditions are being met, (7) coordination of activities amongst the centers to ensure, to the extend possible, the optimal use of resources and expertise. ASPE retains the right, however, to withhold annual renewals to the awardee, if technical performance requirements are not met.
Each awardee, jointly with ASPE, will appoint an outside advisory committee, funded under this agreement. Each committee will be selected to provide assistance to both the national poverty center and each Area Poverty Research Center formulating the research agenda and advice on carrying it out. Efforts will be made in selecting this committee to assure a broad range of academic disciplines and political viewpoints. For each Center the committee will be composed of approximately four to six nationally and/or regionally recognized scholars and practitioners and will include the director of the national poverty center. (For a list of the current Advisory Committee members for the three Area Poverty Research Centers see their respective websites:
The awardee will retain custody of and have primary rights to the data developed under this award, subject to government rights to access consistent with current HHS regulations. The awardee should make reasonable efforts, however, to provide other research appropriate and speedy access to research data from this project and establish public use files of research data developed under this award.
The Federal share of project costs shall not exceed $500,000 for the first 12-month budget period inclusive of indirect costs and shall not exceed $500,000 per year for the second through third 12-month budget periods. An application that exceeds the upper value dollar range specified will be considered “non-responsive” and be returned to the applicant without further review. The project period will be up to three years. The initial award will be for the first one-year budget period. Requests for a second and/or third year of funding within the project period should be identified in the current applications (on SF-424A), but such requests will be considered in subsequent years on a noncompetitive basis, subject to the applicant eligibility status, the availability of funds, satisfactory progress of the grantee, and a determination that continued funding would be in the best interest of the government.
1. Eligibility Applicants: Colleges and universities offering baccalaureate or advanced degrees in the social and behavioral sciences. Scholars and researchers working in Area Poverty Research Center eligible institutions located in geographic areas where there are large concentrations of poor are encouraged to participate in this program.
2. Cost Sharing/Matching: Awardees must provide at least 5 percent of the total approved cost of the project. The total approved cost of the project is the sum of the federal share and the non-federal share. The non-federal share may be met by cash or in-kind contributions, although applicants are encouraged to meet their matching requirements through cash contributions. For example, an awardee with a project with a total budget (both direct and indirect costs) of $400,000 may request up to $380,000 in federal funds. Matching requirements cannot be met with fund from other federally-funded programs. If a proposed project activity has approved funding support from other funding support from other funding sources, the amount, duration, purpose, and source of the funds should be indicated in materials submitted under this announcement. If completion of the proposed project activity in contingent upon approval of funding from other sources, the relationship between the funds being sought elsewhere and from ASPE should be discussed in the budget information submitted as a part of the abstract. In both cases, the contribution that ASPE funds will make to the project should be clearly presented.
3. Other: All applicants must have a Dun & Bradstreet number. On June 27, 2003 the Office of Management and Budget published in the
Please ensure that your organization has DUNS number. You may acquire a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line on 1-866-705-5711 or you may request a number on-line at
Any application that fails to satisfy the deadline requirements will be considered non-responsive and will not be considered for funding under this announcement.
1.
2.
In general, ASPE seeks organizations which can demonstrate the ability to provide quality research, training of emerging scholars, and working with Federal, State and local governments. Applicants for funding should reflect, in the program narrative section of the application, how they will be able to fulfill the responsibilities and requirements described in the announcement. Applications should specify in detail how administrative arrangements will be made to minimize start-up and transition delays. It is expected that the applicant will have additional funding and arrangements with other organizations and institutions, including the host institution(s). The applicant should make all current and anticipated related funding arrangements explicit in the application.
The applicant shall address the following:
The application shall present a brief analysis of the key trends (e.g., social, demographic, economic) and past research related to the Area Poverty Research Center's proposed focus which provides a basis for the proposed Area Poverty Research Center plan to implement a course of study and capacity building. The analysis should examine the nature, causes, and correlates of one or more of the trends as they relate to the Area Poverty Research Center's focus, as appropriate. The analysis should demonstrate the applicant's grasp of the policy and research significance of recent and future social trends as well as the past research.
Central to each application shall be a prospectus for a three-year research agenda, outlining the major research themes to be investigated over the next three years. In particular, the prospectus will describe the activities planned for each of the research priority issues proposed by the Area Poverty Research Center. The prospectus should discuss the kind of research activities that will provide information in the priority issues selected and the role of the proposed Area Poverty Research Center in carrying out those activities. The prospectus should be based on the analysis of trends and research. The prospectus may include detailed descriptions of the individual research projects that will be expected in the Center's first year of operation; including the conceptual framework, design, data, methods and proposed analyses. The application should detail the proposed methods to engage researchers and emerging scholars in the research program. It also should be specific about the longer-term research themes and projects. The lines of research described in the prospectus should be concrete enough that project descriptions in subsequent research plan amendments can be viewed as articulating a research theme discussed in the prospectus. An application that simply contains an ad hoc categorization of an unstructured set of research projects—as opposed to a set of projects which strike a coherent theme—will be judged unfavorably. Note: Once a successful applicant has been selected ASPE will review the research agenda and jointly determine future research priorities. The research plan will be periodically reviewed and
The application must include a staffing and organizational proposal for the Area Poverty Research Center, including an analysis of the types of background needed among staff members, the Area Poverty Research Center's organizational structure, and linkages with the host university and other organizations. It is in this third section that the application should specify how it will assure a genuinely interdisciplinary approach to research, and where appropriate, the necessary links to university/college departments or units, other organizations and scholars engaged in research, and government policy making. The applicant shall identify the director (or principal investigator) and key senior research staff. Full resumes of proposed staff members shall be included as a separate appendix to the application. The time commitment to the Area Poverty Research Center and other existing commitments for each proposed staff members shall be clearly indicated in chart form. The kinds of administrative and tenure arrangements, if any, the Area Poverty Research Center proposes to make should also be discussed in this section. In addition, the author(s) of the application and the role which he or she (they) will play in the proposed Area Poverty Research Center must be specified.
If the application envisions an arrangement among two or more colleges, universities or institutions, this section will describe the specifics about the relationships, including leadership, management, and administration. It should pay particular attention to discussing how a focal point for research, teaching, and scholarship will be maintained given the arrangement proposed. The application must describe what steps will be taken to develop or expand the Area Poverty Research Center's presence on campus and in the broader community. The application also should discuss the role, selection procedure, and expected contribution of the external advisory committee.
The application must also include a detailed dissemination plan that describes the process of disseminating findings to interested parties through newsletters, working papers, special reports and briefings.
The proposed should present a training and mentoring plan for emerging scholars, describing how students will benefit from exposure to and participation in the ongoing research of the Area Poverty Research Center faculty and staff and how student will be encouraged to pursue graduate studies in the social and behavioral sciences with a focus on poverty related studies. This section shall discuss any financial arrangement for supporting undergraduate and graduate students, research assistant, post-docs, affiliates, resident scholars, etc. The discussion should include the expected number and types of young scholars to be supported, the level of support anticipated, and methods to ensure diversity.
The application's budget summary narrative must link the research, mentoring, and dissemination program to the Area Poverty Research Center funding level. This section should discuss how the three-year budget supports proposed research, training, and dissemination activities and should link the first year funding to a three year plan. The discussion should include the appropriateness of the level and distribution of funds to the successful completion of the research, training, and dissemination plans. Also, the limited amount of funds available for this award may indicate the desirability of using these funds as partial, core support for the proposed Center and applicant are encouraged to seek additional support from other sources. The availability, potential availability or prospects for other funds (from the host university, other universities, foundation, states, other Federal agencies, etc.) and the uses to which they would be put, should be documented in this section. Applications which show funding, or well thought out plans to secure funding, from other sources that supplement funds from this grant will be given higher marks than if they have no additional financial support.
Applicants are advised to include all required forms and materials and to organize these materials according to the format, and in the order, presented below.
a. Cover letter.
b. Contact information sheet (see details belows).
c. Standard Federal forms.
Standard Application for Federal Assistance (form 424).
Budget Information—Non-construction Programs (424A).
Certifications regarding lobbying.
Disclosures of lobbying activities (if necessary).
Certification regarding environmental tobacco smoke.
Assurance Regarding Non-construction Program (form 424B).
Assurance regarding protection of human subjects.
d. Table of Contents.
e. Project abstract (not to exceed one page).
f. Project narrative statement (see details below).
g. Appendices.
Proof of nonprofit status.
Curriculum vitae for principal investigators.
Content of Contact Information Sheet: The contact information sheet should include complete contact information, including addresses, phone an fax number, and e-mail addresses, for the Principal Investigator(s) and the institution's grant/financial officer (person who signs the SF-424).
3.
The closing time and date for receipt of applications is referenced above. Applications received after 4:30 p.m. eastern time on the closing date will be classified as late.
Deadline: Applications shall be considered as meeting an announced deadline if they are received on or before the deadline time and date of noted in Section IV.3. Applicants are responsible for ensuring applications are mailed well in advance of the application due date.
Applications hand carried by applicants, applicant couriers, other representatives of the applicant, or by overnight/express mail couriers shall be considered as meeting as announced deadline if they are received on or before the deadline date, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., eastern time, at the address reference in Section IV, between Monday and Friday (excluding Federal holidays).
NIAID cannot accommodate transmission of applications by fax. Therefore, applications transmitted by FAX will not be accepted regardless of date or time of submission and time of receipt.
Late applications: Applications that do not meet the criteria above are considered late applications. NIAID
Any application received after 4:30 p.m. eastern time on the deadline date will not be considered for competition.
Applicants using express overnight mail services shall allow two working days prior to the deadline date for receipt of applications. Applicants are cautioned that express/overnight mail services do not always deliver as agreed.
Extension of deadlines: NIAID may extend application deadlines when circumstances such as acts of God (floods, hurricanes, etc.) occur, or when there are widespread disruptions of mail services, or in other rare cases. A determination to extend or waive deadline requirements rests with the Grants Management Officer.
Receipt acknowledge for application packages will be provided to applicants who submit their package via mail, courier services, or by hand delivery. And e-mail notification will be provided within 14 working days to the principal investigator noted on the contact sheet.
1. Application for Federal Assistance (Standard Form 424);
2. Budget Information—Non-construction Programs (Standard Form 424A);
3. Assurances—Non-construction Programs (Standard Form 424B);
4. Table of Contents;
5. Budget Justification for Section B Budget Categories;
6. Proof of Non-profit Status, if appropriate;
7. Copy of the applicant's Approved Indirect Cost Rate Agreement, if necessary;
8. Project Narrative Statement, organized in five sections, addressing the following topics (See Part IV):
9. Any appendices or attachments;
10. Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace;
11. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, or other Responsibility Matters;
12. Certification and, if necessary, Disclosure Regarding Lobbying;
13. Supplement to Section IV—Key Personnel;
14. Application for Federal Assistant Checklist.
4.
5.
6.
Hand Delivery: An applicant must provide an original application with all attachments signed by an authorized representative and two copies. The application must be received at the address below by 4:30 p.m. eastern time on or before the closing date. Applications that are hand delivered will be accepted between the hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday. Applications should be delivered to Theresa Jarosik, Grants Management Specialist, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH, DEA, DHHS, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Room 2261, Bethesda, MD 20892-7614.
Electronic submissions and fax submissions will not be allowed.
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 50 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed and reviewing the collection information.
(1)
The descriptions of the proposed first year projects or themes must provide sufficient details that would ensure the likelihood of successful completion. At least two projects/themes must be addressed in the first year plan. The longer term themes and projects must be consistent with the trends and past research analysis and must present a coherent plan. The applicant must present an adequate research planning process which includes ASPE and its outside advisory committee. The proposed research planning approach must adequately demonstrate a commitment to bring a multi-disciplinary approach.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Each application submitted under this program announcement will undergo a pre-review to determine that (1) the application was received by the closing date and submitted in accordance with the instructions in this announcement, (2) the applicant is eligible for funding (see Part III Section B), and (3) is within the page limit (see Part IV, Section A). Note that applications exceeding the page limit will not be reviewed further and will be ineligible for funding.
Applications for the Area Poverty Research Centers that pass the initial screening will be evaluated and rated by a review panel. The panel will use the evaluation criteria listed below to score each application. The evaluation criteria were designed to assess the quality of the proposed project and to determine the likelihood of its success. The evaluation criteria are closely related and are considered as a whole in judging the overall quality of an application. Points are awarded only to applications that are responsive to the evaluation criteria within the context of this program announcement. These review results will be the primary element used by ASPE in making funding decisions. HHS reserves the option to discuss applications with other federal or state staff, specialists, experts, and the general public. Comments from these sources, along with those of the reviewers, will be kept from inappropriate disclosure and may be considered in making an award decision. Selection of the successful applicant(s) will be based on the technical and financial criteria laid out in this announcement. Reviewers will determine the strengths and weaknesses of each application in terms of the evaluation criteria listed below, provide comments and assign numerical scores—out of a possible 100 points. A summary of all applicant scores and strengths/weaknesses and recommendations will be prepared and submitted to the ASPE for decisions. The point value following each criterion heading indicates the maximum numerical relative weight that each section will be given in the review process. An unacceptable rating on any individual criterion may render the application unacceptable. Consequently, applicants should take care to ensure that all criteria are fully addressed in the applications. Please be sure to refer to Part IV, section 2, application development.
Approval, disapproval, or deferral. On the basis of the review of the application, the Assistant Secretary will either a) approve the application as a whole or in part; b) disapprove the application; or c) defer action on the application for such reasons as lack of funds or a need for further review.
The Assistant Secretary's Discretion. Nothing in this announcement should be construed as to obligate the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation to make any awards whatsoever. Awards and the distribution of awards among the priority areas are contingent on the needs of the Department at any point in time and the quality of the applications that are received.
Applications must be received in the following format:
1. 12 point font size.
2. Double line spacing (except for appendices).
3.1 inch top, bottom, left, and right margins.
4. Page limit of 50 pages (excluding appendices).
5. Applications that are not received in the format described above and/or exceed the page limit, will not be reviewed. Applicants are requested to be concise. Applicants are encouraged not to attach or include bound reports or other documents.
A successful applicant can expect to receive notification of grant award by September 16, 2005. This award, which will be signed by the grants officer, is the authorizing document. It will be provided through postal mail to the institution's grants/financial officer who is identified on the contact information sheet.
Notification of disposition. The Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation will notify the applicants of the disposition of their applications. If approved, a signed notification of the award will be sent to the business office named in the ASPE checklist.
Grantees are subject to the requirements in 45 CFR Part 74 (non-governmental) or 45 CFR PArt 92 (governmental).
All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the above-mentioned requirements.
For more information on the Code of Federal Regulations, see the National Archives and Records Administration at the following Internet address:
The awardee will submit quarterly progress reports no later than 30 days following the end of a quarter,
The awardee should submit an annual Financial Status Report (Standard Form 269A). This report is due 90 days after the end of each budget period. The SF-269A is posted at:
The awardee must submit a yearly progress report in order to be eligible to receive continuation funding. This progress report must be received two months prior to the start date of the proposed continuation funding.
Administrative questions should be directed to Theresa Jarosik at the address or phone number listed above. Requests for forms and questions (administrative and technical) will be accepted and responded to up to 30 days prior to closing date of receipt of Applications. Technical questions should be directed to Audrey Mirsky-Ashby or Don Oellerich, DHHS, Office of Human Services Policy, Telephone: (202) 690-7409. Questions also may be faxed to (202) 690-6562. Written technical questions should be addressed to Dr. Oellerich or Ms. Mirsky-Ashby at the Department of Health and Human Services, ASPE/HSP, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 404E, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Washington, DC 20201. (Application submissions may not be faxed.)
Nothing in this announcement should be construed as to obligate the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation to make any awards whatsoever. Awards and the distribution of awards among the priority areas are contingent on the needs of the Department at any point in time and the quality of the applications that are received.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDC) announces the following meeting:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The Meeting on July 19 will address concepts for standards for CBRN Closed Circuit, Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) and guidelines for use of NIOSH approved CBRN respirators. The Meeting on July 20 will address concepts for standards for a CBRN Powered Air Purifying Respirator and a Multi-Function PAPR.
An opportunity to make presentations regarding the discussions of concepts for standards and testing processes for PAPR standards and for Closed Circuit, SCBA Breathing Apparatus standards suitable for respiratory protection against CBRN agents, multi-function PAPRs for industrial applications, and guidelines for use of NIOSH-approved CBRN respirators will be given. Requests to make such presentations at the public meeting should be made by e-mail to the NPPTL Event Management Office (
Comments on the topics presented in this notice and at the meeting should be mailed to: NIOSH Docket Office, Robert
A. Taft Laboratories, M/S C34, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226, Telephone 513-533-8303, Fax 513-533-8285. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail to
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by August 19, 2005.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to:
Peggy Robbins, Office of Management Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Section 310(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 337(b)) authorizes States to enforce certain sections of the act in their own names, but provides that States must notify FDA before doing so. Section 100.2(d) (21 CFR 100.2 (d)) sets forth the information that a State must provide to FDA in a letter of notification when it intends to take enforcement action under the act against a particular food located in the State. The information required under § 100.2(d) will enable FDA to identify the food against which the State intends to take action and advise the State whether Federal action has been taken against it. With certain narrow exceptions, Federal enforcement action precludes State action under the act.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The reporting burden for § 100.2(d) is insignificant because enforcement notifications are seldom used by States. During the last 3 years, FDA has not received any enforcement notifications. Since the enactment of section 403A(b) of the act (21 U.S.C. 343-1(b)) as part of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, FDA has received only a few enforcement notifications. Although FDA believes that the burden will be insignificant, it believes these information collection provisions should be extended to provide for the potential future need of a State government to submit enforcement notifications informing FDA when it intends to take enforcement action under the act against a particular food located in the State.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Clozapine Tablets: In Vivo Bioequivalence and In Vitro Dissolution Testing.” The guidance was originally published in November 1996. However, because of potentially significant adverse effects seen in healthy subjects who had not previously used clozapine, FDA proposed a revision to the guidance in a draft published in December 2003. FDA did not receive comments on the draft guidance during the comment period. This final version of the 2003 draft guidance includes a change in the recommended patient population as well as other minor changes that are based on current information available to FDA.
Submit written or electronic comments on agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information (HFD-240), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. Submit written comments on the guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
Lizzie Sanchez, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-650), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-5847.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Clozapine Tablets: In Vivo Bioequivalence and In Vitro Dissolution Testing.” This guidance is being issued because of necessary changes to recommendations provided in a previous guidance on the same topic that published in November 1996. In the
In the 1996 guidance, FDA recommended that doses of one-half of a 25 milligram clozapine tablet be administered to healthy subjects in bioequivalence studies for generic clozapine products. The guidance also provided an option for conducting studies in the appropriate patient population. However, in the 2003 draft guidance, FDA proposed that such studies not be conducted in healthy subjects because a high number of healthy subjects experienced serious adverse effects such as hypotension, bradycardia, syncope, and asystole during clozapine bioequivalence studies. FDA did not receive comments on the 2003 draft guidance during the comment period.
This final version of the 2003 draft guidance has been further revised to provide recommendations describing the use of an appropriate patient population that is already stable on a dose of clozapine. The use of healthy subjects who had not previously used clozapine is no longer recommended in this final version of the guidance, which will ensure the safety of subjects in bioequivalence studies on clozapine.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the agency's current thinking on clozapine tablets: in vivo and in vitro dissolution testing. It does not create or confer any rights for
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Nonclinical Evaluation of Late Radiation Toxicity of Therapeutic Radiopharmaceuticals.” The purpose of this draft guidance is to provide recommendations to industry for designing nonclinical toxicity studies to determine potential late radiation toxicities (radiation-induced injuries occurring after a latency period of several months to years) of therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals administered systemically. The purpose of such studies is to help minimize the risk of late-occurring irreversible radiation toxicities in clinical studies of therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals.
Submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance by September 19, 2005. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information (HFD-240), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
Adebayo Laniyonu or Renee Tyson, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-160), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-7510.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Nonclinical Evaluation of Late Radiation Toxicity of Therapeutic Radiopharmaceuticals.” The objective of this guidance is to provide recommendations to industry for designing nonclinical toxicity studies to determine potential late radiation toxicities of therapeutic radiopharmaceutical agents. This guidance is not intended for diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals or for radiobiologicals (e.g., radiolabeled monoclonal antibodies).
Late radiation toxicity differs from early or acute radiation toxicity. Acute radiation toxicity (e.g., bone marrow failure, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and oral mucositis) occurs within days to weeks of an acute dose of radiation and is often self-limiting and reversible. In contrast, late radiation toxicity (e.g., renal failure, pulmonary fibrosis, and chord transection) occurs after a latency period of several months to years, during which relatively normal organ function continues. Late radiation toxicity is usually progressive and irreversible.
Therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals are typically administered systemically to treat cancer. The radiation absorbed doses delivered by therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals may be comparable to those delivered with external beam radiotherapy (XRT). At therapeutic doses of radiation, the late radiation toxicities commonly associated with XRT (e.g., brain necrosis, paralysis, pulmonary fibrosis, liver or kidney failure, and hemorrhagic cystitis) can also be seen with therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals. With XRT, if the total dose given to an organ is less than its tolerance dose, the probability of symptomatic late radiation toxicity to that organ will be minimal. The tolerance doses of most human organs for conventional fractionated XRT are known, and are routinely used to direct the safe administration of XRT. In FDA's experience, however, there are few clinical data from which to estimate organ tolerance doses for therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals. Furthermore, late radiation toxicity has been observed when Medical Internal Radiation Dose (MIRDOSE) estimates of radiation absorbed doses delivered by therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals to target organs were substantially below the published XRT organ tolerance doses.
Therefore, there is a need to gain additional knowledge in this area to support the safe administration of therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals to humans. Because studies in humans would be unethical, the best means to gain insight into this issue is by conducting nonclinical late radiation toxicity studies. These studies will aid in identifying organs at risk and establish a margin of safety for late radiation toxicity. As a result, these studies will help to minimize the risk of late-occurring radiation toxicities in clinical studies of therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals.
This draft guidance focuses solely on late radiation safety concerns that are unique to therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals, and provides recommendations for late radiation toxicity nonclinical study designs including issues regarding good laboratory practices, species selection, dose selection, timing of study, and study parameters.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on nonclinical evaluation of late radiation toxicity of therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Comments Due Date: August 19, 2005.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., L'Enfant Plaza Building, Room 8001, Washington, DC 20410 or
Joseph McCloskey, Director, Office of Single Family Asset Management, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-1672 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of Availability.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces that the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (CCP/EA) for the Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is available for public review and comment. This Draft CCP/EA was prepared pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Draft CCP/EA describes the Service's proposal for management of the Refuge for 15 years.
Written comments must be received at the postal or electronic addresses listed below by July 20, 2005. Comments may also be submitted VIA electronic mail to:
To provide written comments or to obtain a copy of the Draft CCP/EA, please write to Linda Kelly, Planning Team Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225-0486; (303) 236-8132; fax (303)236-4792, or Gene Williams, Refuge Manager, Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, 39650 Sand Lake Drive, Columbia, South Dakota 57433; (605) 885-6320; fax (605) 885-6401. The Draft CCP/EA will also be available for viewing and downloading online at
Linda Kelly, Planning Team Leader at the above address or at (303) 236-8132.
The National Wildlife System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee
In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, the CCP identifies wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update these CCPs at least every 15 years in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370d).
Sand Lake NWR was established by Executive Order 6724, dated May 28, 1934, and Executive Order 7169, dated September 4, 1935, as a Refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife. Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge was established for * * * “use by migratory birds, with emphasis on waterfowl and other water birds” and “the conservation of fish and wildlife resources.”
Significant issues addressed in the Draft CCP/EA include: Wildlife and habitat management, water management, public use, and invasive plants. The Service developed three alternatives for management of the Refuge: Alternative 1—No Action; Alternative—Maximize biological potential for grassland-nesting birds; Alternative 3—Integrated management. All three alternatives outline specific management objectives and strategies related to wildlife and habitat management, water management, public use, and invasive plant control.
Cropland would be maintained to control invasive plants and to provide food for resident wildlife. Deer and pheasant populations would be sustained, along with hunting and viewing opportunities for these species.
In addition to herbicides, management tools such as grazing, burning, mowing, and farming would be used to maintain the quality of upland habitat.
Invasive-plant infestations may increase or decrease, depending on environmental conditions. Using herbicides to control invasive plants would reduce the diversity and quality of grasslands, and may spread toxic and persistent chemicals into the environment.
Sedimentation rates near the Mud Lake dike are expected to remain elevated near current levels, thereby continuing to degrade the wetland functions of Mud Lake.
The ability to cycle vegetation and create an interspersion of cover and water to meet objectives in Mud Lake through current water-level manipulations would be hindered. Reduced invertebrate production may impact nutrient cycling and overall wetland productivity, as well as limit a major food source for waterfowl and other wildlife.
All hunting and fishing seasons would continue as presently managed. No new parking areas would be developed.
The amount of grassland habitat would be maximized by the elimination of croplands, decreased wetland acreage with the removal or breaching of dikes, and the elimination of shelterbelts. The number of acres of invasive plants might increase due to lower water levels.
Grassland-dependent birds would benefit from larger blocks of nesting habitat and the elimination of travel corridors and den sites for predators. The number and diversity of tree-nesting species and edge species would be reduced.
The diversity of wetland-dependent species would decline due to the decreased wetland acreage and lack of water control. The number of waterfowl would probably decline. Use of the refuge by overwater-nesting colonial birds would decline.
White-tailed deer use of the refuge would likely be sustained. With the elimination of all cropland, depredation on neighboring crops may increase.
Sedimentation rates in wetlands would decline with the removal or breaching of the dikes, resulting in long-term benefits to water quality.
An education and visitor center would be built to allow visitors to learn about wildlife and experience the refuge without disturbing wildlife.
Conflicts between humans and nesting, brooding, and foraging birds would be avoided through restriction or elimination of nearly all spring and summer recreational use and some fall recreational use of the James River within the refuge.
Deer and upland-game hunting would continue. Accessibility of deer and upland-game to hunters would likely decrease. Migrating waterfowl may pass through the refuge more quickly during the fall. Overall hunter satisfaction may decrease as the quality of hunting and harvest opportunities decreases.
Fall and winter fishing would be allowed at five designated areas. Spring and summer fishing opportunities would be eliminated to avoid direct conflicts with nesting and brooding migratory birds.
Cropland acreage would be reduced. Upland habitat management would be geared toward providing tall and dense nesting cover on a high percentage of the uplands for nesting birds, especially waterfowl.
The vegetative diversity of grasslands would be greatly enhanced by re-seeding all habitat blocks to native plants or rejuvenated dense nesting cover.
The die-off of some shelterbelts and removal of isolated trees would increase the size of grassland blocks for nesting migratory birds.
Although more grassland-dependent birds may be able to use the refuge, nesting success is not expected to increase. Remaining shelterbelts would provide travel corridors and den sites that help support a robust population of predators.
The five sub-impoundments would be managed as shallow-water wetlands for waterfowl breeding pairs and broods, nesting black terns and pied-billed grebes, and foraging water birds and shorebirds.
Deer and pheasant populations would be sustained, along with hunting and viewing opportunities for these species. Depredation issues would be a function of the location and size of the total farmed acreage.
The size and location of remaining cropland would be based on the need to control invasive plants, especially Canada thistle. Grasslands infested with Canada thistle would be tilled and planted with native vegetation or dense nesting cover after the area is considered clear of viable Canada thistle seed. Canada thistle should be much more contained than it is currently, reducing the potential for a thistle seed source to invade adjacent or downstream private lands.
Watershed-level conservation efforts through partnerships may result in a long-term reduction of sediment entering the James River and refuge.
Sedimentation rates near the Mud Lake dike are expected to remain elevated near current levels in the short term, thereby continuing to degrade the wetland functions of Mud Lake.
The ability to cycle vegetation and create an interspersion of cover and water to meet objectives in Mud Lake through current water-level manipulations would be hindered. Reduced invertebrate production may impact nutrient cycling and overall wetland productivity, as well as limit a major food source for waterfowl and other wildlife.
Wildlife-dependent recreational and educational activities would be expanded and improved on- and off-refuge. The building of an education and visitor center would allow visitors a quality experience and provide a focus point for public use on the refuge.
All hunting and fishing seasons would continue as presently managed. Support facilities, including parking, for hunting and fishing opportunities would be improved.
The review and comment period is 30 calendar days commencing with publication of this Notice of Availability in the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the possession of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Historic Preservation Division, Jackson, MS. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Lee County, MS.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Historic Preservation Division professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma.
In the summer of 1937, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from the Alston-Wilson site (MLe14), by Moreau Chambers, an archeologist with the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, as part of an ongoing survey and legally authorized excavation of Chickasaw sites in Lee County, MS. The excavation and survey were undertaken to study Chickasaw culture and find the location of the Battle of Ackia as part of the process for establishing Ackia Battleground National Monument. No known individual was identified. The two associated funerary objects are one bent cuprous metal band (sheet brass ring) found around the bone fragment and one pottery sherd.
The Alston-Wilson site, now better known as MLe14 because of later excavations by Jesse Jennings in 1939 on behalf of the National Park Service, has a major occupation dating to A.D. 1730-1750. Archeological evidence found at the Alston-Wilson site suggests that this site was part of a major historic Chickasaw village. In the 1730s, there were two major villages in the vicinity of the Alston-Wilson site that were occupied by the Chickasaw: Tchichatala and Falatchao. Tchichatala was a major Chickasaw village. Falatchao was a “white mother” town meaning it was both a “white” town (or a peace town, as opposed to a “red” war town) and a “mother” town from which other towns emerged (Hudson 1976: 238-239).
Both Tchichatala and Falatchao are recognized in historical documents as being occupied by the Chickasaw. However, because of the fluid nature of Chickasaw village occupation, it is difficult to identify the specific boundaries of historic Chickasaw villages. Therefore, based on the archeological evidence that the site was part of a major Chickasaw village and at that time both villages were in the area, the Alston-Wilson site is most probably part of either the site of the village of Tchichatala or Falatchao. (Atkinson 1985, 2004; Brad Lieb, personal communication 2004; Cook et al. 1980; Jennings 1941; Johnson et al. 2004). Furthermore, based on historical evidence that Lee County, MS, where the Alston-Wilson site is located, was occupied by the Chickasaw until their removal to Oklahoma from 1837 until 1850, the site is probably Chickasaw. The Chickasaws are represented by the present-day Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma.
Officials of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Historic Preservation Division have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Historic Preservation Division also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(A), the two objects described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony. Lastly, officials of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Historic Preservation Division have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains and associated funerary objects should contact Pamela D. Edwards, Curator of Archaeological Collections, Mississippi
The Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Historic Preservation Division is responsible for notifying the Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma that this notice has been published.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) and to hold public scoping meetings.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) proposes to participate and serve as the lead agency under NEPA in the preparation of a joint EIS/EIR on the Lower Yuba River Accord (Yuba Accord). The Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA), a local public water agency, is proposing the project and will serve as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the Yuba Accord is to resolve instream flow issues associated with operation of the Yuba River Development Project (Yuba Project) in a way that protects and enhances lower Yuba River fisheries and local water-supply reliability, while providing revenues for local flood-control and water-supply projects, water for the CALFED Program to use for protection and restoration of Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) fisheries, and improvements in state-wide water supply management, including supplemental water for the Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP).
This notice is published in accordance with NEPA regulations found in 40 CFR 1501.7. The purpose of this notice is to obtain suggestions and information from other agencies and the public on the scope of issues to be addressed in the EIS/EIR. A similar notice is being published by YCWA in accordance with CEQA. Comments and participation in the scoping process are encouraged.
Four public scoping meetings will be held on the following dates:
• July 19, 2005-1 p.m., Sacramento, CA
• July 19, 2005-6:30 p.m., Sacramento, CA
• July 20, 2005-1 p.m., Marysville, CA
• July 20, 2005-6:30 p.m., Marysville, CA
The public scoping meeting locations are:
• Sacramento—Doubletree Hotel, 2001 Point West Way, Sacramento, CA
• Marysville—Yuba County Government Center, 915 8th Street, Marysville, CA
Written comments on the scope of the Yuba Accord or issues to be addressed in the EIR/EIS must be received no later than August 4, 2005. Send written comments to Mary Grim, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way, MP-400, Sacramento, CA 95825. Grim, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way, MP-400, Sacramento, CA 95825.
Mary Grim, Environmental Specialist, Reclamation, at the above address; telephone number 916-978-5204.
YCWA is a public agency created and existing pursuant to the provisions of the Yuba County Water Agency Act of 1959. YCWA owns and operates the Yuba Project, which includes New Bullards Bar Dam and Reservoir on the North Yuba River. YCWA operates the Yuba Project in accordance with a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission License, flood control rules promulgated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, state water rights permit terms, and an agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for instream flows.
In March of 1991, CDFG released a “Lower Yuba River Fisheries Management Plan”, which contained recommendations regarding fishery protection and enhancement measures in the lower 24-mile section of the Yuba River. CDFG requested that the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) consider modifying YCWA's water rights permits to implement the recommendations contained in CDFG's Plan. Based on CDFG's request, and to address various allegations raised by a coalition of non-governmental fisheries organizations (NGOs) against several water agencies in 1989 filings, the SWRCB initiated a proceeding to consider fishery protection and water right issues on the lower Yuba River in early 1992.
The SWRCB held hearings on these issues in 1992 and 2000. The SWRCB adopted Water Rights Decision 1644 (D-1644) on March 1, 2001. D-1644 established new instream flow requirements for the lower Yuba River in YCWA's water right permits, required YCWA to take actions to address potential concerns regarding water temperatures for Chinook salmon and steelhead, and required studies and consultation on various other issues.
YCWA, several local water districts in Yuba County, and a collective of fisheries NGOs all initiated legal actions challenging D-1644 on a variety of issues. After considering some new evidence, the court remanded D-1644 to the SWRCB for reconsideration in light of the new evidence. After a brief hearing in 2003, the SWRCB issued Revised Water Rights Decision 1644 (RD-1644), which contains only minor changes from D-1644. The same parties that had challenged D-1644 then initiated new legal proceedings challenging RD-1644 on most of the same issues.
Since RD-1644 was issued, the parties to the litigation and the state and Federal fisheries agencies have been engaged in a collaborative, interest-based initiative to try to resolve the flow and other fisheries issues on the lower Yuba River. The potential settlement has become known as the Yuba Accord. If implemented, the Yuba Accord would resolve issues associated with operation of the Yuba Project in a way that would protect and enhance lower Yuba River fisheries, protect local water supply reliability, provide revenues for local flood-control and water-supply projects, provide water for protection and restoration of Delta fisheries, and increase state-wide water supplies.
The Yuba Accord would include three major elements:
• The first element would be an agreement (Yuba Accord Fisheries Agreement) between YCWA, CDFG and the collective of NGOs, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service supporting the agreement. Under the Yuba Accord Fisheries Agreement, YCWA would revise the operation of the Yuba Project to provide higher flows in the lower Yuba River to protect and enhance fisheries and to increase downstream water supplies.
• The second element of the Yuba Accord would be an agreement between YCWA and water districts within Yuba County (Yuba Accord Conjunctive Use Agreement) for the implementation of a comprehensive program of conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater supplies and actions to improve water use efficiencies.
• The third element would be an agreement between YCWA and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and Reclamation (Yuba Accord Transfer Agreement), which would put water released from the Yuba Project to beneficial uses through the Environmental Water Account and in the CVP and SWP service areas.
All three of these agreements would need to be in place for the Yuba Accord to be implemented.
The draft EIS/EIR will analyze the adverse and beneficial effects of implementing the Yuba Accord on surface water hydrology, groundwater hydrology, water supply, hydropower, flood control, water quality, fisheries, wildlife, vegetation, special-status species, recreation, visual, cultural and Indian Trust Assets, air quality, land use, socioeconomic, growth inducement, and environmental justice resources and conditions. Alternatives to be evaluated in the draft EIS/EIR include the No Action Alternative, Proposed Action Alternative, and others as appropriate. In addition, the draft EIS/EIR will address the cumulative impacts of implementation of the Yuba Accord in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions.
Our practice is to make comments on a Notice of Intent, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from public disclosure, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public disclosure in their entirety.
U.S. 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 May 17, 2005, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of BenQ Corporation of Taiwan and BenQ America Corporation of Irvine, California. The complaint 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 DVD/CD players and recorders, color television receivers and monitors, and components thereof, by reason of infringement of claims 7-11 and 13-15 of U.S. Patent No. 5,270,821 and claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,683,842. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(3) of section 337.
The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue an exclusion order and a cease and desist order.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is 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 impairment 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 be obtained by accessing its Internet server
Jay H. Reiziss, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone 202-205-2579.
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 Procedures, 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 DVD/CD players or recorders, color television receivers or monitors, or components thereof, by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 7-11 and 13-15 of U.S. Patent No. 5,270,821, or claims 1, 2, 4, or 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,683,842, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(3) 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 complainants are—
(b) The respondent is the following company alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is the party upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) Jay H. Reiziss, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436, who shall be the Commission investigative attorney, party to this investigation; and
For the investigation so instituted, the Honorable Robert L. Barton, Jr. is designated as the presiding administrative law judge.
A response to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be
Failure of the 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 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 an exclusion order or cease and desist orders or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on May 26, 2005, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and DPC intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 15, 1999, DPC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 19, 2003. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on May 12, 2005, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: Caterpillar Inc., Mossville, IL; Emerson Electric Co., St. Louis, MO; Engineered Machine Products, Inc., Escanaba, MI; and Dana Corporation, Ottawa Lake, MI. The general area of TEPS2's planned activity is to focus on the optimization of sophisticated power management strategies of various electrically driven engine accessories to replace the typical arrangement of belt/gear driven components.
Notice is hereby given that, on June 1, 2005, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: Utah Health Information Network, Murray, UT. The nature and scope of UHIN's standards development activities are: to develop, maintain and promote voluntary, consensus-based interoperability standards related to the exchange of electronic healthcare data, including but not limited to, standardization of data sets, specifications, network architecture, requirements, services, methods and procedures that apply to facilities, personnel, systems, service providers, operators, and others handling healthcare information.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 29, 2005, in response to a petition filed by a state agency representative on behalf of workers at Allied Bias Products, Jersey City, New Jersey.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation would serve no purpose the investigation has been terminated.
By application of May 16, 2005 a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The denial notice was signed on April 27, 2005 and published in the
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;
(2) If it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision.
The TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Block Corporation, Amory, Mississippi engaged in production of men's trouser samples was denied because the “contributed importantly” group eligibility requirement of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 was not met, nor was there a shift in production from that firm to a foreign country. The investigation revealed that the preponderance in employment declines is attributed to a domestic shift in production of men's trouser samples.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleges that the layoffs at the subject firm are attributable to an increase in imports of men's trouser samples.
A company official was contacted regarding the above allegations. The company official confirmed what was revealed during the initial investigation. In particular, the official stated that even though the subject firm has been importing a small portion of men's trouser samples, domestic production of men's trouser samples have not declined during the relevant time period. Furthermore, the official stated that the same amount of pant samples that were produced at the subject facility are now produced at another domestic facility.
After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 12, 2005 in response to a worker petition filed by a State agency representative on behalf of workers at Creo Americas, Inc., U.S. Headquarters, a subsidiary of Creo, Inc., New York, New York.
The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active certification, (TA-W-55,607A) which expires on April 5, 2007. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at CTS Corporation, CTS Communications Components, Inc., including on-site leased workers of Excel and Spherion, Albuquerque, New Mexico. The application contained no new substantial information which would bear importantly on the Department's determination. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on May 3, 2005 in response to a worker petition which was filed on behalf of workers at Hewlett-Packard Company, Imaging & Printing Group—Technology Platforms Division, Corvallis, Oregon.
The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active certification, (TA-W-56,696) which expires on May 7, 2007. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on April 25, 2005 in response to petition filed on behalf of workers at Higgins Seaming, Rainsville, Alabama.
The petition regarding the investigation has been deemed invalid. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at KUS, Inc., a/k/a Karl Schmidt Unisia, Inc., Fort Wayne, Indiana. The application contained no new substantial information which would bear importantly on the Department's determination. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued.
By application of April 24, 2005, petitioners requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The determination was signed on March 25, 2005 and the Notice of determination was published in the
The Department carefully reviewed the petitioners' request for reconsideration and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation based on new information provided.
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
On March 9, 2005, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT) granted the Department of Labor's motion for a voluntary remand in
On September 29, 2004, the Department issued a determination for the September 2, 2004 petition filed on behalf of workers at the subject company. The workers were certified as eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and ineligible to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The Notice of determination was published in the
By letter dated December 19, 2004, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1794, appealed to the USCIT for administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding the subject worker group's eligibility to apply for ATAA and requested an extension of the certification period to include workers who were separated prior to September 2, 2003 (one year prior to the petition date).
Pursuant to the USCIT's March 9, 2005 order, the Department has conducted an investigation on remand to determine the workers' eligibility to apply for ATAA certification.
The group eligibility certification criteria for the ATAA program under
During the initial determination, the Department determined that at least five percent of the workforce at the subject firm is at least fifty years of age, that workers of the subject firm possess skills that are easily transferable, and that competitive conditions within the industry are adverse.
During the remand investigation, the Department obtained new information, including information that shows that the average salary level of workers with similar skills as the worker group declined significantly during the investigatory period, that manufacturing employment opportunities within a 120-mile radius of the subject firm are scarce, and that existing manufacturing companies in the county which the subject company is located are not seeking hiring workers with those skills which are possessed by the subject worker group.
The Department cannot grant the petitioner's request to extend the certification period to include workers who were separated prior to September 2, 2003 because the applicable regulation, 29 CFR 90.16(e)(1), states that exclusions from coverage of a certification of eligibility include any worker whose last total or partial separation from the subject firm occurred more than one year before the date of the petition.
After careful review of the facts, I conclude that the requirements of section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, have been met for workers at the subject firm. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification:
In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and a Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on May 26, 2005, applicable to workers of Pilling/Weck, a subsidiary of Teleflex, including on-site leased workers of Aerotek, Horsham, Pennsylvania. The notice will be published soon in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows that leased workers of Acsys were employed on-site at the Horsham, Pennsylvania location of Pilling/Weck, a subsidiary of Teleflex.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include leased workers of Acsys working at Pilling/Weck, a subsidiary of Teleflex, Horsham, Pennsylvania.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers employed at Pilling/Weck, a subsidiary of Teleflex who were adversely affected by a shift in production to South Korea, Pakistan and Germany.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-57,031 is hereby issued as follows:
“All workers of Pilling/Weck, a subsidiary of Teleflex, including on-site leased workers of Aerotek and Acsys, Horsham, Pennsylvania who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after April 20, 2004, through May 26, 2007, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
I further determine that all workers of Pilling/Weck, a subsidiary of Teleflex, including on-site leased workers of Aerotek and Acsys, Horsham, Pennsylvania are denied eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.”
Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution
Notice; U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution application for the National Roster of Environmental Dispute Resolution and Consensus Building Professionals.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and supporting regulations, this document announces that the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (the Institute), part of the Morris K. Udall Foundation, is planning to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for an extension for the currently approved information collection (ICR), OMB control Number 3320-0008: Application for the National Roster of Environmental Dispute Resolution and Consensus Building Professionals (“National Roster of ECR Practitioners” or “roster”), currently operating pursuant to OMB clearance issued October 17, 2002 and which expires October 31, 2005. Before submitting the extension to OMB for review and approval, the Institute is soliciting comments regarding the information collection (see section C. below entitled “Questions to Consider in Making Comments”). This document provides information on the continuing need for the Roster of ECR Practitioners Application and the information recorded in the application.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 19, 2005.
Direct comments to Joan C. Calcagno, Roster Manager, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, 130 South Scott Ave., Tucson, Arizona 85701. Fax: 520-670-5530. Phone: 520-670-5299. E-mail:
Direct questions and requests for information, including copies of the ICR, to Joan C. Calcagno, Roster Manager, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, 130 South Scott Ave., Tucson, Arizona 85701. Fax: 520-670-5530. Phone: 520-670-5299. E-mail:
Application for National Roster of Environmental Dispute Resolution and Consensus Building Professionals (“National Roster of ECR Practitioners”).
You are potentially affected by this action if you are a dispute resolution or consensus building professional in the environmental or natural resources field who wishes to be listed on the National Roster of Environmental Dispute Resolution and Consensus Building Professionals.
The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution requests your comments to any of the following questions related to collecting information for the extension of the Application for the National Roster of ECR Practitioners:
(1) Is the continued use of the application (“collection of information”) necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility?
(2) Is the agency's estimate of the time spent completing the application (“burden of the proposed collection of information”) accurate, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used?
(3) Can you suggest ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected?
(4) Can you suggest ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution plans to continue collecting information from environmental dispute resolution and consensus building neutral professionals who desire to become members of the National Roster of ECR Practitioners, from which the Institute and those involved in environmental, natural resource, or public lands disputes may locate providers of neutral services. Responses to the collection of information (the application) are voluntary, but required to obtain a benefit (listing on the National Roster of Environmental Dispute Resolution and Consensus Building Professionals.) An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution was created in 1998 by the Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution Act (Pub. L. 105-156). The U. S. Institute is a federal program established by the U. S. Congress to assist parties in resolving environmental, natural resource, and public lands conflicts. The Institute is part of the Morris K. Udall Foundation, an independent federal agency of the executive branch overseen by a board of trustees appointed by the President. The Institute serves as an impartial, non-partisan institution providing professional expertise, services, and resources to all parties involved in such disputes, regardless of who initiates or pays for assistance. The Institute helps parties determine whether collaborative problem solving is appropriate for specific environmental conflicts, how and when to bring all the parties to the table, and whether a third-party facilitator or mediator might be helpful in assisting the parties in their efforts to reach consensus or to resolve the conflict. In addition, the Institute maintains the National Roster of ECR Practitioners, a roster of qualified facilitators and mediators with substantial experience in environmental conflict resolution, and can help parties in selecting an appropriate neutral. The Institute accomplishes most of its work by partnering, contracting with, or referral to, experienced practitioners.
Roster of ECR Practitioners Application: The application can be viewed on-line from the Institute's Web site:
The specific entry criteria and applicable definitions are available from the Institute's Web site:
(1) Served as the lead neutral in a collaborative process (
(2) Accumulated a total of 60 points across three categories: Additional case experience and complex case experience; experience as a trainer or trainee; and substantive work/volunteer/educational experience in fields related to Alternative Dispute Resolution/Environmental Conflict Resolution, such as law, science, public administration.
Use of the National Roster of ECR Practitioners: The roster search and referral service has been accessible through the Institute since February 2000. The Institute uses the roster
In October 2004, the roster became directly available on the web to anyone interested in locating ECR practitioners. Since then anyone interested in locating ECR practitioners can contact the Institute for a referral through the Roster Manager or register in the search system and search the roster themselves. The Roster Manager remains available to assist searchers in getting the best use of the roster search and to provide advice about next steps.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) personnel have had direct, electronic access to search the roster since February 2000. The Department of Interior Office of Collaborative Action and Dispute Resolution and ADR personnel from various DOI bureaus have had direct access since November 2002. Roster Members have also had direct access to the search since May 2004. Statistics related to the use of the roster since February 2000 can be found in the Roster Program Overview, available from:
Federal agencies are not required to select from the roster. Professionals not on the roster remain fully eligible to serve as ECR practitioners in disputes involving federal agencies. Finally, being listed on the roster does not guarantee additional work for the practitioner.
Development and Need for the National Roster of ECR Practitioners: The roster was developed with the support of the Environmental Protection Agency. Based on a 1997 study concerning the potential of a national roster of qualified practitioners, EPA decided to support the development of such a roster through the Institute.
To develop the project, the EPA and the Institute brought together a work group consisting of EPA dispute resolution professionals and contracting officers, state dispute resolution officials, private dispute resolution practitioners and academics. Informed in part by ideas from this group, the EPA and the Institute proposed roster entry qualifications and draft application, which were published in the
The roster was created, and continues to be needed, for several reasons. The use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the environmental and public policy arena has grown markedly over the last two decades. In this context, ADR processes now include techniques ranging from conflict prevention, such as consensus building and facilitation of public policy dialogues, to specific dispute resolution through assisted negotiations and mediation. The number of environmental conflict resolution (ECR) practitioners has grown as the field has gained prominence and professionals from a variety of disciplines have become attracted to its advantages and opportunities.
An essential step in any dispute resolution process occurs when parties select a practitioner. Parties making the selection rightfully expect that the practitioner will be qualified to provide the service sought and has experience and style matched well to the nature of the issues and to the parties. Thus, the National Roster of ECR Practitioners is designed to advance the interests of the growing field of dispute resolution, reflect the evolving standards of best practice, and help direct the expenditure of public funds for quality services.
In fifteen years of using ADR, before the creation of the National Roster of ECR Practitioners, EPA found that parties to a dispute or controversy generated a list of desired characteristics, such as experience with specific types of issues, cases or disputes, location, and other factors, that they would use in an attempt to identify the right person to assist them. Locating practitioners meeting these criteria was often a “hit-or-miss” experience depending on the resources, available time, and experience of the parties with locating appropriate neutrals.
Although the EPA operates a national service contract that manages major cases through a list of experienced providers, it is limited in scope and membership, and as a consequence it can be burdensome to use to identify neutrals for small or localized cases. Most other Federal agencies have no vehicle or information available to assist in this important first step to conducting a good dispute resolution process.
More specifically, the National Roster of ECR Practitioners is necessary for the proper performance of the Institute's goals: to resolve Federal environmental disputes in a timely and constructive manner; to increase the appropriate use of environmental conflict resolution; to improve the ability of Federal agencies and other interested parties to engage in ECR effectively; and to promote collaborative problem-solving and consensus-building during the design and implementation of Federal environmental policies so as to prevent and reduce the incidence of future environmental disputes.
In addition, the U.S. Institute's enabling legislation directs the Institute to work with practitioners located near the conflict whenever practical. Consistent with this mandate, the Institute must be able to identify appropriate experienced dispute resolution and consensus building professionals in an efficient manner.
Finally, the Administrative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 571
Thus, the goal of the National Roster of ECR Practitioners and the referral system is to improve access to qualified environmental dispute resolution and consensus building professionals for the Institute and others sponsoring or engaging in environmental conflict resolution processes. The roster expedites the identification of appropriate professionals, shortens the time needed to complete contracting documents, and helps refer parties to practitioners, particularly practitioners in the locale of the dispute.
Preliminary feedback from users of the roster search system indicates that: they would recommend the roster as a primary source for locating ECR practitioners; the roster increases the
The roster and the referral system provide an efficient, credible and user-friendly source from which to systematically identify experienced environmental neutral professionals; increase the use of collaborative processes by providing a useful tool for locating appropriate practitioners; and provide users with a detailed Practitioner Profiles, reflecting information contained in the application, to be used as a helpful first step in the process of selecting an appropriate neutral.
The application compiles data available from the resumes of dispute resolution and consensus building professionals into a format that is standardized for efficient and fair eligibility review, database searches, and retrievals. A professional needs to complete the form only one time. Once the application is approved, the roster member has continual access to his or her on-line account to update information, on a voluntary basis. The burden includes time spent to review instructions, review resume information, and enter the information in the form.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information and transmitting information.
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review; comment request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. This is the second notice for the public comment; the first was published in the
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This document has been prepared to support the clearance of data collection instruments to be used in the evaluation of the Math and Science Partnership (MSP) Program. The goals for the program are to (1) ensure that all K-12 students have access to, are prepared for, and are encouraged to participate and succeed in challenging curricula and advanced mathematics and science courses; (2) enhance the quality, quantity, and diversity of the K-12 mathematics and science teacher workforce; and (3) develop evidence-based outcomes that contribute to our understanding of how students effectively learn mathematics and science. The motivational force for realizing these goals is the formation of partnerships between institutions of higher education (IHEs) and K-12 school districts. The role of IHE content faculty is the cornerstone of this intervention. In fact, it is the rigorous involvement of science, mathematics, and engineering faculty—and the expectation that both IHEs and K-12 school systems will be transformed—that distinguishes MSP from other education reform efforts.
The components of the overall MSP portfolio include active projects whose initial awards were made in prior MSP competitions, as well as those to be awarded in the current MSP competition: (1) Comprehensive Partnerships that implement change in mathematics and/or science educational practices in both higher education institutions and in schools and school districts, resulting in improved student achievement across the K-12 continuum; (2) Targeted Partnerships that focus on improved K-12 student achievement in a narrower grade range or disciplinary focus within mathematics or science; (3) Institute Partnerships: Teacher Institutes for the 21st Century that focus on the development of mathematics and science teachers as school-and district-based intellectual leaders and master teachers; and (4) Research, Evaluation and Technical Assistance (RETA) projects that build and enhance large-scale research and evaluation capacity for all MSP awardees and provide them with tools and assistance in the implementation and evaluation of their work.
The MSP online monitoring system, comprised of four web-based surveys, will collect a common core of data about each component of MSP. The web application for MSP will be developed with a modular design that incorporates templates and self-contained code modules for rapid development and ease of modification. A downloadable version will also be available for respondents who prefer a paper version that they can mail or fax to Westat. Information from the system will be used to document the Partnerships' annual progress toward meeting the Key features of MSP projects, such as developing partnerships between IHEs and local school districts, increasing teacher quality, quantity, and diversity, providing challenging courses and curricula, utilizing evidence-based design and outcome measures, and implementing institutional change and sustainability.
The expected respondents are principal investigators of all projects; STEM and education faculty members and administrators who participated in MSP; school districts and IHEs that are partners in an MSP project.
We estimate that the total number of annual respondents will be 1,848. The estimated annual response burden is 34,382.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of Issuance; correction.
This document corrects a notice appearing in the
George F. Dick, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone (301) 415-3019, e-mail:
On page 33222, in the second column, in the entry for Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois; Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois, the date of issuance is corrected to read from “May 19, 2005” to “May 26, 2005”.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of availability of Safety Evaluation Report.
Notice is hereby given that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for the Louisiana Energy Services (LES) license application, dated December 12, 2003, docketed on January 30, 2004, and as revised by letters dated February 27, 2004, July 30, 2004, September 30, 2004, April 22, 2005, April 29, 2005, and May 25, 2005, for the possession and use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials at its proposed National Enrichment Facility (NEF) in Lea County, New Mexico.
The SER discusses the results of the safety review performed by NRC staff in
The NRC is planning to conduct a public meeting in New Mexico to provide an overview of the staff's safety review and to address any comments or questions relating to the issuance of the SER.
The SER (NUREG-1827) is available for inspection and copying for a fee at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The Public Document Room is open from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays.
Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agency-wide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room, and on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
Timothy C. Johnson, Mail Stop: T-8F42, Special Projects Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone: (301) 415-7299, and e-mail:
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) has denied a request by Nuclear Management Company, LLC (the licensee) for an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-49 issued to the licensee for operation of the Duane Arnold Energy Center, located in Linn County, Iowa.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of this amendment was published in the
The purpose of the licensee's amendment request was to revise the Technical Specifications (TS) to reflect adoption of Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) traveler numbers 264, 273, 284, and 299.
The NRC staff has concluded that the portion of the licensee's request to adopt TSTF-264 and revise TS 3.3.1.1 cannot be granted. The licensee was notified of the Commission's denial of the proposed change by a letter dated June 14, 2005.
By 30 days from the date of publication of this notice in the
A request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the above date. Because of continuing disruptions in delivery to mail to U.S. Government offices, it is requested that petitions for leave to intervene and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application for amendment dated January 28, 2004, as supplemented by letter dated November 22, 2004, and (2) the Commission's letter to the licensee dated June 14, 2005.
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and will be accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The licensees identified in Attachment 1 to this Order have been issued a specific license by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) authorizing the possession of spent nuclear fuel and a general license authorizing the transportation of spent nuclear fuel [in a transportation package approved by the Commission] in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, utilizing large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees in order to strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility or regulated activity. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State and local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order to assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements.
As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and security plan requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community, the Commission has determined that certain additional security measures are required to be implemented by licensees as prudent, interim measures, to address the current threat environment in a consistent manner. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment 2 of this Order, on all licensees identified in Attachment 1 of this Order.
The Commission recognizes that licensees may have already initiated many of the measures set forth in Attachment 2 to this Order in response to previously issued Safeguards and Threat Advisories or on their own. It is also recognized that some measures may not be possible or necessary for all shipments of spent nuclear fuel, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the licensees' specific circumstances to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe transport of spent nuclear fuel.
Although the additional security measures implemented by licensees in response to the Safeguards and Threat Advisories have been adequate to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of common defense and security, in light of the current threat environment, the Commission concludes that the security measures must be embodied in an Order consistent with the established regulatory framework. In order to provide assurance that licensees are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, all licenses identified in Attachment 1 to this Order shall be modified to include the requirements identified in Attachment 2 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, and in light of the common defense and security matters identified above which warrant the issuance of this Order, the Commission finds that the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be immediately effective.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 53, 103, 104, 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 Parts 50 and 71,
A. All licensees shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission regulation or license to the contrary, comply with the requirements described in Attachment 2 to this Order except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is set forth in the licensee's security plan. The licensees shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachment 2 to the Order and shall complete implementation by July 10, 2005, unless otherwise specified in Attachment 2, or before the first shipment after July 10, 2005, whichever is earlier.
B. 1. All licensees shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission, (1) if they are unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment 2, (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in their specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any of the requirements would cause the licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. The notification shall provide the licensee's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement.
2. Any licensee that considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment 2 to this Order would adversely impact the safe transport of spent fuel must notify the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 2 requirement in question, or a schedule for modifying the activity to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, the licensee must supplement its response to Condition B1 of this Order to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications as required in Condition B1.
C. 1. All licensees shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, submit to the Commission a schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described in Attachment 2.
2. All licensees shall report to the Commission when they have achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 2.
D. Notwithstanding any provisions of the Commission's regulations to the contrary, all measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise.
Licensee responses to Conditions B1, B2, C1, and C2 above, shall be submitted to the NRC to the attention of the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation under 10 CFR 50.4. In addition, licensee submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21.
The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions 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 twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending
If a hearing is requested by the licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), the licensee may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received.
An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
On May 31, 2005, Fab Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Issuer”), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On May 23, 2005, the Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Issuer approved a resolution to withdraw the Security from listing and registration on Amex. On March 1, 2002, the Board adopted resolutions authorizing, subject to stockholder approval, the sale of the Issuer's business pursuant to a Plan of Liquidation and Dissolution (“Plan”). The Issuer's stockholders approved the Plan at the Issuer's annual meeting on May 30, 2002. Pursuant to the Plan, the Issuer was required to transfer its assets and liabilities to a liquidating trust on May 30, 2005. The liquidating trust will succeed to all of the Issuer's remaining assets and liabilities. Upon the transfer to the liquidating trust, the Plan required that the Issuer file a certificate of dissolution with the State of Delaware. The Issuer stated that the last day of trading in the Security on the Amex was May 27, 2005.
The Issuer stated in its application that it has met the requirements of Amex Rule 18 by complying with all applicable laws in effect in the state of Delaware, in which it is incorporated, and provided written notice of withdrawal to Amex.
The Issuer's application relates solely to withdrawal of the Security from listing on the Amex and from registration under Section 12(b) of the Act,
Any interested person may, on or before July 6, 2005, comment on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of Amex, and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment letters may be submitted by either 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, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.
All submissions should refer to File Number 1-05901. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us 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 (
The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 25, 2005, Kimberly-Clark Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Issuer”), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Board of Directors (“the Board”) of the Issuer approved a resolution on April 28, 2005 to withdraw the Security from listing on PCX. The Board stated that the reason it decided to withdraw the Security from PCX is that the benefits of continued listing on PCX do not outweigh the incremental cost of the listing fees and administrative burden associated with listing on the exchange. In addition, the Board stated that it is desirable for the Issuer to remove its Security from PCX listing because of the modest volume of trading in the Security on PCX does not justify the expense and administrative time associated with remaining listed on PCX. The Issuer stated that the Security is currently traded on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE”), the Issuer's principal listing exchange, and on the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX”).
The Issuer stated in its application that it has complied with applicable rules of PCX Rule 5.4(b) by providing PCX with the required documents governing the withdrawal of securities from listing and registration on PCX. The Issuer's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the Securities from listing on PCX and shall not affect its continued listing on CHX and NYSE or its obligation to be registered under Section 12(b) of the Act.
Any interested person may, on or before July 11, 2005 comment on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of PCX, and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment letters may be submitted by either of the following methods:
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.
All submissions should refer to File Number 1-00225. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us 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 (
The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 18, 2005, Pioneer Railcorp, an Iowa corporation (“Issuer”), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Issuer approved a resolution on September 20, 2004 to withdraw the Security from listing and registration on CHX. The Issuer stated that the reasons for the Board's decision to withdraw the Security from CHX are: (1) The Issuer is in the process of attempting to go private and believes it will be successful in that endeavor; (2) upon completion of the going private transaction, the Issuer will no longer file periodic and other reports under the Act as required by the Exchange; and (3) the Security is currently quoted on the over-the-counter Pink Sheets and the Board believes the Pink Sheets will offer an adequate and efficient market for trading the Security. In addition, as a result of low trading volume, the Issuer no longer has a market maker for its Security on the Exchange and is traded in “Cabinet.”
The Issuer stated in its application that it has complied with applicable rules of CHX, by providing CHX with the required documents governing the removal of securities from listing and registration on CHX. The Issuer's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the Security from listing on CHX and from registration under Section 12(b) of the Act,
Any interested person may, on or before July 6, 2005, comment on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of CHX, and what terms, if any, should be imposed
• 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, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.
All submissions should refer to File Number 1-12072. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us 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 (
The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 29, 2005, Renasant Corporation, a Mississippi corporation (“Issuer”), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On October 19, 2004, the Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Issuer approved a resolution to withdraw the Security from listing and registration on Amex and to list the Security on the Nasdaq National Market Systems (“Nasdaq”). The Issuer stated that the Board determined to withdraw the Security from listing on Amex based on the following opinions of the Board: (i) Nasdaq is a more efficient and better structured marketplace that may provide the Issuer with a variety of advantages over Amex, including, but not limited to, (a) a screen-based electronic marketplace with competing market makers, (b) increased liquidity, (c) faster trade execution time, and (d) better execution quality; (ii) the Issuer will have improved visibility to investors by listing on Nasdaq; and (iii) Nasdaq will provide the Issuer with greater exposure to institutional investors. Trading in the Security on Nasdaq commenced on May 2, 2005.
The Issuer stated in its application that it has met the requirements of Amex Rule 18 by complying with all applicable laws in effect in the state of Mississippi, in which it is incorporated, and provided written notice of withdrawal to Amex.
The Issuer's application relates solely to withdrawal of the Security from listing on the Amex and from registration under Section 12(b) of the Act,
Any interested person may, on or before July 6, 2005, comment on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of Amex, and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment letters may be submitted by either 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, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.
All submissions should refer to File Number 1-13253. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us 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 (
The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.
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 Amex seeks to amend Rule 1, Commentary .05 to allow indicative quotes in Nasdaq stocks traded pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”) to be disseminated by Amex specialists before 9:30 a.m. The text of the proposed rule change, as amended, is set forth below. Proposed new language is in
.01-.04 No change.
.05 The hours of business for a security traded on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges shall be the same as the hours during which the security is traded in the primary market for such security,
In its filing with the Commission, the Amex included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, as amended, and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Amex Rule 1 provides that the Exchange is not open for the transaction of business before 9:30 a.m. except as otherwise determined by the Board of Governors. Exceptions to this general rule include the transmission of required pre-opening notifications to Intermarket Trading System participants and the publication of “indications” of the anticipated opening price range in a given security. The proposed rule change would codify this existing practice of the Exchange.
Quotations by Amex specialists in Nasdaq UTP securities are transmitted to the Nasdaq Securities Information Processor (“SIP”) through the UTP Quotation Data Feed (“UQDF”). The SIP will not accept pre-opening indications. It will only accept standard quotations (
The Amex believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, will impose no burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change, as amended.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve such proposed rule change, as amended, or
B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change, as amended, should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-026. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade notes, the performance of which is linked to the DJIA BuyWrite Index(sm) (the “BXD Index” or “Index”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Amex included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. The Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Under Section 107A of the Amex Company Guide (“Company Guide”), the Exchange may approve for listing and trading securities that cannot be readily categorized under the listing criteria for common and preferred stocks, bonds, debentures, or warrants.
J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., an affiliate of JPMorgan, has been appointed to act as the calculation agent. Telephone conversation between Jeffrey P. Burns, Associate General Counsel, Amex and David Liu, Attorney, Division of Market Regulation (“Division”), Commission, on May 26, 2005.
The Notes will conform to the initial listing guidelines under Section 107A
The cash payment that a holder or investor of a Note will be entitled to receive at maturity (the “Payment Amount”) will depend on the relation of the level of the BXD Index at the close of the market on the Final Valuation Date
The Payment Amount per Note will equal:
The Notes are cash-settled in U.S. dollars and do not give the holder any right to receive any of the component securities, dividend payments, or any other ownership right or interest in the securities comprising the BXD Index. The Notes are designed for investors who want to participate in the exposure to the DJIA that the BXD Index provides while limiting downside risk, and who are willing to forego principal protection and interest payments on the Notes during their term.
The Exchange notes that the Commission has previously approved the listing on the Amex of securities with structures similar to that of the proposed Notes.
The BXD Index is a passive total return index based on (1) buying a portfolio consisting of the component stocks of the DJIA, and (2) “writing” (or selling) near-term DJIA call options (DJX), generally on the third Friday of each month. This strategy consists of a hypothetical portfolio consisting of a “long” position indexed to the DJIA on which are deemed sold a succession of one-month, at-the-money call options on the DJIA (DJX) listed on the CBOE. Dividends paid on the component stocks underlying the DJIA and the dollar value of option premium deemed received from the sold call options are functionally “re-invested” in the covered DJIA portfolio.
The value of the BXD Index on any given date will equal (1) the value of the BXD Index on the previous day multiplied by (2) the daily rate of return
The Exchange states that the CBOE has represented that the BXD Index value will be calculated and disseminated by the CBOE once every scheduled trading day after the close. The daily change in the BXD Index reflects the daily changes in the DJIA and related options positions. The Exchange states that JPMorgan has represented that it will seek to arrange to have the BXD Index calculated and disseminated on a daily basis through a third party if the CBOE ceases to calculate and disseminate the Index.
In order to provide an updated value of the Payment Amount for use by investors, the Exchange will disseminate over the Consolidated Tape Association's Network B, a daily indicative value (the “Indicative Value”) of the Notes. The Indicative Value will equal the performance of the BXD less the Adjustment Amount. The Indicative Value will be calculated by the Amex after the close of trading and after the CBOE calculates the BXD Index for use by investors the next scheduled trading day. It is designed to provide investors with a daily reference value of the adjusted BXD Index. The Indicative Value may not reflect the precise value of the Notes or Payment Amount. Therefore, the Indicative Value disseminated by the Amex during trading hours should not be viewed as a real time update of the BXD Index, which is calculated only once a day. While the Indicative Value that will be disseminated by the Amex is expected to be close to the current BXD Index value, the values of the Indicative Value and the BXD Index will diverge due to the application of the Adjustment Amount.
From October 31, 1997 through March 31, 2005, the annualized returns for the BXD Index and the DJIA were 7.15% and 6.76%, respectively, with a total deviation of the returns during the same time period of 4.43%. As the chart
The call options (DJX) included in the value of the BXD Index have successive terms of approximately one month. Each day that an option expires, which day is referred to as a “roll” date, that option's value at expiration is taken into account in the value of the BXD Index. At expiration, the call option (DJX) is settled against the “Special Opening Quotation” of the DJX used as the final settlement price of the DJX call options. The Special Opening Quotation is a special calculation of the DJIA that is compiled from the opening price of component stocks underlying the DJIA. The final settlement price of the call option at expiration is equal to the difference between the Special Opening Quotation and the strike price of the expired call option, or zero, whichever is greater, and is removed from the value of the BXD Index. Subsequent to the settlement of the expired call option, a new, “short” or sold at-the-money call option is included in the value of the BXD Index.
The market capitalization of the DJIA is approximately $3.6 trillion. The Exchange states that, as of April 18, 2005, the market capitalization of the securities included in the DJIA ranged from a high of $381.59 billion to a low of $14.8 billion. The average daily trading volume for these same securities for the last six (6) months ranged from a high of 292 million shares to a low of 368,900 shares.
The Exchange represents that it prohibits the initial and/or continued listing of any security that is not in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act.
The Exchange states that, because the Notes are issued in $1,000 denominations, the Amex's existing debt floor trading rules will apply to the trading of the Notes. First, pursuant to Amex Rule 411, the Exchange will impose a duty of due diligence on its members and member firms to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Notes.
The Exchange represents that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Notes. Specifically, the Amex will rely on its existing surveillance procedures governing equities and options that include additional monitoring on key pricing dates,
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 that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange states that no written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Amex-2005-042. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your
The Amex has asked the Commission to approve the proposal on an accelerated basis to accommodate the timetable for listing the Notes. After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The requirements of Section 107A of the Company Guide were designed to address the concerns attendant to the trading of hybrid securities, like the Notes. For example, Section 107A of the Company Guide provides that only issuers satisfying substantial asset and equity requirements may issue securities such as the Notes. In addition, the Exchange's “Other Securities” listing standards further require that the Notes have a market value of at least $4 million.
In approving the product, the Commission recognizes that the Index is a passive total return index based on (1) buying a portfolio consisting of the component stocks of the DJIA and (2) “writing” (or selling) near-term DJIA call options (DJX), generally on the third Friday of each month. Given the large trading volume and capitalization of the compositions of the stocks underlying the DJIA, the Commission believes that the listing and trading of the Notes that are linked to the BXD Index should not unduly impact the market for the underlying securities compromising the DJIA or raise manipulative concerns.
The Commission also believes that any concerns that a broker-dealer, such as JPMorgan, or a subsidiary providing a hedge for the issuer, will incur undue position exposure are minimized by the size of the Notes issuance in relation to the net worth of JPMorgan.
Finally, the Commission notes that the value of the Index will be calculated and disseminated by the CBOE once every trading day after the close of trading. However, the Commission notes that the value of the DJIA will be widely disseminated at least once every fifteen seconds throughout the trading day and that investors are able to obtain real-time call option pricing on the DJIA during the trading day. Further, the Indicative Value, which will be calculated by the Amex after the close of trading and after the CBOE calculates the BXD Index for use by investors the next trading day, is designed to provide investors with a daily reference value of the adjusted Index. The Commission notes that JPMorgan has agreed to arrange to have the BXD Index calculated and disseminated on a daily basis through a third party in the event that the CBOE discontinues calculating and disseminating the Index. In such event, the Exchange agrees to obtain Commission approval, pursuant to filing the appropriate Form 19b-4, prior to the substitution of the CBOE BXD Index. Further, the Commission notes that the Exchange has agreed to undertake to delist the Notes in the event that the CBOE ceases to calculate and disseminate the Index, and JPMorgan is unable to arrange to have the BXD Index calculated and widely disseminated through a third party.
The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of the notice of filing thereof in the
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules relating to the terms of index option contracts listed on the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in italics; deletions are in brackets.
Rule 24.9. (a) General.
(1)-(3) No Change.
(4) A.M.-Settled Index Options. The last day of trading for A.M.-settled index options shall be the business day preceding the last day of trading in the underlying securities prior to expiration. The current index value at the expiration of an A.M.-settled index option shall be determined, for all purposes under these rules and the rules of the Clearing Corporation, on the last day of trading in the underlying securities prior to expiration, by reference to the reported level of such index as derived from [first reported sale]
The following A.M.-settled index options are approved for trading on the Exchange:
(i)-(lxxiv) No Change.
(5) Other Methods of Determining Exercise Settlement Value. Exercise settlement values for the following index options are determined as specified in this paragraph:
(i) No Change.
(ii) [Nasdaq 100 Stock Index. The current index value at expiration shall be determined, for all purposes under these Rules and the Rules of the Clearing Corporation, on the last day of trading in the underlying securities prior to expiration. The current index value for such purposes shall be calculated by the Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (“Nasdaq”) and reported to the CBOE using the volume weighted prices (“VWPs”) of the securities underlying the Nasdaq-100 Index, which VWPs shall be calculated according to the then current volume-weighted averaging methodology developed by Nasdaq.
(iii) ]CBOE Volatility Indexes and CBOE Increased-Value Volatility Indexes. The current index value at expiration shall be determined, for all purposes under these Rules and the Rules of the Clearing Corporation, on the last day of trading in the underlying securities prior to expiration. The current index value for such purposes shall be calculated by the Chicago Board Options Exchange as a Special Opening Quotation (SOQ) of each respective Volatility or Increased-Value Volatility Index using the sequence of opening prices of the options that comprise each Index. The opening price for any series in which there is no trade shall be the average of that option's bid price and ask price as determined at the opening of trading.
(b)-(c) No Change.
* * *
.01-.12 No Change.
In its filing with the Commission, CBOE 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 III below. The CBOE 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 clarify CBOE rules relating to the determination of opening prices for securities that underlie certain A.M.-settled index options traded on the Exchange and to clarify CBOE rules relating to the determination of the exercise settlement value for certain
Currently, CBOE Rule 24.9(a)(4) provides that the current index value at expiration of an A.M.-settled index option is determined on the last day of trading in the underlying securities prior to expiration, by reference to the reported level of such index as derived “from first reported sale (opening) prices of the underlying securities on such day.” The Exchange believes it important to clarify in CBOE Rules that, although the settlement values of an A.M.-settled index are generally determined from the first reported sale of the securities that underlie the index, the specific methodology for ascertaining the opening prices is largely determined by factors outside of the CBOE's control. Specifically, these factors include the fact that (1) the Reporting Authority
Additionally, and as is consistent with CBOE Rule 24.9(a)(4), the Reporting Authority will be required to use the opening price in the calculation of the index value, not the closing price from the previous trading day.
To emphasize factor (1) above, the Exchange proposes to reference existing Interpretation and Policy .12 to Rule 24.9
Therefore, the Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rule 24.9(a)(4), in part, (1) to eliminate reference to the term “first reported sale” and (2) to reflect that the opening prices of the underlying securities at expiration of an A.M.-settled index option will be determined by the market (securities exchange or Nasdaq) for such security selected by the Reporting Authority, as consistent with Interpretation and Policy .12 to Rule 24.9.
Additionally, this rule filing proposes to revise Rule 24.9(a)(5)(ii), which describes the manner in which Nasdaq determines the exercise settlement value for the Nasdaq 100 Index. Until recently, as described in Rule 24.9(a)(5)(ii), Nasdaq calculated the exercise settlement value for the Nasdaq 100 Index using the volume weighted prices (“VWP”) of the securities underlying the Nasdaq 100 Index. Nasdaq now uses a new methodology that, essentially, relies on a single price of each security that underlies the Nasdaq 100 Index.
Because these proposed amendments serve to clarify existing rules relating to the determination of the opening prices for the securities that underlie indexes on which the Exchange lists options and also clarifies the method for determining the exercise settlement value for certain option contracts that are based on the Nasdaq 100 Index, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The CBOE neither solicited nor received comments with respect to the proposed rule change.
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, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2005-26. 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 (
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission finds good cause for accelerating approval of the proposed rule change, as amended, prior to the thirtieth day after publication in the
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 Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to adopt a fee cap on merger spread transactions. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, CBOE 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. CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange currently caps market-maker, firm, and broker-dealer transaction fees associated with “dividend spread” transactions at $2,000 for all dividend spread transactions executed on the same trading day in the same options class.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to adopt a similar fee cap for “merger spread” transactions.
Similar to the dividend spread fee cap program, the merger spread fee cap would be in effect as a pilot program that would expire on September 1, 2005. The Exchange represents that the proposed fee cap is similar to merger spread fee caps adopted by other exchanges.
As is done under the current dividend spread fee cap program, the Exchange would rebate transaction fees for qualifying merger spread transactions. To qualify transactions for the cap, a rebate request form, along with supporting documentation (
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 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, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2005-42. 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 CBOE proposes to modify the Designated Primary Market-Maker (“DPM”) participation entitlement for orders specifying a Preferred DPM. Proposed new language is in
(a) Subject to the review of the Board of Directors, the MTS Committee may establish from time to time a participation entitlement formula that is applicable to all DPMs.
(b) The participation entitlement for DPMs and e-DPMs (as defined in Rule 8.92) shall operate as follows:
(1) Generally.
(i) To be entitled to a participation entitlement, the DPM/e-DPM must be quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange.
(ii) A DPM/e-DPM may not be allocated a total quantity greater than the quantity that the DPM/e-DPM is quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange.
(iii) The participation entitlement is based on the number of contracts remaining after all public customer orders in the book at the best bid/offer on the Exchange have been satisfied.
(2) Participation Rates applicable to DPM Complex. The collective DPM/e-DPM participation entitlement shall be: 50% when there is one Market-Maker also quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange; 40% when there are two Market-Makers also quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange; and, 30% when there are three or more Market-Makers also quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange.
(3) Allocation of Participation Entitlement Between DPMs and e-DPMs. The participation entitlement shall be as follows: If the DPM and one or more e-DPMs are quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange, the e-DPM participation entitlement shall be one-half (50%) of the total DPM/e-DPM entitlement and shall be divided equally by the number of e-DPMs quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange. The remaining half shall be allocated to the DPM. If the DPM is not quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange and one or more e-DPMs are quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange, then the e-DPMs shall be allocated the entire participation entitlement (divided equally between them). If no e-DPMs are quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange and the DPM is quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange, then the DPM shall be allocated the entire participation entitlement. If only the DPM and/or e-DPMs are quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange (with no Market-Makers at that price), the participation entitlement shall not be applicable and the allocation procedures under Rule 6.45A shall apply.
(4) Allocation of Participation Entitlement Between DPMs and e-DPMs for Orders Specifying a Preferred DPM. Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (b)(3) above, the Exchange may allow, on a class-by-class basis, for the receipt of marketable orders, through the Exchange's Order Routing System when the Exchange's disseminated quote is the NBBO, that carry a designation from the member transmitting the order that specifies a DPM or e-DPM in that class as the “Preferred DPM” for that order. In such cases and after the provisions of subparagraph (b)(1)(i) and (iii) above have been met, then the
[(i) if the Preferred DPM is an e-DPM and the DPM is also quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange, then
(ii) if the Preferred DPM is an e-DPM and the DPM is not quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange but one or more e-DPMs are also quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange, then
(iii) if the Preferred DPM is the DPM and one or more e-DPMs are also quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange, then
[(iv)]
[(v) if only members of the DPM Complex are quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange then the participation entitlement applicable to the Preferred DPM shall be: 50% when there is one other member of the DPM Complex also quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange; 40% when there are two other members of the DPM Complex quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange; and, 30% when there are three or more members of the DPM Complex also quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange. The other members of the DPM Complex shall not receive a participation entitlement and the allocation procedures under Rule 6.45A shall apply; and]
[(vi)]
The Preferred DPM participation entitlement set forth in subparagraph (b)(4) of this Rule shall be in effect until June 2, 2006 on a pilot basis.
.01 Notwithstanding subparagraph (b)(2) above, the Exchange may establish a lower DPM Complex Participation Rate on a product-by-product basis for newly-listed products or products that are being allocated to a DPM trading crowd for the first time. Notification of such lower participation rate shall be provided to members through a Regulatory Circular.
In its filing with the Commission, the CBOE 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 CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
CBOE Rule 8.87 governs the participation entitlement of DPMs and e-DPMs (the “DPM Complex”). CBOE Rule 8.87(b)(2) states the actual participation entitlement percentages applicable to the DPM Complex, which are tiered to take into account the number of non-DPM Market-Makers also quoting at the best price. The participation entitlement percentages are as follows: 50% when there is one Market-Maker also quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange; 40% when there are two Market-Makers also quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange; and, 30% when there are three or more Market-Makers also quoting at the best bid/ offer on the Exchange.
The CBOE recently obtained approval of a filing adopting a Preferred DPM Program.
This proposal increases the participation entitlement applicable to Preferred DPMs from
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in the furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed 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) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, 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
The CBOE has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes it is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest for the CBOE to implement the proposed rule change without delay. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission.
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, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.
All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2005-45. 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 ISE proposes to adopt new ISE Rule 811 to allow Exchange market makers to receive Public Customer Orders directed to them from Electronic Access Members (“EAMs”) through the Exchange's system (“Directed Orders”). Proposed new language is in
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it had received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The ISE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt new ISE Rule 811 to allow Exchange market makers to receive Directed Orders. A Directed Order is defined as a Public Customer Order routed from an EAM to an Exchange market maker through the Exchange's system.
When a Directed Order is not entered into the PIM, and thus is released to the Exchange's limit order book, the Exchange would process the order like any other incoming order, other than as follows:
i. When an order is directed to a market maker that is quoting at the national best bid or offer (“NBBO”), the system automatically guarantees the price and size of the market maker's quote (the “Guarantee”). This assures that if the price or size of the Directed Market Maker's quote changes between the time the Directed Order was received and the time that it is released (because, for example, there is a change in the market for the underlying security), the Directed Order is not disadvantaged.
ii. At any given price level, a Directed Order is executed according the Exchange's standard allocation process provided in ISE Rule 713, except that the Directed Market Maker is put last in priority and the Directed Order is exposed to all Members for three seconds prior to executing any portion of the Directed Order against the Directed Market Maker. This assures that the Directed Market Maker does not benefit from the fact that it had knowledge of the Directed Order prior to its entry into the Exchange's system.
Applying these principles, a marketable Directed Order released into the Exchange's system would trade as follows:
• When the Directed Order is released, the system would execute the Directed Order pursuant to ISE Rule 713, initially excluding the Directed Market Maker.
• If there is any remaining unexecuted quantity of the Directed Order, and the Directed Market Maker is quoting at the same price or there is a Guarantee at the same price, the system would generate a broadcast message to all Members, who would have three seconds to respond with additional interest at the same or a better price.
• After this three second exposure, the system would again execute the Directed Order pursuant to the ISE Rule 713 algorithm against all interest except for the Directed Market Maker. If there continues to be any remaining unexecuted quantity of the Directed Order, the system would automatically execute the Directed Order against the Directed Market Maker's quote and/or Guarantee (if the Directed Market Maker has a quote at the same price as the Guarantee for a greater size, the order would receive the greater size).
• Following any execution against the Directed Market Maker, and if there continues to be any unexecuted quantity: If the order is not marketable, the system would place the order on the limit order book; or, if the order is marketable at that price without trading through the NBBO, execute the order at the next price level. At each such price level, the Directed Order is executed pursuant to the ISE Rule 713 algorithm except that the Directed Market Maker is put last in priority.
• At each price level, the Exchange's system would assure that the Directed Order is not automatically executed at a price that is inferior to the NBBO. When the ISE best bid or offer is inferior to the NBBO, marketable orders would be presented to the Primary Market Maker (“PMM”) for handling pursuant to ISE Rule 803(c)(2), unless the PMM is the Directed Market Maker that released the Directed Order, in which case the Directed Order would first be exposed to all Members, as described below.
When a non-marketable Directed Order is released and a Guarantee exists, the Exchange's system would broadcast a message to all Members for three seconds before executing the Directed Order against the Guarantee. This would happen where the Directed Market Maker was quoting at the NBBO at the time that a marketable Directed Order was received, but the NBBO moved prior to the release of the Directed Order so that the Directed Order was no longer marketable.
If, at the time a Directed Order is released by the Directed Market Maker, the Directed Order is marketable but the ISE best bid or offer is inferior to the NBBO, and the Directed Market Maker is the PMM in the option class for the Directed Order, then a broadcast message would be sent to all Members displaying the Directed Order. After three (3) seconds, the Directed Order would be executed against any contra interest at the NBBO price or better according to ISE Rule 713, except that the PMM would be last in priority. Thereafter, if there is any remaining unexecuted quantity of the Directed Order, it would be presented to the PMM for handling according to ISE Rule 803(c)(2). This assures that the PMM does not benefit from the fact that it had knowledge of the Directed Order prior to its entry into the Exchange's system by allowing other market participants an opportunity to execute against the Directed Order before the PMM.
In addition to the procedures described above, the proposed rule contains two restrictions regarding Directed Market Makers. First, if the Directed Market Maker is quoting at the NBBO on the opposite side of the Directed Order, the Directed Market Maker is prohibited from adjusting the price of its quote to a price that is less favorable than the price available at the NBBO or reducing the size of its quote prior to submitting the Directed Order to the PIM, unless such quote change is the result of an automated quotation system that operates independently from the existence or non-existence of a pending Directed Order. Otherwise changing a quote on the opposite side of the Directed Order except as specifically permitted herein would be a violation of ISE Rule 400 (Just and Equitable Principles of Trade). The Exchange would conduct routine surveillance of such quote changes to identify potential violations of ISE Rule 400.
The purpose of this limitation is to prohibit a Directed Market Maker from manipulating the market by moving the NBBO to an inferior price prior to submitting an order into the PIM. The occasion where this type of manipulation might be possible is remote, as a Directed Market Maker would have to be the only market maker quoting at the NBBO in the national market system. Nevertheless, we believe the restriction is carefully tailored so that price discovery through the use of automated quotation systems would not be unnecessarily disrupted, while assuring that Directed Market Makers are not permitted to disadvantage orders they represent as agent.
The second restriction applies when a Directed Market Maker releases a non-marketable Directed Order without a Guarantee (that is, where the Directed Market Maker is not quoting at the NBBO). In that situation, the Directed Market Maker must wait at least three seconds before entering a contra order to execute against the Directed Order as principal. The purpose of this restriction is to allow other market participants an opportunity to execute against the Directed Order before the Directed Market Maker who had knowledge of the Directed Order before it was released.
The ISE believes the basis under the Exchange Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) that an exchange have rules that are designed to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transaction in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In particular, this proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to better compete with other options exchanges, while assuring the fair handling of Directed Orders.
The ISE does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended, would impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change; or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2004-16. 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 (“Exchange Act”)
NASD is proposing to rescind the pilot rule in IM-10100(f) of the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure relating to the waiver of the California Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators in Contractual Arbitration.
Below is the text of the proposed rule change.
It may be deemed conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade and a violation of Rule 2110 for a member or a person associated with a member to:
(a) Through (c) No change
(d) Fail to honor an award, or comply with a written and executed settlement agreement, obtained in connection with an arbitration submitted for disposition pursuant to the procedures specified by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., the New York, American, Boston, Cincinnati, Chicago, or Philadelphia Stock Exchanges, the Pacific Exchange, Inc., the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, or pursuant to the rules applicable to the arbitration of disputes before the American Arbitration Association or other dispute resolution forum selected by the parties where timely motion has not been made to vacate or modify such award pursuant to applicable law;
(e) Fail to comply with a written and executed settlement agreement, obtained in connection with a mediation submitted for disposition pursuant to the procedures specified by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.[; or]
[(f) Fail to waive the California Rules of Court, Division VI of the Appendix, entitled, “Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators in Contractual Arbitration” (the “California Standards”), if application of the California Standards has been waived by all parties to the dispute who are:
(1) Customers with a claim against a member or an associated person;
(2) Associated persons with a claim against a member or an associated person;
(3) Members with a claim against another member; or
(4) Members with a claim against an associated person that relates exclusively to a promissory note.
Written waiver by such parties shall constitute and operate as a waiver for all member firms or associated persons against whom the claim has been filed. This rule applies to claims brought in California against all member firms and associated persons, including terminated or otherwise inactive member firms or associated persons.] Remainder unchanged
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 III below. NASD 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 rescind the pilot rule in IM-10100(f) of the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure (“Code”) relating to the waiver of the California Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators in Contractual Arbitration (“Pilot Rule”).
Effective July 1, 2002, the California Judicial Council (“Judicial Council”) adopted a set of rules, “Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators in Contractual Arbitration” (“California Standards”),
In September 2002, NASD implemented a pilot rule providing that if parties to an arbitration who are customers (or, in certain circumstances, associated persons) waived application of the California Standards to their arbitration proceeding, then the firm would be required to waive the application of the California Standards.
NASD also commenced litigation or became involved in a number of suits challenging the California Standards. On March 1, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in
The Pilot Rule was originally approved for six months in September 2002.
NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange 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 Exchange Act, as amended.
Written comments on the proposed rule change 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 Exchange 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, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-070. 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 (
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, applicable to a self-regulatory organization.
After careful consideration, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 13, 2004, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange seeks permanent approval of changes to certain of its minimum numerical standards for the original listing and continued listing of equity securities on NYSE originally approved by the Commission on January 29, 2004, on a pilot program basis (the “Pilot Program”).
Prior to the Pilot Program, Section 102.01C of the Listed Company Manual provided that a company must meet one of four specified financial standards in order to qualify to have its equity securities listed. The Exchange proposes permanent approval of amendments to three of these four standards that have been in effect under the Pilot Program.
Prior to the Pilot Program, Section 102.01C(I) of the Listed Company Manual required that a company demonstrate pre-tax earnings of $6.5 million in aggregate for the last three fiscal years, with either a minimum of: (a) $2.5 million in earnings in the most recent fiscal year and $2 million in each of the preceding two years; or (b) $4.5 million in earnings in the most recent fiscal year, with positive earnings in each of the preceding two years. Pursuant to the Pilot Program, the “Earnings Test” requires that companies demonstrate pre-tax earnings of $10 million in aggregate for the last three fiscal years. It also requires that the company demonstrate positive results in all three of the years tested with a minimum of $2.0 million in earnings in each of the preceding two years. The Exchange believes that these changes strengthen the Earnings Test standard and also simplify it by eliminating the current two-tiered structure.
Prior to the Pilot Program, Section 102.01C(II) of the Listed Company Manual required that a company demonstrate market capitalization of at least $500 million and revenues of at least $100 million over the most recent 12-month period. Provided that these thresholds were met, a company with operating cash flows of at least $25 million in aggregate for the last three fiscal years and positive amounts in each of the three fiscal years would have qualified for listing. Section 102.01C(III) required that an issuer demonstrate (a) market capitalization of at least $1 billion and (b) revenues of at least $100 million in the most recent fiscal year. Because both of these tests are valuation and revenue-based, the Exchange now seeks permanent approval to consolidate them into one test with two alternative subsections. One of the sections of the current Pilot Program, the “Valuation/Revenue Test,” incorporates the pre-Pilot Program requirements of Section 102.01C(II) as the “Valuation/Revenue with Cash Flow Test” with no change to the previous thresholds. The other section incorporates the pre-Pilot Program requirements of Section 102.01C(III) as the “Pure Valuation/Revenue Test.” In addition, the Exchange proposes to permanently approve the Pilot Program amendments that will lower the thresholds of Section 102.01C(III) that require that companies demonstrate (a) market capitalization of at least $750 million and (b) revenues of at least $75 million during the most recent fiscal year. As noted above, the Exchange represents that its staff has monitored the modest number of companies over the last two years that have met the Pilot Program's lower thresholds to the “Pure Valuation/Revenue Test” and found that those companies performed to a standard that is appropriate for inclusion on the NYSE list.
The Exchange is also proposing permanent approval of corresponding restructuring changes to Section 103.01B of the Listed Company Manual, which sets out minimum numerical standards for non-U.S. issuers. The Exchange is also proposing permanent approval of changes to the numeric thresholds of Section 103.01B(III) in accordance with changes to Section 102.01C(III).
In addition, the Exchange seeks permanent approval of its suspended Pilot Program that restructures and amends the numerical continued listing standards. Section 802.01B of the Listed Company Manual currently applies to companies that fall below any of the following criteria: (i) Average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30 trading-day period is less than $50 million and total stockholders' equity is less than $50 million; or (ii) average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30 trading-day period is less than $15 million; or (iii) for companies that qualified for original listing under the “global market capitalization” standard, (a) average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30 trading-day period is less than $500 million and total revenues are less than $20 million over the last 12 months (unless the resultant entity qualifies as an original listing under one of the other original listing standards), or (b) average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30 trading-day period is less than $100 million.
The Exchange proposes to amend these thresholds and to specifically relate the continued listing standards of Section 802.01B of the Listed Company Manual to the original listing standards of Sections 102.01C or 103.01B used to qualify a company for listing. In addition, the Exchange proposes to add a minimum continued listing standard applicable to all companies regardless of the original listing standard under which it listed. This standard would require that all companies listed under Sections 102.01C or 103.01B maintain average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30 trading-day period of at least $25 million or undergo the prompt initiation of suspension and delisting procedures by the Exchange (the “Minimum Continued Listing Standard”).
Companies that list under the Pilot Program Earnings Test or its predecessor test will be considered to be below compliance if average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30 trading-day period is less than $75 million and, at the same time, total stockholders' equity is less than $75 million. This level has been increased in the proposal to reflect marketplace expectations of those companies deemed suitable for continued listing. The current alternate threshold for the Earnings Test that resulted in a company being below compliance if average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30 trading-day period is less than $15 million is proposed to be eliminated as a result of the proposed $25 million Minimum Continued Listing Standard.
Issuers that list under the Pilot Program's “Valuation/Revenue with Cash Flow Test” or its predecessor test
Issuers that list under the Pilot Program's “Pure Valuation/Revenue Test” or its predecessor test would be considered to be below compliance standards if: (a) average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30 trading-day period is less than $375 million and, at the same time, total revenues are less than $15 million over the last 12 months (unless the company qualifies as an original listing under one of the other original listing standards); or (b) average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30 trading-day period is less than $100 million.
The Exchange also proposes to clarify that, in circumstances where a listed company's parent or affiliated company no longer controls the listed company or such listed company's parent or affiliated company falls below the continued listing standards applicable to the parent or affiliated company, the continued listing standards applicable to the Pilot Program's Earnings Test would apply to companies that originally listed under the Affiliated Company Standard. Amendments are also proposed to make clear that companies that list under the Affiliated Company Standard are subject to the Minimum Continued Listing Standard, regardless of the status of the listed company's parent. In addition, the Exchange proposes to increase the continued listing criteria for REITs and limited partnerships from $15 million to $25 million with a corresponding increase to the notification threshold from $25 million to $35 million.
Companies that fall below the foregoing minimum standards could be permitted a period of time to return to compliance, in accordance with the procedures specified in Sections 802.02 and 802.03 of the Listed Company Manual. As a general matter, companies must reestablish the level of market capitalization (and, if applicable, shareholder's equity) specified in the continued listing standard below which the company fell. However, with respect to the current requirements of Section 802.01B(I) that a company reestablish both its market capitalization and its stockholders' equity to the $50 million level, footnote (C) to Section 802.01B provides several alternatives. Currently, the footnote specifies that, to return to conformity, a company must do one of the following: (a) reestablish both its market capitalization and its stockholders' equity to the $50 million level; (b) achieve average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30-trading-day period of at least $100 million; or (c) achieve average global market capitalization over a consecutive 30 trading-day period of $60 million, with either (x) stockholders' equity of at least $40 million, or (y) an increase in stockholders' equity of at least $40 million, since the company was notified by the Exchange that it was below continued listing standards. Likewise, with respect to the current requirements of Section 802.01B(iii) relating to companies that listed under the current global market capitalization standard, footnote (D) states that companies must reestablish both market capitalization and revenues in conformity with continued listing standards.
The Exchange proposes, however, to eliminate footnotes (C) and (D) to Section 802.01B of the Listed Company Manual, and, instead amend Sections 802.02 and 802.03 to provide that a listed company's plan to regain compliance need only demonstrate how the company will cease to trigger the applicable Section 802.01B continued listing standard at the end of the allowable recovery period. For example, a company that listed under the proposed Earnings Test would be required to submit a plan that demonstrates how the company will exceed either the $75,000,000 market capitalization or shareholders' equity threshold, rather than be required to exceed both thresholds to regain compliance. It has been the Exchange's experience over the last five years that the sustained restoration of one component of the continued listing standard thresholds is evidence of a company's recovery. Due to the fact that a company would not be deemed below compliance unless it fell below both thresholds at the same time, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendment provides companies with a more rational basis for returning to compliance. This proposed change eliminates the potential for certain anomalies in situations where, for example, a company's stockholders' equity may never have been above the minimum and a decrease in market capitalization below the required threshold triggers non-compliance. Since, in this example, it is the fact that market capitalization also dropped below the required threshold that results in a deficiency (despite no change to stockholders' equity), under amended Sections 802.02 and 802.03, the company in this situation would only be required to recover market capitalization in order to regain compliance.
The Exchange represents that it has considered how to transition the above-described changes to the continued listing standards and intends to provide a period of 30 trading days from the date of any Commission approval of the proposed amendments until such amendments would become effective.
Sections 802.02 and 802.03 of the Listed Company Manual provide that, with respect to a company that is determined to be below continued listing standards a second time within 12 months of successful recovery from previous non-compliance, the Exchange will examine the relationship between the two incidents of falling below continued listing standards and re-evaluate the company's method of financial recovery from the first incident. The Exchange may then take appropriate action, which, depending upon the circumstances, may include truncating the normal procedures for reestablishing conformity with the continued listing standards or immediately initiating suspension and delisting procedures. For those companies that are within such a 12-month period and that would be deemed to be below continued listing standards as a direct result of the approval of the amendments proposed in this filing, the Exchange would not intend to truncate or immediately initiate suspension and delisting solely on the basis of the proposed increase to the current continued listing standards. The Exchange would take into consideration all of the facts and circumstances relating to the company in determining whether to allow such company an opportunity to submit a second plan.
With respect to an issuer currently below the continued listing standards now in force, the Exchange intends to allow it to complete its applicable follow-up procedures and plan for return to compliance as provided in Sections 802.02 and 802.03 of the Listed Company Manual. If, at the end thereof, the issuer is compliant with the continued listing standards about which it was originally notified, but below the increased requirements set forth above, the Exchange would grant it an
According to NYSE, for an issuer that is in compliance with the continued listing standards now in force but that might be below the continued listing standards proposed herein, the proposed 30 trading-day measurement period prior to effectiveness would allow the Exchange sufficient time to provide early warnings to any issuer that would potentially be below compliance at the end of that period. If, at the end of the 30 trading-day measurement period, an issuer is below the increased requirements set forth above, the Exchange would formally notify the issuer of such non-compliance and provide it with an opportunity to present a business plan within 45 days of that notification advising the Exchange of definitive action the issuer would take to bring it into conformity with the increased requirements within an 18-month period.
Finally, the Exchange proposes minor technical and conforming changes to Sections 102.02C, 103.01B, 802.01A, 802.01B, and 802.01C of the Listed Company Manual.
The Commission received three comment letters generally opposing the proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No. 1 and published for comment in the
In response to these comments, NYSE noted in Amendment No. 2 that it undertook a further review of the listed companies that are currently either below the proposed continued financial listing standard thresholds or within 10% of those thresholds and found that there were only 21 such companies representing 0.08% of all NYSE-listed companies. According to NYSE, these companies qualified under the original Earnings Test or the original Closed-end Fund, REIT, or Limited Partnership Test. NYSE represented that only ten of the 21 companies would have been below compliance under the proposed thresholds. NYSE represented that, of those ten, two companies were below compliance under the existing thresholds and one additional REIT was operating under a liquidation process expected to be completed in August 2004. NYSE noted that it believed that the proposed increases to the current continued listing standards were appropriate. As a result of these comments, NYSE filed Amendment No. 2 and proposed to amend Sections 802.02 and 802.03 of the Listed Company Manual to modify the thresholds that companies must exceed in order to regain compliance with the continued listing standards.
The Commission received one comment letter from ICI partially opposing the proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and published for comment in the
In response to ISI's comment, NYSE acknowledged in Amendment No. 8 that closed-end funds listing in a fund family are subject to distinct alternative listing criteria that permit the listing of all of the funds in a family, if, among other things, no one fund has a market value of publicly held shares of less than $30 million (rather than the $60 million required for the listing of individual closed-end funds). NYSE also acknowledged that a fund that lists under the fund family initial listing standard with a market value of publicly held shares of $30 million would be subject to immediate early warning for delisting based on the originally proposed $35 million early notification threshold. In order to avoid this peculiar result, NYSE modified its proposal in Amendment No. 8 to maintain the existing market capitalization continued listing criteria for closed-end funds at its current level of $15 million with an early notification threshold of $25 million.
After careful review of the proposal and consideration of the comment letters, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The proposed changes to Section 102.01C(I) of the Listed Company Manual amending the Earnings Test would require that companies demonstrate pre-tax earnings of $10 million in aggregate for the last three fiscal years. The proposed Earnings Test would also require that the company demonstrate positive results in all three of the years tested with a minimum of $2 million in earnings in each of the preceding two years. The Commission believes that these amendments are consistent with the Act.
The amendments to the current thresholds of Section 102.01C(III) of the Listed Company Manual would require, in order to qualify for listing under the “Pure Valuation/Revenue Test,” that companies demonstrate (a) market capitalization of at least $750 million; and (b) revenues of at least $75 million during the most recent fiscal year. The Commission believes that it is appropriate for the Exchange, based upon its experience, to determine that the companies that meet this proposed standard would be appropriate for inclusion on the NYSE list.
In addition, the Commission believes that the amendments to the numerical continued listing standards in Section 802.01B of the Listed Company Manual should simplify and clarify the continued listing standards, by relating the continued listing standards to the original listing standards set forth in Sections 102.01C and 103.01B. The Commission believes that it is consistent with the Act for the Exchange, based upon its experience, to determine that the proposed categories of listing standards reflect marketplace expectations of those companies deemed suitable for continued listing. The Commission also believes that it is consistent with the Act for the Exchange to allow a company to regain compliance by ceasing to trigger the applicable continued listing standard it violated by the end of the recovery period. In addition, the Commission notes that, in general, the continued listing standards reflect the proportional adjustments in the initial listing standards.
Three commenters, in responding to the proposed rule change as amended by Amendment No. 1, opposed the proposed increase to $75 million from $50 million to the Earnings Test continued listing standard thresholds for market capitalization and stockholders' equity million. These commenters believed that NYSE failed to provide a sufficient rationale for the proposal supported by data and market conditions.
After carefully considering these comment letters, the Commission, however, believes that the proposed continued listing standards are reasonable and consistent with the Act. The Commission believes that the commenter's concerns are addressed by Amendment No. 2, in which NYSE proposed to amend Sections 802.02 and 802.03 of the Listed Company Manual to modify the thresholds that companies must exceed in order to regain compliance with the continued listing standards.
The commenters also argued for either a grace period or grandfather provision for affected companies,
The Commission finds that the Exchange has provided an implementation schedule for the amended continued listing standards that includes a sufficient transition period for affected companies. Specifically, the Exchange will provide a period of 30 trading-days from the date of Commission approval of the proposed amendments until such amendments will become effective. In addition, for those companies that are currently within a 12-month period following their recovery from previous non-compliance (pursuant to a Plan) and would fall below continued listing standards as a direct result of the approval of the proposal, the Exchange does not intend to truncate the normal
The Exchange intends to allow companies that are currently below the continued listing standards to complete their applicable follow-up procedures and Plan for return to compliance, as provided in Sections 802.02 and 802.03 of the Listed Company Manual. If, at the end thereof, such companies are compliant with the continued listing standards for which they were originally notified, but below the increased requirements proposed herein, the Exchange would grant them an opportunity to present an additional business plan advising the Exchange of definitive action the company has taken, or is taking, that would bring the company into conformity with the increased requirements within a further 12 months. In addition, if a company completes its currently applicable follow-up procedures and Plan and is not compliant at that time with the continued listing standards for which it was originally notified, but is above the increased requirements set forth above, the Exchange would consider that company to be in conformity with the continued listing standards.
The Commission believes that the Exchange's transition policies are clearly delineated and consistent with the Act. The Commission notes that the notice and comment periods provided for this filing and the additional period of 30 trading-days from the date of Commission approval of the proposed amendments until such amendments would become effective should provide sufficient notice to issuers that may be below compliance with the proposed continued listing standards. The Commission, however, expects that the Exchange will follow closely the progress of companies that are currently in their Plan period or subsequent 12-month period, to ensure that these companies will satisfy the new continued listing standards. The Commission notes that, pursuant to Section 802.02 of the Listed Company Manual, the Exchange has the discretion to suspend trading in any security and apply to the Commission for delisting, when the Exchange deems it necessary for the protection of investors.
In addition, the Commission received one comment letter from ICI in response to the proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment Nos. 1 through 7. ICI objected to the proposed change that would subject closed-end funds that fall below an average market capitalization of $25 million over 30 consecutive trading days to immediate suspension and delisting instead of the $15 million requirement that is currently in effect. The Commission believes that the ISI's concerns are answered by Amendment No. 8, which maintains the existing market capitalization continued listing criteria for closed-end funds at its current level of $15 million with an early notification threshold of $25 million.
The Commission finds good cause for approving proposed Amendment No. 8 before the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of filing thereof in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the Amendment No. 8, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No. 8, 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, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2004-20. 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 its schedule of fees to adopt a license fee of $0.10 for options traded on the following products: (1) iShares Lehman 1-3 Year Treasury Bond Fund, traded under the symbol SHY (“SHY); (2) iShares Lehman 7-10 Year Treasury Bond Fund, traded under the symbol IEF (“IEF”); (3) iShares Lehman 20+ Treasury Bond Fund, traded under the symbol TLT (“TLT”); (4) iShares Lehman Aggregate Bond Fund, traded under the symbol AGG (“AGG”); (5) iShares Lehman TIPS Bond Fund, traded under the symbol TIP (“TIP”) (collectively “iShares Lehman products”); (6) KBW Capital Markets Index, traded under the symbol KSX (“KSX”);
Currently, the Exchange imposes a cap of $60,000 per member organization
The Exchange also imposes a license fee of $0.10 per contract side for equity option “firm” transactions on options on Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock
The Exchange proposes to adopt a $0.10 license fee per contract side for the iShares Lehman products and the KBW products for equity option and index option firm transactions, which will be imposed after the $60,000 cap is reached in the same way as the current licensed product fees are assessed. Thus, when a member organization exceeds the $60,000 cap, the member organization will be charged $60,000 plus any applicable license fees for trades of licensed products, including the iShares Lehman products and KBW products, over those trades that were counted in reaching the $60,000 cap.
The fees set forth in this proposal are scheduled to become effective for transactions settling on or after May 1, 2005.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Phlx's Web site,
In its filing with the Commission, the Phlx 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 Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of assessing the iShares Lehman products and the KBW products license fee of $0.10 per contract side after reaching the $60,000 cap as described in this proposal is to help defray licensing costs associated with the trading of these products, while still capping member organizations' fees enough to attract volume from other exchanges. The cap operates this way in order to offer an incentive for additional volume without leaving the Exchange with significant out-of-pocket costs.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Phlx believes that the proposed rule change would impose no burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange did not solicit or receive any written comments with respect to the proposal.
The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee change 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, 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, Station Place, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2005-30. 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.
On March 24, 2005, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” 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 April 11, 2005, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Department of State.
Notice.
The Department of State has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the emergency review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Emergency review and approval of this collection has been requested from OMB by July 29, 2005. If granted, the emergency approval is only valid for 180 days. Comments should be directed to the State Department Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20530, who may be reached on 202-395-7316.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
• E-mail:
• Hand Delivery or Courier: OIRA State Department Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
• Fax: 202-395-6974.
During the first 60 days of this same period a regular review of this information collection is also being undertaken. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until 60 days from the date that this notice is published in the
• 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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology.
Public comments, or requests for additional information, regarding the collection listed in this notice should be directed to Angelo Chang, Acting Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Management, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, SA-1, Room H1200, 2401 E. Street, NW., Washington, DC 20522-0112, (202) 663-2700. E-mail:
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr R. Sulzynsky, the Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State, (telephone: (202) 453-8050). The address is Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State, (telephone: 202/453-8048). The address is Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
Pursuant to U.S. Note 12(a) to subchapter XI of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is providing notice of its determination that Chile does not have a trade surplus in sugar, sugar-containing products, and high fructose corn syrup.
June 20, 2005.
Inquiries may be mailed or delivered to Beth Leier, Deputy Director of Agricultural Affairs, Office of Agricultural Affairs, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508.
Beth Leier, Office of Agricultural Affairs, 202-395-6127.
Pursuant to section 201 of the United States—Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 108-77; 117 Stat. 909, 913; 19 USC 3805 note), Presidential Proclamation No. 7746 of December 30, 2003 (68 FR 75789), implemented on behalf of the United States the United States—Chile Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and modified the HTS to reflect the tariff and rules of origin treatment provided for in the FTA.
Pursuant to U.S. Note 12(a) to subchapter XI of HTS chapter 99, beginning in 2004 and annually thereafter, USTR is required to publish in the
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Technical corrections to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
The United States Trade Representative (“the USTR”) is modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) as set forth in the Annex to this notice, pursuant to authority granted to the President in section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Trade Act”) and delegated to the USTR in Presidential Proclamation No. 6969 of January 27, 1997 (62 FR 4415). These modifications will correct errors in the tariff rates that are being applied to a small number of products that are originating goods of Chile under the United States—Chile Free Trade Agreement. The modifications will ensure that the intended tariff treatment is accorded to the products at issue.
Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508.
Leslie Yang, Director for Mercosur, (202) 395-5190.
This notice makes technical corrections to the HTS to remedy errors included in Presidential Proclamation No. 7746 of December 30, 2003 (68 FR 75789) implementing the United States—( Chile Free Trade Agreement (FTA). The corrections pertain to the tariff rates that are being applied to a small number of originating goods of Chile under the FTA. The modifications will ensure that the intended tariff treatment is accorded to the products at issue.
Paragraph 2 of the General Notes of the United States to Annex 3.3 of the FTA states that the base rates of duty set forth in the U.S. Schedule to the FTA reflect the lower of the HTSUS Column 1 General rates of duty in effect January 1, 2002 or the rate scheduled for January 1, 2004 under existing WTO duty-elimination commitments. For a small number of originating goods of Chile, the January 1, 2002 rates were set forth in the schedule, although the rates scheduled for January 1, 2004 were lower. As a consequence of this error, the tariff rates being applied to these products are higher than the intended rates under the FTA. The Annex to this notice modifies the HTS to apply the proper tariff rates to the products at issue. The modifications shall apply with respect to originating goods of Chile, under the terms of general note 26 to the HTS, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after January 1, 2004.
Requests for application of the tariff modification and duty treatment provided for herein must be filed with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and contain sufficient information to enable CBP to identify each relevant entry (including but not limited to the entry number for the shipment concerned).
Effective with respect to goods of Chile, under the terms of general note 26 to the tariff schedule, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after January 1, 2004, and on January 1 of each of the successive years, for each of the enumerated subheadings in the following table, the Rates of Duty 1 Special subcolumn in the HTS is modified (i) by inserting in such subcolumn for each subheading the rate of duty specified for such subheading in the January 1, 2004 column followed by the symbol “CL” in parentheses, and (ii) for each of the subsequent dated columns the rates of duty that are followed by the symbol “CL” in parentheses are deleted and the rates of duty for such dated column are inserted in such subheadings in lieu thereof.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice; request for comments.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) is providing notice of the request by the European Communities (“EC”) for the establishment of a dispute settlement panel under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (“WTO Agreement”) to examine certain U.S. measures affecting trade in large civil aircraft (“LCA”). The request for the establishment of a panel alleges that such measures are inconsistent with various provisions of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”). USTR invites written comments from the public concerning the issues raised in this dispute.
Although USTR will accept any comments received during the course of the dispute settlement proceedings, comments should be submitted on or before July 22, 2005 to be assured of timely consideration by USTR.
Comments should be submitted (i) electronically, to
Willis S. Martyn III, Associate General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508, (202) 395-3581; or Jonathan S. Kallmer, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508, (202) 395-3150.
Section 127(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA” ) (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)) requires that notice and opportunity for comment be provided after the United States submits or receives a request for the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel. Consistent with this obligation, USTR is providing notice that the establishment of a panel has been requested pursuant to the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”). The EC's request for the establishment of a panel may be found at
On October 6, 2004, the EC requested consultations with the United States with respect to certain U.S. measures affecting trade in LCA. Consultations were held on November 5, 2004.
On May 31, 2005, the EC requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII:2 of the GATT 1994, and Articles 4, 7, and 30 of the SCM Agreement with respect to such measures. In its request, the EC alleges that such measures are inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a), 3.1(b), 3.2, 5(a), 5(c), 6.3(a), 6.3(b), and 6.3(c) of the SCM Agreement and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. In particular, the EC claims that WTO-inconsistent subsidies were provided to the U.S. LCA industry by:
1. State and local governments in the States of Washington, Kansas, and Illinois through financial incentives such as tax advantages, bond financing, lease arrangements, corporate headquarters relocation assistance, research funding, infrastructure measures, and other measures;
2. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”), Department of Defense (“DoD”), and Department of Commerce (“DOC”) through research and development (“R&D”) contracts, allowances, and other programs;
3. NASA, DoD, and DOC through the waiver of patent rights, the protection of trade secrets, and the granting of exclusive rights to data;
4. NASA and DoD through the procurement of goods on better than commercial terms;
5. NASA and DoD through the provision of personnel and research, test, and evaluation facilities support on a non-commercial basis;
6. The Department of Labor through a grant of funds to Edmonds Community College in the State of Washington; and
7. The U.S. Government through the Federal tax system, specifically through the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, among other measures.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning the issues raised in the EC s request for the establishment of a panel. Persons submitting comments may either send one copy by fax to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-3640, or transmit a copy electronically to
Comments must be in English. A person requesting that information contained in a comment submitted by that person be treated as confidential business information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the
Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than business confidential information, may be determined by USTR to be confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information or advice may qualify as such, the submitter—
(1) Must clearly so designate the information or advice;
(2) Must clearly mark the material as “SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page of the submission; and
(3) Is encouraged to provide a non-confidential summary of the information or advice.
Pursuant to section 127(e) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a file on this dispute settlement proceeding, accessible to the public, in the USTR Reading Room, which is located at 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. The public file will include non-confidential comments received by USTR from the public with respect to the dispute; the U.S. submissions to the panel in the dispute, the submissions, or non-confidential summaries of submissions, to the panel received from other participants in the dispute, as well as the report of the panel; and, if applicable, the report of the Appellate Body. An appointment to review the public file may be made by calling the USTR Reading Room at (202) 395-6186. The USTR Reading Room is open to the public from 9:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice; request for comments.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) is providing notice that on May 31, 2005, in accordance with the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (“WTO Agreement”), the United States requested the establishment of a dispute settlement panel to examine certain measures of the European Communities (“EC”) and of Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Spain (“member States” affecting trade in large civil aircraft (“LCA”). The request alleges that such measures are inconsistent with various provisions of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”). USTR invites written comments from the public concerning the issues raised in this dispute.
Although USTR will accept any comments received during the course of the dispute settlement proceedings, comments should be submitted on or before July 22, 2005 to be assured of timely consideration by USTR.
Comments should be submitted (i) electronically, to
David J. Ross, Associate General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508, (202) 395-3581; or William D. Hunter, Associate General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508, (202) 395-3582.
Section 127(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)) requires that notice and opportunity for comment be provided after the United States submits or receives a request for the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel. Consistent with this obligation, USTR is providing notice that the establishment of a panel has been requested pursuant to the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”). The U.S. request for the establishment of a panel may be found at
On October 6, 2004, the United States requested consultations with the EC and the Governments of the member States with respect to certain measures of the EC and the member States affecting trade in LCA. Consultations were held on November 4, 2004.
On May 31, 2005, the United States requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII:2 of the GATT 1994, and Articles 4, 7, and 30 of the SCM Agreement with respect to such measures. In its request, the United States alleges that such measures are inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a), 3.2, 5(a), 5(c), 6.3(a), 6.3(b), and 6.3(c) of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:1 of the GATT 1994. In particular, the measures that the United States claims are WTO-inconsistent subsidies include:
1. The provision by the member States of financing for LCA design and development to the Airbus companies on non-commercial terms, such as financing with no interest rates, below-market interest rates, or repayment obligations tied to sales (“launch aid”);
2. The provision by the EC and the member States, through the European Investment Bank, of financing to the Airbus companies for LCA design, development, and other purposes;
3. The provision by the EC and the member States of financial contributions to develop, expand, and upgrade facilities and other infrastructure for the Airbus companies;
4. The assumption and forgiveness by the EC and the member States of debt resulting from launch aid and other financing for LCA development and production;
5. The provision by the EC and the member States to the Airbus companies of equity infusions and grants, including through government-owned and government-controlled banks;
6. The provision by the EC and the member States of financial contributions for aeronautics-related research, development, and demonstration undertaken by Airbus or to the benefit of Airbus; and
7. Any other measures that involve a financial contribution by the EC or any of the member States that benefit the Airbus companies.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning
Comments must be in English. A person requesting that information contained in a comment submitted by that person be treated as confidential business information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such and the submission must be marked “Business Confidential” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page of the submission.
Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than business confidential information, may be determined by USTR to be confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information or advice may qualify as such, the submitter—
(1) Must clearly so designate the information or advice;
(2) Must clearly mark the material as “Submitted in Confidence” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page of the submission; and
(3) Is encouraged to provide a non-confidential summary of the information or advice.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, July 6, 2005.
Marisa Knispel at 1-888-912-1227 (toll-free), or 718-488-3557 (non toll-free).
An open meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Wednesday, July 6, 2005 from 3 p.m. et to 4 p.m. et via a telephone conference call. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3557, or write Marisa Knispel, TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Marisa Knispel. Ms. Knispel can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3557, or post comments to the Web site:
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Multilingual Initiative (MLI) Issue Committee will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, July 12, 2005 from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. ET.
Inez E. De Jesus at 1-888-912-1227, or 954-423-7977
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10 (a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Multilingual Initiative Issue Committee will be held Tuesday, July 12, 2005 from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. ET via a telephone conference call. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7977, or write Inez E. De Jesus, TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Rd., Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Inez E. De Jesus. Ms. De Jesus can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7977, or post comments to the Web site:
The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Monday, July 11, 2005, at 2 p.m. Central Time.
Mary Ann Delzer at 1-888-912-1227, or (414) 297-1604.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Monday, July 11, 2005, at 2 p.m. Central Time via a telephone conference call. You can submit written comments to the panel by faxing to (414) 297-1623, or by mail to Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, Stop1006MIL, 310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or you can contact us at
The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the Small Business/Self Employed—Taxpayer Burden Reduction Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The TAP will be discussing issues pertaining to increasing compliance and lessening the burden for Small Business/Self Employed individuals.
The meeting will be held Thursday, July 7, 2005.
Marisa Knispel at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3557.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Small Business/Self Employed—Taxpayer Burden Reduction Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Thursday, July 7, 2005 from 3 p.m. ET to 4:30 p.m. ET via a telephone conference call. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3557, or write to Marisa Knispel, TAP Office, 10 Metro Tech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Marisa Knispel. Ms. Knispel can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3557, or post comments to the Web site:
The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The TAP will be discussing issues pertaining to lessening the burden for individuals. Recommendations for IRS systemic changes will be developed.
The meeting will be held Thursday, July 14, 2005.
Mary O'Brien at 1-888-912-1227, or 206-220-6096.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Thursday, July 14, 2005 from 4 p.m. Eastern Time to 5 p.m. Eastern Time via a telephone conference call. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6096, or write to Mary O'Brien, TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174 or you can contact us at
The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.
The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under Pub. L. 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Special Medical Advisory Group will meet on July 7, 2005. The meeting will be held in Room 830 at VA Central Office, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Group is to advise the Secretary and Under Secretary for Health on the care and treatment of disabled veterans, and other matters pertinent to the Department's Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The agenda for the meeting will include discussions on mental health, budget, research, Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES), academic programs in transition, and returning service members.
Any member of the public wishing to attend should contact Juanita Leslie, Office of Administrative Operations (10B2), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs at (202) 273-5882. No time will be set aside at this meeting for receiving oral
By Direction of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
In proposed rule document 05-11460 beginning on page 33857 in the issue of Friday, June 10, 2005, make the following correction:
On page 33870, in §305.31(a), in the table, under the Dose (gray) heading, in the last entry, “300” should read “400”.
In rule document 05-11329 appearing on page 33347 in the issue of Wednesday, June 8, 2005, make the following correction:
In the third column, in § 71.1, under the heading “