Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Utilities Service
Economic Analysis Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Navy Department
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Employment Standards Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Office of Personnel Management.
Final rule.
The Office of Personnel Management is issuing a final rule to replace the Standard Industrial Classification codes currently used in Federal Wage System regulations with the more recent North American Industry Classification System codes, published by the Office of Management and Budget. The purpose of this change is to update the wage survey industry regulations by adopting the new classification system.
Mark Allen, (202) 606-2838; e-mail
On November 16, 2005, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a proposed rule (70 FR 69467) to replace all Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes in the Federal Wage System (FWS) regulations with the most closely corresponding North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. Adopting the NAICS system will update the FWS wage survey industry regulations, while making as few changes as possible in the types of industrial establishments already included in FWS wage surveys under the SIC system. These regulations use 2002 NAICS codes. As the Office of Management and Budget updates the NAICS periodically, we will update these regulations to correspond to the updated NAICS codes based on advice we receive from the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee.
The proposed rule had a 30-day public comment period, during which OPM received no comments. However, the final rule incorporates some formatting changes in the industry charts to improve consistency and readability, and three additional minor changes that are consistent with the intent of the proposed rule. First, section 532.313(b) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, limits special job coverage to Automotive Mechanic, Engine Mechanic, and Heavy Mobile Equipment Mechanic only in certain industries included in surveys concerning the Artillery and Combat Vehicles specialized industry, not in all of the specialized industries, as was originally proposed. Second, the four SIC codes in section 532.223(a) have been converted to comparable NAICS codes. We inadvertently overlooked this section in the proposed rule. Third, we are adding NAICS 5175, Cable and other program distribution, to the communications specialized industry in section 532.313 to better match NAICS wage survey industry coverage to the industry coverage of the SIC system. We inadvertently overlooked this industry in the proposed rule.
This final regulation is effective 30 days after publication. However, to provide the lead agency (the Department of Defense) with sufficient time and a fixed date for planning surveys and implementing changes required by the new industry classification system, the regulation is applicable for wage surveys ordered to begin on or after November 1, 2006.
I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they will affect only Federal agencies and employees.
The Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this final rule in accordance with Executive Order 12866.
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
Office of Personnel Management.
5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; § 532.707 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.
(a) The lead agency must include the industries in the following North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes in all regular appropriated fund wage surveys:
(a) The lead agency must include the following North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes in all regular nonappropriated fund wage surveys:
(a) All establishments having 20 or more employees in the prescribed industries within a survey area must be included in the survey universe. Establishments in NAICS codes 4471, 4542, 71391, and 71395 must be included in the survey universe if they have eight or more employees.
(c) * * *
(1) Surveys must, at a minimum, include the air transportation and electronics industries in the following North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes:
(c) The lead agency must establish survey specifications for the printing survey as follows:
(1) The lead agency must include North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 323110 and 323114 in the printing survey and may add other NAICS codes in subsector 323 to the survey based on its survey experience.
(c) * * *
(1) Based on Bureau of Reclamation activities and types of supervisory positions in the special wage area, the Bureau of Reclamation must survey private industry companies, with no minimum employment size requirement for establishments, in the following North American Industry Classification System code subsectors:
(a) For appropriated fund surveys, the lead agency must use the private sector industries in the following North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes when it makes its wage schedule determinations for each specialized Federal industry:
(b) For wage surveys involving the specialized Federal industry “Artillery and Combat Vehicles” in paragraph (a) of this section, the lead agency must limit special job coverage for industries in NAICS codes 2211, 2212, 32732, 484, 4862, 5621, 492, 5171, 5172, and 5173 to automotive mechanic, diesel engine mechanic, and heavy mobile equipment mechanic.
(c) For nonappropriated fund wage surveys, the lead agency must use NAICS codes 71111, 7221, 7222, 72231, 72232, and 7224 (eating and drinking places) when it determines a wage schedule for a specialized industry.
In Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 300 to 399, revised as of January 1, 2006, in § 319.56-2j paragraph (a)(2)(i) is corrected to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Chamber:
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Interim rule and request for comments.
We are amending the noxious weed and imported seed regulations by adding South African ragwort (
This interim rule is effective June 14, 2006. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 21, 2006.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0019, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0019.
Dr. Alan V. Tasker, Noxious Weeds Program Coordinator, Invasive Species and Pest Management, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737-1237; (301) 734-5225.
The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701
The PPA defines “noxious weed” as “any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, poultry or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public health, or the environment.” The PPA also provides that the Secretary may publish, by regulation, a list of noxious weeds that are prohibited or restricted from entering the United States or that are subject to restrictions on interstate movement within the United States. Under this authority, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) administers the noxious weeds regulations in 7 CFR part 360, which prohibit or restrict the importation and interstate movement of those plants that are designated as noxious weeds in § 360.200.
Under the authority of the Federal Seed Act (FSA) of 1939, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1551
APHIS lists in its regulations only those weeds that meet the international definition of a quarantine pests, i.e., “a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially
In this document, we are amending the regulations by adding South African ragwort (
This information is also available in the weed risk assessment document, which may be obtained from the person listed under
It is estimated that
Like
Both
Because it forms dense populations of 5 to 15 plants per square meter (approximately 11 square feet),
The United States contains dozens of native species of
Although mechanical and chemical control measures are available, they may not be easy to apply due to the often inaccessible habitats
The United States imports many commodities, such as uncleaned wool, on which seeds of
In addition, as
This rulemaking is necessary on an emergency basis to prevent the introduction of
We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (see
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.
We are amending the noxious weed and imported seed regulations by adding
Neither South African ragwort nor Madagascar ragwort is used for ornamental, medicinal, or other purposes. As such, the introduction of either weed would provide no benefit to U.S. agriculture or other industries. The European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization has identified wool and wildflower seed mixes as potential pathways for the dissemination of
Importers of wool and wildflowers are classified as part of the wholesale trade sector in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The wholesale trade sector is an integral part in the process of trading because it is an intermediate step in the distribution of merchandise. Both merchant wholesalers and import/export agents or brokers are classified in this sector.
The size distribution of merchant wholesalers that may be affected by the rule is unknown. However, it is reasonable to assume that most are small in size according to the U.S. Small Business Administration's standards. The small business size standard for entities classified under NAICS code 424590 (Other Farm Product Raw Material Merchant Wholesalers) is 100 or fewer employees. There are 43 raw wool wholesale trading establishments in the United States, for which trade of wool, wool tops, and mohair account for 73.3 percent of their total sales. Although no clear data exist to verify that these firms are small entities, the total average number of employees per establishment of other farm product raw material merchant wholesalers in 2002 was seven employees per firm. In 2004, the United States imported approximately 22.7 million pounds of wool, primarily from New Zealand and Australia. Madagascar ragwort is prevalent in Australia, where it has led to higher costs of production in the dairy, beef, and horse production sectors. Although the United States is a net importer of wool, imports declined by 10 percent in 2005, while exports increased by 17 percent, suggesting that domestic demand for wool has decreased from previous years.
The small business size standard for entities classified under NAICS code 424930 (Flower, Nursery Stock, and Florists' Supplies Merchant Wholesalers) is 100 or fewer employees. There are 4,816 flower, nursery stock, and florists' supplies wholesale trading establishments in the United States for which trade of flowers, nursery stock, and florists' supplies accounts for 100 percent of total sales. As with wool, no clear data exist to verify that these firms are small entities; however, the total average number of employees per establishment in this classification in 2002 was 12 employees per firm. In 2004, the United States imported approximately $700 million in fresh cut flowers and flower buds. The primary exporters of fresh cut flowers and flower buds to the United States were Colombia and Ecuador, while Mexico supplied approximately 4 percent of the United States' imports. The United States is a net importer of fresh cut flowers and flower buds. Imports increased by 16.4 percent in 2004, while exports declined by 19 percent.
While it is anticipated that the cost to some importers of wool and wildflowers may increase as a result of this interim rule, additional costs would be incurred if a shipment was found to be contaminated with South African ragwort or Madagascar ragwort. In the extreme, a shipment may have to be reexported or destroyed due to the presence of South African ragwort or Madagascar ragwort. The benefits of preventing the introduction and spread of either weed in the United States, however, are expected to outweigh any additional costs to importers. Furthermore, protecting against the introduction into and artificial spread within the United States of South African ragwort and Madagascar ragwort will positively affect small entities in the livestock, field crop, and nursery industries by preventing the need for costly chemical or other controls.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
This rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Imports, Plants (Agriculture), Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Weeds.
Agricultural commodities, Imports, Labeling, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seeds, Vegetables, Weeds.
7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
7 U.S.C. 1581-1610; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 757 airplanes. This AD requires, for certain airplanes, reworking the spar bonding path and reapplying sealant; and, for certain other airplanes, testing the electrical bond between the engine fuel feed hose and the wing front spar and, if applicable, reworking the spar bonding path and reapplying sealant. This AD also requires, for all airplanes, an inspection to ensure the electrical bonding jumper is installed between the engine fuel feed tube and the adjacent wing station. This AD also requires operators that may have installed an incorrect O-ring to install the correct part and do a re-test. This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent arcing or sparking at the interface between the bulkhead fittings of the engine fuel feed tube and the front spar during a lightning strike, which could provide a possible ignition source for the fuel vapor inside the fuel tank and result in a fuel tank explosion.
This AD becomes effective July 25, 2006.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of July 25, 2006.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this AD.
Tom Thorson, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 917-6508; fax (425) 917-6590.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Boeing Model 757 airplanes. That supplemental NPRM was published in the
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.
Boeing points out that the supplemental NPRM gives credit only for the actions in paragraph (h)(1) to operators who did the work in accordance with the original issue of Boeing Service Bulletins 757-28A0076 and 757-28A0077. (Boeing Service Bulletins 757-28A0076 and 757-28A0077, Revision 1, both dated October 20, 2005, were referenced as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions.) Boeing states that the original issues of the service bulletins are also acceptable for compliance with the actions in paragraphs (g), (h)(2), and (i) of the supplemental NPRM. Boeing states that referring to paragraphs (g), (h)(2), and (i) would give credit for previous rework of the spar bonding path between the end fitting of the fuel hose and the front spar to meet the bonding resistance requirements and application of sealant to the end fitting of the fuel feed hose on the forward and aft sides of the front spar, and to the fitting and tube coupling on both sides of the dry bay wall, and previous inspection for installation of a bonding jumper in the tank.
We agree. The actions in paragraph (g), (h)(2), and (i) of the supplemental NPRM may be accomplished in accordance with the original issues of the service bulletins. We have revised paragraph (l) of the final rule to add a reference to paragraphs (g), (h)(2), and (i). In addition, the FAA notes that the actions in paragraph (j) of the final rule are still required to be done in accordance with Revision 1 of Boeing Service Bulletins 757-28A0076 and 757-28A0077.
Paragraph (l) of the supplemental NPRM gives the date of the original issue of Boeing Service Bulletins 757-28A0076 and 757-28A0077 as August 24, 2004. The actual date of the original issue of these service bulletins is August 27, 2004. We have revised paragraph (l) of the final rule to correct the date.
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
There are about 1,040 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 700 airplanes of U.S. registry. The average labor rate is estimated to be $80 per work hour. Parts would be supplied from operator stock. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective July 25, 2006.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, and -200CB series airplanes as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0076, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2005; and Model 757-300 series airplanes as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0077, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2005; certificated in any category.
(d) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent arcing or sparking at the interface between the bulkhead fittings of the engine fuel feed tube and the front spar during a lightning strike, which could provide a possible ignition source for the fuel vapor inside the fuel tank and result in a fuel tank explosion.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) The term “service bulletin(s),” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of the following service bulletins, as applicable.
(1) For Model 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes: Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0076, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2005.
(2) For Model 757-300 series airplanes: Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0077, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2005.
(g) For Group 1 airplanes as identified in the service bulletins: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, rework the spar bonding path between the end fitting of the fuel feed hose and the front spar, and apply sealant to the hose fitting on the forward and aft side of the front spar and to the fitting and tube coupling on both sides of the dry bay wall, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin.
(h) For Group 2 airplanes as identified in the service bulletins: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do a bonding resistance test between the fuel feed hose and the front spars of the left and right wings, in accordance with the service bulletins.
(1) If the test meets required resistance limits, before further flight, apply sealant to
(2) If the test does not meet required resistance limits, before further flight, remove any existing sealant at the front spar; rework the spar bonding path between the end fitting of the fuel feed hose and the front spar to meet bonding resistance test requirements; and apply sealant to the end fitting of the fuel feed hose on the forward and aft sides of the front spar, and to the fitting and tube coupling on both sides of the dry bay wall, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin.
(i) For all airplanes as identified in the service bulletins: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, perform a general visual inspection and applicable corrective actions to ensure that an electrical bonding jumper is installed between the engine fuel feed tube and the adjacent wing station 285.65 rib in the left and right wing fuel tanks, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin.
(j) For airplanes on which the actions in paragraphs (g) or (h)(2) of this AD were done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0076, dated August 27, 2004; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0077, dated August 27, 2004; as applicable: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the O-ring, part number (P/N) MS29513-330 with a new O-ring, P/N MS29513-328, and do a leak test before further flight after reassembly. Do all actions in accordance with Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin.
(k) Although Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0076, Revision 1; and Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0077, Revision 1; both dated October 20, 2005, permit operator's equivalent procedures (OEP), this AD would require using the referenced airplane maintenance manuals, except that operators may use their own FAA-approved OEPs to drain the left and right engine fuel tubes, to drain and ventilate the fuel tanks, and to enter the fuel tanks.
(l) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0076 and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0077, both dated August 27, 2004, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g), (h)(1), (h)(2), and (i) of this AD.
(m)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(n) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0076, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2005; or Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0077, Revision 1, dated October 20, 2005; as applicable; to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 airplanes. This AD requires inspecting for excess sealant applied to the attachment bolts of the negative pressure relief valve, and performing corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from reports that excess sealant was applied to the attachment bolts of the negative pressure relief valve, which interfered with the valve's movable diaphragm. We are issuing this AD to prevent incorrect operation of the negative pressure relief valve, which could result in negative pressures that exceed the structural strength limits of the airframe and lead to reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective July 25, 2006.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of July 25, 2006.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil, for service information identified in this AD.
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1175; fax (425) 227-1149.
You may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the Internet at
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We received no
To clarify the range of the serial numbers of the affected airplanes we have added the word “inclusive” to the applicability of the AD.
We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
This AD will affect about 54 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions will take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of this AD for U.S. operators is $4,320, or $80 per airplane.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective July 25, 2006.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to EMBRAER Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, and -100 SU airplanes, certificated in any category; having serial numbers 17000002 through 17000099 inclusive.
(d) This AD results from reports that excess sealant was applied to the attachment bolts of the negative pressure relief valve, which interfered with the valve's movable diaphragm. We are issuing this AD to prevent incorrect operation of the negative pressure relief valve, which could result in negative pressures that exceed the structural strength limits of the airframe and lead to reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) Within 700 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, perform a general visual inspection of the attachment bolts of the negative pressure relief valve for excess sealant and perform the applicable corrective actions, by accomplishing all applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-21-0014, dated August 19, 2005. Corrective actions must be performed prior to further flight.
For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.”
(g)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(h) Brazilian airworthiness directive 2005-12-05, dated January 19, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD.
(i) You must use EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-21-0014, dated August 19, 2005, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to certain Boeing Model 727-200 series airplanes. That AD currently requires initial and repetitive inspections for cracks in the forward frame of the No. 3 cargo door cutout; and corrective actions, if necessary. The existing AD also provides for an optional structural modification, which terminates the repetitive inspections. This new AD reduces the compliance time for the initial inspections and adds an optional method of inspection for both the initial and repetitive inspections. This AD also adds initial and repetitive inspections of an additional area, and repair if necessary. Additionally, this AD clarifies that the previously optional structural modification is now required by other rulemaking. This AD results from additional reports of cracking in the forward frame of the No. 3 cargo door cutout. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the forward frame and fuselage skin of the No. 3 cargo door cutout, which could result in failure of the frame and skin, and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective July 25, 2006.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of July 25, 2006.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this AD.
Daniel F. Kutz, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 917-6456; fax (425) 917-6590.
You may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the Internet at
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 86-17-05 R1, amendment 39-5714 (52 FR 32534, August 28, 1987). The existing AD applies to certain Boeing Model 727-200 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been received on the NPRM.
Boeing requests that certain language be added to the Actions Since Existing AD was Issued section of the NPRM to clarify that the forward frame is the subject of the findings and that the skin and doubler in the area are also involved as an area of concern.
We agree that adding the suggested language would clarify the location of the subject unsafe condition (i.e., the forward frame of the No. 3 cargo door cutout, along with the surrounding skin and doubler). However, because that section of the NPRM is not restated in the final rule, we find that no change to the AD is necessary in this regard.
Boeing points out that there is a typographical error in the AD number identified in the “REQUIREMENTS OF AD 86-17-05 R1 WITH REDUCED THRESHOLD AND NEW OPTIONAL INSPECTION METHOD:” heading in the regulatory text of the NPRM, and requests that the error, “AD 86-17-05 RL,” be corrected to read “AD 86-17-05 R1.”
We agree. We have verified that an error did occur in the AD number in that heading during printing of the NPRM. That AD number is correct in this final rule.
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments that have been received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
There are about 269 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The new requirements of this AD add no additional economic burden. The current costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD are repeated for the convenience of affected operators, as follows:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective July 25, 2006.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 86-17-05 R1.
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 727-200 series airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with a No. 3 cargo door, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-53A0169, Revision 2, dated May 23, 1986.
(d) This AD results from additional reports of cracking in the forward frame of the No. 3 cargo door cutout. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the forward frame and fuselage skin of the No. 3 cargo door cutout, which could result in failure of the frame and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD: Do a penetrant or detailed inspection of the forward frame of the No. 3 cargo door cutout for cracking, in accordance with paragraph C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-53A0169, Revision 2, dated May 23, 1986. After the effective date of this AD, the penetrant or detailed inspection must be done in accordance with paragraph 3.B.3. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0169, Revision 6, dated September 28, 2002. If any cracking is found, repair in accordance with paragraph (h) or (l) of this AD, as applicable. Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 2,200 flight cycles, until the preventative modification specified in paragraph (n) of this AD is done.
(1) Within the next 300 flight cycles after September 3, 1987 (the effective date of AD 86-17-05 R1), or prior to accumulating 29,000 total flight cycles, whichever occurs later, unless accomplished within the last 1,900 flight cycles.
(2) Prior to accumulating 18,000 total flight cycles, or within 2,200 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(g) At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of the forward frame of the No. 3 cargo door cutout for cracking, in accordance with paragraphs D. and E. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-53A0169, Revision 2, dated May 23, 1986. After the effective date of this AD, the detailed inspection must be done in accordance with paragraphs 3.B.4. and 3.B.5. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0169, Revision 6, dated September 28, 2002. If any cracking is found, repair in accordance with paragraph (h) or (l) of this AD, as applicable. Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 2,200 flight cycles, until the preventative modification specified in paragraph (n) of this AD is done.
(1) Within the next 300 flight cycles after September 3, 1987, or prior to accumulating 35,000 total flight cycles, whichever occurs later, unless accomplished within the last 1,900 flight cycles.
(2) Prior to accumulating 18,000 total flight cycles, or within 2,200 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(h) Before further flight, repair any crack in the forward frame of the No. 3 cargo door cutout found before the effective date of this AD during any inspection required by paragraph (f) or (g) of this AD, in accordance with paragraph G. of the Accomplishment
(i) For any repair to the forward frame of the No. 3 cargo door cutout done, as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, before the effective date of this AD: Within 18,000 flight cycles following the repair, or 2,200 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a detailed inspection of the repair for cracking in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0169, Revision 6, dated September 28, 2002. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 2,200 flight cycles, until the preventative modification specified in paragraph (n) of this AD is done.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.”
(j) Prior to the accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles, or within 2,200 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do a penetrant or detailed inspection for cracking of the fuselage skin of the No. 3 cargo door cutout between stringers S-24 and S-27, in accordance with paragraph 3.B.3. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0169, Revision 6, dated September 28, 2002. Repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 2,200 flight cycles, until the preventative modification specified in paragraph (n) of this AD is done.
(k) If any crack is found in the fuselage skin during any inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD: Before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD.
(l) If, after the effective date of this AD, any crack is found in the forward frame of the No. 3 cargo door cutout during any inspection required by paragraph (f), (g), or (i) of this AD: Before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraph (l)(1), (l)(2), or (l)(3) of this AD, as applicable. Inspect the repair within 18,000 flight cycles following the repair, in accordance with paragraphs 3.B.4. and 3.B.5. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0169, Revision 6, dated September 28, 2002. Thereafter, repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 2,200 flight cycles, until the preventative modification specified in paragraph (n) of this AD is done.
(1) If cracks have not severed the inner flange, do an interim repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD.
(2) Repair the crack in accordance with paragraph 3.B.7.b. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0169, Revision 6, dated September 28, 2002.
(3) Replace the cracked segment of the frame with a new or serviceable component and install the frame reinforcement preventative modification, in accordance with paragraph 3.B.7.c. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0169, Revision 6, dated September 28, 2002. This action terminates the requirements of this AD.
(m) Inspections and repairs done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-53A0169, Revision 2, dated May 23, 1986; Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0169, Revision 3, dated June 11, 1987; Revision 4, dated January 21, 1988; and Revision 5, dated November 2, 1989, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs (h), (k), and (l) of this AD, as applicable.
(n) At the same time as the applicable inspections provided in paragraphs (f), (g), (i), and (j) of this AD are accomplished, doing the frame reinforcement preventative modification required by paragraph A. of AD 90-06-09 or the frame reinforcement preventative modification specified in Figure 2 of Boeing Service Bulletins 727-53A0169, Revision 5, dated November 2, 1989; and Revision 6, dated September 28, 2002; terminates the requirements of this AD. Paragraph A. of AD 90-06-09 references Boeing Document D6-54860, Revision C, dated December 11, 1989, “Aging Airplane Structural Modification Program—Model 727” as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the frame reinforcement preventative modification (along with numerous other structural modifications required by paragraph A. of AD 90-06-09).
(o) Although the service bulletins referenced in this AD specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
(p)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) An AMOC approved previously in accordance with AD 86-17-05 R1, is approved as an AMOC with the corresponding requirements and provisions of this AD.
(q) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-53A0169, Revision 2, dated May 23, 1986; or Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53A0169, Revision 6, dated September 28, 2002; as applicable, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-53A0169, Revision 2, contains the following effective pages:
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce.
Final rule.
This final rule amends regulations of the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), for the quarterly BE-577, Direct Transactions of U.S. Reporter With Foreign Affiliate.
The BE-577 survey is conducted quarterly and is a sample survey that obtains data on transactions and positions between U.S.-owned foreign business enterprises and their U.S. parents. To address the current needs of data users while at the same time keeping the respondent burden as low as possible, BEA is modifying, adding, or deleting items on the survey form and in the reporting criteria. The changes will bring the BE-577 form and related instructions into conformity with the 2004 BE-10, Benchmark Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad and will exclude data that have recently begun to be collected on other Government surveys.
This final rule will be effective July 20, 2006.
Obie G. Whichard, Chief, International Investment Division (BE-50), Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; phone (202) 606-9890 or e-mail (
In the March 1, 2006,
The BE-577, Direct Transactions Of U.S. Reporter With Foreign Affiliate, is a mandatory survey and is conducted quarterly by BEA under the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101-3108). BEA will send BE-577 survey forms to potential respondents each quarter; responses will be due within 30 days after the close of each fiscal quarter, except for the final quarter of the fiscal year, when reports will be due within 45 days.
The final rule increases the exemption level for reporting on the BE-577 from $30 million to $40 million. The exemption level is stated in terms of the foreign affiliate's assets, sales, and net income.
In addition to the change in the reporting criteria mentioned above, BEA is introducing a few changes to the survey form and instructions. BEA is: (1) Revising the survey form and instructions to bring them into conformity with the most recent BE-10 benchmark survey instructions for reporting capital gains and losses; (2) collecting information on payments to and receipts from foreign affiliates for interest, royalties and license fees and other private services gross of any taxes withheld to align reporting of these items with current international statistical standards for balance of payments accounts (previously, this information was collected net of taxes withheld); (3) modifying the survey instructions to indicate that positions and transactions in financial derivatives contracts that are reported on or derived from the Treasury Department's recently instituted International Capital Form D, Report of Holdings of, and Transactions in, Financial Derivatives Contracts with Foreign Residents should be excluded from BE-577 reports; and (4) removing the requirement for reporting certain affiliated insurance transactions that have been problematic to collect on the BE-577. BEA plans to move the reporting requirement for these transactions to specialized services surveys that BEA conducts in the near future.
BEA will conduct the survey under the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101-3108), hereinafter, “the Act.” Title 22 United States Code, Section 3103(a)(1) of the Act requires that with respect to United States direct investment abroad, the President shall conduct a data collection program to obtain current information on international capital flows and other information related to international investment and trade in services including information that may be necessary for computing and analyzing the United States balance of payments, the employment and taxes of United States parents and affiliates, and the international investment and trade in services position of the United States.
In Section 3 of Executive Order 11961, the President delegated authority granted under the Act as concerns direct investment to the Secretary of Commerce, who has redelegated it to BEA. The quarterly survey of U.S. direct investment abroad is a sample survey that covers all foreign affiliates above a size-exemption level. The survey collects data on transactions and positions between U.S.-owned foreign business enterprises and their U.S. parents. The sample data are used to derive quarterly universe estimates from similar data reported in the BE-10, Benchmark Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad, which is taken every five years. The data are used in the preparation of the U.S. international transactions accounts, input-output accounts, and national income and product accounts. The data are needed to measure the size and economic significance of U.S. direct investment abroad, measure changes in such investment, and assess its impact on the U.S. and foreign economies. The data are disaggregated by country and industry of foreign affiliate.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E. O. 12866.
This final rule does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment under E.O. 13132.
The collection-of-information in this final rule has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any 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 displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for the BE-577 is 0608-0004; the collection will display the number.
The survey is expected to result in the filing of about 13,500 foreign affiliate reports by an estimated 1,500 U.S. parent companies. The respondent burden for this collection of information
Comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information should be addressed to: Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BE-1), U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, fax: 202-606-5311; and the Office of Management and Budget, O.I.R.A., Paperwork Reduction Project 0608-0004, Attention PRA Desk Officer for BEA, via the Internet at
The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding the economic impact of the rule. As a result, no final regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared.
International transactions, Economic statistics, U.S. investment abroad, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
5 U.S.C. 301; 22 U.S.C. 3101-3108; E.O. 11961 (3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 86), as amended by E.O. 12318 (3 CFR, 1981 Comp., p. 173); E.O. 12518 (3 CFR, 1985 Comp., p. 348).
Office of the Secretary, DoD.
Final rule.
The final rule allows the Department of Defense to waive normal requirements so that covered beneficiaries can participate in Phase II and Phase III clinical trials sponsored or approved by the National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute (NIH NCI). This waiver authority is expected to promote beneficiary access to promising new treatments and contribute to the development of such treatments.
This rule is effective July 20, 2006.
TRICARE Management Activity (TMA), Medical Benefits and Reimbursement System, 16301 East Centretech Parkway, Aurora, CO 80011-9066
Debra Hatzel, Medical Benefits and Reimbursement Systems, TMA, telephone (303) 676-3572. Questions regarding payment of specific claims under TRICARE should be addressed to the appropriate TRICARE contractor.
This final rule implements Title 10, United States Code, section 1079(a)(13) which provides for a waiver of the general prohibition on coverage of unproven medical treatments or procedures in connection with clinical trials sponsored or approved by the National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute. This waiver is contingent upon the Secretary of Defense's determination that a waiver will promote access to promising new treatments and contribute to the development of such treatments. Based on the improved beneficiary access to these trials, and the contributions to the development of such treatments, it is in the best interest of the Department and its beneficiaries to continue to provide access through an authorized waiver as outlined in the proposed rule.
Clinical trials are the major avenue for discovering, developing, and evaluating new cancer therapies, and clinical trial participants are among the first to receive new cancer prevention or treatment methods before they are widely available. Many significant medical discoveries in this field have occurred as a direct result of clinical trial participation. For example, because of survival improvements seen in an NCI-sponsored clinical trial, early initiation of hormonal therapy has become the standard of care in node-positive prostrate cancer patients. Even when they do not lead to new therapies, clinical trials often answer important questions and help move research forward so that others may prevent or survive this disease.
Cancer treatment trials may include testing new drugs, new approaches to surgery or radiation therapy, new combinations of treatments, or new methods such as gene therapy. Studies that involve drugs or invasive procedures are categorized by phase. Phase I trials evaluate new cancer drugs to determine what dose is safe, how a new agent should be administered (by mouth, injected into a vein, or injected into the muscle), and how frequently the treatment should be given. After safety parameters have been established, Phase II trials are conducted to assess the effectiveness of an agent or intervention against a specific type of cancer. Phase III trials compare effective treatments from Phase II studies to conventional cancer treatments. Clinical trials offer high quality care for cancer prevention and treatment, and no patient ever receives a placebo (substance with active ingredients) when effective care exists.
The Department of Defense (DoD) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) established a partnership in 1994 to conduct a demonstration project that allowed patients with breast cancer to participate in NCI-sponsored bone marrow transplant clinical trials. This demonstration project expanded in 1996 to include all cancers and NCI-sponsored Phase II and III cancer treatment clinical trials. The DoD-NCI demonstration partnership was further
Between January 1996 and July 2004, approximately 350 TRICARE beneficiaries have participated in NCI-approved clinical trials conducted in doctors' offices, community hospitals and clinics, cancer centers, other medical centers, and veterans' and military hospitals across the United States. Healthcare costs for the DoD-NCI demonstration have ranged from $5.8 million to $16 million per year, and research has indicated that patient-care costs associated with cancer clinical trials are only slightly higher than the costs associated with treating similar patients outside of trials.
The Department of Defense hopes that his permanent benefit will heighten the awareness among our cancer patients that clinical trials are a promising treatment option and encourage them to consider Phase II and Phase III clinical trial participation. Participation in clinical trials related to prevention, screening, and early detection of cancer will contribute to the growing base of medical knowledge in these areas and may lead to more effective treatments in the future. Phase I trials will continue to be excluded from coverage; also, TRICARE will continue to deny coverage for any items or services that are already covered under the investigational protocol. Only those supplies and services that TRICARE otherwise would have covered during the normal course of treatment (to include costs for screening tests to determine clinical trial eligibility) will be eligible for cost-sharing. This continues the coverage policy which was previously established for the DoD-NCI cancer trials demonstration.
This final rule was previously published in the
The proposed rule was published in the
Executive Order (EO) 12866 requires that a comprehensive regulatory impact analysis be performed on any economically significant regulatory action, defined as one which would result in an annual effect of $100 million or more on the national economy or which would have other substantial impacts. This is not a significant regulatory action under EO 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of Manpower and Budget.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that each Federal agency prepare, and make available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis when the agency issues a regulation which would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We certify that this final rule will not significantly affect a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule will not impose additional information collection requirements on the public under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 55).
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Fraud, Healthcare, Health insurance, Military personnel.
5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. chapter 55.
(e) * * *
(26)
(i)
(ii)
(B)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(g) * * *
(15)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is temporarily changing the regulations governing the operation of the Welch Causeway (SR 699) Bridge, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway mile 122.8, Madeira Beach, Pinellas County, Florida. This rule is needed to provide vehicular traffic relief during heavy vehicular traffic periods as well as meeting the reasonable needs of mariners during the construction of nearby bridges. This bridge will open on the hour and half hour, Friday, 2 p.m. until 6 p.m., Saturday, Sunday and Federal holidays from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. until October 29, 2006.
This rule is effective from June 20, 2006 until October 29, 2006.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD07-06-074 and are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 S.E. 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, FL 33131, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Mr. Barry Dragon, Project Officer, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at (305) 415-6743.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NRPM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM was impracticable and contrary to the public interest, because the rule is needed to provide for vehicular traffic relief during construction of bridges and provides provisions for vessels to transit through the area on a twice an hour schedule during heavy vehicular traffic periods.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
The Welch Causeway (SR 699) bridge, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway mile 122.8, Madeira Beach, Pinellas County, Florida currently opens on signal; except that, from 9:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays, the draw need be opened only on the hour, 20 minutes after the hour, and 40 minutes after the hour. This bridge is in close proximity to other bridges currently under construction. The bridge provides vehicular access on and off the coastal barrier islands.
Florida State Representative Rice's office, on behalf of the citizens of Madeira Beach, requested the Coast Guard change the current operation of the bridge to two openings per hour during certain periods, while other bridge construction projects were underway. The bridge will be required to only open on the hour and half-hour Fridays from 2 p.m. until 6 p.m. and Saturdays, Sundays and Federal holidays from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. Public vessels of the United States, tugs with tows and vessels in distress shall be passed as necessary.
The regulation was requested by Florida Representative Rice's office on behalf of the residents of Madeira Beach and will provide temporary relief for vehicular traffic while other bridge construction projects are underway, while continuing to provide for the reasonable needs of navigation. The bridge will be required to only open on the hour and half-hour on Fridays from 2 p.m. until 6 p.m. and on Saturdays, Sundays and Federal holidays from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. The draw shall open as necessary for the passage of tugs with tows, public vessels of the United States and vessels in distress.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary, because the rule will allow for bridge openings during the construction of nearby bridges.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because the regulations provide for bridge openings, and for the reasonable needs of navigation.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If this rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in the preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order, because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule.
Bridges.
33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Section 117.255 also issued under authority of Public Law 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
(l) The draw of the Welch Causeway (SR 699) bridge, mile 122.8 at Madeira Beach shall open on signal; except that from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Fridays, and from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday, Sunday and Federal holidays, the draw need be opened only on the hour and half-hour. Public vessels of the United States, tugs with tows and vessels in distress shall be passed as necessary.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone on the waters of the upper Potomac River. This action is necessary to provide for the security of a large number of visitors to the annual July 4th celebration on the National Mall in Washington, DC. The security zone will allow for control of a designated area of the river and safeguard spectators and high-ranking officials.
This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. local time on July 4, 2006.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD05-06-014 and are available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Mr. Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at telephone number (410) 576-2674 or (410) 576-2693.
On April 3, 2006, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Security Zone; Georgetown Channel, Potomac River, Washington, D.C.” in the
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Due to increased awareness that future terrorist attacks are possible, the Coast Guard as lead federal agency for maritime homeland security, has determined that the Captain of the Port Baltimore must have the means to be aware of, deter, detect, intercept, and respond to asymmetric threats, acts of aggression, and attacks by terrorists on the American homeland while still maintaining our freedoms and sustaining the flow of commerce. This security zone is part of a comprehensive port security regime designed to safeguard human life, vessels, and waterfront facilities against sabotage or terrorist attacks.
In this particular rulemaking, to address the aforementioned security concerns, and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against a large number of spectators and high-ranking officials during the annual July 4th celebration would have on the public interest, the Coast Guard is establishing a security zone upon all waters of the Georgetown Channel of the Potomac River, from the surface to the bottom, 75 yards from the eastern shore measured perpendicularly to the shore, between the Long Railroad Bridge (the most eastern bridge of the 5-span, Fourteenth Street Bridge Complex) to the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Bridge and all waters in between, totally including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin.
This security zone will help the Coast Guard to prevent vessels or persons from engaging in terrorist actions against a large number of spectators and high-ranking officials during the annual July 4th celebration. Due to these heightened security concerns, and the catastrophic impact a terrorist attack on the National Mall in Washington, DC, during the annual July 4th celebration would have on the large number of spectators and high-ranking officials, and the surrounding area and communities, a security zone is prudent for this type of event.
The Coast Guard received no comments on the proposed rule during the comment period published in the NPRM. No public meeting was requested and none was held. As a result, no change to the proposed regulatory text was made.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
This security zone will encompass only a small portion of the waterway and vessels or persons may be allowed to enter this zone with permission of the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Potomac River (including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin) from 12:01 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. on July 4, 2006.
This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for twenty-four hours and the security zone will only apply to 75 yards of the Potomac River (from the eastern shore measured perpendicularly to the shore), and not the entire width of the river. Smaller vessels not constrained by their draft, which are more likely to be small entities, may safely transit around the security zone. Additionally, before the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the river to allow mariners to make alternative plans for transiting the affected areas. Because the zone is of limited size, it is expected that there will be minimal disruption to the maritime community.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g.), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This regulation establishes a security zone. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
(3) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the security zone must first request authorization from the Captain of the Port, Baltimore to seek permission to transit the area. The Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland can be contacted at telephone number (410) 576-2693. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can
(4)
(d)
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Final rule.
NARA is revising its regulations on the locations and hours of NARA facilities to reflect the relocation of two facilities in the past fiscal year. This final rule will affect the public.
Laura McCarthy at 301-837-3023.
The proposed rule was published in the May 12, 2006,
NARA received no comments on the proposed rule and therefore is issuing the final rule with no changes.
This rule is effective upon publication for “good” cause as permitted by Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). NARA believes that delaying the effective date for 30 days is unnecessary as this rule represents minor technical amendments. Moreover, as the public benefits immediately with correct addresses and hours for the relocated NARA facilities, any delay in the effective date would be contrary to the public interest.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I certify that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because this rule applies to agencies and individual researchers. This regulation does not have any federalism implications. This rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8, Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.
Archives and records.
44 U.S.C. 2104(a).
(d) NARA—Southeast Region (Atlanta) is located at 4712 Southpark Blvd., Ellenwood, GA 30294. The hours are 7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday. The telephone number is 404-736-2820.
(l) NARA—Pacific Region (Riverside) is located at 23123 Cajalco Road, Perris, CA 92570-7298. The hours are 8:45 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday for scheduled appointments. The telephone number is 951-956-2000.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Removal of final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is removing its final rule to grant a petition submitted by Tokusen U.S.A, Inc. to exclude (or delist) a certain F006 filter cake generated by its Conway, Arkansas Plant from the lists of hazardous wastes. This rule removes the final rule published in 67 FR 79874 (December 31, 2002). The EPA has received data from the facility indicating that the waste currently generated is no longer representative of the waste for which the petition was submitted. EPA acknowledges these changes and has requested that Tokusen withdraw its petition. Tokusen may submit a new delisting petition for the waste stream at any time.
Effective June 20, 2006.
Michelle Peace by mail at U.S. EPA Region 6, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Corrective Action and Waste Minimization Section (6PD-C), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, by phone at (214) 665-7430 or by e-mail at
On December 31, 2002, at 67 FR 79874, EPA finalized an exclusion from the list of hazardous wastes for Tokusen U.S.A., Inc in Conway, Arkansas. On November 8, 2004, EPA received information from the facility that the concentrations of zinc were elevated above the delisting exclusion concentrations. Tokusen withdrew its delisting petition, submitted October 24, 2001, for the F006 filter cake on January 6, 2006. The Tokusen U.S.A., Inc, Conway AR, exclusion found in 40 CFR part 261, appendix IX, Table 1 will be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations.
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Section 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922 and 6938.
Office of Personnel Management.
Proposed rule with request for comment.
The Office of Personnel Management is issuing a proposed regulation to change the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) Program regulations that govern continued coverage for employees who are called or ordered to serve in the uniformed services. These regulations provide extended FEHB coverage for up to 24 months to Federal employees called or ordered to active duty and who meet certain requirements, including serving in support of a contingency operation. Those employees who are called or ordered to active duty in support of a contingency operation are also eligible for premium payments by their employing agency. The purpose of these regulations is to authorize Federal agencies to continue health benefits coverage for up to 24 months for those employees called or ordered to active duty, with certain employees qualifying for agency premium contributions.
Comments must be received on or before August 21, 2006.
Michael W. Kaszynski, Policy Analyst, Insurance Policy, OPM, Room 3425, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415-0001. Phone number: 202-606-0004. E-mail:
The National Defense Authorization Act for 2005 (Pub. L. 108-375) amended FEHB law to provide up to 24 months of continued FEHB coverage for Federal employees who are called or ordered to active duty in support of a contingency operation (5 U.S.C. 8905a), and to authorize agencies to pay the employee's share and the Government's share of premiums for up to 24 months (5 U.S.C. 8906 (e)(3)). The Act provides that this enhanced benefit is available for any employee who:
(1) Is enrolled in the FEHB Program;
(2) Is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces;
(3) Is called or ordered to active duty in support of a contingency operation (as defined in section 101(a)(13) of title 10 U.S.C.);
(4) Is placed on leave without pay or separated from service to perform active duty; and
(5) Serves on active duty for more than 30 consecutive days.
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulation affects only health insurance carriers under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
This regulation has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees, Health facilities, Health insurance, Health professionals, Hostages, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Military Personnel, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Retirement.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OPM is amending 5 CFR part 890 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 890 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 8913; § 890.803 also issued under 50 U.S.C. 403p, 22 U.S.C. 4069c and 4069c-1; subpart L also issued under section 599C of Pub. L. 101-513, 104 Stat. 2064, as amended; § 890.102 also issued under sections 11202(f), 11232(e), 11246 (b) and (c) of Pub. L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251; and section 721 of Pub. L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 2061, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 890.303 paragraph (i) is revised to read as follows:
(i) Service in the uniformed services. (1) The enrollment of an individual who separates, enters military furlough, or is placed in nonpay status to serve in the uniformed services under conditions that entitle him or her to benefits under part 353 of this chapter, or similar authority, may continue for the 24-month period beginning on the date that the absence to serve in the uniformed services begins, provided that the individual continues to be entitled to benefits under part 353 of this chapter, or similar authority. As provided for by 5 U.S.C. 8905(a), the continuation of enrollment for up to 24 months applies to employees called or ordered to active duty in support of a contingency operation on or after September 14, 2001. The enrollment of an employee who met the requirements of chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code, on or after December 10, 2004, may continue for the 24-month period beginning on the date that the absence to serve in the uniformed services began, provided that the employee continues to be entitled to
(2) An employee in nonpay status is entitled to continued coverage under paragraph (e) of this section if the employee's entitlement to benefits under part 353 of this chapter, or similar authority, ends before the expiration of 365 days in nonpay status.
(3) If the enrollment of an employee had terminated due to the expiration of 365 days in nonpay status or because of the employee's separation from service, it may be reinstated for the remainder of the 24-month period beginning on the date that the absence to serve in the uniformed service began, provided that the employee continues to be entitled to continued coverage under part 353 of this chapter, or similar authority.
3. Section 890.304 paragraphs (a)(1)(vi), (a)(1)(vii), and (a)(1)(viii) are revised to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) The day he or she is separated, furloughed, or placed on leave of absence to serve in the uniformed services under conditions entitling him or her to benefits under part 353 of this chapter, or similar authority, for the purpose of performing duty not limited to 30 days or less, provided the employee elects in writing to have the enrollment so terminated.
(vii) For an employee who separates to serve in the uniformed services under conditions entitling him or her to benefits under part 353 of this chapter, or similar authority, for the purpose of performing duty not limited to 30 days or less, the date that is 24 months after the date that the absence to serve in the uniformed services began or the date entitlement to benefits under part 353 of this chapter, or similar authority, ends, whichever is earlier, unless the enrollment is terminated under paragraph (a)(1)(vi) of this section.
(viii) For an employee who is furloughed or placed on leave of absence under conditions entitling him or her to benefits under part 353 of this chapter, or similar authority, the date that is 24 months after the date that the absence to serve in the uniformed services began or the date entitlement to benefits under part 353 of this chapter, or similar authority, ends, whichever is earlier, but not earlier than the date the enrollment would otherwise terminate under paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section.
4. Section 890.502 paragraph (f) is revised to read as follows:
(f) Uniformed services. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, an employee whose coverage continues under § 890.303(i) is responsible for payment of the employee share of the cost of enrollment for every pay period for which the enrollment continues for the first 365 days of continued coverage as set forth under paragraph (b) of this section. For coverage that continues after 365 days in nonpay status, the employee must pay, on a current basis, the full subscription charge, including both the employee and Government shares, plus an additional 2 percent of the full subscription charge.
(2) As provided by 5 U.S.C. 8906(e)(3), an employing agency may pay both the Government and employee contributions and any additional administrative expenses for the cost of coverage for the employee and the employee's family for a period of 24 months for employees called or ordered to active duty in support of a contingency operation on or after September 14, 2001. Payment of these contributions and expenses is solely at the discretion of the employing agency.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Air Tractor, Inc. Models AT-802 and AT-802A airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to repetitively inspect the attach angles on the firewall mounted hopper rinse tank shelf for damage and/or cracks and replace damaged and/or cracked attach angles. Replacing the attach angles with steel attach angles would terminate the proposed repetitive inspection requirement. Reports of an uncommanded change in the engine power setting caused by separation of the hopper rinse tank shelf from the firewall prompted this proposed AD. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct damage and/or cracks in the attach angles on the firewall mounted hopper rinse tank shelf, which could result in failure of the attach angles. This failure could lead to shelf movement under maneuver load and shifting of the engine power cables, which could result in an uncommanded engine power setting change.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 18, 2006.
Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD:
•
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Air Tractor, Inc., P.O. Box 485, Olney, Texas 76374; telephone: (940) 564-5616; facsimile: (940) 564-5612.
Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150 (c/o MIDO-43), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone: (210) 308-3365; facsimile: (210) 308-3370.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received reports of cracks in the aluminum attach angles on the firewall mounted hopper rinse tank shelf. The cracks caused the attach angles to fail, allowing the shelf to move during in-flight maneuvering.
Movement of the shelf during in-flight maneuvering caused the engine power cables, which attach to the hopper rinse tank shelf by a bracket, to shift and resulted in an uncommanded engine power setting change.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the attach angles. This failure could cause the hopper rinse tank shelf to separate from the firewall, allowing the shelf to move under maneuver load. This movement could cause the engine power cables to shift and result in an uncommanded change to the engine power setting.
We have reviewed Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #248, dated August 31, 2005.
The service information describes procedures for:
• Inspecting the hopper rinse tank shelf attach angles for damage and/or cracks; and
• Replacing all three attach angles with steel attach angles, part number (P/N) 60568-3, if any damage and/or cracks are found on any of the attach angles.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require you to repetitively inspect the attach angles on the firewall mounted hopper rinse tank shelf for damage and/or cracks and replace damaged and/or cracked attach angles. Replacing the attach angles with steel attach angles, P/N 60568-3, would terminate the proposed repetitive inspection requirement.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 219 airplanes in the U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to do each proposed inspection:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need this replacement:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
(a) We must receive comments on this proposed airworthiness directive (AD) action by August 18, 2006.
(b) None.
(c) This AD affects Models AT-802 and AT-802A airplanes, all serial numbers beginning with 802/802A-0001 through 802/802A-0219, that are certificated in any category.
(d) This AD results from reports of an uncommanded change in engine power setting caused by separation of a hopper rinse tank shelf from the firewall. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct damage and/or cracks in the attach angles on the firewall mounted hopper rinse tank shelf, which could result in failure of the attach angles. This failure could lead to shelf movement under maneuver load and shifting of the engine power cables, which could result in an uncommanded engine power setting change.
(e) To address this problem, you must do the following:
(f) 14 CFR 21.303 allows for replacement parts through parts manufacturer approval (PMA). The phrase “or FAA-approved equivalent P/N” in this AD is intended to allow for the installation of parts approved through identicality to the design of the replacement parts. Equivalent replacement parts to correct the unsafe condition under PMA (other than identicality) may also be installed provided they meet current airworthiness standards, which include those actions cited in this AD.
(g) The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, FAA, ATTN: Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150 (c/o MIDO-43), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone: (210) 308-3365; facsimile: (210) 308-3370, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(h) To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, contact Air Tractor Inc., P.O. Box 485, Olney, Texas 76374; telephone: (940) 564-5616; facsimile: (940) 564-5612. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A310-300 airplanes. This proposed AD would require replacing the existing non-return valve (NRV) of the auxiliary center tanks (ACTs) of the fuel system with a new, improved NRV. This proposed AD
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 20, 2006.
Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD.
•
•
•
•
•
Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this AD.
Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1622; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
The Direction Ge
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A310-28-2158, dated September 1, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for replacing the existing NRV with a new, improved NRV. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The DGAC mandated the service information and issued French airworthiness directive F-2005-197, dated December 7, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France.
The Airbus service bulletin refers to Lucas Air Equipment Service Bulletin C23AE01-28-01, Revision 1, dated July 20, 1994, as an additional source of service information for replacing the NRV.
These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DGAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the Airbus service information described previously.
This proposed AD would affect about 11 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed replacement would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $368 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $4,928, or $448 per airplane.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
(a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 20, 2006.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-304, -308, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category; equipped with auxiliary center tanks (ACTs); except those on which Airbus Modification 8928 has been done in production.
(d) This AD results from a report that it was not possible to transfer fuel from ACTs 1 and 2 during flight, and no electronic centralized aircraft monitor warnings were triggered. Investigation revealed a faulty static inverter and blown fuse, resulting in failure of certain fueling bus bars and subsequent failure of the automatic ACT fuel transfer. We are issuing this AD to prevent these failures, combined with failure of the non-return valve (NRV) to close. If the NRV is open during flight, the fuel supply to the engines may be reduced during cross-feed operation to the extent that fuel starvation could occur and result in engine flameout.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) Within 15,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD: Replace the existing NRV with a new, improved NRV by doing all the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2158, dated September 1, 2005.
The Airbus service bulletin refers to Lucas Air Equipment Service Bulletin C23AE01-28-01, Revision 1, dated July 20, 1994, as an additional source of service information for replacing the NRV.
(g) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, a NRV having part number C23AE0102, unless it has been modified according to paragraph (f) of this AD.
(h)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(i) French airworthiness directive F-2005-197, dated December 7, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD.
Office of the Secretary, DoD.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule amends the exclusion of services and supplies provided as part of or under a research study, grant or research program to add coverage for routine patient care that would have been necessary in the absence of the study as well as care of complications that result from participation in the trial.
Written comments received at the address indicated below by August 21, 2006 will be accepted.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and or RIN number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
René Morrell, Medical Benefits and Reimbursement Systems, TRICARE Management Activity, telephone (303) 676-3618.
TRICARE supplements the availability of health care in military hospitals and clinics.
By law, under 10 U.S.C. 1079(a)(13), TRICARE may cost share only medically or psychologically necessary services or supplies. The regulation and program policies currently exclude cost-sharing of services and supplies provided as part of or under a research study, grant or research program, because the medical efficacy and safety of such services and supplies, and as such, the medical necessity, has not yet been established. For people with serious or life-threatening diseases, curative treatment is often not available. A clinical trial or research study offers the potential to provide curative treatment. By participating in a clinical trial, people with serious or life-threatening diseases may benefit from curative treatment. This change will assist eligible TRICARE beneficiaries who participate in clinical trials by providing coverage for medically necessary routine care not directly associated with the treatment under investigation and providing coverage for complications arising from participation in clinical trials.
This exclusion removal applies only to clinical trials that are Phase II, Phase III, or Phase IV patient research studies approved by centers or cooperative groups that are funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ), or the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
In general, there are two types of costs associated with a clinical trial—routine medically necessary patient care costs and research costs. Routine patient care costs can include (but are not limited to) doctor office visits, hospital stays, clinical laboratory tests (
Executive Order 12866 requires that a comprehensive regulatory impact analysis be performed on any economically significant regulatory action, defined as one that would result in an annual effect of $100 million or more on the national economy or which would have other substantial impacts.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that each Federal Agency prepare and make available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis when the agency issues a Regulation which would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This is neither a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12886, nor would it have a significant impact on small entities. The changes set forth in the proposed rule are minor revisions to the existing regulation and affect only a small portion of the population who participate in research studies or grants. In addition, the proposed rule does not impose new information collection requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3511).
Claims, Dental health, Health care, Health insurance, Individuals with disabilities, Military personnel.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 199 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 199 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. chapter 55.
2. Section 199.4 is proposed to be amended by adding new paragraph (g)(14)(i) and by reserving paragraph (g)(14)(ii) to read as follows:
(g) * * *
(14) * * *
(i)
(A) Treatment that is not directly associated with the study or grant, e.g., medically necessary in the absence of the study or grant.
(B) Services and supplies that are medically necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of complications arising from participation in the research study or program.
(ii) [Reserved]
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local regulations for the “Crystal Coast Super Boat Grand Prix”, a power boat race to be held on the waters of Bogue Banks adjacent to Morehead City, NC. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in the Morehead City Turning Basin including sections of the Intra-Coastal Waterways and Morehead City Channel during the power boat race.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before July 20, 2006.
You may mail comments and related material to: Commander (dpi), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia, 23704-5004, or hand deliver them to Room 119 at the same address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, or fax them to (757) 398-6203, or e-mail them to
The Inspections and Investigations Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Federal Building Fifth Coast Guard District between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
CWO Christopher Humphrey, Prevention Department, Sector North Carolina, at (252) 247-4525 or via e-mail to
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05-06-057), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8
The Coast Guard will hold a public meeting to provide a forum for citizens to provide oral comments relating to the “Crystal Coast Super Boat Grand Prix”, a power boat race to be held on the waters of Bogue Banks adjacent to Morehead City, NC. The meeting will be open to the public.
This public meeting will be on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. The meeting may close early if all business is finished. Written material and requests to make oral presentations should reach the Coast Guard on or before June 26, 2006.
The Coast Guard public meeting will be held at the U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina base, 2301 East Fort Macon Road, Atlantic Beach, NC. Send written material and requests to make oral presentations to CWO Christopher Humphrey, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, Prevention Department, 2301 East Fort Macon Road, Atlantic Beach, NC, 28512-5633.
The meeting agenda includes the following:
(a) Introduction of panel members.
(b) Overview of meeting format.
(c) Background on proposed marine event.
(d) Statements from citizens. Statements may be delivered in written form at the public meeting and made part of the docket or delivered orally not to exceed 10 minutes.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the meeting coordinator, CWO Christopher Humphrey, as soon as possible.
On September 24, 2006, the Super Boat International Productions Inc. will sponsor the “Crystal Coast Super Boat Grand Prix, on the waters of Bogue Sound including the Morehead City Turning Basin, sections of the Intra-Coastal Waterway, and Morehead City Channel at Morehead City, North Carolina. The event will consist of approximately 35 powerboats participating in two high-speed competitive races, traveling counter-clockwise around a race course. A fleet of spectator vessels are expected to gather near the event site to view the competition. To provide for the safety of participants, spectators and other transiting vessels, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event area during the races.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish this special local regulation on specified waters of Bogue Sound. The regulation would be enforced from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on September 24, 2006. The effect of the regulation would be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the races. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel would be allowed to enter or remain in the regulated area. Non-participating vessels would be allowed to transit the regulated area between races, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander determines it is safe to do so. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Although this regulation would prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Pasquotank River during the event, the effect of this regulation would not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area would be in effect and the extensive advance notification that would be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcast, local radio stations and area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Additionally, the regulated area has been narrowly tailored to impose the least impact on general navigation yet provide the level
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of Bogue Sound including the Morehead City Turning Basin, Atlantic Intra-Coastal waterway and Morehead City Channel from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on September 24, 2006. This purposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Although the regulated area would apply to the Morehead City Channel, Morehead City Turning Basin and a 2 mile segment of the Atlantic Intra-coastal Waterway, south and west of the Highway 70 Bridge, from approximately mile 204 of the Atlantic Intra-coastal Waterway to mile 206, traffic would be allowed to pass through the regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. In the case where the Patrol Commander authorizes passage through the regulated area during the event, vessels would be required to proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course. The Patrol Commander would allow non-participating vessels to transit the event area between races. Before the enforcement period, we would issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, listed at the beginning of this rule. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” is not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. From 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on September 24, 2006, add a temporary § 100.35-T05-057 to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(2) The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must: (i) Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed.
(ii) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Official Patrol.
(iii) When authorized to transit the regulated area, all vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course.
(d)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are extending the public comment period on the proposed special rule for the threatened Pacific Coast distinct population segment of the western snowy plover (
The public comment period for the proposed special rule published on April 21, 2006 (71 FR 20625) is extended to August 21, 2006. Any comments received after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on the proposal.
You may submit comments and other information, identified by Attn: WSP-4(d), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Comments and materials received for this rule will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office at the above
Jim Watkins, Biologist, at the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (see
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed special 4(d) rule by any one of several methods (see
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Commenters may request that we withhold their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowed by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a commenter's identity, 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. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. 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 inspection in their entirety.
On April 21, 2006, the Service published a proposed special rule (71 FR 20625) under section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public that we have supplemented with an addendum the environmental assessment for a proposed field trial of pink bollworm genetically engineered to express green fluorescence as a marker. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) proposes to use this marked strain to assess the effectiveness of lower doses of radiation to create sterile insects for its pink bollworm sterile insect program. This program, using sterile insect technique, has been conducted by APHIS, with State and grower cooperation, since 1968. Data gained from this field experiment will be used to improve the current program. APHIS has supplemented its environmental assessment in order to evaluate a new location and new conditions for the field test. The addendum is available to the public for review and comment.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 5, 2006.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your
Dr. Robyn Rose, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-0489. To obtain copies of the supplemented EA and FONSI, contact Ms. Ingrid Berlanger at (301) 734-4885; e-mail:
The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.” A permit must be obtained or a notification acknowledged before a regulated article may be introduced. The regulations set forth the permit application requirements and the notification procedures for the importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment of a regulated article.
On April 8, 2005, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) received a permit application (APHIS No. 05-098-01r) from APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Center for Plant Health Science and Technology (CPHST) Decision Support and Pest Management Systems Laboratory in Phoenix, AZ, for a field trial using the pink bollworm (PBW),
On April 19, 2006, APHIS published a notice
The subject transgenic PBW is considered a regulated article under the regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because the recipient organism is a plant pest. The proposed field test will evaluate the mating efficiency and competitiveness of the transgenic insects in the field. The transgenic PBW will be reared in the Phoenix PBW genetic rearing facility and treated with radiation levels suitable to induce F1 sterility. The irradiated insects will be released into a 4.6-acre field site in the middle of a 40- to 80-acre field of cotton expressing the Bt toxin, which is toxic to PBW. This release is part of the research to support and improve CPHST's PBW sterile insect program. Information resulting from this research will be used in support of APHIS' efforts to eradicate the PBW in the United States.
Additional information on the PBW eradication plan for the United States may be found at
On February 13, 2006, APHIS published a notice
APHIS has prepared an addendum to the EA to address the potential impacts on the human environment and threatened or endangered species that may have arisen from changing the field site and field trial design. This document is available as an attachment to the EA [see
7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), Department of Agriculture.
Proposed collection; comments requested.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Rural Business-Cooperative Service's (RBS) intention to request an extension of a currently approved information collection in support of the Intermediary Relending Program (IRP).
Comments on this notice must be received by August 21, 2006 to be assured of consideration.
Lori Washington, Specialty Lenders Division, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 3225, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3225, Telephone (202) 720-9815, E-mail
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division at (202) 692-0043.
Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of RBS, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of RBS's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended), the Rural Utilities Service, an agency delivering the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development Utilities Programs, invites comments on this information collection for which approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will be requested.
Comments on this notice must be received by August 21, 2006.
Michele Brooks, Deputy Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA Rural Development, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., STOP 1522, Room 5159 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-1078. FAX: (202) 720-4120.
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (
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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Michele Brooks, Deputy Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA Rural Development, STOP 1522, 1400 Independence Ave.,
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Michele Brooks, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 690-1078. FAX: (202) 720-4120.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval.
All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of availability of an Environmental Assessment for public review.
The Rural Utilities Service, an agency which administers the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Development Utilities Programs (USDA Rural Development) proposes to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) related to possible financial assistance to East Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC) for the proposed construction of approximately 15.21 miles of 161 kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line in Warren County, Kentucky. EKPC is requesting the USDA Rural Development to provide financial assistance for the proposed project.
Written comments on this Notice must be received on or before July 20, 2006.
The EA will be available for public review at the USDA Rural Development, Utilities Programs, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1571; at the USDA Rural Development's Web site—
Written comments should be sent to: Ms. Stephanie Strength, Environmental Protection Specialist, USDA, Rural Development, Utilities Programs, Engineering and Environmental Staff, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 1571, Washington, DC 20250-1571, or e-mail:
Stephanie Strength, Environmental Protection Specialist, USDA, Rural Development, Utilities Programs, Engineering and Environmental Staff, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 1571, Washington, DC 20250-1571, Telephone: (202) 720-0468. Ms. Strength's e-mail address is
The proposed project area is located in central Warren County, Kentucky. The proposed route for the new electric transmission line extends westerly following an existing electric utility line rights-of-way (ROW) from an existing substation at an automotive assembly plant located east of Bowling Green, Kentucky, to an existing electric generating station located on the southern side of the Barren River in northern Bowling Green. The proposed route then extends in a general southwesterly direction paralleling an existing electric transmission line from the generating station and following an existing electric transmission line ROW to a point where the route extends due south to connect to an existing electric substation southwest of Memphis Junction, Kentucky.
Alternatives considered by the USDA Rural Development and EKPC included: (a) No action, (b) alternate transmission line routes, and (c) other electrical alternatives. An Environmental Report (ER) that describes the proposed project in detail and discusses its anticipated environmental impacts has been prepared by EKPC. The USDA Rural Development has accepted the ER as its EA of the proposed project. The EA is available for public review at addresses provided above in this Notice.
Questions and comments should be sent to Ms. Stephanie Strength, USDA Rural Development at the mailing or e-mail addresses provided above in this Notice. The USDA Rural Development should receive comments on the EA in writing by July 20, 2006 to ensure that they are considered in its environmental impact determination.
Should the USDA Rural Development determine, based on the EA of the proposed project, that the impacts of the construction and operation of the project would not have a significant environmental impact, it will prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact. Public notification of a Finding of No Significant Impact would be published in the
Any final action by the USDA Rural Development related to the proposed project will be subject to, and contingent upon, compliance with all relevant Federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations, and completion of the environmental review requirements as prescribed in the USDA Rural Development's Environmental Policies and Procedures (7 CFR part 1794).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On April 3, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review for this order. As a result of the sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. The dumping margins are identified in the
June 20, 2006.
Audrey Twyman or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3534 and (202) 482-0182, respectively.
On April 3, 2006, the Department published the notice of initiation of the second sunset review of the antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c)(2) of the Department's Regulations (“Sunset Regulations”).
We received a complete substantive response from the domestic interested party within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no responses from respondent interested parties. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the order.
The merchandise covered by this order is furfuryl alcohol (C4H3OCH2OH). Furfuryl alcohol is a primary alcohol, and is colorless or pale yellow in appearance. It is used in the manufacture of resins and as a wetting agent and solvent for coating resins, nitrocellulose, cellulose acetate, and other soluble dyes.
The product subject to this order is classifiable under subheading 2932.13.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
All issues raised in this review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Furfuryl Alcohol from The People's Republic of China; Final Results” (“Decision Memo”) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated August 1, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the order was to be revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in the review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in room B-099 of the main Commerce building.
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at
We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins:
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of proposed authorization for an incidental take authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received a request from the URS Corporation (URS) for an authorization to take small numbers of California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and gray whales, by harassment, incidental to geographical seismic surveys being conducted by Fugro West, Inc. (Fugro), in south San
Comments and information must be received no later than July 20, 2006.
Comments on the application and draft Environmental Assessment (EA) should be addressed to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning the contact listed here. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is
Shane Guan, NMFS, (301) 713-2289, ext 137, or Monica DeAngelis, NMFS, (562) 980-3232.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as ”...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:
any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization.
On March 30, 2006, URS on behalf of Fugro submitted an application to NMFS requesting an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) for the possible harassment of small numbers of California sea lions (
The proposed seismic study would span from Newark Slough and Plummer Creek adjacent to the Cargill Salt property in the east, to the Ravenswood Baylands open space on the western shore of SFB. The study would roughly parallel the existing SFPUC trans-bay pipelines, approximately 1 mile south of the Dumbarton Bridge. Marine seismic surveys would take approximately 8 - 10 days to perform. In the Newark Slough and Plummer Creek areas, work would be restricted to the non-pupping seasons of the harbor seal (July 1 - November 30). The ideal start date would occur during the summer/fall of 2006.
The proposed geophysical (seismic) studies would include 21 seismic sample transects. A total of 25 - 35 linear miles (40 - 56 km) of marine-based geophysical sampling would occur. The marine seismic reflection data would be collected along a series of lines that cross the Bay centered over the projected alignment. A centerline and four wing lines are planned. Cross lines, or tie lines, would be run perpendicular to the centerline and extend 200 - 500 m (656 - 1,640 ft) beyond the alignment parallel lines, unless restricted by water depth or man-made obstructions. Water depths in the survey area range from roughly 14 m (45 ft) in the deeper mid-Bay channel to about 1.8 - 2.4 m (6 - 8 ft) along the shore and in Newark Slough at high tide. Work would be conducted at high tide in the shallow nearshore areas.
Data would be collected from a small boat that tows a seismic energy source and a multichannel hydrophone. Two energy sources would be used, a Squid “minisparker” system and a Geopulse “boomer” system. An onboard generator powers the energy sources. The hydrophone contains multiple sensors that detect the seismic waves reflected from the water bottom and subsea floor sediments and rocks. The hydrophone is filled with inert silicon oil.
The survey boat would travel along predetermined survey lines using a differential global positioning system (DGPS) for navigation. Boat speed during surveys would be at 3 - 4 knots. The length of time for each survey transect will vary depending on the total distance of the transect. The longest transects spanning from east to west would take about 1 hour to complete. The shorter north-south transect would generally take less than 30 minutes to complete.
The energy source would be fired every 1/2 second (boomer) or 1 second (minisparker). Data received by the hydrophone are recorded with an onboard seismograph and laptop computer. Sound pressure level from a boomer operating at 350 joules is 204 dB re 1 microPa
The marine mammals most likely to be found in SFB are the California sea lion, Pacific harbor seal, and harbor
Within the proposed project area, Pacific harbor seals are know to haul-out near the junction of Newark Slough and Plummer Creek. Newark Slough is a continually used seal haul-out site, although it is used by small numbers of harbor seals compared with Mowry Slough to the south and Yerba Buena Island and Castro Rocks in the North Bay. Harbor seals are also known to utilize Newark Slough as a pupping site (Harvey and Oates, 2002) and up to 82 individuals have been documented hauling-out at that location on a single day. During a five-year survey period between 2000 and 2005 at Newark Slough, an average of 42 individuals were counted each year during the pupping season, compared to Mowry Slough 2 miles to the south, where an average of 279 animals were counted each year during the pupping season. The California stock of harbor seal is the only stock of this species found in the proposed project area, and its abundance is estimated to be 27,863 (Carretta
California sea lions breed off the Central and Southern California coastline. Once the pupping season is completed (May - June), male sea lions migrate north and enter the Bay. Although California sea lions are mainly known for haul-out sites off the San Francisco and Marin shorelines within the Bay, it is possible for this species to forage in the south Bay area as well. The U.S. stock of the California sea lion population is estimated between 237,000 to 244,000 (Carretta
In the past, eastern Pacific gray whales have been seen irregularly in SFB. These individuals likely wandered off the migration route. The number of gray whales observed in the Bay increased in 1999 and 2000, and the observed whales apparently were feeding in a number of areas in May and June. The increased aberrancies of gray whale sightings in timing and location, along with foraging activities on its migration route in 1999 and 2000, were potentially caused by a significant decline in amphipod density in gray whale's feeding ground in the Bering and Chukchi seas (Le Boeuf
Harbor porpoises found in waters off the coast of central California from San Francisco to Point Arena belong to the San Francisco-Russian River stock. Year-round surveys in the Gulf of the Farallones area have shown harbor porpoise occurrence within 10 - 20 km (6 - 12 miles) of San Francisco Bay (Calambokidis
Seismic surveys using acoustic energy may have the potential to adversely impact marine mammals in the vicinity of the activities (Gordon
The proposed studies would use a low intensity acoustic energy with source levels of 204 dB re 1 microPa at 1 m RMS (boomer) and 209 dB re 1 microPa at 1 m RMS (minisparker) to conduct the seismic surveys. However, it is unlikely that any marine mammals in the vicinity would be exposed to high sound pressure levels (SPL) due to transmission loss of the acoustic energy in the water column. In addition, the sound pulses produced by the energy sources are extremely short, lasting for only 0.1 ms for the boomer and 0.8 ms for the minisparker. Therefore, the energy from the seismic impulse is expected to be significantly low.
Pinniped disturbance could also be caused by the presence of vessels and humans that are involved in the geographical surveys. These disturbances could cause hauled out harbor seals or California sea lions to flush and possibly result in temporary use of alternate haul-out sites in the Bay. However, long term abandonment of the sites is not likely because noise from traffic, recreational boaters, and other human activities already occur in the area, and it is likely that these animals have become habituated to these disturbances.
Furthermore, marine mammal densities within the proposed project are typically very low. California sea lions, harbor porpoises and gray whales are not known to regularly visit the proposed project area, which is located in southern SFB. Although harbor seals use portions of the proposed project area as haul-out sites, their density is low. Within the last 5 years, individual harbor seals counted while hauling-out at the Newark Slough haul-out site during the post-pupping season have fluctuated between a maximum of 34 animals in 2001 to a minimum of 10 animals in 2005 (DeAngelis, personal comm. 2006). Numbers of harbor seals counted at the Newark Slough haul-out site during May 2001 and May 2002 (pupping season) ranged from 26 - 65 individuals. Lastly, the entire geophysical survey would only last for 8 - 10 days, which excludes any possible long term noise exposure to marine mammals in the vicinity of the proposed action area.
Based on this information, NMFS concludes that a small number of Pacific harbor seals, California sea lions, harbor porpoises, and gray whales that may be swimming, foraging, or resting in the project vicinity would be potentially taken by Level B behavioral harassment due to the proposed activity. In addition, proposed mitigation measures discussed below would greatly reduce the potential takes of marine mammals due to the proposed geophysical surveys.
The following mitigation measures are proposed be required under the proposed IHA to be issued to SFPUC for conducting geophysical surveys in southern SFB. NMFS believes that the implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to marine mammals to the lowest extent practicable.
Geophysical studies would only be conducted during daylight hours from 7 am - 7 pm, when marine mammal monitoring prior to and during the surveys would be most effective.
Seismic studies would not occur in the vicinity of Newark Slough or Plummer Creek during the harbor seal pupping season (March 1 - June 30). Seismic studies would only occur over open water transects during that period.
Safety zones would be established and monitored during the seismic surveys. The applicant proposes to establish a 45-m (148-ft) radius safety zone for the boomer system and a 100-m (328-ft) radius for the minisparker system. At these distances, the SPLs would be reduced to 179 dB re 1 microPa rms and 169 dB re 1 microPa rms, respectively, which is lower than NMFS standards set for avoiding marine mammal Level A harassment (180 dB re 1 microPa rms for cetaceans and 190 dB re 1 microPa rms for pinnipeds).
Observers on boats will survey the safety zone for 15 minutes to ensure that no marine mammals are seen within the zone before a seismic survey begins. If marine mammals are found within the safety zone, seismic surveys will be delayed until they move out of the area. If a marine mammal is seen above the water and then dives below, the surveyor will wait 15 minutes and if no marine mammals are seen by the observer in that time it will be assumed that the animal has moved beyond the safety zone. This 15-minute criterion is based on scientific evidence that harbor seals in San Francisco Bay dive for a mean time of 0.50 minutes to 3.33 minutes (Harvey and Torok, 1994), the mean diving duration for harbor porpoises ranges from 44 to 103 seconds (Westgate
Although marine mammals will be protected from Level A harassment by establishment of a safety zone at a SPL levels of 169 and 179 dB re 1 microPa rms, mitigation may not be 100 percent effective at all times in locating marine mammals. In order to provide additional protection to marine mammals near the project area by allowing marine mammals to vacate the area prior to receiving a potential injury, and to further reduce Level B harassment by startling marine mammals with a sudden intensive sound, Fugro will implement “soft start” practice when starting up acoustic equipment. By implementing the “soft start” practice, acoustic equipment will be initiated at an energy level less than full capacity (i.e., approximately 40-60 percent energy levels) for at least 5 minutes before gradually escalating to full capacity. This would ensure that, although not expected, any pinnipeds and cetaceans that are missed during safety zone monitoring will not be injured.
With all the aforementioned mitigation measures in place, marine mammals may still enter the safety zone when geophysical surveys are underway. As a result, there is a possibility that Level A harassment could occur to these animals when exposed to intensive sounds. In order to prevent any potential Level A harassment to marine mammals from occurring, the surveyors will shut down the acoustic equipment if a marine mammal is sighted in or believed to have entered within the safety zone during the survey transect. The surveyors would not start the acoustic equipment again until the marine mammal leaves the safety zone, or no marine mammals are sighted within the safety zone for 15 minutes after the last sighting.
URS will develop a monitoring plan that would collect data for each distinct marine mammal species observed in the south Bay proposed project area during the period of the seismic surveys. Marine mammal behavior, overall numbers of individuals observed, frequency of observation, the time corresponding to the daily tidal cycle, and any behavioral changes due to the geophysical surveys will be recorded on daily observation sheets.
Monitoring would be conducted by qualified NMFS-approved biologists. Binoculars and optical or digital laser range finders that are accurate to 3 feet (0.9 m) would be standard equipment for the monitors.
Monitoring would begin prior to the first day of the survey to establish baseline data, and would occur from a chase boat during the 8 - 10 day survey period. Post-survey monitoring would occur for a period of one day upon completion of the seismic studies.
Before the startup of the survey equipment, a marine mammal observer would visually survey the area for 15 minutes to confirm the safety zone is clear of any marine mammals. Seismic surveys will not begin until the safety zone is clear of marine mammals. Two observers would be present when surveys start onboard a separate boat and scan different sections of the overall survey area, particularly the safety zone. However, as described in the Mitigation section, once seismic survey of a transect begins, operations will continue uninterrupted until that transect is completed. However, if seismic survey of one transect is completed and a marine mammal is sighted within the designated safety zone prior to commencement of the next transect, the observer(s) must notify the surveyor (or other authorized individual) immediately and follow the mitigation requirements as outlined previously (see Mitigation).
URS would submit a final report to NMFS 90 days after completion of the proposed project. The final report would include data collected for each distinct marine mammal species observed in the south Bay proposed project area during the period of the seismic surveys. Marine mammal behavior, overall numbers of individuals observed, frequency of observation, and any behavioral changes due to the geophysical surveys would also be included in the final report.
NMFS has prepared a draft EA for public review and comment (see
Based on a review conducted by NMFS biologists, no ESA-listed species are expected to occur in the proposed action area, therefore, NMFS has determined that this action will have no effect on listed species, and a section 7 consultation is not necessary.
For the reasons discussed in this document and in the identified supporting documents, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the impact of seismic surveys and other activities associated in the south SFB would result, at worst, in the Level B harassment of small numbers of California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and potentially gray whales that inhabit or visit south SFB. While behavioral modifications, including temporarily vacating the area during the survey period of 8 - 10 days, may be made by these species to avoid the resultant visual and acoustic disturbance, the availability of alternate areas within SFB and haul-out sites (including pupping sites) and feeding
In addition, no take by Level A harassment (injury) or death is anticipated and harassment takes should be at the lowest level practicable due to incorporation of the mitigation measures described in this document.
NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to Fugro for the potential harassment of small numbers of harbor seals, California sea lions, harbor porpoises, and gray whales incidental to conducting of seismic surveys in south San Francisco Bay in California, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments, information, and suggestions concerning this request (see
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Notice to delete a Privacy Act System of Records: COMMERCE/NTIA-1, “Radio Spectrum Management Career Development Program.”
In accordance with the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4) and (11)), the Department of Commerce is issuing notice of its intent to delete the system of records entitled “Radio Spectrum Management Career Development Program.” This system of records is no longer collected or maintained by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. There are no records remaining in the system.
To be considered, written comments must be submitted on or before July 20, 2006. Unless comments are received, the deletion of the system of records will become effective as proposed on the date of publication of a subsequent notice in the
Written comments may be mailed to Stacy Cheney, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Room 4713, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20231. Paper submissions should include a 3 1/2 inch computer diskette in HTML, ASCII, Word, or WordPerfect format (please specify version). Diskettes should be labeled with the name and organization affiliation of the filer, and the name of the word processing program used to create the document. Comments may be submitted electronically to the following electronic mail address:
This Privacy Act System of Records is being deleted because the records are no longer collected or maintained by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. There are no records remaining in the system.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) has received a petition (HP 06-1) requesting that the Commission ban toy jewelry containing more than 0.06% lead. The Commission solicits written comments concerning the petition.
The Office of the Secretary must receive comments on the petition by August 21, 2006.
Comments on the petition may be filed by e-mail to
Rockelle Hammond, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway; telephone (301) 504-6833,
The Commission has received correspondence from the Sierra Club requesting that the Commission classify toy jewelry containing more than 0.06% lead as a banned hazardous substance under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). The request for a ban on toy jewelry containing more than 0.06% lead was docketed as petition number HP 06-1 under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, 15 U.S.C. 1261-1278.
The Sierra Club states that the Commission should adopt regulations declaring that any toy jewelry containing more than 0.06% lead by weight for which there is a reasonably foreseeable possibility that children could ingest be declared a banned hazardous substance under the FHSA. The Sierra Club also states that the 0.06% level may not be low enough to protect children and should be an interim step until a determination of a more appropriate cutoff is made. In addition, the Sierra Club asserts that it believes that toy jewelry is any item that serves a decorative but no or minimal functional purpose that is valued at less than $20 per item. According to the Sierra Club, people are less likely to store such low-cost jewelry in secure containers or out of reach from children.
Interested parties may obtain a copy of the petition on the CPSC Web site at
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (hereinafter the “Corporation”), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirement on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, the Corporation is soliciting comments concerning its proposed voluntary online registration of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day of Service projects. Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service, Attention: Rhonda Taylor, Project Officer, Room 10303, 1201 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20525.
(2) By hand delivery or by courier to the Corporation's mailroom, at Room 8102C, at the street address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
(3) By fax to: (202) 606-3460, Attention: Rhonda Taylor, Project Officer, Office of Public Affairs.
(4) Electronically through the Corporation's e-mail address system:
Rhonda Taylor, (202) 606-6721, or by e-mail at
The Corporation is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and,
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
The Corporation for National and Community Service administers Martin Luther King, Jr., Service Day as part of the National Service Act (42 U.S.C. 12653(s)). To support the success of this service day, the Corporation for National and Community Service seeks to help promote this program to potential participants through a voluntary online project registration. Martin Luther King, Jr., Service Day projects, whether funded by the Corporation or not, will be able to register their projects, indicate if they need additional volunteers, and list specific project details. The information collected will be used to post the projects on the Corporation's Martin Luther King, Jr., Service Day Web site at
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy herby gives notice of its intent to grant to Soil and Topography Information, LLC., a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license in the United States to practice the Government-Owned invention(s) described in U.S. Patent Number 5,316,950 entitled “Method for quantitative calibration of in situ optical chemical measurements in soils using soil class and characteristics”, issue date May 31, 2002.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than July 5, 2006.
Written objections are to be filed with the Office of Research and Technology Applications, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, Code 2112, 83570 Silvergate Ave., Room 2306, San Diego, CA 92152-5048.
Dr. Stephen H. Lieberman, Office of Research and Technology Applications, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, Code 2112, 83570 Silvergate Ave., Room 2306, San Diego, CA 92152-
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to SSC Development, LLC, a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license in the United States to practice the Government-owned invention(s) described in U.S. Patent No. 6,466,515 entitled, “Power-Efficient Sonar System Employing a Waveform and Processing Method for Improved Range Resolution at High Doppler Sensitivity,” issue date October 15, 2002.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than July 5, 2006.
Written objections are to be filed with the Office of Research and Technology Applications, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, Code 2112, 83570 Silvergate Ave., Room 2306, San Diego, CA 92152-5048.
Dr. Stephen H. Lieberman, Office of Research and Technology Applications, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, Code 2112, 83570 Silvergate Ave., Room 2306, San Diego, CA 92152-5048, telephone 619-553-2778, or e-Mail
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of application.
Cinergy Marketing & Trading, LP (CMT) has applied for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests, or requests to intervene must be submitted on or before July 20, 2006.
Comments, protests, or requests to intervene should be addressed as follows: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350 (FAX 202-586-5860).
Ellen Russell (Program Office), 202-586-9624 or Michael Skinker (Program Attorney), 202-586-2793.
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On June 6, 2006, the Department of Energy (DOE) received an application from CMT for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer. CMT is a Delaware limited partnership with its principal place of business in Houston, TX. CMT has requested an electricity export authorization with a 5-year term. CMT does not own or control any generation, transmission, or distribution assets, nor does it have a franchised service area. The electric energy which CMT proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy purchased from electric utilities, Federal power marketing agencies, and other entities within the U.S.
CMT will arrange for the delivery of exports to Canada over the international transmission facilities owned by Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Bonneville Power Administration, Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative, International Transmission Co., Joint Owners of the Highgate Project, Long Sault, Inc., Maine Electric Power Company, Maine Public Service Company, Minnesota Power, Inc., Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc., New York Power Authority, Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., Northern States Power Company, Vermont Electric Power Company, and Vermont Electric Transmission Co.
The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of each of the international transmission facilities to be utilized by CMT has previously been authorized by a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended.
Comments on the CMT application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with Docket No. EA-316. Additional copies are to be filed directly with Jason S. Austin, Senior Counsel, Cinergy Marketing & Trading, LP, 1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 4900, Houston, TX 77002.
A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above or by e-mailing Odessa Hopkins at
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of application; request for rescission.
AEP Texas Central Company (TCC) has applied for a Presidential
Comments, protests, or requests to intervene must be submitted on or before July 20, 2006.
Comments, protests, or requests to intervene should be addressed as follows: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350.
Ellen Russell (Program Office), 202-586-9624 or Michael T. Skinker (Program Attorney), 202-586-2793.
The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities at the international border of the United States for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country is prohibited in the absence of a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 10485, as amended by EO 12038.
On January 24, 1975, the Federal Power Commission, predecessor agency of the Department of Energy, in Docket No. E-8057, now Presidential Permit No. PP-57, authorized CFE to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a 138,000-volt (138-kV) electric transmission line across the U.S.-Mexico international border in the vicinity of Loredo, Texas.
On June 12, 2006, American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEPSC), acting as the agent for TCC, formerly doing business as Central Power and Light Company (CPL), filed an application with the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) for a Presidential permit. TCC proposes to construct a double circuit 230,000-volt (230-kV) electric transmission line across the U.S.-Mexico international border. In the same application CFE requests DOE rescind Presidential Permit No. PP-57 if the TCC-requested permit is issued.
The existing international transmission facilities authorized in Presidential Permit No. PP-57 consist of a single-circuit 138-kV transmission line that originates at TCC's existing Laredo Power Plant Station, in Laredo, Texas. The facilities continue west approximately 0.3 miles to the Rio Grande River, the U.S.-Mexico international border, and continue to CFE's Ciudad Industrial Station in Laredo Nuevo, Mexico. In its application TCC proposes construct a new 230-kV circuit between the Laredo Power Plant and the CFE system and to rebuild and convert the existing 138-kV facilities to a 230-kV transmission circuit to be operated initially at 138-kV. The proposed double circuit facilities are to be operated as an asynchronous tie using a Variable Frequency Transformer (VFT). The VFT equipment would convert the interconnection with CFE from a block-over synchronous radial feed configuration to a continuous asynchronous connection. The proposed facilities would be constructed on steel monopole structures and would be sited along the center-line of the existing right-of-way. The existing wood transmission structures would be replaced with approximately four steel monopole structures. All facilities and equipment to be constructed, including the VFT, would be placed within the existing fence of the Laredo Power Plant.
TCC has indicated its intention to operate the proposed facilities as an open access transmission facility. If DOE were to grant the Presidential permit requested in OE Docket No. PP-317, it would simultaneously rescind Presidential Permit No. PP-57 issued to CFE.
Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding or to be heard by filing comments or protests to this application should file a petition to intervene, comment or protest at the address provided above in accordance with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the FERC's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with the DOE on or before the date listed above.
Additional copies of such petitions to intervene or protests also should be filed directly with: Terri Gallup, Regulatory Case Manager, American Electric Power Service Corporation, 212 East Sixth Street, Tulsa, OK 74119-1295 and Carolyn Y. Thompson, Esq., Jones Day, 51 Louisiana Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20001-2113A.
A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system. In addition, DOE must obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense before taking final action on a Presidential permit application.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above. In addition, copies of the application can be obtained from Ms. Odessa Hopkins at 202-586-7751, or by e-mail at
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice.
The Department of Energy (hereafter “the Department”) announces the extension of the time period for evaluation and decision on the disposition of the California Energy Commission's Petition for Exemption from Federal Preemption of California's Water Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers (hereafter “California Petition”). In accordance with section 327(d)(2) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (hereafter “EPCA”), the Department is extending the time period for issuing a decision on the California Petition from June 23, 2006, to December 23, 2006. The Department is extending this time period in order to allow it adequate time to evaluate the California Petition in light of public comments received on the California Petition and the California Energy Commission's (hereafter “CEC”) rebuttal comments received by the Department on May 15, 2006.
The Department is extending the time period of evaluation of the California Petition from June 23, 2006 to December 23, 2006.
For access to the docket to read background documents relevant to
Electronic copies of the California Petition are available online at either the Department of Energy's Web site at the following URL address:
Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-0371. E-mail:
I. Authority
II. Background
Part B of Title III of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) Products covered under the program, including residential clothes washers, and the authority to regulate them, are listed in section 322. (42 U.S.C. 6292) Section 325(g) (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)) establishes standards for certain types of residential clothes washers and requires the Department to issue two rulemakings to consider further amendments.
Federal energy efficiency requirements for residential products generally preempt State laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) However, the Department can grant waivers of Federal preemption (hereafter “waiver” or “exemption”) for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of section 327(d) of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) In particular, section 327(d)(1)(A) of EPCA provides that any State or river basin commission with a State regulation regarding energy use, energy efficiency, or water use requirements for products regulated by the Energy Conservation Program, may petition for an exemption from Federal preemption and seek to apply its own State regulation. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(1)(A))
Section 327(d)(2) of EPCA requires that the Department afford interested persons a reasonable opportunity to make written comments, including rebuttal comments, related to the petition. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(2)) In addition, section 327(d)(2) of EPCA provides the Department with the authority to extend its decision date to within one year after the date on which the Department accepted the petition. However, the Department must publish notice of this extension in the
On September 16, 2005, the Department received a petition from the CEC, dated September 13, 2005, pursuant to the requirements of section 327(d) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) and Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart D, and sections 430.41(a)(1) and 430.42 of the CFR. However, by letter dated November 18, 2005, the Department notified the CEC that its petition had failed to comply with certain requirements set out in 10 CFR 430.42(c). The CEC responded on December 5, 2005, and provided the required information. By letter dated December 23, 2005, the Department notified the CEC that it had accepted the California Petition as supplemented.
In accordance with section 327(d)(2) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)(2)) and 10 CFR 430.43, the Department published notice of the California Petition in the
In order to afford the CEC a reasonable opportunity to review public comments and provide rebuttal, the Department notified the CEC by letter dated April 14, 2006, of its opportunity to provide rebuttal comments. CEC rebuttal comments were received by the Department on May 15, 2006.
In this notice, the Department extends the period for evaluation of the California Petition to December 23, 2006, in order to provide the Department adequate time to evaluate the petition in light of public comments and CEC rebuttal comments received. The Department will consider the information and views submitted and make a determination on the California Petition. At such point, the Department will either provide notice of a proposed rule on which it will seek written and oral comment, or provide a notice of, and the reasons for, denial of the California Petition.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of meeting.
Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92463, EPA gives notice of a public teleconference of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). NACEPT provides advice to the EPA Administrator on a broad range of environmental policy, technology, and management issues. The Council is a panel of experts who represent diverse interests from academia, industry, non-governmental organizations, and local, state, and tribal governments. The purpose of this teleconference is to discuss and approve comments on EPA's Draft 2006-2011 Strategic Plan from a subset of the Council. A copy of the agenda for the meeting will be posted at
NACEPT will hold a public teleconference on Friday, July 7, 2006 at 2 p.m.—3:30 p.m. eastern daylight time.
The meeting will be held in the U.S. EPA Office of Cooperative Environmental Management at 655 15th Street, NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20005.
Sonia Altieri, Designated Federal Officer,
Requests to make oral comments or to provide written comments to the Council should be sent to Sonia Altieri, Designated Federal Officer, at the contact information above by July 3, 2006. The public is welcome to attend all portions of the meeting, but seating is limited and is allocated on a first-come, first-serve basis. Members of the public wishing to gain access to the conference room on the day of the meeting must contact Sonia Altieri at (202) 233-0061 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public teleconference of the SAB Ecological Processes and Effects Committee.
The public teleconference will be held on July 12, 2006, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. (eastern daylight time).
Members of the public who wish to obtain the call-in number and access code for the teleconference may contact Dr. Thomas Armitage, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by mail at EPA SAB Staff Office (1400F), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at (202) 343-9995; or by e-mail at
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the SAB Ecological Processes and Effects Committee will hold a public teleconference to discuss a draft ecological risk assessment workshop summary document. On February 7-8, 2006, the Committee held a public workshop on the state-of-the-practice of ecological risk assessment. Background information on the workshop was provided in a
Members of the public may submit relevant written or oral information for the SAB Committee to consider during the advisory process. Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a public teleconference will be limited to three minutes per speaker with no more than a total of fifteen minutes for all speakers. Interested parties should contact the DFO, contact information provided above, in writing via e-mail seven days before the teleconference in order to be placed on the public speaker list. Written Statements: Written statements should be received in the SAB Staff Office at least seven days before the meeting so that the information may be made available to the Panel for their consideration. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO in the following formats: one hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat, WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files (in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format).
For information on access or services for people with disabilities, please contact the DFO, contact information provided above. To request accommodation of a disability please contact the DFO, preferably at least ten business days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006, 9:30 a.m. eastern time.
Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr. Conference Room on the Ninth Floor of the EEOC Office Building, 1801 “L” Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507.
The meeting will be open to the public.
1. Announcement of Notation Votes, and
2. Employment of Individuals with Disabilities in the Federal Government.
In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the meeting will be open to public observation of the Commission's deliberations and voting. (In addition to publishing notices on EEOC Commission meetings in the
Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) and (202) 663-4074 (TTY) at any time for information on these meetings.
Stephen Llewellyn, Acting Executive Officer on (202) 663-4070.
The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Wednesday, June 21, 2006, which is scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. in Room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC.
Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Include a description of the accommodation you will need including as much detail as you can. Also include a way we can contact you if we need more information. Make your request as early as possible; please allow at least 5 days advance notice. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an e-mail to:
Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from Audrey Spivack or David Fiske, Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC's Audio/Video Events Web page at
For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services call (703) 993-3100 or go to
Copies of materials adopted at this meeting can be purchased from the FCC's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (202) 488-5300; Fax (202) 488-5563; TTY (202) 488-5562. These copies are available in paper format and alternative media, including large print/type; digital disk; and audio and video tape. Best Copy and Printing, Inc. may be reached by e-mail at
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 Web site 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 14, 2006.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 15, 2006.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
12:00 p.m., Monday, June 26, 2006.
Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.
Closed.
1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees.
2. Space planning and possible leasing of space for the Federal Reserve Board.
3. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.
Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-2955.
You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 16, 2006.
Office on Women's Health, Office of Public Health and Science, Office of the Secretary, DHHS.
Notice; correction.
The Office on Women's Health, Office of Public Health and Science, Office of the Secretary, published a notice in the
(1) Corrects the Anticipated Award date for the grant awards.
(2) Amends the expected increase of funding available for this grant; thereby, increasing the number of grants to be awarded, and also increasing the funding amount for each individual grant award.
(3) Corrects the number of pages to be submitted for the Project Narrative description to be submitted in the grant application.
(4) Corrects the omission of the Office on Minority Health as a partner during the performance period of this grant.
(5) Corrects some statistical data provided in the announcement.
(6) Corrects some page numbers listed in the Reference section in the announcement.
Dr. Suzanne Haynes, 202-205-2623.
In the
In the
In the
Under this announcement, OWH/ORWH/NIH and OMH anticipate making, through the cooperative
Approximately $1,000,000 in FY 2006 funds is available to make individual grant awards up to $250,000 total cost (direct and indirect) for an 18-month period. The actual number of awards will depend on the quality of the applications received and the amount of funds available for the program. The government is not obligated to make any awards as a result of this announcement.
In the
In the
In the
“If funding is requested in an award range ($250,000 for an 18-month budget period), the application will be returned with notification that it did not meet the submission requirements.”
In the
In the
In the
Office on Women's Health, Office of Public Health and Science, Office of the Secretary, DHHS.
Notice.
The Office on Women's Health (OWH) is the focal point for women's health within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Under the direction of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Women's Health, OWH provides leadership to promote the health equity for women and girls through gender-specific approaches. To that end, OWH has established public/private partnerships to address critical women's health issues nationwide. These include supporting collaborative efforts to provide accurate prevention education and programs for young women at risk for developing type II diabetes because they are overweight or obese.
These awards focus on the HHS initiative
This program is authorized by 42 U.S.C. 300u-2(a).
This cooperative grant announcement focuses on the development and demonstration of creative and innovative approaches that are effective in reducing the prevalence of overweight/obesity in young women, ages 16-24, by increasing the number of women who adopt positive, healthy, lifestyles. Organizations will be provided with funding that will aid in the development, expansion, or sustainment of effective obesity-related programs in order to effect lifestyle changes that will prevent the development of type II diabetes in the targeted population. The interventions implemented must be substantive in nature, incorporating evidenced-based nutrition, physical activity, and health/wellness components, while also positively impacting knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors.
Proposals must include programs for women who are members of racial and ethnic minority populations who are disproportionately affected by overweight/obesity. Grantees will be asked to describe the characteristics of its target population. Programs that seek to target audiences with a prevalence of overweight/obesity greater than 25% are particularly encouraged to submit proposals.
The grantee shall send two representatives to a two-day post-award orientation meeting in Washington, DC. This meeting shall occur within 2 months of grant award. The project manager of the program and a representative who holds a leadership position in the organization must attend the meeting. Travel funds for this meeting must come out of the total award funding and should be included in the applicant's cost proposal.
The purpose of the post-award orientation meeting will be to clarify tasks and requirements and answer any questions that grantees may have. Grantees shall also share their program plans, approaches, and best practices with each other through presentations and roundtable discussions.
A multi-disciplinary planning committee shall be formed consisting of representatives from the organizations, health care professionals, and educators (one member with at least a B.S. in human nutrition, preferably a registered
Existing curriculum from successfully tested and evaluated obesity prevention intervention programs should be obtained and adapted for this program. DHHS/OWH will offer general resources, such as “The Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005,” which incorporates weight management information and calorie-lowering strategies, including the DASH diet (2,000 calorie maintenance). The curriculum and materials must be both culturally and educationally appropriate and women-centered (
Each scheduled intervention shall aim to recruit an average of 20 to 50 participants. High-risk racial and ethnic minority young women aged 16-24 shall be targeted; however, all high-risk women shall be eligible to participate in the program, regardless of race, religion, or age. All participants must read and sign a written consent form before starting any intervention programs. The grantee shall prepare the draft consent form in lay-language. The grantee will also create postcard reminders (or e-mail reminders if participants have easy access to the internet) for each educational and maintenance session. The grantee will mail or e-mail the reminders to each participant.
All educational and maintenance sessions shall be focused on mutual support for participants in their efforts to reduce the risk associated with obesity. Grantees can obtain and distribute incentives for attendance (
The grantee must compile a local directory of obesity, nutrition, and physical activity resources (dietitians, diabetes experts, weight loss and exercise programs, public health screening and diagnosis information) available in the community, including health care alternatives for the uninsured and underinsured women. The grantee shall establish a national Web site or enhance an existing organization's Web site to provide support and information online. These Web sites shall be linked to the DHHS/OWH's
Each site will host six educational sessions over a period of 6 months. The sessions can be physically located at the grantee's site or at any other appropriate facility in the community that is accessible to the target audience. These sessions shall address the serious consequences of obesity [high blood pressure, type II diabetes, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, gallbladder disease, osteoarthritis, sleep apnea, respiratory problems, and some types of cancer] and the benefits associated with risk modification. Sessions may include lectures, demonstrations, video presentations, activities, etc. Each session must also incorporate some form of moderate physical activity (such as walking, yoga, or aerobics).
Additionally, each session shall include a small group discussion component that will focus on encouraging participants to incorporate weight control strategies and physical activity into their daily lives. Participants shall be divided into small groups according to criteria chosen by the grantee. During the group discussion component, participants should discuss self-monitoring efforts and establish risk modification goals. The grantee will consult and incorporate qualified health and nutrition professionals in the development and implementation of the curriculum and small group discussions.
During the first educational session, screening shall be conducted for each participant (all measurements must be kept confidential) to establish baseline measurements. (Note: Fasting blood tests must be used to screen for cholesterol and diabetes.) The grantee may solicit local health care organizations, drug stores, and/or other private sources to donate or loan screening equipment, giving proper acknowledgment for their assistance. Additionally, health professionals who volunteer to present at sessions can be asked to bring equipment with them and help conduct the screenings. Alternatively, grantees may use a small amount (no more than $10,000.00) of grant funds to purchase screening equipment and supplies.
The importance of weight control, good nutrition, recommended portion sizes, and physical activity will be introduced and emphasized as the primary goal of the program. Daily weight and physical activity self-monitoring materials (diaries, logs, etc.) will be distributed and explained. The site leader should also discuss the reward system for reaching risk modification goals. Moreover, the first session should include a basic orientation on how to use the internet. The orientation shall include instruction on how participants who do not own computers can access computers that are available for public use (
During the first educational session, each participant shall also be administered a test to determine baseline knowledge of obesity and its risk factors. Additionally, each participant shall assess her own personal risk profile.
After the first introductory educational session, the following five educational sessions will be devoted to educating participants about overeating and portion control, good nutrition, and physical activity. In addition, key lessons learned at previous sessions will be reviewed at each of the proceeding sessions to reinforce risk factor knowledge. Interactive guided discussion among participants may help identify effective strategies for overcoming obstacles to eating better and moving more.
During the sixth and final educational session, participants shall be screened again and each participant shall assess her own personal CVD risk profile. Each participant shall also be administered a test to determine knowledge of obesity and its consequences, nutrition, and physical activity. Additionally, participants shall be asked to provide
The maintenance sessions will take place 6 months after the last educational sessions. Participants can decide on the format of the maintenance sessions. The sessions may include any or all of the following: Additional educational seminars, screenings, testimonials, personal counseling, field trips (
The format of each maintenance session should be clearly outlined and documented (what type of activity, duration of activity, material covered, location, etc.). During the last maintenance session, participants will be screened again for risk factors and each participant shall assess her own personal risk profile. Each participant shall also be administered a test to determine knowledge of being obese or overweight and its associated risk factors. Additionally, participants shall be asked to give feedback and evaluate the program.
Information on personal risk factors must be obtained from three assessment points—the first (baseline) educational session, the last educational session, and the last maintenance session. Self-monitoring materials and feedback from evaluation forms will also provide information. Grantees may choose to use any appropriate tools, survey instruments, self-monitoring and evaluation materials to provide information on short-term and long-term behavioral changes. All materials must be reviewed and approved by the multi-disciplinary planning committee. In addition, grantees shall be required to include a core set of screening and evaluation items that will be prescribed by the DHHS/OWH. These items will be determined during and after the post-award orientation meeting and will most likely consist of items developed by one or more of the grantees.
The grantee shall design a database, collect all participant data, and enter data into the database. This data shall be kept confidential through use of unique identifying numbers and an electronic copy of the data shall be provided to DHHS/OWH. Baseline and follow-up data must be analyzed to quantitatively evaluate the program's effectiveness at two different intervals—after the end of the educational sessions and after the end of the maintenance sessions. The program evaluation must be able to demonstrate, at minimum, the following desired program outcomes:
1. Increase the proportion of participants who understand the correlation between being obese/overweight and the resulting illnesses and major complications.
2. Increase participant's knowledge of how to correctly measure and use the widely accepted portions of food.
3. Increase the number of participants who use healthier methods to prepare foods long after session's end.
4. Increase the participant's knowledge of resources in the community that will enable them to engage in regular physical activity, weight control, and healthy nutrition.
5. Have participants show how they have incorporated physical activity into everyday living (using stairs instead of elevators, walking instead of riding to work, parking their vehicle further away from a destination) long after session's end.
6. Decrease the Body Mass Index (BMI) from baseline for participants who are obese long after session's end.
7. Decrease the weight by 7-10% of overweight participants long after session's end.
8. Increase the proportion of participants who engage regularly in moderate physical activity (
1. Increase the proportion of participants who are aware of the BMI and their weight status using the BMI scale.
2. Increase the proportion of participants with high blood pressure at baseline whose blood pressure is under control because of weight loss.
3. Decease the proportion of participants with high total blood cholesterol because they now engage in regular physical activity and practice healthier eating habits.
4. Were new behaviors sustained or abandoned after the sessions?
The evaluation should also address the following questions:
1. Did participants evaluate the program favorably?
2. Did the program meet the needs and expectations of the participants?
3. What changes do the participants suggest?
Emphasis should be placed on aligning program outcomes and targets with the objectives and targets of Healthy People 2010. More information on the Healthy People 2010 objectives may be found at
DHHS/OWH shall site visit the five grantees during one of the 2-6 Educational Sessions. The grantee shall participate in monthly conference calls with the DHHS/OWH and other grantees. The grantee shall prepare quarterly progress reports that outline the status and progress of the project. The grantee shall prepare a final report that describes the results from the program evaluation and all project activities for the entire 12-month period of the program.
The purpose of the program is to reduce obesity among high-risk young women in the United States through education and risk behavior modification. This obesity prevention program will be targeted towards high-risk racial and ethnic minority women, ages 16-24; however, all high-risk women shall be eligible to participate in the programs regardless of race, religion, or age.
Each grantee shall implement a program in community-based sites across the United States, including urban and rural areas. The main goals will be for program participants to increase their knowledge of obesity risk factors, its cause and effects, to increase their level of physical activity and to learn healthier methods of food preparation and portion control.
The Office on Women's Health (OWH) anticipates making, through the cooperative agreement grant mechanism, new annual awards for the creation or sustainment of obesity programs for young women, ages 16-24. Funds to be awarded no later than September 1, 2006. Approximately $490,000 is available to make five awards of up to $98,000 total cost (direct and indirect) for a 12-month period. The actual number of awards made will depend upon the quality of the applications received and the amount of funds available for the program. The government is not obligated to make any awards as a result of this announcement.
In order to achieve the goals of the program, the grantee shall develop methods to provide effective education and awareness interventions and
Under this cooperative agreement, the duties of the Federal Government and the grantee are described below:
The DHHS/OWH will provide technical assistance and the oversight necessary for the implementation, conduct, and assessment of program activities. This program will be a model; as such, the federal government may replicate the program and/or use the program materials both during and after the period of performance. The grantee may copyright any work that is developed, or for which ownership was purchased, under the award, but DHHS reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the work for Federal purposes, and to authorize others to do so. In addition, the grantee and/or community partners are encouraged to sustain the program after the end of award and expand it to other sites within its network.
The Federal Government will also:
Review and approve work plan, task outline, and schedule of activities.
Review quarterly progress reports.
Conduct the monthly conference calls with grantees.
Conduct the two-day post-award orientation meeting in Washington, DC within two months of award.
Conduct one site visit per grantee.
Review and approve all educational and instructional materials for the six educational sessions.
Review and approve informed consent document and program promotional materials to ensure adherence to DHHS policies.
The grantee shall complete the requirements described in the Funding Opportunity Description. Specifically, the grantee will:
Provide no less than six educational forums/interventions to address obesity issues in the target audience. The location must be accessible to the target audience.
Establish partnerships with local and community-based organizations, health clubs, recreation centers, hospitals, clinics, etc. to increase access to, or create support groups for overweight/obese young women. Establish a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with each urban or rural community-based site willing to participate in the program.
Develop culturally appropriate facilitator education and training modules in an effort to sustain awareness and education programs for the target audience; and ensure education, awareness and training programs are culturally, linguistically, and educationally appropriate for the target audience.
Submit a work plan, task outline, and schedule of activities within one month of award.
Attend a two-day post-award orientation meeting in Washington, DC within two months of grant award. (Travel funds for this meeting must come out of the total award funding and should be included in the applicant's budget justification.)
Participate in monthly conference calls with the DHHS/OWH and other grantees.
Prepare quarterly progress reports that outline the status and progress of the program.
Form a planning committee consisting of representatives from community organization, health care and nutrition professionals and educators, and high-risk women in the community.
Consult with the planning committee to develop six educational sessions that address all of the major risk factors of obesity. Curriculum should be adapted from existing models of prevention intervention curriculum that have been successfully tested and evaluated.
Prepare or obtain educational materials for the six educational sessions (
Develop small group discussion format for each session focusing on encouraging participants to incorporate weight control strategies and physical activity into their daily lives.
Track regular physical activity and weight control behaviors.
Use pre and post evaluation materials and survey instruments (
Prepare a draft consent form in lay-language, obtain appropriate institutional IRB approval, if applicable, and obtain consent from all program participants.
Adhere to all program requirements specified in this announcement and the Notice of Grant Award.
Comply with the DHHS Protection of Human Subjects regulations (which require obtaining Institutional Review Board approval), set out at 45 CFR part 46, if applicable. General information about Human Subjects regulations can be obtained through the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) at
Eligible entities may include: For profit and not for profit community based organizations, national organizations, colleges and universities, clinics and hospitals, research institutions, State and local government agencies, tribal government and tribal/urban Indian entities, and faith-based organizations.
If funding is requested in an amount greater than the ceiling of the award range ($98,000 total cost for a 12-month period), the application will be considered non-responsive and will not be entered into the review process. The application will be returned with notification that it did not meet the submission requirements. Applications that are not complete or do not conform to or address the criteria of this announcement will be considered non-responsive and will not be entered into the review process. The application will be returned with notification that it did not meet the submission requirements. An organization may submit no more than one proposal for the program announced in this notice of funding availability. Organizations submitting more than one proposal will be deemed ineligible. The proposal will be returned without comment.
Cost sharing and matching funds are not a requirement of this grant; however applicants may solicit private sources for donations and/or loans of screening equipment, screening personnel, and participation incentives.
A Letter of Intent (LOI) is required prior to submission of applications. See section IV.2 for formatting and submission requirements for the LOI.
Application kits may be requested by calling (240) 453-8822 or writing to: OPHS Office of Grants Management, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 550, Rockville, MD 20852. Requests may also be submitted by FAX at (240) 453-8823.
A Letter of Intent (LOI) is required from all potential applicants for the purpose of planning the competitive review process. The LOI should be no
A Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number is required for all applications for Federal assistance. Organizations should verify that they have a DUNS number or take the steps necessary to obtain one. Instructions for obtaining a DUNS number are included in the application package, and may be downloaded from the Web site
Applications must be submitted using the Form OPHS-1 (Revised 8/04) and in the manner prescribed in the application kit. Applicants are required to submit an original ink-signed and dated application and 2 photocopies. The application should be organized in accordance with the format presented in the Program Guidelines. The original and each copy must be stapled and/or otherwise securely bound. All pages must be numbered clearly and sequentially. The application must be typed on plain 8
An outline for the minimum information to be included in the “Project Narrative” section is presented below.
The applicant must describe, in detail, its approach for accomplishing each of the requirements identified in the funding opportunity description. The program plan must reference each requirement, and the material should be presented in the order in which it appears in the funding opportunity description. The applicant should demonstrate a full understanding of the need for the program, anticipating, prioritizing, and presenting likely components that will achieve overall goals and desired outcomes. The applicant should also identify potential problems and intended solutions. The applicant is free to recommend and describe other procedures that it believes will more effectively achieve the stated objectives, but needs to carefully relate alternatives and rationales to the approach recommended in the funding opportunity description.
The proposal should include curriculum outlines and sample agendas for one or more of the educational sessions described in the funding opportunity description. The applicant must provide a detailed description of the existing curriculum that will be adapted and used for the educational sessions. In addition, samples of the existing curriculum and results from any pilot or demonstration projects that used the curriculum should be provided. These samples and results may be included as part of the appendices.
The applicant must identify key personnel involved in the project based on the requirements described in funding opportunity description and other personnel adequate to support the administrative, logistical, financial, and scientific coordination aspects of the project within the time limits of the grant. The applicant must provide information on which task(s) each of the key personnel will perform and the rationale for that assignment. Resumes for all proposed personnel must be submitted with the application in the appendices.
The applicant should develop and propose a Management Plan. This plan includes a program schedule that lays out tasks and a time-line and identifies significant milestones for the accomplishment of the project. Specific staff responsibilities must be detailed in this schedule along with the number of hours that each person will devote to each task. The plan must provide, at a minimum, details pertaining to the four program phases (Program Planning, Development, and Recruitment; Educational Sessions; Maintenance Sessions; Program Evaluation/Write-Up) as they are outlined in the funding opportunity description.
Each applicant should describe its organization's relevant experience and success in managing this type of project. The applicant should also include a description of itself, the experience of its support personnel, and information about grantees, partners, and quality of cooperation between organization, staff, key personnel, and clients. Specific descriptions of relevant previous experience that the organization has performed within the past five years must be included. Include period of performance, dollar amount, name of program sponsor, and a letter of support from at least three different program sponsors. Letters of support may be included as part of the appendices.
Relevant previous experience may include, but is not limited to, the development of: Comprehensive campaigns or educational programs aimed at improving the health of women and/or men; health behavior modification programs; programs delivered in a variety of settings (
Include documentation and other supporting information in this section, including staff resumes, letters of support, memorandums of understanding (MOUs), samples of existing curriculum, samples of survey instruments and data collection forms, and research results and references. The applicant should also include an MOU between the applicant and any other organization or entity with which it intends to collaborate/partner.
The Office of Public Health and Science (OPHS) provides multiple mechanisms for the submission of
Applications may only be submitted electronically via the electronic submission mechanisms specified below. Any applications submitted via any other means of electronic communication, including facsimile or electronic mail, will not be accepted for review. While applications are accepted in hard copy, the use of the electronic application submission capabilities provided by the OPHS eGrants system or the Grants.gov Web site Portal is encouraged.
Electronic grant application submissions must be submitted no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the deadline date specified in the
Applications will not be considered valid until all electronic application components, hard copy original signatures, and mail-in items are received by the OPHS Office of Grants Management according to the deadlines specified above. Application submissions that do not adhere to the due date requirements will be considered late and will be deemed ineligible.
Applicants are encouraged to initiate electronic applications early in the application development process, and to submit early on the due date or before. This will aid in addressing any problems with submissions prior to the application deadline.
The Grants.gov Web site Portal provides organizations with the ability to submit applications for OPHS grant opportunities. Organizations must successfully complete the necessary registration processes in order to submit an application. Information about this system is available on the Grants.gov Web site,
In addition to electronically submitted materials, applicants may be required to submit hard copy signatures for certain program related forms, or original materials as required by the announcement. It is imperative that the applicant review both the grant announcement, as well as the application guidance provided within the Grants.gov application package, to determine such requirements. Any required hard copy materials, or documents that require a signature, must be submitted separately via mail to the OPHS Office of Grants Management, and, if required, must contain the original signature of an individual authorized to act for the applicant agency and the obligations imposed by the terms and conditions of the grant award.
Electronic applications submitted via the Grants.gov Web site Portal must contain all completed online forms required by the application kit, the Program Narrative, Budget Narrative and any appendices or exhibits. All required mail-in items must received by the due date requirements specified above. Mail-In items may only include publications, resumes, or organizational documentation.
Upon completion of a successful electronic application submission via the Grants.gov Website Portal, the applicant will be provided with a confirmation page from Grants.gov indicating the date and time (Eastern Time) of the electronic application submission, as well as the Grants.gov Receipt Number. It is critical that the applicant print and retain this confirmation for their records, as well as a copy of the entire application package.
All applications submitted via the Grants.gov Website Portal will be validated by Grants.gov. Any applications deemed “Invalid” by the Grants.gov Web site Portal will not be transferred to the OPHS eGrants system, and OPHS has no responsibility for any application that is not validated and transferred to OPHS from the Grants.gov Web site Portal. Grants.gov will notify the applicant regarding the application validation status. Once the application is successfully validated by the Grants.gov Web site Portal, applicants should immediately mail all required hard copy materials to the OPHS Office of Grants Management to be received by the deadlines specified above. It is critical that the applicant clearly identify the Organization name and Grants.gov Application Receipt Number on all hard copy materials.
Once the application is validated by Grants.gov, it will be electronically transferred to the OPHS eGrants system for processing. Upon receipt of both the electronic application from the Grants.gov Website Portal, and the required hard copy mail-in items, applicants will receive notification via mail from the OPHS Office of Grants Management confirming the receipt of the application submitted using the Grants.gov Web site Portal.
Applicants should contact Grants.gov regarding any questions or concerns regarding the electronic application process conducted through the Grants.gov Web site Portal.
The OPHS electronic grants management system, eGrants, provides for applications to be submitted electronically. Information about this system is available on the OPHS eGrants Web site,
When submitting applications via the OPHS eGrants system, applicants are required to submit a hard copy of the application face page (Standard Form 424) with the original signature of an individual authorized to act for the applicant agency and assume the obligations imposed by the terms and conditions of the grant award. If required, applicants will also need to submit a hard copy of the Standard Form LLL and/or certain Program related forms (
Electronic applications submitted via the OPHS eGrants system must contain all completed online forms required by the application kit, the Program Narrative, Budget Narrative and any appendices or exhibits. The applicant may identify specific mail-in items to be sent to the Office of Grants Management separate from the electronic submission; however these mail-in items must be entered on the eGrants Application Checklist at the time of electronic submission, and must be received by the due date requirements specified above. Mail-In items may only include publications, resumes, or organizational documentation.
Upon completion of a successful electronic application submission, the OPHS eGrants system will provide the applicant with a confirmation page indicating the date and time (Eastern Time) of the electronic application submission. This confirmation page will
As items are received by the OPHS Office of Grants Management, the electronic application status will be updated to reflect the receipt of mail-in items. It is recommended that the applicant monitor the status of their application in the OPHS eGrants system to ensure that all signatures and mail-in items are received.
Applicants who submit applications in hard copy (via mail or hand-delivered) are required to submit an original and two copies of the application. The original application must be signed by an individual authorized to act for the applicant agency or organization and to assume for the organization the obligations imposed by the terms and conditions of the grant award.
Mailed or hand-delivered applications will be considered as meeting the deadline if they are received by the OPHS Office of Grant Management on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the deadline date specified in the DATES section of the announcement. The application deadline date requirement specified in this announcement supersedes the instructions in the OPHS-1. Applications that do not meet the deadline will be returned to the applicant unread.
This program is subject to the Public Health Systems Reporting Requirements. Under these requirements, community-based and faith-based, non-governmental applicant must prepare and submit a Public Health System Impact Statement (PHSIS). Applicants shall submit a copy of the application face page (SF-424) and a one page summary of the project, called the Public Health System Impact Statement. The PHSIS is intended to provide information to State and local health officials to keep them apprised of proposed health services grant applications submitted by community-based or faith-based, non-governmental organizations within their jurisdictions.
Community-based and faith-based, non-governmental applicants are required to submit, no later than the Federal due date for receipt of the application, the following information to the head of the appropriate state and local health agencies in the area(s) to be impacted: (a) a copy of the face page of the application (SF 424), (b) a summary of the project (PHSIS), not to exceed one page, which provides: (1) A description of the population to be served, (2) a summary of the services to be provided, and (3) a description of the coordination planned with the appropriate state or local health agencies. Copies of the letters forwarding the PHSIS to these authorities must be contained in the application materials submitted to the DHHS/OWH.
This program is also subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 that allows States the option of setting up a system for reviewing applications from within their States for assistance under certain Federal programs. The application kit to be made available under this notice will contain a listing of States that have chosen to set up a review system and will include a State Single Point of Contact (SPOC) in the State for review. Applicants (other than federally recognized Indian tribes) should contact their SPOCs as early as possible to alert them to the prospective applications and receive any necessary instructions on the State process. For proposed projects serving more than one State, the applicant is advised to contact the SPOC in each affected State. A complete list of SPOCs may be found at the following Web site:
Grant funds may be used to cover costs of:
Personnel.
Consultants.
Office supplies and software.
Educational, promotional and evaluation materials.
Screening supplies and equipment.
Grant related travel (domestic only).
Other grant related costs.
Grant funds may not be used for:
Building alterations or renovations.
Computers.
Construction.
Food.
Fund raising activities.
Medical treatment or therapy.
Political education and lobbying.
Other activities that are not grant related.
The technical review of applications will consider the following 4 factors:
This factor will be evaluated by rating the applicant's approach to accomplishing each of the requirements identified in the funding opportunity description as demonstrated by the following:
Demonstrated understanding of the scope, goals, and objectives of the work required and the applicability and clarity of the overall approach.
Discussions detailing how each of the requirements will be performed and the appropriateness of all proposed methodologies and analyses.
Identification of potential problems and intended solutions.
Discussions detailing the criteria used for selecting sites, list of selected sites or locations of sites, and letters of support from each site, if possible.
Discussions of curriculum, including samples of the existing curriculum that will be adapted for the program and preliminary outlines and sample agendas for one or more of the educational sessions described in the funding opportunity description.
Potential for the success of the proposed program plan to improve healthy behaviors so as to reduce obesity/overweight of the targeted population.
The applicant's staffing, scheduling, and logistics plans will be evaluated for their effectiveness in committing personnel and resources to provide high-quality service and products within the time frames set-forth. This evaluation is based on the following:
Realism of the proposed timeline and the personnel and resources assigned to complete each requirement.
Appropriateness of the proposed number of hours estimated for each requirement and each staff member.
Adequacy of organizational structure.
Adequacy of proposed plan to identify and solve potential problems.
Adequacy of proposed plan to monitor and report on program progress and ensure effective communication between program staff members and the DHHS/OWH.
This factor covers the qualifications of key personnel proposed to perform the work assigned to them and the amount of effort estimated for each person. This evaluation is based on the following:
Experience, education, and professional credentials of proposed key personnel on similar projects and in related fields (similar projects must convey similarity in topic, dollar value, workload, duration, and complexity).
Appropriateness of each person's skills and experience for performing the requirements in the funding opportunity description.
This factor will be evaluated by considering the number, size, and complexity of similar projects that the applicant has previously successfully completed. Relevant previous experience may include, but is not limited to, the development of: Comprehensive campaigns or educational programs aimed at improving the health of women and/or men; health behavior modification programs; programs delivered in a variety of settings, re. faith-based, clinical, collegiate, or community-based; obesity-related, re. diabetes, nutrition, physical activity, CHD; disease prevention and risk modification programs; and previous collaborations with national or local community organizations.
Also evaluated will be the applicant's adherence to schedules and budgets, effectiveness of program management, willingness to cooperate when difficulties arise, general compliance with the terms of the contracts, and acceptability of delivered products.
Applications will be screened upon receipt. Those that are judged to be incomplete or arrive after the deadline will be returned without review or comment. If funding is requested in an amount greater than the ceiling of the award range ($98,000 for a 12-month budget period), the application will be considered non-responsive and will not be entered into the review process. The application will be returned with notification that it did not meet the submission requirements.
Applicants that are judged to be in compliance will be notified by the OPHS Office of Grants Management. Accepted applications will be evaluated based on the criteria listed in Section V.1 and reviewed for technical merit in accordance with DHHS policies. Applicants are advised to pay close attention to the specific program requirements and general instructions in the application kit and to the definitions provided in this notice.
Applications will be evaluated by an objective technical review panel composed of experts in the fields of program management, chronic disease, obesity/overweight, minority community outreach, health education, and community-based research. Consideration for award will be given to applicants that best demonstrate the potential to design a program that achieves the program goals stated in this announcement.
The Federal Government may conduct pre-award site visits of applicants with scores in the funding range prior to final selection. References may also be requested from these applicants and contacted to better evaluate prior relevant experience. Any applicant who believes the Government will find derogatory information as a result of checking the past performance record may provide an explanation and any remedial action taken by its company to address the problem. Funding decisions will be made by the DHHS/OWH, and will take into consideration the recommendations and ratings of the review panel, pre-award site visits and references, program needs, geographic location, and stated preferences.
Guidance for completing the budget can be found in the Program Guidelines, which are included with the complete application kits. The allowability, allocability, reasonableness, and necessity of direct and indirect costs that may be charged to OPHS grants are outlined in the following documents: OMB Circular A-21 (Institutions of Higher Education); OMB Circular A-87 (State and Local Governments); OMB Circular A-122 (Nonprofit Organizations); and 45 CFR part 74, Appendix E (Hospitals). Copies of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars are available on the Internet at
1.
2.
3.
The grantee shall assign one staff member to participate in a committee with other grantees and DHHS/OWH to prepare a joint manuscript suitable for a peer-reviewed journal. This manuscript shall combine and summarize data from all programs into one final evaluation. The jointly prepared manuscript must be submitted two weeks prior to the end date of award.
For application kits and information on budget and business aspects of the application, please contact: OPHS Office of Grants Management, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 550, Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: (240) 453-8822.
Questions regarding programmatic information and/or requests for technical assistance in the preparation of the “Project Narrative” should be directed in writing to: Henrietta (Retta) Terry, Public Health Advisor, Office on Women's Health, Office of Public Health and Science, DHHS, 200 Independence Ave., SW., Rm 712E, Washington, DC 20201. Telephone: 202-205-1952. E-mail:
The Office on Women's Health in the United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS/OWH) coordinates the efforts of all the DHHS agencies and offices involved in women's health. DHHS/OWH works to improve the health and well-being of women and girls in the United States through its innovative programs by educating health professionals and motivating behavior change in consumers through the dissemination of health information. To that end, the DHHS/OWH has established public/private partnerships to address health problems in women.
In 2003-2004, 32.2% of adults were obese. If you are overweight or obese, carrying this extra weight puts you at risk for developing many diseases, especially heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer, and breathing problems such as asthma and sleep apnea. Ultimately, obesity can even be life-threatening. Annually in the United States, more than 300,000 deaths are linked to obesity. Losing weight helps to prevent and control these diseases. The good news is that even a modest weight loss can bring health improvements. In many cases, you can accomplish this by eating healthier, exercising, and changing behaviors. For people who don't respond to lifestyle changes, prescription medications, and surgical techniques are available to enhance the weight-loss process.
More than 65% of U.S. adults are overweight or obese. The percentage of obese adults varied little from 1960 to 1980, but increased considerably between 1980-1991, from 13-21 percent among men and from 17-26 percent among women. Among women, no significant increase in obesity was observed in 1999-2000 (33.4%) and 2003-2004 (33.2%). The prevalence of extreme obesity in women is 6.9%. More adult women are obese (33 percent) than men (28 percent). African American women (32.9%) had the highest rates of obesity. Faced with a history of negative experiences at the doctor's office, many obese women delay preventive medical visits, including those for gynecological cancer screening. Being overweight increases a woman's chance of developing breast, ovarian, cervical, and uterine cancer.
In 2003-2004, 17.1% of U.S. children and adolescents were overweight. Tests for trend were significant for male and female children and adolescents, indicating an increase in the prevalence of overweight in female children and adolescents from 13.8% in 1999-2000 to 16.0% in 2003-2004. Overweight adolescents have a 70% chance of becoming overweight or obese adults. Overweight in children/adolescents is generally caused by lack of physical activity, unhealthy eating patterns, or a combination of the two, with genetics and lifestyle both playing important roles. Physical activity levels drop sharply as girls become teenagers. By the age of 15 or 16, 28% of Caucasian girls and 58% of African American girls report no habitual leisure-time activity.
In 2003-2004, significant differences in obesity prevalence remained by race/ethnicity and by age. Approximately 30% of non-Hispanic white adults were obese as were 45.0% of non-Hispanic black adults and 36.8% Mexican Americans. About 57% of Hispanic/Latino women, 56% of American Indians/Alaska Native women, 42.6% of Asian/Pacific Islander women and 55% of African American women do not exercise, compared to 38% of white women. Hispanic and black individuals, especially women, have a greater prevalence of excess weight compared to their white counterparts. In the 2003 national survey conducted by the American Heart Association, fewer African-American and Hispanic women than white women correctly cited heart disease as the leading cause of death among women.
Obesity tends to run in families, suggesting a genetic cause. Yet families also share diet and lifestyle habits that may contribute to obesity. Separating these from genetic factors is often difficult. Even so, science shows that heredity is linked to obesity. In one study, adults who were adopted as children were found to have weights closer to their biological parents than to their adoptive parents. In this case, the person's genetic makeup had more influence on the development of obesity than the environment in the adoptive family home.
Genes do not destine people to a lifetime of obesity; however, environment also strongly influences obesity. This includes lifestyle behaviors such as what a person eats and his or her level of physical activity. Americans tend to eat high-fat foods, and put taste and convenience ahead of nutrition. Also, most Americans do not get enough physical activity. Although you cannot change your genetic makeup, you can change your eating habits and levels of activity.
Prevention programs that target high-risk women, particularly racial/ethnic minority women, have the potential to
Personalized risk assessment and screening.
Daily self-monitoring (log-sheets, exercise diaries, etc.).
Program and educational materials tailored to stages of the life cycle, readiness to change, needs and subgroup affiliation (
Behavioral reinforcement strategies such as contracts, verification procedures, incentives, lotteries, and team building.
Group sessions that incorporate physical activity.
Frequent contact via mail and phone.
Resource library on maintaining a health weight, nutrition, physical activity.
For the purposes of this cooperative agreement program, the following definitions are provided:
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
On February 4, 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued an order to ban immediately the import of all birds (Class:
On March 10, 2004, HHS/CDC lifted the embargo of birds and bird products from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) because of the documented public-health and animal health measures taken by Hong Kong officials to prevent spread of the outbreak within the HKSAR, and the absence of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 cases in Hong Kong's domestic and wild bird populations. USDA/APHIS took a similar action. On September 28, 2004, HHS/CDC extended the embargo on birds and bird products to include Malaysia because of the documented cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza A H5N1 in poultry in Malaysia. On July 20, 2005, USDA/APHIS adopted as a final rule the interim rule that became effective on February 4, 2004, which amended its regulations to prohibit or restrict the importation of birds, poultry, and unprocessed birds and poultry products from regions that have reported the presence of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 in poultry. (
On May 27, 2006, OlE reported confirmation of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 in poultry in Djibouti. At this time, HHS/CDC is adding Djibouti to its current embargo. USDA has also taken a similar action with respect to this region. This action is effective on June 2, 2006, and will remain in effect until further notice.
On May 27, 2006, OlE reported confirmation of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 in poultry in Djibouti city region, Djibouti.
Introduction of birds infected with highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 into the United States could lead to outbreaks of disease among birds and among the human population, a significant public health threat. Banning the importation of all avian species from affected countries is an effective means of limiting this threat. HHS/CDC is therefore taking this action to reduce the likelihood of introduction or spread of influenza A H5N1 into the United States.
Therefore, pursuant to 42 CFR 71.32(b), HHS/CDC is amending the February 4, 2004, order to add Djibouti to the list of countries subject to the order's embargo of birds and products derived from birds. All other portions of the February 4, 2004, order, as further amended on March 10, 2004, September 28, 2004, December 29, 2005, February 8, 2006, February 22, 2006, February 27, 2006, March 2, 2006, March 15, 2006, March 20, 2006, March 21, 2006; March 29, 2006; April 10, 2006; April 10, 2006; April 28, 2006; and May 16, 2006 shall remain in effect until further notice.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At least one portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact AnnMarie Williams, Conference Management Staff, at 301-827-7291 at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “The Review and Inspection of Premarket Approval Applications under the Bioresearch Monitoring Program.” One of the performance goals, referenced in a letter to Congress from the Secretary of Health and Human Services that accompanied the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (MDUFMA) legislation, includes a commitment to improve FDA's scheduling and timeliness of preapproval inspections. This draft guidance document is intended to assist applicants in understanding the process involved in the bioresearch monitoring (BIMO) review of the clinical and nonclinical information in their premarket approval application (PMA) and the process involved in any related inspections. Premarket notification (510(k)) submissions are not addressed in this draft guidance because a premarket inspection is not ordinarily conducted for 510(k)s. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.
Submit written or electronic comments on this draft guidance by September 18, 2006.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance document entitled “The Review and Inspection of Premarket Approval Applications under the Bioresearch Monitoring Program” to the Division of Small Manufacturers, International, and Consumer Assistance (HFZ-220), Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., Rockville, MD 20850. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request, or fax your request to 240-276-3151. See the
Submit written comments concerning this 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
Matthew J. Tarosky, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-310), Food and Drug Administration, 2094 Gaither Rd., Rockville, MD 20850, 240-270-0243.
On October 26, 2002, MDUFMA (Public Law 107-250) was signed into law. Among other things, MDUMFA authorized the collection of user fees to improve the performance and predictability of FDA's device review program, including PMAs. FDA, in consultation with the regulated industry, agreed to dedicate user fees to helping the agency meet the performance goals outlined in a letter from the Secretary of Health and Human Services to Congress that accompanied the user fee legislation. One such goal included a commitment to “improve the scheduling and timeliness of preapproval inspections.” A portion of the user fees collected under MDUFMA will be used to help to cover the costs associated with the BIMO program review of the PMA and the performance of any clinical or nonclinical inspections. FDA will monitor its BIMO preapproval inspection program and include this information in its annual performance report to Congress.
This draft guidance provides information about the administrative process and timeframes within which the BIMO review of the PMA clinical and nonclinical sections should be completed. Use of this draft guidance should facilitate FDA's timely review and inspection of the PMA clinical and nonclinical information and improve the coordination of a preapproval inspection between the applicant and FDA.
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 “The Review and Inspection of Premarket Approval Applications under the Bioresearch Monitoring Program.” 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 requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may also do so by using the Internet. To receive “The Review and Inspection of Premarket Approval Applications under the Bioresearch Monitoring Program,” you may either send an e-mail request to
CDRH maintains an entry on the Internet for easy access to information including text, graphics, and files that may be downloaded to a personal computer with Internet access. Updated on a regular basis, the CDRH home page includes device safety alerts,
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 USC 3501-3520) (the PRA). The collections of information addressed in 21 CFR part 814 have been approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 0910-0231.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Summary: Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of California (FEMA-1646-DR), dated June 5, 2006, and related determinations.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated June 5, 2006, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of California resulting from severe storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides during the period of March 29 to April 16, 2006, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of California.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act you may deem appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. If Other Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the Stafford Act is later requested and warranted, Federal funding under that program will also be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Director, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael H. Smith, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of California to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:
Alameda, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Lake, Madera, Marin, Merced, Napa, Nevada, Placer, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne Counties for Public Assistance.
All counties within the State of California are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Maine (FEMA-1644-DR), dated May 25, 2006, and related determinations.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective May 23, 2006.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (FEMA-1642-DR), dated May 25, 2006, and related determinations.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is hereby amended to include the Public Assistance Program for the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 25, 2006:
Essex and Middlesex Counties for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (FEMA-1642-DR), dated May 25, 2006, and related determinations.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective May 23, 2006.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Minnesota
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated June 5, 2006, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Minnesota resulting from flooding during the period of March 30 to May 3, 2006, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Minnesota.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act you may deem appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. If Other Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the Stafford Act is later requested and warranted, Federal funding under that program will also be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Director, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Ron Sherman, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Minnesota to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:
Becker, Clay, Kittson, Marshall, Norman, Polk, Red Lake, Roseau, and Wilkin Counties for Public Assistance.
All counties within the State of Minnesota are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-1643-DR), dated May 25, 2006, and related determinations.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective May 23, 2006.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of North Dakota (FEMA-1645-DR), dated June 5, 2006, and related determinations.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated June 5, 2006, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of North Dakota resulting from severe storms, flooding, and ground saturation during the period of March 30 to April 30, 2006, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of North Dakota.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act you may deem appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. If Other Needs Assistance under section 408 of the Stafford Act is later requested and warranted, Federal funding under that program will also be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Director, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Tony Russell, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal
I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of North Dakota to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:
Cass, Cavalier, Grand Forks, Pembina, Ransom, Richland, Rolette, Sargent, Towner, Traill, and Walsh Counties and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indian Reservation for Public Assistance.
All counties and tribal nations within the State of North Dakota are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of South Dakota (FEMA-1647-DR), dated June 5, 2006, and related determinations.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated June 5, 2006, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of South Dakota resulting from a severe winter storm during the period of April 18-20, 2006, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of South Dakota.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act you may deem appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. If Other Needs Assistance under section 408 of the Stafford Act is later requested and warranted, Federal funding under that program will also be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Director, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Tony Russell, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of South Dakota to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:
Bennett, Butte, Harding, Jackson, Meade, and Perkins Counties for Public Assistance.
All counties within the State of South Dakota are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas (FEMA-1624-DR), dated January 11, 2006, and related determinations.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of January 11, 2006:
Johnson County for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance Category B (emergency protective measures), subject to subsequent designation by FEMA for reimbursement.)
Collingsworth, Donley, and Lipscomb Counties for Category F (utilities) under the Public Assistance program (already designated for Public Assistance Category B (emergency protective measures)). All categories of assistance under the Public Assistance program are subject to subsequent designation by FEMA for reimbursement.
Eastland, Gray, Hutchinson, and Wheeler Counties for Category F (utilities) under the Public Assistance program (already designated for Individual Assistance and Public Assistance Category B (emergency protective measures)). All categories of assistance under the Public Assistance program are subject to subsequent designation by FEMA for reimbursement.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control number and should be sent to: Lillian L. Deitzer, Reports Liaison Officer, Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., L'Enfant Plaza Room 8001, Washington, DC 20410-5000 or e-mail:
Aneita Waites, (202) 708-0614, extension 4116. (This is not a toll-free number).
The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been 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.
This report collects information from mortgage lenders on application for, and originations and purchases of, mortgage and home improvement loans. Non-depository mortgage lending institutions are required to use the report as a running log throughout the calendar year, and send the report to HUD by March 1 of the following calendar year.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2502-0539) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-6974.
Lillian Deitzer, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; e-mail Lillian Deitzer at
This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have
This notice also lists the following information:
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Establish a new Privacy Act System of Records.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD proposes to establish a new record system to add to its inventory of systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed new system of record is the Single Family Acquired Asset Management System (SAMS), HUD/HS-52. SAMS contains information about purchasers involved in the sale of HUD/FHA single-family homes, successful bidders of HUD-owned properties, HUD employees and contractors.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications should refer to the above docket number and title. A copy of each communication submitted will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address.
Jeanette Smith, Departmental Privacy Act Officer, 451 Seventh St., SW., Room P800l, Washington, DC 20410, Telephone Number (202) 708-2374. (This is not a toll-free number.) A telecommunication device for hearing and speech-impaired individuals (TTY) is available at (800) 877-8339 (Federal Information Relay Service).
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended notice is given that HUD proposes to establish a new system of records as identified as the Single Family Acquired Asset Management System (SAMS), HUD/HS-52.
Title 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11) provide that the public be afforded a 30-day period in which to comment on the new system of records.
The new system report was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on Government Reform pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix 1 to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” July 25, 1994 (59 FR 37914).
5 U.S.C. 552a 88 Stat. 1896; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Single Family Acquired Asset Management System (SAMS—A80S)
Charlestown, West Virginia
Individuals who are covered by this system include successful bidders of a HUD-owned property.
Also, individuals involved in the sale of HUD/FHA single-family homes Management and Marketing contractors (M&M), HUD employees, brokers, Name and Address identifier contractors, and financial control contractors.
Files contain identifying information about purchasers, such as name, Social Security Number, and current address. In addition, the files contain appraisal information, tax payments, sales offer information, HUD-1, contract information, vendor information, 1099 information, and accounting transactions.
National Housing Act as amended (12 U.S.C. 1702
SAMS is a management and accounting system for HUD owned and HUD managed single-family properties. The re-engineered application was introduced into production in 1996. SAMS supports HUD staff at Headquarters and Homeownership Centers (HOCs), and HUD's Management and Marketing (M&M) contractors to track single-family properties from their acquisition by HUD through the steps necessary to resell the properties. SAMS captures
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act other routine uses include:
(a) To General Accounting Office (GAO) for audit purposes.
(b) IRS for tax purposes.
(c) Inspector General Office (IG) for audit purposes.
(d) Management and Marketing contractors for processing the sale of HUD Homes.
Records are stored electronically in a computer mainframe.
Records may be retrieved by computer search by the FHA Case Number, Property Address, or Purchaser's name and/or social security number.
Records are maintained in a secured computer network behind HUD's firewall. Access is limited to authorize personnel.
Information is archived electronically and stored on magnetic tapes. Records will be retained and disposed of in accordance with the General Records Schedule included in HUD Handbook 2228.2, appendix 14, items 21-26.
Jeannie Bonifer, Office of Single Family Asset Management, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 9184, Washington, DC 20410.
For information, assistance, or inquiry about the existence of records, contact the Privacy Act Officer at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. Written requests must include the full name, Social Security Number, date of birth, current address, and telephone number of the individual making the request.
Procedures for the amendment or correction of records, and for applicants want to appeal initial agency determination appear in 24 CFR part 16.
Purchasers, Brokers, appraisers, contractors, and HUD employees.
None.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask OMB to renew approval for our information collection associated with the importation or exportation of fish or wildlife. The current OMB control number for this information collection is 1018-0012, which expires on December 31, 2006. We will request that OMB renew approval of this information collection for a 3-year term. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this information collection.
You must submit comments on or before August 21, 2006.
Send your comments to Hope Grey, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 222-ARLSQ, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203 (mail);
To request additional information about this information collection request or the related forms, contact Hope Grey at one at the addresses above or by telephone at (703) 358-2482.
OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) makes it unlawful to import or export fish, wildlife, or plants without filing a declaration or report deemed necessary for enforcing the Act or upholding the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) (see 16 U.S.C. 1538(e)). Any business or individual importing into or exporting from the United States any fish, wildlife, or wildlife product must complete FWS Form 3-177 (Declaration for Importation or Exportation of Fish or Wildlife). This form as well as FWS Form 3-177a (Continuation Sheet) and instructions for completion are available for electronic submission at
The information that we collect is unique to each wildlife shipment and enables us to accurately inspect the contents of the shipment; enforce any regulations that pertain to the fish, wildlife, or wildlife products contained in the shipment; and maintain records of the importation and exportation of these commodities. Additionally, since the United States is a member of CITES, we compile much of the collected information in an annual report that we forward to the CITES Secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland. Submission of an annual report on the number and types of imports and exports of fish, wildlife, and wildlife products is one of our treaty obligations under CITES. We also use the information obtained from FWS Form 3-177 as an enforcement tool and management aid in monitoring the international wildlife market and detecting trends and changes in the commercial trade of fish, wildlife, and wildlife products. Our Division of Scientific Authority and Division of Management Authority use this information to assess the need for additional protection for native species. In addition, nongovernmental organizations, including the commercial wildlife community, request information from us that we obtain from FWS Form 3-177.
Businesses or individuals must file FWS Form 3-177 with us at the time and port where they request clearance of the import or export of wildlife or wildlife products. In certain instances, FWS Form 3-177 may be filed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The standard information collection
We invite comments concerning this information collection on: (1) Whether or not the collection of information is useful and necessary for us to do our job, (2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden on the public to complete the form; (3) ways to enhance the quality and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents. Comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include and/or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to renew approval for this information collection.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability of the Final Comprehensive Conservation Plans and Findings of No Significant Impact for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge in Lauderdale County, Tennessee; Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge in Haywood County, Tennessee; Lower Hatchie Nainotal Wildlife Refuge in Lauderdale and Tipton Counties, Tennessee; and Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges in Obion and Lake Counties, Tennessee, and Fulton County, Kentucky.
The Fish and Wildlife Service announces that Final Comprehensive Conservation Plans and Findings of No Significant Impact for the above referenced refuges are available for distribution. The plans were prepared pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and describe how the refuges will be managed over the next 15 years.
Copies of these plans may be obtained by writing to: Randy Cook, West Tennessee Refuges, 301 N. Church, Room 201, Dyersburg, Tennessee 38024; Telephone 731/287-0650. The plans may also be accessed and downloaded from the Service's Internet Web site
The availability of the draft comprehensive conservation plans and environmental assessments for a 45-day review period was announced in the
Fisheries management will be emphasized and, where appropriate, restored for native diversity within the floodplain. Refuge habitats will be managed and restored for natural diversity in support of national and regional plans. Forest management will address the need to restore and enhance the red oak component for migratory waterfowl and develop vertical structure to provide habitat for a diversity of species, particularly priority migratory birds. Any future reforestation efforts will incorporate greater native tree species diversity.
This alternative will encourage more public recreational and educational uses, where feasible, while intensifying
The Service intends to construct a visitor center and headquarters office on Reelfoot, Chicksaw, and Lower Hatchie Refuges, with space for interpretation, environmental education, and staff.
Research studies will continue to be fostered and partnerships developed with other agencies and universities, with the refuges providing needed resources and study sites. Research will also provide benefits to conservation efforts throughout the Lower Mississippi River Valley to conserve, enhance, restore, and manage bottomland hardwood habitat. Inventorying and monitoring of birds, freshwater mussels, reptiles, and amphibians will be continued and expanded in order to assess population trends, correlate with environmental pressures, and provide baseline data to be used in development of appropriate management strategies. Providing additional staff (e.g., wildlife biologist, outdoor recreation planner, maintenance workers, and an additional full-time law enforcement officer) will enable the Service to fully develop and manage fish and wildlife resources and habitats, provide opportunities and facilities for wildlife observation and photography, provide environmental educational programs that promote a greater understanding of natural resources, and protect natural and cultural resources.
Under this alternative, the refuges will continue to acquire lands within the present acquisition boundaries for the use of compatible wildlife-dependent public recreation and environmental education opportunities. Tracts that provide better-quality habitat and connectivity to existing refuge lands will receive higher priority for acquisition. The refuges will also use other important acquisition tools, including partnerships with conservation organizations, conservation easements with adjacent landowners, and leases/cooperative agreements.
Public comments were requested, considered, and incorporated throughout the planning process in numerous ways. Pubic outreach included open houses, public meetings, technical workgroups, planning update mailings, and
This notice is published under the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-57.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior.
Notice of availability.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), on behalf of the Department of the Interior (DOI) as a natural resource trustee, announces the release for public review of the Draft Study Plan for a mink injury study for the Hudson River Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA). The Draft Study Plan describes the Trustees' proposed approach to conducting this investigation, and seeks public feedback.
Written comments must be submitted on or before July 15, 2006.
Requests for copies of the Draft Study Plan may be made in person or by mail to: Ms. Kathryn Jahn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New York Field Office, 3817 Luker Road, Cortland, New York 13045. Written comments or materials regarding the Draft Study Plan should be sent to the same address.
Kathryn Jahn, Environmental Contaminants Branch, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New York Field Office, 3817 Luker Road, Cortland, New York 13045.
Interested parties may also call 607-753-9334, send electronic mail to
Natural resources of the Hudson River have been contaminated though past and ongoing discharges of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The Hudson River Natural Resource Trustees—New York State, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, are conducting a NRDA to assess those natural resources injured by PCBs. The Draft Study Plan is being released for public review and comment in accordance with the Trustees' NRDA Plan for the Hudson River issued in September 2002. That NRDA Plan was released in accordance with the Natural Resource Damage Assessment regulations found at Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 11.
Pursuant to the Hudson River NRDA plan, the Trustees have developed this Study Plan for a mink injury determination effort. Interested members of the public are invited to review and comment on the Draft Study Plan (see
The authority for this action is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9601
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before June 3, 2006.
100-118 Sproat St., Detroit, 06000588
4-10-14-20 N. Kingshighway Blvd., St. Louis (Independent City), 06000603
A request for removal has been made for the following resource:
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice and request for comment.
We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), are providing opportunity for the public to comment on a request for a determination of valid existing rights (VER) to use an existing Forest Service road as a coal mine access and haul road across Federal lands within the boundaries of the Daniel Boone National Forest in Owsley County, Kentucky. The mine would be located on privately owned land.
We will accept electronic or written comments until 4 p.m. Eastern time on July 20, 2006. Requests for an extension of the comment period must be received by the same time.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For detailed instructions on submitting comments,
William J. Kovacic, Director, Lexington Field Office, 2675 Regency Road, Lexington, Kentucky 40503.
On February 23, 2006, QORE Property Sciences (QORE) submitted a request for a determination of VER on behalf of Sturgeon Mining Company, Inc. (Sturgeon). Sturgeon is proposing to conduct surface coal mining operations on approximately 424 acres of privately owned land near Watches Branch of Laurel Fork in the southeast corner of Owsley County, Kentucky. The property to be mined is adjacent to the Daniel Boone National Forest.
QORE is seeking a determination that Sturgeon has VER under paragraph (c)(1) of the definition of VER in 30 CFR 761.5 to use an existing road across Federal lands within the Daniel Boone National Forest as an access and haul road for the proposed mine. No other surface coal mining operations would be conducted on Federal lands within the Daniel Boone National Forest as part of this mine.
Section 522(e)(2) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act), 30 U.S.C. 1272(e)(2), prohibits surface coal mining operations on Federal lands within the boundaries of any national forest, with two exceptions. The first exception pertains to surface operations and impacts incidental to an underground coal mine. The second relates to surface operations on lands within national forests west of the 100th meridian. Neither of those exceptions applies to the request now under consideration.
The introductory paragraph of section 522(e) also provides two general exceptions to the prohibitions on surface coal mining operations in that section. Those exceptions apply to operations in existence on the date of enactment of the Act (August 3, 1977) and to land for which a person has VER. SMCRA does not define VER. We subsequently adopted regulations defining VER and clarifying that, for lands that come under the protection of 30 CFR 761.11 and section 522(e) after the date of enactment of SMCRA, the applicable date is the date that the lands came under protection, not August 3, 1977.
On December 17, 1999 (64 FR 70766-70838), we adopted a revised definition of VER, established a process for submission and review of requests for VER determinations, and otherwise modified the regulations implementing section 522(e). At 30 CFR 761.16(a), we published a table clarifying which agency (OSM or the State regulatory authority) is responsible for making VER determinations and which definition (State or Federal) will apply. That table specifies that OSM is responsible for VER determinations for Federal lands within national forests and that the Federal VER definition in 30 CFR 761.5 applies to those determinations.
Paragraph (c) of the Federal definition of VER contains the standards applicable to VER for roads that lie within the definition of surface coal mining operations. QORE is seeking a VER determination under paragraph (c)(1), which provides that a person who claims VER to use or construct a road across the surface of lands protected by 30 CFR 761.11 or section 522(e) of SMCRA must demonstrate that the “road existed when the land upon which it is located came under the protection of § 761.11 or 30 U.S.C. 1272(e), and the person has a legal right to use the road for surface coal mining operations.”
Based on other information available to us, we also are considering whether VER might exist under the standard in paragraph (c)(3), which requires a demonstration that a “valid permit for use or construction of a road in that location for surface coal mining operations existed when the land came under the protection of § 761.11 or 30 U.S.C. 1272(e).”
The following information has been submitted by QORE or obtained from the United States Forest Service (USFS) or the Kentucky Department for Natural Resources (DNR):
1. A 4,900 foot road designated USFS road FSR 1649A exists on the land to which the VER determination request pertains.
2. The land upon which the road is located was in Federal ownership as part of the Daniel Boone National Forest on August 3, 1977, the date of enactment of SMCRA.
3. On May 18, 2006, the USFS issued a permit to Sturgeon for non-Federal commercial use of this road. The permit is contingent upon Sturgeon receiving all other necessary authorizations to operate.
4. The road in question is clearly visible on several aerial photographs taken between April 11, 1978, and February 26, 1988.
5. The road is visible as a faint feature in aerial photographs dated April 27, 1974, and May 9, 1976.
6. A DNR employee remembers using an old logging road in this area for trail biking the summer after he graduated from college in the spring of 1977.
7. The USFS issued River Mining Co., Inc. a special use permit for the construction and use of a road in this location as a coal access and haul road on September 24, 1976.
We received the request on February 23, 2006, and determined that it was administratively complete on March 23, 2006. That review did not include an assessment of the technical or legal adequacy of the materials submitted with the request.
The process by which we will further review the request is set out in 30 CFR 761.16(d) and (e). As required by 30 CFR 761.16(d)(1), we are publishing this notice to seek public comment on the merits of the request. A similar notice will also be published in a newspaper of general circulation in Owsley County, Kentucky.
After the close of the comment period, we will review the materials submitted with the request, all comments received in response to this and other notices, and any other relevant, reasonably available information to determine whether the record is sufficiently complete and adequate to support a decision on the merits of the request. If not, we will notify the requester, in writing, explaining the inadequacy of the record and requesting submittal, within a specified time, of any material needed to remedy the deficiency.
Once the record is complete and adequate, we will determine whether the requester has demonstrated VER for the proposed access and haul road. Our decision document will contain findings of fact and conclusions, along with an explanation of the reasons for our conclusions. We will publish a notice of the decision in the
However, as provided in 30 CFR 761.16(d)(1)(iv), we will not make a decision on the merits of the request, if, by the close of the comment period under this notice or the notice required by 30 CFR 761.16(d)(3), a person with a legal interest in the land to which the request pertains initiates appropriate legal action in the proper venue to resolve any differences concerning the validity or interpretation of the deed, lease, easement, or other documents that form the basis of the request. This provision applies only if our decision is based upon the standard in paragraph (c)(1) of the definition of VER in 30 CFR 761.5. It will not apply if we base our decision on the standard in paragraph (c)(3) of the definition.
We will make the VER determination request and associated materials available to you for review as prescribed in 30 CFR 842.16, except to the extent that the confidentiality provisions of 30 CFR 773.6(d) apply. Subject to those restrictions, you may review a copy of the request for the VER determination and all comments received in response to this request at the Lexington Field Office (
If you wish to comment on the merits of the request for a VER determination, please send electronic or written comments to us at the addresses above (
If you submit comments by E-mail, please include your name and return address in your message. You may contact the Lexington Field Office at (859) 260-8402 if you wish to confirm receipt of your message.
We will make all comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during normal business hours at the location listed in
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on January 3, 2006 (71 FR 133) and determined on April 10, 2006 that
The Commission transmitted its determinations in these reviews to the Secretary of Commerce on June 15, 2006. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3858 (June 2006), entitled Helical Spring Lock Washers from China and Taiwan (Inv. Nos. 731-TA-624 and 625 (Second Review)).
By order of the Commission.
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 16, 2006, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Zippo Manufacturing Co., Inc. of Bradford, Pennsylvania and ZippMark, Inc. of Wilmington, Delaware. A supplement to the complaint was filed on June 5, 2006. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain lighters by reason of infringement of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,606,241. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
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 impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
Thomas S. Fusco, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2571.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2006).
(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)(C) 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 lighters by reason of infringement of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,606,241, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are—
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Commission investigative attorney, party to this investigation, is Thomas S. Fusco, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Honorable Charles E. Bullock is designated as the presiding administrative law judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
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 this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondents, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of a limited exclusion order or cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Commission determination not to close any part of the hearing to the public.
The Commission has determined to deny the request of respondent Nishiyama Kinzoku Ltd. Co. (“Nishiyama”) to conduct a portion of its hearing in the above-captioned investigation scheduled for June 22, 2006,
Karl von Schriltz, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone 202-205-3096. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter may be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810.
The Commission believes it should conduct its business in public in all but the most unusual circumstances. The Commission has determined that, in light of the nature of this investigation, it will be able to assess adequately all arguments raised by Nishiyama without resorting to the extraordinary measure of an
This notice is provided pursuant to Commission Rule 201.35(b) (19 CFR 201.35(b)).
By order of the Commission.
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail:
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202-395-7316 (this is not a toll-free number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment Standards Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Uniform Billing Form (OWCP-92). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before August 21, 2006.
Ms. Hazel M. Bell, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693-0418, fax (202) 693-1451, E-mail
The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) is the agency responsible for administration of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C. 8101,
The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The Department of Labor seeks approval for the extension of this information collection in order to carry out its responsibility to provide payment covered medical services to injured employees who are covered under the FECA, BLBA and the EEOICPA.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice.
NARA is giving public notice that the agency has submitted to OMB for approval the information collections described in this notice. The public is invited to comment on the proposed information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted to OMB at the address below on or before July 20, 2006 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments to Desk Officer for NARA, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5167.
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information collection and supporting statement should be directed to Tamee Fechhelm at telephone number 301-837-1694 or fax number 301-837-3213.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), NARA invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. NARA published a notice of proposed collection for this information collection on April 6, 2006 (71 FR 17499 and 17500). No comments were received. NARA has submitted the described information collections to OMB for approval.
In response to this notice, comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) Whether the proposed information collections are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NARA; (b) the accuracy of NARA's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collections; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
1.
2.
3.
4.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Documents containing reporting or recordkeeping requirements: Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review; correction.
This document corrects a notice appearing in the
On page 33321, first column, second paragraph, the date “August 7, 2006” should read “July 10, 2006.”
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-85, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC, for operation of the Limerick Generating Station, Unit 2, located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
The proposed one-time amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.6.1.7 concerning drywell average air temperature. Specifically,
The exigent amendment request is being made because both fans of the 2D drywell unit cooler are inoperable and out of service, which resulted in an increase in drywell average air temperature from approximately 129 °F to approximately 142 °F. Historically, LGS has experienced an increase in the drywell average air temperature of 2-4 °F during the summer months with normal drywell air cooling system operation. Under the current plant condition, this could result in the potential to exceed the TS limit of 145 °F. Noticing this license amendment request in the Biweekly
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No. The increase in the allowable drywell average air temperature during normal plant operation does not make any physical changes to the plant. It only permits the plant to operate at a higher drywell average air temperature for a limited period of time, and therefore, does not increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated. This increase in the drywell average air temperature has been evaluated to ensure that the change does not adversely affect the ability of the primary containment to perform its safety related function during accident conditions.
The LGS containment design was previously evaluated using an initial average air temperature of 150 °F for the design basis Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA). The results of this evaluation showed that the peak drywell air temperature does not exceed the limit of 340 °F post-accident and that the peak drywell pressure does not exceed the design limit of 55 psig. In addition, the results of this evaluation showed that the peak suppression pool temperature does not exceed the suppression pool structural design limit of 220 °F, and does not exceed the low pressure Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) pump net positive suction head (NPSH) limit of 212 °F. The proposed change is also bounded by the current small line break analysis.
Evaluation of components in the drywell has determined that the proposed one-time increase in the drywell average air temperature does not adversely affect the capability to perform their safety function. For components in the drywell, the qualified life was based on operation at a minimum drywell average air temperature of 145 °F. An evaluation of the qualified life of components in the drywell has been performed and has determined that current qualification will not be adversely impacted even if the components are exposed to a temperature of 150 °F for the remainder of the current operating cycle. The increased average air temperature of the drywell atmosphere does not degrade or compromise any coolant boundaries nor does it degrade or compromise any primary containment boundaries from performing their design functions during or following an accident condition. This proposed change does not result in or require any systems or components to be operated outside of their design limits.
This proposed change does not adversely affect mitigating systems, structures or components, and does not adversely affect the initial conditions of any accidents. Redundancy and diversity of mitigating systems are unchanged as a result of this proposed change. This proposed change does not affect onsite or offsite radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR).
Therefore, this proposed TS change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No. The one-time increase in the drywell average air temperature proposed by this TS change does not change any SSC [structures, systems, and components of the plant. This TS change does not create new operating or failure modes. The normal operating drywell average air temperature is maintained to prevent the peak temperature/pressure of the primary containment from exceeding the design limit, and to ensure that SSCs perform their safety functions before, during and after accident conditions. A previous evaluation has shown that the limits for the drywell and suppression pool design temperatures and pressures are not exceeded by the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No. This proposed change will allow the plant to operate at a higher drywell average air temperature during normal operation for the remainder of the current operating cycle. This higher drywell average air temperature (148 °F) is still below the initial conditions (150 °F) specified in the current short and long-term containment analyses. This change does not create additional heat loads or change the way any of the equipment is operated. A previous evaluation has demonstrated that the drywell and suppression pool design pressures and design temperatures and code requirements are maintained. Therefore, this one-time change to the TS drywell average air temperature limit, to allow the plant to operate no greater than 148 °F for no longer than the remainder of the current operating cycle, does not have any adverse effect on the ability of safety-related SSCs to perform their design functions. The SSCs are designed to function following a LOCA where drywell temperature can peak at 340 °F. For components in the drywell, the qualified life was based on operation at a minimum drywell average air temperature of 145 °F. An evaluation of the qualified life of components in the drywell has been performed and has determined that current qualification will not be adversely impacted even if the components are exposed to a temperature of 150 °F for the remainder of the current operating cycle.
Therefore, this proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 14 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 14-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 14-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State comments received. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner/requestor is aware and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petitioner/requestor must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(I)-(viii).
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated June 9, 2006, which is available for public inspection at 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. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of June 19, 26, July 3, 10, 17, 24, 2006.
Commissioners' Conference room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of June 26, 2006.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of July 3, 2006.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of July 10, 2006.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of July 17, 2006.
*The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)—(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415-1662.
*The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g., braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at
This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to
Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from May 25, 2006 to June 8, 2006. The last biweekly notice was published on June 6, 2006 (71 FR 32603).
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(I)-(viii).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Core operating limits are established each operating cycle in accordance with TS 3.2, “Power Distribution” and TS 5.6.5, “Core Operating Limits Report (COLR)”. These core operating limits ensure that the fuel design limits are not exceeded during any conditions of normal operation or in the event of any Anticipated Operational Occurrence (AOO). In addition, the Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate (APLHGR) operating limits imposed by Technical Specification 3.2.1 also ensure that the Peak Cladding Temperature (PCT) during the postulated design[-]basis LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] does not exceed the 2200 °F limit specified in 10 CFR 50.46. The APLHGR is a measure of the average linear heat generation rate of all the fuel rods in a fuel assembly at any axial location.
The methods used to determine the operating limits are those previously found acceptable by the NRC and listed in TS Section 5.6.5.b. A change to TS Section 5.6.5.b is requested to include an updated LOCA analysis method, EXEM BWR-2000. The updated method will be used to determine the APLHGR operating limits imposed by Technical Specification 3.2.1. EXEM BWR-2000 has been reviewed and approved by the NRC and is applicable to the GGNS [Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1] plant design and the FRA-ANP [Framatome-Advance Nuclear Power] fuel being used at GGNS. The application of the LOCA analytical model will continue to ensure that the APLHGR operating limits are established to protect the fuel cladding integrity during normal operation, AOOs, and the design-basis LOCA. The requested TS changes concern the use of analytical methods and do not involve any plant modifications or operational changes that could affect any postulated accident precursors or accident mitigation systems and do not introduce any new accident initiation mechanisms.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed TS amendment will not change the design function, reliability, performance, or operation of any plant systems, components, or structures. It does not create the possibility of a new failure mechanism, malfunction, or accident initiators not considered in the design and licensing bases. Plant operation will continue to be within the core operating limits that are established using NRC[-]approved methods that are applicable to the GGNS design and the GGNS fuel.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The ECCS [emergency core cooling system] performance analysis methods are used to establish the APLHGR limits required by Technical Specification 3.2.1. The APLHGR limits are specified in the COLR and are the result of fuel design, design[-]basis accident (DBA), and transient analyses. Limits on the APLHGR are specified to ensure that the fuel design limits are not exceeded during anticipated operational occurrences (AOOs) and that the peak cladding temperature (PCT) during the postulated design[-]basis LOCA does not exceed the 2200 °F limit specified in 10 CFR 50.46.
The EXEM BWR-2000 evaluation model is an updated LOCA analytical method that has been approved by the NRC and is applicable to the GGNS plant design and the fuel being used at GGNS. A GGNS plant[-]specific ECCS performance analysis has been performed with the EXEM BWR-2000 evaluation model. This evaluation concluded that the resulting PCT still afforded adequate margin to the 2200 °F limit of 10 CFR 50.46.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The proposed change requires a SG Program that includes performance criteria that will provide reasonable assurance that the SG tubing will retain integrity over the full range of operating conditions (including startup, operation in the power range, hot standby, cooldown and all anticipated transients included in the design specification). The SG performance criteria are based on tube structural integrity, accident induced leakage, and operational LEAKAGE.
A SGTR event is one of the design basis accidents that are analyzed as part of a plant's licensing basis. In the analysis of a SGTR event, a bounding primary to secondary LEAKAGE rate equal to the operational LEAKAGE rate limits in the licensing basis plus the LEAKAGE rate associated with a double-ended rupture of a single tube is assumed.
For other design basis accidents such as MSLB, rod ejection, and reactor coolant pump locked rotor the tubes are assumed to retain their structural integrity (i.e., they are assumed not to rupture). These analyses typically assume that primary to secondary LEAKAGE for all SGs is 1 gallon per minute or increases to 1 gallon per minute as a result of accident induced stresses. The accident induced leakage criterion introduced by the proposed changes accounts for tubes that may leak during design basis accidents. The accident induced leakage criterion limits this leakage to no more than the value assumed in the accident analysis.
The SG performance criteria proposed change to the TS identify the standards against which tube integrity is to be measured. Meeting the performance criteria provides reasonable assurance that the SG tubing will remain capable of fulfilling its specific safety function of maintaining reactor coolant pressure boundary integrity throughout each operating cycle and in the unlikely event of a design basis accident. The performance criteria are only a part of the SG Program required by the proposed change to the TS. The program, defined by NEI 97-06, Steam Generator Program Guidelines, includes a framework that incorporates a balance of prevention, inspection, evaluation, repair, and leakage monitoring. The proposed changes do not, therefore, significantly increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The consequences of design basis accidents are, in part, functions of the DOSE EQUIVALENT 1-131 in the primary coolant and the primary to secondary LEAKAGE rates resulting from an accident. Therefore, limits are included in the plant technical specifications for operational leakage and for DOSE EQUIVALENT 1-131 in primary coolant to ensure the plant is operated within its analyzed condition. The typical analysis of the limiting design basis accident assumes that primary to secondary leak rate after the accident is 1 gallon per minute with no more than 150 gallons per day in any one SG, and that the reactor coolant activity levels of DOSE EQUIVALENT 1-131 are at the TS values before the accident. The proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs, their method of operation, or primary coolant chemistry controls. The proposed approach updates the current TSs and enhances the requirements for SG inspections. The proposed change does not adversely impact any other previously evaluated design basis accident and is an improvement over the current TSs.
Therefore, the proposed change does not affect the consequences of a SGTR accident and the probability of such an accident is reduced. In addition, the proposed changes do not affect the consequences of an MSLB, rod ejection, or a reactor coolant pump locked rotor event, or other previously evaluated accident.
The proposed performance based requirements are an improvement over the requirements imposed by the current technical specifications. Implementation of the proposed SG Program will not introduce any adverse changes to the plant design basis or postulated accidents resulting from potential tube degradation. The result of the implementation of the SG Program will be an enhancement of SG tube performance. Primary to secondary LEAKAGE that may be experienced during all plant conditions will be monitored to ensure it remains within current accident analysis assumptions.
The proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs, their method of operation, or primary or secondary coolant chemistry controls. In addition, the proposed change does not impact any other plant system or component. The change enhances SG inspection requirements.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors are an integral part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and, as such, are relied upon to maintain the primary system's pressure and inventory. As part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are unique in that they are also relied upon as a heat transfer surface between the primary and secondary systems such that residual heat can be removed from the primary system. In addition, the SG tubes isolate the radioactive fission products in the primary coolant from the secondary system. In summary, the safety function of an SG is maintained by ensuring the integrity of its tubes.
Steam generator tube integrity is a function of the design, environment, and the physical condition of the tube. The proposed change does not affect tube design or operating environment. The proposed change is expected to result in an improvement in the tube integrity by implementing the SG Program to manage SG tube inspection, assessment, repair, and plugging. The requirements established by the SG Program are consistent with those in the applicable design codes and standards and are an improvement over the requirements in the current TSs.
For the above reasons, the margin of safety is not changed and overall plant safety will be enhanced by the proposed change to the TS.
Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
In general, fuel assemblies and more specifically fuel rod cladding, of any burnup level, is not a precursor to accidents previously evaluated. An evaluation has been performed of the Mark-BW design fuel assembly for all loss-of-coolant accidents (LOCA) and non-LOCA transient events. This evaluation confirmed and justified the use of Mark-BW fuel for operation in Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) Units 1 and 2.
The ability of the M5 fuel rod cladding material to provide a barrier against the release of radioactive fuel material has not been reduced with respect to the Zircaloy-4 material. The approved TR evaluated postulated accidents that involved adverse core conditions and the release of radionuclides, and found that higher burnup limits have very little impact on the overall radiological consequences. Radiological consequences, as well as other safety limits, are evaluated on a cycle-to-cycle basis to confirm that the analyses of record remain bounding. If a proposed extended burnup core design exceeds bounding safety analysis values, then either the core design would be changed, or the safety values would be changed.
Rod cladding failures are assumed to occur in the fuel handling accident; however, the consequences of this event are independent of the properties of the fuel rod cladding. This is based on the fuel handling event assuming the rupture of all fuel rods regardless of the rod cladding material.
No change is proposed to the established safety analysis fuel assembly inputs, specifically fuel assemblies are still limited to a maximum 1500 effective full power day (EFPD) burnup and the reactor core average maximum burnup will remain at 1000 EFPD burnup ensuring the present accident analyses remain bounding. Based on above discussion, the proposed revision to extend the burnup limit of M5 fuel rod cladding material will not significantly increase the consequences of an accident and the potential for the release of radioactive material to the environment.
Removing revision numbers, dates, and parenthetical information from the listed TRs has no impact on the actual analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits, nor does the change have impact on the calculations performed for the current or future reloads. This change is administrative in nature. This change has no impact on plant equipment operation nor does it affect the likelihood or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Mark-BW fuel design with M5 alloy has been demonstrated to have similar characteristics to that of the Mark-B fuel design. Extended burnup of the M5 material has not been shown to alter the functions of the rod cladding, which is to provide a barrier against the release of radioactive material. Initial plant conditions, which are considered in the accident analysis, will also be maintained such that no new plant conditions will exist that could affect the analysis results. Since plant functions and conditions are not impacted by the proposed revision and the higher burnup limit of the Mark-BW fuel design with M5 alloy material is not postulated to become an accident initiator based on the similarity with Mark-B fuel design and Zircaloy-4 material, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident is not created.
The proposed changes will not alter the plant configuration or require any new or unusual operator actions. They do not alter the way any structure, system, or component functions and do not alter the manner in which the plant is operated. These changes do not introduce any new failure modes.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established by the acceptance criteria used by NRC. Meeting the acceptance criteria assures that the consequences of accidents are within known and acceptable limits. The emergency core cooling system (ECCS) acceptance criteria are not exceeded. Testing has been performed on M5 alloy with respect to criteria for peak cladding temperature (PCT) and maximum cladding oxidation. These tests demonstrate that M5 alloy rod cladding remains within PCT of 2200 degrees Fahrenheit and conservatively bounded by the 17 percent limit for maximum cladding oxidation. M5 alloy oxidation rates are lower than that of Zircaloy at temperatures less than 2200 degrees Fahrenheit and have similar rates for temperatures up to about 2300 degrees Fahrenheit. High-temperature oxidation rates of M5 alloy remain equivalent to Zircaloy and, as such, respond as hydrogen generators to the same extent. Core geometry for amenable cooling is not directly related to rod cladding material; however, it applies equally well to all materials. The consequences of both thermal and mechanical deformation of fuel assemblies have been assessed, and the resultant deformations have been shown to maintain coolable core configurations. The ECCS is evaluated against the thermal power immediately after shutdown. The thermal power is largely a function of short-lived fission products which tend to saturate at relatively low burnup limits and are not appreciably affected by extended burnup. Therefore, with no system changes being proposed; long-term cooling is maintained. Additionally, the fuel storage cooling system is capable of supporting the long-term storage of the extended burnup fuel assemblies' decay heat.
The changes to burnup limit have been evaluated against Departure from Nucleate Boiling (DNB) events and all applicable acceptance criteria are met. In addition, the proposed revision to allow an increase in the burnup limit of the Mark-BW fuel design with M5 alloy will not impact plant setpoints that maintain the margin of safety. Based on these results, it is concluded that the margin of safety is not significantly reduced. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Removing revision numbers, dates, and parenthetical information from the listed TRs will not reduce a margin of safety because this information has no effect on any safety analysis assumption nor does it revise any setpoints assumed in the analysis of record. The proposed change is consistent with NUREG-1431, issued by the NRC staff, revising the TSs to reflect the approved level of detail, which indicates that there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The design function of the sump during accident conditions is to support emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) and containment spray system operation for
The proposed change to the UFSAR regarding debris transport analysis provides an overall improvement in the analysis for recirculation operation and does not change the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The change in methodology is neutral with regard to probability. Consequently, the changes associated with the enclosed license amendment do not affect the frequency of occurrence for accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
Accident dose as previously evaluated in the UFSAR is unaffected by the proposed license amendment.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The sump is a passive component and is not an accident initiator; i.e., failure of the sump will not initiate a design basis accident. The sump transport methodology is used to confirm the ability of the sump to perform all safety functions during normal and accident conditions. Consequently, this activity does not create a possibility of a new or different type of accident than any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The changes addressed in TVA's proposed amendment are associated with methodology for debris transport to the containment sump.
The change does not affect specific safety limits, design limits, set points, or other critical parameters. The transport methodology is used to confirm that the ECCS and containment spray systems will perform their safety functions for all accident conditions within existing equipment performance capability margins.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes would add new thyroid dose conversion factor reference[s] to the definition of DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131, eliminate the definition of Ē—AVERAGE DISINTEGRATION ENERGY, add a new definition of DOSE EQUIVALENT XE-133, replace the Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.16 limit on reactor coolant system (RCS) gross specific activity with a limit on noble gas specific activity in the form of a Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) on DOSE EQUIVALENT XE-133, increase the Completion Time for Required Action B.1, replace TS Figure 3.4.16-1 with a maximum limit on DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131, extend the Applicability of LCO 3.4.16, and make corresponding changes to TS 3.4.16 to reflect all of the above. The proposed changes are not accident initiators and have no impact on the probability of occurrence of any design basis accidents.
The proposed changes will have no impact on the consequences of a design basis accident because they will limit the RCS noble gas specific activity to be consistent with the values assumed in the radiological consequence analyses. The changes will also limit the potential RCS [radio]iodine concentration excursion to the value currently associated with full power operation, which is more restrictive on plant operation than the existing allowable RCS [radio]iodine specific activity at lower power levels.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. [Do] the proposed change[s] create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not alter any physical part of the plant nor do they affect any plant operating parameters besides the allowable specific activity in the RCS. The changes which impact the allowable specific activity in the RCS are consistent with the assumptions assumed in the current radiological consequence analyses. [The proposed changes are also not accident initiators.]
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The acceptance criteria related to the proposed changes involve the allowable control room and offsite radiological consequences following a design basis accident. The proposed changes will have no impact on the radiological consequences of a design basis accident because they will limit the RCS noble gas specific activity to be consistent with the values assumed in the radiological consequence analyses. The changes will also limit the potential RCS [radio]iodine specific activity excursion to the value currently associated with full power operation, which is more restrictive on plant operation than the existing allowable RCS [radio]iodine specific activity at lower power levels.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Because the proposed change[s remove] specific isolation times from the TS and [relocate] the specific values to the TS Bases, there are no design or physical changes to the facility or to the Main Steam and Main Feedwater System isolation valves themselves. The design and functional performance requirements, operational characteristics, and reliability of these components remain unchanged. There is[,] therefore[,] no impact on the design safety function of the valves to close (as an accident mitigator), nor is there any change with respect to inadvertent closure (as a potential transient initiator). Since no failure mode or initiating condition that could cause an accident (including any plant transient) evaluated per the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report]-described safety analyses is created or affected, the change cannot involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The probability of an accident is not affected. The Main Steam and Main Feedwater System isolation valves are assumed to function to mitigate some accidents (for example, SLB [steam line break] and FWLB [main feedwater line break]). The proposed change[s] only [affect] the level of detail included in the TS. The TS requirements continue to provide the same level of assurance as before that the Main Steam and Main Feedwater System isolation valves are capable of performing their intended safety function. These isolation valves will continue to be verified operable in the same manner as before. As such, the proposed change[s do] not affect the ability of the isolation valves to perform their assumed mitigation function.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change[s] only [affect] the level of detail included in the TS. The TS requirements [are not being changed and they will] continue to provide the same level of assurance as before that the Main Steam and Main Feedwater System isolation valves are capable of performing their intended safety function. The Main Steam and Main Feedwater System isolation valves will continue to be verified operable in the same manner. As such, the proposed change[s do] not involve a modification to the physical configuration of the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be installed) or change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change[s] will not impose any new or different requirements or introduce a new accident initiator, accident precursor, or malfunction mechanism. Additionally, there is no change in the types or increases in the amounts of any effluent that may be released off-site and there is no increase in individual or cumulative occupational exposure.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change[s do] not reduce the margin of safety. The proposed change[s] only [affect] the level of detail included in the TS. The TS requirements [are not being changed and will] continue to provide the same level of assurance as before that the Main Steam and Main Feedwater System isolation valves will continue to be verified operable in the same manner as before. As such, the proposed change[s do] not affect the assumptions of any accident analysis or the availability or operability of any plant equipment.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The following notices were previously published as separate individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were published as individual notices either because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) The applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site,
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 26, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 25, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 1, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 30, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The amendments represent partial approval of the January 20, 2005, application for the proposed amendments. The Commission has granted the request of Florida Power and Light Company (the licensee) to withdraw portions of its January 20, 2005, application for the proposed amendment. The application also included TSTF-95, which would extend the completion time for reducing the Power Range High trip setpoint from 8 to 72 hours and TSTF-101, which would change the auxiliary feedwater pump test frequency to be consistent with the inservice test program frequency. However, by letter dated March 22, 2005, the licensee withdrew the request to adopt TSTF-95 and by letter dated October 13, 2005, the licensee withdrew the request to adopt TSTF-101.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 26, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 5, 2006.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 5, 2006.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 26, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 30, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 25, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”).
Notice of application for an order under Section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) granting exemptions from the provisions of Sections 2(a)(32), and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder.
ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company (“ING USA”), Separate Account B of ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company (“Account B”), ReliaStar Life Insurance Company of New York (“RLNY”) (ING USA and RLNY collectively, the “Life Companies”), Separate Account NY-B of ReliaStar Life Insurance Company of New York (“Account NY-B”) (Account B and Account NY-B collectively, the “Accounts”), and Directed Services, Inc. (“DSI”).
The Applicants request an order pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Act exempting them from the provisions of Sections 2(a)(32) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder to the extent necessary to permit recapture of certain bonuses applied to purchase payments with respect to: (1) The deferred variable annuity contracts and certificates described herein that the Life Companies intend to issue (the “Current Contracts”); (2) deferred variable annuity contracts and certificates, substantially similar to the Current Contracts that the Life Companies may issue in the future (the “Future Contracts”) (Current Contracts and Future Contracts collectively, the “Contracts”); (3) any other separate accounts of the Life Companies and their successors in interest (“Future Accounts”) that support the Contracts; and (4) any National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) member broker-dealers controlling, controlled by, or under common control with any Applicant, whether existing or created in the future, that in the future, may act as principle underwriter for the Contracts (“Future Underwriters”). The circumstances under which the Contracts would allow the recapture of all or a portion of certain bonus credits (previously applied to premium payments) are where the bonus credits were applied and: (1) The contract owner exercises his or her “free look” right; (2) the contract owner dies within twelve months of the bonus credit being applied (unless the Contract is continued under the spousal benefit continuation option); or (3) the contract owner takes a partial withdrawal or surrenders the contract in the first seven or four contract years, as applicable, pursuant to the bonus credit recapture schedule set forth below.
The application was filed on February 28, 2006 and amended and restated on May 3, 2006.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Secretary of the Commission and serving the Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests must be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on July 7, 2006, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the Applicants in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons may request notification of a hearing by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, c/o Nicole J. Starr, Counsel, ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company, 1475 Dunwoody Drive, West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380.
Alison White, Senior Counsel, or Joyce M. Pickholz, Branch Chief, Office of Insurance Products, Division of Investment Management, at (202) 551-6795.
The following is a summary of the Application. The complete Application is available for a fee from the Public Reference Branch of the Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549.
1. ING USA is an Iowa stock life insurance company, which was originally incorporated in Minnesota on January 2, 1973. ING USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lion Connecticut Holdings, Inc. (“Lion Connecticut”) which in turn is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of ING Groep N.V. (“ING Group”), a global financial services holding company based in The Netherlands. ING USA is authorized to sell insurance and annuities in all states, except New York, and the District of Columbia. ING USA is the depositor and sponsor for Account B. ING USA also serves as depositor for several currently existing Future Accounts, one or more of which may support obligations under the Contracts. ING USA may establish one or more additional Future Accounts for which it will serve as depositor.
2. ING USA established Account B as a segregated investment account under Delaware law on July 14, 1988. Account B is registered with the Commission as a unit investment trust (File No. 811-5626), and interests in Account B offered through the Contracts will be registered under the Securities Act of 1933 on form N-4.
3. RLNY is a New York stock life insurance company originally incorporated on June 11, 1917 under the name, The Morris Plan Insurance Society. RLNY is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of ING Group. RLNY is authorized to transact business in all states, the District of Columbia, the Dominican Republic, and the Cayman Islands and is principally engaged in the business of providing individual life insurance and annuities, employee benefit products and services, retirement plans, and life and health reinsurance. RLNY is the depositor and sponsor for Account NY-B. RLNY also serves as depositor for several currently existing Future Accounts, one or more of which may support obligations under the Contracts. RLNY may establish one or more additional Future Accounts for which it will serve as depositor.
4. Account NY-B was established as a separate account of First Golden American Life Insurance Company of
5. The Accounts currently are divided into a number of subaccounts. Each subaccount invests exclusively in shares representing an interest in a separate corresponding investment portfolio of one of several series-type open-end management investment companies. The assets of the Accounts support one or more varieties of variable annuity contracts, including the Contracts.
6. DSI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lion Connecticut Holdings, Inc., which is in turn a wholly owned subsidiary of ING Group. It serves as the principal underwriter of a number of RLNY and ING USA separate accounts registered as unit investment trusts under the Act, including the Accounts, and is the distributor of the variable life insurance contracts and variable annuity contracts issued through such separate accounts, including the Contracts. DSI is registered as a broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is a member of the NASD. DSI may act as principal underwriter for Future Accounts of the Life Companies and as distributor for Contracts. Future Underwriters also may act as principal underwriter for the Accounts and as distributor for any of the Contracts.
7. The Contracts are deferred combination variable and fixed annuity contracts that a Life Company may issue to individuals or groups on a “non-qualified” basis or in connection with employee benefit plans that receive favorable Federal income tax treatment under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The Contracts make available a number of subaccounts of the Accounts to which an owner may allocate net premium payments and associated bonus credits (described below) and to which an owner may transfer contract value. There are categories of subaccounts for purposes of determining benefits under living benefits and death benefits. The Contracts also offer fixed-interest allocation options under which a Life Company credits guaranteed rates of interest for various periods. A market value adjustment applies to the fixed-interest allocation options under the Contracts. An owner may make transfers of contract value among and between the subaccounts and, subject to certain restrictions, among and between the subaccounts and the fixed-interest allocation options at any time.
8. The Contracts offer a variety of annuity payment options to an owner. The owner may annuitize any time following the fifth contract anniversary. If a contingent deferred sales charge remains at the time of annuitization, the annuity payment option must include at least a 10 year fixed period. In the event of an owner's (or the annuitant's, if any owner is not an individual) death prior to annuitization, the beneficiary may elect to receive the death benefit in the form of one of the annuity payment options instead of a lump sum. The Contracts generally may only be purchased with a minimum initial premium of $10,000 ($1,500 for certain employee benefit plans).
9. A Life Company may deduct a premium tax charge from premium payments in certain states, but otherwise deducts a charge for premium taxes upon surrender or annuitization of the Contract or upon the payment of a death benefit, depending upon the jurisdiction. The Contracts provide for an annual administrative charge of $40 that a Life Company deducts on each Contract Anniversary and upon a full surrender of a Contract. A daily mortality and expense risk charge is deducted from the assets of the Accounts at a rate depending on the death benefit chosen as described below. The range of maximum mortality and expense risk charges is 1.70% to 2.80% annually. A daily administrative charge is deducted from the assets of the Account at an annual rate of 0.15%. The Contracts provide for a charge of $25 for each transfer of contract value in excess of twelve transfers per contract year. The Life Companies currently waive this charge and anticipate waiving this charge for the foreseeable future. The Contracts have a surrender charge in the form of a contingent deferred sales charge as described more fully below. If an owner chooses an optional surrender charge schedule rider that reduces the length of time during which the contingent deferred sales charge is applied, an additional charge will be deducted as described below. A quarterly charge is assessed depending on the type of optional living benefit chosen, if any, as described below. Lastly, if an owner chooses the optional premium credit rider, an additional charge will be deducted as described below.
10. The contingent deferred sales charge (the “CDSC”) is equal to a percentage of each premium payment surrendered or withdrawn. The CDSC is separately calculated and applied to each premium payment at any time that the premium payment (or part of the premium payment) is surrendered or withdrawn. The CDSC applicable to each premium payment diminishes to zero as the payment ages. The Contracts offer a standard CDSC schedule as follows:
The charge for the optional CDSC schedule is currently 0.45% of contract value per year, assessed quarterly for four years. The maximum charge for the optional CDSC schedule will be 0.90% of contract value per year, assessed quarterly for four years.
11. The CDSC does not apply when a death benefit is payable under the contracts or to contract value representing an annual free withdrawal amount or to contract value in excess of aggregate premium payments (less prior withdrawals of premium payments) (“earnings”). The CDSC is calculated using the assumption that premium payments are withdrawn on a first-in, first-out basis. The CDSC also is calculated using the assumption that contract value is withdrawn in the following order: (a) The annual free withdrawal amount for that contract year; (b) premium payments; and (c) earnings. The annual free withdrawal amount is 10% of contract value, measured at the time of withdrawal, less any prior withdrawals made in that contract year.
12. Subject to state availability, an owner may purchase optional living benefit riders. The minimum guaranteed income benefit rider (the “MGIB Rider”) guarantees that a minimum amount of annuity income will be available to the owner, regardless of fluctuating market conditions, if the owner annuitizes on or after the rider's exercise date. The minimum guaranteed amount of annuity income will depend on the amount of
13. The minimum guaranteed withdrawal benefit rider (the “MGWB Rider”) guarantees that a certain amount may be withdrawn annually regardless of market performance and even if the contract value is reduced to zero. Some Contracts offer the guaranteed withdrawal amount until the MGWB Base (as defined in the MGWB Rider) is completely recovered. Most Contracts offer the guaranteed withdrawal amount for life. The Life Companies expect to extend the guaranteed withdrawal amount for until the death of the second designated life. The MGWB Rider is subject to conditions and limitations. A Life Company will deduct a maximum annual charge of 1.50% (currently, between 0.45% and 0.75%, depending on the rider and Contract) quarterly of the charge basis (as set forth in the MGWB Rider).
14. If an owner dies before the annuity start date, the Contracts provide for a death benefit payable to a beneficiary, computed as of the date a Life Company receives written notice and due proof of death. The death benefit payable to the beneficiary depends on the death benefit option selected by the owner: (a) Standard death benefit; (b) ratchet death benefit; or (c) rollup death benefit. In the future, a Life Company may also offer an optional earnings multiplier benefit rider.
15. The standard death benefit equals the greater of the (a) base death benefit, and (b) premium and bonus credits, adjusted pro-rata for withdrawals and transfers, less total bonus credits applied since or within twelve months prior to death. The base death benefit is the greater of the (1) contract value on the claim date, less bonus credits applied since or within twelve months prior to death, and (2) cash surrender value. The maximum daily mortality and risk charge for the standard death benefit is the annual rate of 1.70% (currently 0.85%). A Life Company may, in the future, offer the base death benefit as a stand alone option for the maximum daily mortality and risk charge of 2.00% annually.
16. The ratchet death benefit equals the greater of the (a) standard death benefit, and (b) greatest contract value as of any quarterly or annual, as applicable, contract anniversary occurring on or prior to the maximum attained age, adjusted for new premiums and bonus credits, reduced pro rata for withdrawals and transfers, less bonus credits applied since or within twelve months prior to death. The maximum daily mortality and risk charge for the ratchet death benefit is the annual rate of 2.20% (currently 1.10%).
17. The roll-up death benefit equals the greater of (a) the ratchet death benefit, and (b) the lesser of (1) a specified maximum percentage of all premiums plus bonus credits adjusted pro-rata for withdrawals and transfers, or (2) premiums and bonus credits, if applicable, adjusted for withdrawals and transfers accumulated at a specified percentage up to the maximum attained age, less bonus credits applied since or within twelve months prior to death. The maximum daily mortality and risk charge for the roll-up death benefit is the annual rate of 2.80% (currently 1.40%).
18. The earnings multiplier benefit rider provides a separate additional death benefit option. This rider provides additional funds to the beneficiary that be used to help pay the taxes on the death benefit. Upon the owner's death, the beneficiary receives an amount equal to a percentage of the Contract's earnings, if any, up to a maximum amount. The maximum charge is 0.50% (currently 0.25%).
19. The Life Companies intend to offer an optional bonus credit rider under the Contracts, which the owner may elect at the time of application. Under the bonus credit rider, a Life Company credits the contract value in the subaccounts and the fixed-interest allocations with a bonus credit amount that is a percentage of each premium payment made. The bonus credit applies upon issuance of the Contract and is based upon premium payments received within the first contract year. A Life Company allocates the bonus credit for the applicable premium payment among the subaccounts and fixed-interest allocations the owner selects in proportion to the premium payment allocated to each investment option. If the owner has elected to retain the standard CDSC schedule, the bonus credit equals 4% of each premium payment made in the first contract year. If the owner has elected to have the optional CDSC schedule rider, the bonus credit equals 2% of each premium payment made in the first contract year. A Life Company reserves the right to increase or decrease the amount of the bonus credit or discontinue the bonus credit rider in the future.
20. The maximum annual charge assessed for the bonus credit rider (as a percentage of contract value) is 0.57% (currently, 0.55%) for the first seven contract years if the owner retains the standard CDSC schedule and 0.50% (currently, 0.45%) for the first four contract years if the owner selects the optional CDSC schedule rider. The charge is deducted from the contract value in the subaccounts and from amounts in fixed interest allocations by crediting a lower interest rate.
21. Under the bonus credit rider, a Life Company recaptures or retains the bonus credits in several circumstances. First, a Life Company recaptures or retains 100% of the bonus credits in the event that the owner exercises his or her cancellation right during the “free look” period. Second, a Life Company recaptures the bonus credits applied to premium payments made since or within twelve months of the date as of which a death benefit is computed (unless the Contract is continued under the spousal benefit continuation option). Third, a Life Company also will recapture part or all of the applicable bonus credit upon surrender or withdrawal of corresponding premium payments.
22. In the event of a surrender or withdrawal, the amount of the bonus credit a Life Company will recapture is based on the percentage of the corresponding premium payment withdrawn and the contract year of surrender or withdrawal. For each premium payment, the portion of the bonus credit subject to recapture is the total bonus credit amount attributable to that premium payment multiplied by the percentage of the corresponding premium payment withdrawn. The dollar amount of the bonus credit recaptured is the portion of the bonus credit subject to recapture multiplied by the applicable recapture percentage. The recapture percentage applicable to each bonus credit depends on which CDSC is in effect and when the premium payment associated with such bonus credit was withdrawn. If the standard CDSC schedule is chosen, the recapture percentage applicable to each bonus credit is level for the first two contract years and diminishes to zero after the seventh contract year. The schedule is as follows:
23. Because of the recapture provisions discussed above, the value of a bonus credit only fully vests or belongs irrevocably to the owner when the recapture period for the bonus credit expires. All bonus credits vest over the 4-year period or 7-year period, as applicable, after a Life Company grants them. Under the bonus credit rider, a Life Company applies the bonus credit to an owner's contract value either by “purchasing” accumulation units of an appropriate subaccount or adding to the owner's fixed interest allocation option values.
24. With regard to variable contract value, several consequences flow from the foregoing. First, increases in the value of accumulation units representing bonus credits accrue to the owner immediately, but the initial value of such units only belongs to the owner when, or to the extent that, each vests. Second, decreases in the value of accumulation units representing bonus credits do not diminish the dollar amount of contract value subject to recapture. Therefore, additional accumulation units must become subject to recapture as their value decreases. Stated differently, the proportionate share of any owner's variable contract value (or the owner's interest in the Account) that a Life Company can “recapture” increases as variable contract value (or the owner's interest in the Account) decreases. This dilutes somewhat the owner's interest in the Account vis-à-vis a Life Company and other owners, and in his or her variable contract value vis-à-vis a Life Company. Lastly, because it is not administratively feasible to track the unvested value of bonus credits in the Account, a Life Company deducts the daily mortality and expense risk charge and the daily administrative charge from the entire net asset value of the Account. As a result, the daily mortality and expense risk charge, the daily administrative charge, and the daily bonus credit rider paid by any owner is greater than that which he or she would pay without the bonus credit.
25. Applicants previously have received an order for exemptive relief to permit the recapture of certain bonus credits on the prior contracts in similar circumstances to those described above. That order encompassed relief for future contracts substantially similar in all material respects to the prior contracts. Applicants assert that the Contracts described in the application differ from the prior contracts in several respects. Charges are slightly higher. The Contracts also offer living benefits and death benefit options not available with the prior contracts. Because the Applicants believe the Commission may view these differences as material, Applicants are seeking an additional order as set forth in the application.
1. The Applicants hereby request that the Commission issue an order pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Act to exempt the Applicants with respect to: (a) The Contracts; (b) Future Accounts that support the Contracts; and (c) Future Underwriters from the provisions of Sections 2(a)(32) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder, to the extent necessary to permit the recapture of all or a portion of the bonus credits (previously applied to premium payments) in the circumstances described above.
2. Section 6(c) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions from the provisions of the Act and the rules promulgated thereunder, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
3. Subsection (i) of Section 27 provides that Section 27 does not apply to any registered separate account supporting variable annuity contracts, or to the sponsoring insurance company and principal underwriter of such account, except as provided in paragraph (2) of subsection (i). Paragraph (2) provides that it shall be unlawful for a registered separate account or sponsoring insurance company to sell a variable annuity contract supported by the separate account unless the “ * * * contract is a redeemable security; and * * * [t]he insurance company complies with Section 26(e)* * *”
4. Section 2(a)(32) defines a “redeemable security” as any security, other than short-term, paper, under the terms of which the holder, upon presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately his proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent thereof.
5. Rule 22c-1 imposes requirements with respect to both the amount payable on redemption of a redeemable security and the time as of which such amount is calculated. Specifically, Rule 22c-1, in pertinent part, prohibits a registered investment company issuing any redeemable security, a person designated in such issuer's prospectus as authorized to consummate transactions in any such security, and a principal underwriter of, or dealer in, such security from selling, redeeming or repurchasing any such security, except at a price based on the current net asset value of such security which is next computed after receipt of a tender of such security for redemption, or of an order to purchase or sell such security.
6. To the extent that the recapture of the bonus credits arguably could be seen as a discount from the net asset value, or arguably could be viewed as resulting in the payment to an owner of less than the proportional share of the issuer's net assets, in violation of Sections 2(a)(32) or 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act, the bonus credit recapture would trigger the need for relief absent some exemption from the Act. Rule 6c-8 provides, in relevant part, that a registered separate account, and any depositor of such account, shall be exempt from Sections 2(a)(32), 27(c)(1), 27(c)(2) and 27(d) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder to the extent necessary to permit them to impose a deferred sales loan on any variable annuity contract participating in such account. However, the bonus credit recapture is not a sales load. Rather, it is a recapture of a bonus credit previously applied to an owner's premium payments. A Life Company provides the bonus credit from its general account on a guaranteed basis. The Contracts are designed to be long-term investment vehicles. In undertaking this financial obligation, a
7. Applicants submit that the proposed bonus credit rider would not violate Sections 2(a)(32) or 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act. A Life Company would grant bonus credits out of its general account assets and the amount of the bonus credits (although not the earnings on such amounts) would remain the Life Company's until such amounts vest with the owner. Until the appropriate recapture period expires, a Life Company retains the right to and interest in each owner's contract value representing the dollar amount of any unvested bonus credits. Therefore, if a Life Company recaptures any bonus credit or part of a bonus credit in the circumstances described above, it would merely be retrieving its own assets. To the extent that a Life Company may grant and recapture bonus credits in connection with variable contract value, it would not, at either time, deprive any owner of his or her then proportionate share of the Account's assets.
8. Applicants further submit that the dynamics of the proposed bonus credit rider would not violate Sections 2(a)(32) or 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act because the recapture of bonus credits would not, at any time, deprive an owner of his or her proportionate share of the current net assets of an Account. Section 2(a)(32) defines a redeemable security as one “under the terms of which the holder,
9. A Life Company's granting of bonus credits would have the result of increasing an owner's contract value in a way that arguably could be viewed as the purchase of an interest in the Account at a price below the current net asset value. Similarly, a Life Company's recapture of any bonus credit arguably could be viewed as the redemption of such an interest at a price above the current net asset value. If such is the case, then the bonus credit rider arguably could be viewed as conflicting with Rule 22c-1. Applicants contend that these are not correct interpretations or applications of these statutory and regulatory provisions. Applicants also contend that the bonus credits do not violate Rule 22c-1.
10. Rule 22c-1 was intended to eliminate or reduce, as far as was reasonably practicable, (a) the dilution of the value of outstanding redeemable securities of registered investment companies through their sale at a price below net asset value or their redemption at a price above net asset value, or (b) other unfair results, including speculative trading practices. Applicants submit that the evils prompting the adoption of Rule 22c-1 were primarily the result of backward pricing, the practice of basing the price of a mutual fund share on the net asset value per share determined as of the close of the market on the previous day. Backward pricing permitted certain investors to take advantage of increases or decreases in net asset value that were not yet reflected in the price, thereby diluting the values of outstanding shares.
11. The bonus credit rider does not give rise to either of the two evils that Rule 22c-1 was designed to address. First, the proposed bonus credit rider poses no such threat of dilution. An owner's interest in his or her contract value or in the Account would always be offered at a price based on the net asset value next calculated after receipt of the order. The granting of a bonus credit does not reflect a reduction of that price. Instead, a Life Company would purchase with its general account assets, on behalf of the owner, an interest in the Account equal to the bonus credit. Because the bonus credit will be paid out of the general account assets, not the Account assets, no dilution will occur as a result of the bonus credit. Recaptures of bonus credits result in a redemption of a Life Company's interest in an owner's contract value or in the Account at a price determined based on the Account's current net asset value and not at an inflated price. Moreover, the amount recaptured will always equal the amount that a Life Company paid from its general account for the bonus credits. Similarly, although an owner is entitled to retain any investment gains attributable to the bonus credits, the amount of such gains would always be computed at a price determined based on net asset value.
12. Second, Applicants submit that speculative trading practices calculated to take advantage of backward pricing will not occur as a result of a Life Company's recapture of the bonus credit. Variable annuities are designed for long-term investment, and by their nature, do not lend themselves to the kind of speculative short-term trading that Rule 22c-1 was designed to prevent. More to the point, the bonus credit recapture simply does not create the opportunity for speculative trading.
13. Rule 22c-1 should have no application to the bonus credit available, as neither of the harms that Rule 22c-1 was intended to address arise in connection with the proposed bonus credit rider. Nonetheless, in order to avoid any uncertainty as to full compliance with the Act, Applicants request an exemption from the provisions of Rule 22c-1.
14. The Applicants submit that the Commission should grant the exemptions requested in the application even if the bonus credit rider arguably conflicts with Sections 2(a)(32), or 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act or Rule 22c-1 thereunder. The bonus credit is generally beneficial to an owner. The recapture tempers this benefit somewhat, but unless the owner dies, the owner retains the ability to avoid the bonus credit recapture in the circumstances described herein. While there would be a small downside in a declining market where losses on the bonus credit amount would vest with him or her immediately, it is the converse of the benefits an owner would receive on the bonus amounts in a rising market because earnings on the bonus credit amount vest with him or her immediately. As any earnings on bonus credits applied would not be subject to recapture and thus would be immediately available to an owner, likewise any losses on bonus credits would also not be subject to recapture and thus would be immediately available to an owner. The bonus credit recapture does not diminish the overall value of the bonus credits.
15. The bonus credit recapture provision is necessary for a Life Company to offer the bonus credits and avoid anti-selection against it. It would be unfair to a Life Company to permit
16. In the event of such profits to an owner or beneficiary, a Life Company could not recover the cost of granting the bonus credits. This is because a Life Company intends to recoup the costs of providing the bonus credits through the charges under the bonus credit rider and the Contract, particularly the daily mortality and expense risk charge and the daily administrative charge. If the profits described above are permitted, an owner could take advantage of them, reducing the base from which the daily charges are deducted and greatly increasing the amount of bonus credits that a Life Company must provide. Therefore, the recapture provisions are a price of offering the bonus credits. A Life Company simply cannot offer the proposed bonus credits without the ability to recapture those credits in the limited circumstances described herein.
17. Applicants state that the Commission's authority under Section 6(c) of the Act to grant exemptions from various provisions of the Act and rules thereunder is broad enough to permit orders of exemption that cover classes of unidentified persons. Applicants request an order of the Commission that would exempt them, the Life Companies' successors in interest, Future Accounts and Future Underwriters from the provisions of Sections 2(a)(32) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder with respect to the Contracts. The exemption of these classes of persons is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act because all of the potential members of the class could obtain the foregoing exemptions for themselves on the same basis as the Applicants, but only at a cost to each of them that is not justified by any public policy purpose. As discussed below, the requested exemptions would only extend to persons that in all material respects are the same as the Applicants. The Commission has previously granted exemptions to classes of similarly situated persons in various contexts and in a wide variety of circumstances, including class exemptions for recapturing bonus credits under variable annuity contracts.
18. Applicants represent that any contracts in the future will be substantially similar in all material respects to the Contracts, but particularly with respect to the bonus credits and recapture of bonus credits, and that each factual statement and representation about the bonus credit rider will be equally true of any Contracts in the future. Applicants also represent that each material representation made by them about the Account and DSI will be equally true of Future Accounts and Future Underwriters, to the extent that such representations relate to the issues discussed in this Application. In particular, each Future Underwriter will be registered as a broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and be an NASD member.
19. For the reasons above, Applicants submit that the bonus credit rider involves none of the abuses to which provision of the Act and rules thereunder are directed. The owner will always retain the investment experience attributable to the bonus credit and will retain the principal amount in all cases except under the circumstances described herein. Further, a Life Company should be able to recapture such bonus credits to limit potential losses associated with such bonus credits.
Applicants submit that the exemptions requested are necessary or appropriate in the public interest, consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act, and consistent with and supported by Commission precedent. Applicants also submit, based on the analysis listed above, that the provisions for recapture of any bonus credit under the Contracts does not violate Section 2(a)(32) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder. The Applicants hereby request that the Commission issue an order pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Act to exempt the Applicants with respect to: (a) The Contracts; (b) Future Accounts that support the Contracts; and (c) Future Underwriters from the provisions of Sections 2(a)(32) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder, to the extent necessary to permit the recapture of all or a portion of the bonus credits (previously applied to premium payments) in the circumstances described above.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 8.3 relating to Market-Maker appointments. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the CBOE's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend CBOE Rule 8.3 relating to Market-Maker appointments. Currently, CBOE Rule 8.3(c) provides that a Market-Maker can quote: (i) Electronically in all Hybrid and Hybrid 2.0 Classes that are located in one designated trading station (“appointed trading station”); (ii) in open outcry in all classes traded on the Exchange; and (iii) electronically in either two additional Hybrid 2.0 Classes in Tier A or Tier B that are not located in the Market-Maker's appointed trading station, or five additional Hybrid 2.0 Classes in Tiers C, D, or E that are not located in the Market-Maker's appointed trading station.
CBOE now proposes to modify the above provisions as follows which would allow Market-Makers additional flexibility in choosing their appointed classes and make the Market-Maker appointment process similar to the process applicable to Remote Market-Maker (“RMM”) appointments.
First, like RMMs, CBOE proposes to allow a Market-Maker to create a Virtual Trading Crowd (“VTC”) appointment, which would confer the right to quote electronically in an appropriate number of Hybrid 2.0 Classes (as defined in CBOE Rule 1.1(aaa)) selected from “tiers” that have been structured according to trading volume statistics. All classes within a specific tier would be assigned an “appointment cost” depending upon its tier location. The following table sets forth the tiers and related appointment costs, which are identical to the tiers and appointment costs set forth in CBOE Rule 8.4(d) that have been structured for purposes of RMMs appointments.
CBOE believes that allowing Market-Makers the same flexibility as RMMs to choose and structure a VTC appointment composed of Hybrid 2.0 Classes is appropriate, and would provide Market-Makers with additional trading opportunities outside of their appointed trading station.
With respect to Hybrid Classes (as defined in CBOE Rule 1.1(aaa)), CBOE proposes to allow a Market-Maker to quote electronically in an appropriate number of Hybrid Classes that are located at one trading station, which is similar to the current manner in which Market-Makers request appointments,
With regard to trading in open outcry, CBOE Rule 8.3 currently provides that a Market-Maker has an appointment to trade in open outcry in all classes traded on the Exchange. Because CBOE is proposing to apply an appointment cost to each option class traded on the Exchange, including both Hybrid and non-Hybrid option classes, CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 8.3 to provide that a Market-Maker has an appointment to trade in open outcry in all Hybrid and Hybrid 2.0 Classes traded on the Exchange. A Market-Maker would be required to be physically present in the trading crowd where an option class is located in order to trade in open outcry in that option class. A Market-Maker would be permitted to submit electronic quotations into any of his/her appointed Hybrid or Hybrid 2.0 Classes while the Market-Maker is trading in open outcry.
For non-Hybrid and non-Hybrid 2.0 Classes (collectively “Non-Hybrid Classes”), CBOE proposes to allow a Market-Maker to select as his appointment one or more Non-Hybrid Classes traded on the Exchange, which would confer the right to trade in open outcry in an appropriate number of Non-Hybrid Classes. Each Non-Hybrid Class would be assigned an appointment cost, which are set forth below.
As is the case for RMMs, each membership owned or leased by a Market-Maker would have an appointment credit of 1.0. A Market-Maker may select for each Exchange membership it owns or leases any combination of Hybrid 2.0 Classes, Hybrid Classes which are located at one trading station, and Non-Hybrid Classes, whose aggregate “appointment cost” does not exceed 1.0. The Exchange would rebalance the “tiers” (excluding the “AA” and “A+” tiers) set forth in paragraph (c)(i) of Rule 8.3 once each calendar quarter, which may result in additions or deletions to their composition. When a class changes tiers it would be assigned the appointment cost of that tier. Upon rebalancing, each Market-Maker with a VTC appointment would be required to own or lease the appropriate number of Exchange
In new paragraph (c)(vi) of CBOE Rule 8.3, CBOE proposes to continue and modify slightly an existing Pilot Program in effect until March 24, 2007, which allows a Market-Maker to quote remotely. The existing Pilot Program provides that a Market-Maker may submit electronic quotations in his/her appointed Hybrid and Hybrid 2.0 Classes from outside of his/her appointed trading station.
CBOE also proposes to continue two existing Pilot Programs set forth in CBOE Rules 8.4(c)(i) and 8.93(vii), which are in effect until September 14, 2006, and which provide that an RMM or e-DPM in an option class can have one Market-Maker affiliated with the RMM or e-DPM trading in the option class. However, CBOE Rule 8.3(c) would continue to require that a Market-Maker affiliated with an e-DPM or RMM can submit electronic quotations in any class in which the affiliated e-DPM or RMM has an appointment only if the Market-Maker is present in the trading station where the class is located.
In new paragraph (c)(viii) to CBOE Rule 8.3, CBOE notes that pursuant to a Pilot Program that expires on March 14, 2007, two affiliated Market-Makers can hold an appointment in the same class provided both Market-Makers operate as multiple aggregation units under the criteria set forth in CBOE Rule 8.4(c)(ii). This provision is consistent with current CBOE Rule 8.3(c)(iii).
As provided in new Interpretation .01 to CBOE Rule 8.3, in the event the total appointment cost for all of the Hybrid 2.0 Classes, Hybrid Classes, and/or Non-Hybrid Classes, constituting a Market-Maker's appointment on the approval date of this rule change exceeded 1.0, then CBOE proposes to grant the Market-Maker six months from the date of the approval of this rule change to comply with the provisions of CBOE Rule 8.3(c)(v) that provide a Market-Maker's appointed classes cannot have an total appointment cost in excess of 1.0. During these six months, any Market-Maker whose total appointment cost exceeds 1.0 would be ineligible to request an appointment in any other option class until the Market-Maker's total appointment cost is less than 1.0. The preceding limited exemption to CBOE Rule 8.3(c)(v) would be available only to those Market-Makers whose total appointment cost for all of the Hybrid 2.0 Classes, Hybrid Classes, and/or Non-Hybrid Classes, constituting a Market-Maker's appointment would have exceeded 1.0 on April 24, 2006, if the rule had been in effect on that date.
CBOE believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
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”),
NYSE proposes to amend Section 103.04 of the Exchange's Listed Company Manual relating to sponsored American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”) to eliminate the requirement that certain services must be provided without charge. The text of the proposed rule change, as amended, is set forth below. Proposed new language is underlined; proposed deletions are [bracketed].
[Non-U.S. companies electing to sponsor their ADR's are often interested in putting their names and products prominently before the American public. This may result in a direct relationship with American investors, customers and suppliers. An Exchange listing requires that a company sponsor its ADR'S.]
In its filing with the Commission, NYSE 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. NYSE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
NYSE proposes to amend Section 103.04 of the Exchange's Listed Company Manual (the “Manual”). Section 103.04 currently requires that the depositary agreement entered into between a non-U.S. company and an American depository bank must provide that services such as cash and stock dividend payments, transfer of ownership, and distribution of company financial statements and notices, such as shareholder meeting material, be provided to ADR holders free of charge. The Exchange proposes to eliminate this requirement.
The Exchange represents that Section 103.04 of the Manual dates from a time when companies listed ordinary shares in their home market and ADRs on NYSE. Historically, when an issuer listed a sponsored ADR security, trading would occur both in the underlying security in the home country and in the ADRs on the Exchange. As a result, the Exchange states, conversions between the underlying security and the ADR provided significant revenue for the depositary bank. In addition, at that time, the Exchange asserts, the market for depositary services was less competitive and institutional investors played a more limited role in influencing issuer and bank practices.
The Exchange asserts that today, however, depositary receipts have become a preferred method of equity financing and are listed on exchanges around the world. Moreover, the Exchange represents that it is now not unusual for issuers from developing markets, such as China and other Asian countries, to list ADRs in the United States without also listing the underlying securities in their home market. The Exchange represents that because no other U.S. or overseas market limits the fees that depositary banks can charge ADR holders, it believes that the practical effect of Section 103.04 of the Manual is to increasingly foreclose the Exchange as a listing market for Asian issuers. As a result of a lack of potential conversion revenue, the Exchange argues that the effect of Section 103.04 of the Manual is to place the depositary bank at an economic disadvantage if the issuer lists its ADRs on the Exchange. Thus, the Exchange believes that NYSE's limitation on the fees that can be
Moreover, NYSE notes that fees applicable to ADR holders are clearly disclosed in the company's registration statement when a company registers its ADRs and the underlying securities with the Commission in connection with listing on a U.S. market. The deposit agreement, which sets forth the applicable fees, is also required to be filed as an exhibit to the company's registration statement and to the depositary bank's registration statement on Form F-6.
NYSE also believes that the competition among the depositary banks in the sponsored ADR market serves to regulate the fees that banks charge to ADR holders. In light of these developments, the Exchange no longer feels that it is necessary or appropriate for NYSE to regulate fees for ADR holders.
The Exchange believes that the statutory basis for the proposed rule change, as amended, is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) 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 Exchange Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
NYSE has designated the foregoing rule change, as amended, as a “non-controversial” rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, 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 Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Phlx proposes to amend Phlx Rule 501(d) to reduce the mandatory staffing requirement to be approved as an options or foreign currency options specialist unit and to retain such status, while continuing to enable the Exchange's Options Allocation, Evaluation and Securities Committee (“Options Allocation Committee”)
The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed new language is in
(a)-(c)—No Change.
(d) To be approved as a specialist unit and to retain the privilege of such status, an options or foreign currency options specialist unit must maintain the approved clearing arrangements and capital structure stated on their application as described in (b)(2) and (b)(3) above. Changes regarding the requirements in (b)(4) must be submitted and approved by the Committee. In addition, each unit must consist of at least the following staff for each [quarter turret (or equivalent portion of a] trading floor specialist post[)]: (1) One head specialist;
Commentary—No Change.
In its filing with the Commission, the Phlx 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 Phlx 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, as amended, is to provide flexibility in options and foreign currency options specialist unit staffing by reducing the mandatory staffing requirement, in light of increased automation respecting options trading.
Currently, Phlx Rule 501(d) requires that in order to be approved as an options or foreign currency options specialist unit and retain such status, the specialist unit shall have at each quarter turret or trading post one head specialist, two assistant specialists (at least one of whom must be associated with the specialist unit), and one specialist clerk.
The Exchange believes that the proposal, as amended, is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended, will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
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 Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that Rustic Canyon Ventures SBIC, L.P., 2425 Olympic Blvd., Suite 6050W, Santa Monica, CA 90404, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730 (2005)). Rustic Canyon Ventures SBIC, L.P. proposes to provide equity security financing to Intrepid Learning Solutions, Inc., 411 First Avenue South, Suite #300, Seattle WA 98104. The financing is contemplated for operating expenses and for general corporate purposes.
The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because Staenberg Private Capital, LLC and Staenberg Venture Partners II, L.P., both Associates of Rustic Canyon Ventures SBIC, L.P., own more than ten percent of Intrepid Learning Solutions, Inc. Therefore, Intrepid Learning Solutions, Inc., is considered an Associate of Rustic Canyon Ventures SBIC, L.P., as defined at 13 CFR 107.50 of the SBIC Regulations.
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416.
Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Maine (FEMA-1644-DR), dated 5/25/2006.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Maine, dated 5/25/2006, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 5/13/2006 and continuing through 5/23/2006.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (FEMA-1642-DR) , dated 5/25/2006.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, dated 5/25/2006, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 5/12/2006 and continuing through 5/23/2006.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-1643-DR), dated 5/25/2006.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of New Hampshire, dated 5/25/2006, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 5/12/2006 and continuing through 5/23/2006.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petitions for exemption received.
Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption part 11 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition.
Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before July 10, 2006.
You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket Number FAA-2006-25036 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Susan Lender, (202) 267-8029 or John Linsenmeyer, (202) 267-5174, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption part 11 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition.
Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before July 10, 2006.
You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket Number FAA-2006-24624] by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
John Linsenmeyer (202) 267-5174 or Tim Adams (202) 267-8033, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91.
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of request for comments.
The Federal Transit Administration invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval to renew the following information collections:
(1) Bus Testing Program.
(2) Transit Research, Development, Demonstration and Deployment Projects.
The collections involve our Bus Testing and Transit Research Programs. The information to be collected for the Bus Testing Program is necessary to ensure that buses have been tested at the Bus Testing Center for maintainability, reliability, safety, performance, structural integrity, fuel economy, emissions, and noise. The information to be collected for Transit Research, Development, Demonstration and Deployment Projects is necessary to determine eligibility of applicants and ensure mass transportation service at a minimum cost. We are required to publish this notice in the
Comments must be submitted before August 21, 2006.
You may mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; telefax comments to (202) 493-2251; or submit electronically at
Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of these information collections, including: (1) The necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of these information collections.
The operator of the Bus Testing Center, the Pennsylvania Transportation Institute (PTI), has entered into a cooperative agreement with FTA. PTI operates and maintains the Center, and establishes and collects fees for the testing of the vehicles at the facility. Upon completion of the testing of the vehicle at the Center, a test report is provided to the manufacturer of the new bus model. The bus manufacturer certifies to an FTA grantee that the bus the grantee is purchasing has been tested at the Center. Also, grantees about to purchase a bus use this report to assist them in making their purchasing decisions. PTI maintains a reference file for all the test reports which are made available to the public.
The information collected is submitted as part of the application for grants and cooperative agreements and is used to determine eligibility of applicants. Collection of this information also provides documentation that the applicants and recipients are meeting program objectives and are complying with FTA Circular 6100.1B and other federal requirements.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) has agreed to grant overhead trackage rights to Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) over BNSF's line of railroad between “Bullfrog Junction” Near BNSF's Puyalloy River Bridge 8.78 and the point of connection with BNSF's Seattle Division main line at River Street Interlocking, BNSF Milepost 38.94X, in Tacoma, WA, a distance of approximately 0.6 miles.
The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on ora after June 7, 2006, the effective date of the exemption.
The purpose of the trackage rights is to create an additional overhead routing for UP trains in the Tacoma area.
As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in
This notice i8s filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If it contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34881, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on: Robert T. Opal, General Commerce Counsel, 1400 Douglas Street, STOP 1580, Omaha, NE 68179.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR part 1152 subpart F-
Conrail has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) any overhead traffic can be rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a State or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and (4) the requirements of 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(l) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employees adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on July 20, 2006, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to Conrail's representative: John K. Enright, 1000 Howard Boulevard, 4th Floor, Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
Conrail has filed environmental and historic reports which address the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. SEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by June 23, 2006. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to SEA (Room 500, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling SEA, at (202) 565-1539. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.] Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), Conrail shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by Conrail's filing of a notice of consummation by June 20, 2007, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before August 21, 2006.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Ann Bickoff, Veterans Health Administration (193E1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail:
Ann W. Bickoff at (202) 273-8310 or FAX (202) 273-9381.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501—3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
VA Form 10-21034j—2,800 hours.
VA Form 10-21034k—67 hours.
VA Form 10-21034j—4 minutes.
VA Form 10-21034k—2 minutes.
VA Form 10-21034j—42,000.
VA Form 10-21034k—2,000.
By direction of the Secretary.