Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Bonneville Power Administration
Presidential Documents
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Information Security Oversight Office
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA
Interim rule and request for comments.
We are amending the list of regulated areas in the witchweed quarantine and regulations by adding or removing areas in North Carolina and South Carolina. These changes affect five counties in North Carolina and two counties in South Carolina. These actions are necessary in order to prevent the artificial spread of witchweed from areas where the weed has been detected and to remove restrictions that are no longer necessary on the interstate movement of regulated articles from areas where witchweed has been eradicated.
This interim rule is effective February 15, 2007. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 23, 2007.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Dr. Alan V. Tasker, Noxious Weeds Program Manager, Invasive Species and Pest Management, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737-1237; (301) 734-5708.
Witchweed (
The witchweed quarantine and regulations, contained in 7 CFR 301.80 through 301.80-10 (referred to below as the regulations), quarantine affected areas within the States of North Carolina and South Carolina and restrict the interstate movement of certain articles from regulated areas in those States for the purpose of preventing the spread of witchweed.
Section 301.80-2(a) provides that the Deputy Administrator will designate as regulated areas each quarantined State, or each portion of a quarantined State, in which witchweed has been found, in which there is reason to believe that witchweed is present, or that it is deemed necessary to regulate because of its proximity to infestation or its inseparability for quarantine enforcement purposes from infested localities. The regulations impose restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles from the regulated areas. Regulated areas, which are listed in § 301.80-2a, are designated as either suppressive areas or generally infested areas. Suppressive areas are those portions of the regulated areas where eradication of infestation is undertaken as an objective. Currently, all the regulated areas listed in § 301.80-2a are designated as suppressive areas.
Less than an entire quarantined State will be designated as a regulated area only if the Deputy Administrator is of the opinion that: (1) The State has adopted and is enforcing restrictions on the intrastate movement of the regulated articles that are substantially the same as those imposed on the interstate movement of regulated articles and (2) the designation of less than the entire State as a regulated area will prevent the interstate spread of witchweed.
In this interim rule, we are amending the list of regulated areas in § 301.80-2a by removing areas in Cumberland, Pender, Robeson, and Sampson Counties, NC, and Horry and Marion Counties, SC, from the list of suppressive areas. We are taking this action because we have determined that witchweed no longer occurs in these areas; therefore, we no longer need to list these areas as suppressive areas for the purpose of preventing the spread of witchweed. This action relieves restrictions on the movement of regulated articles from these areas that are no longer necessary.
In addition to removing areas from the list of regulated areas in § 301.80-2a, we are also adding several areas to the list and revising the descriptions of several areas on the list. Specifically, we are adding 4 farms in Cumberland County, NC, 1 farm in Pender County, NC, 3 farms in Robeson County, NC, 5 farms in Sampson County, NC, 17 farms in Horry County, SC, and 9 farms in Marion County, SC, as suppressive areas. We are also expanding the large suppressive areas in Bladen, Robeson, and Sampson Counties, NC. We are
Immediate action is necessary to update the list of areas in order to: (1) Relieve restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles from areas that are no longer infested with witchweed, and (2) prevent the spread of witchweed from newly infested areas into uninfested areas. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this action effective less than 30 days after publication in the
We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (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.
Since 1951, witchweed has been found in 38 counties in North and South Carolina; only 7 counties are currently infested, and witchweed has not been allowed to spread beyond the borders of North Carolina and South Carolina. From 1956 to 2006, the number of infested acres has been reduced from 450,000 to around 2,494, i.e., 2,097 acres in North Carolina and 397 acres in South Carolina (table 1).
If witchweed is allowed to spread throughout the United States, it could cause an estimated $1.08 billion in annual control costs plus an additional 10 percent in yield losses for U.S. corn alone.
Real expenditures ranged from a high of $18.95 million in 1961 to a low of $1.32 million estimated for 2002.
In North Carolina, approximately 73 percent of the costs of control activities are funded by the Federal Government, with the remainder funded by the State. In South Carolina, 100 percent of all control activities are funded by the Federal Government.
Control activities include the use of pre- and post-emergence herbicides to kill witchweed and weed hosts. Agricultural producers with witchweed infestations receive free herbicide applications, which not only get rid of witchweed but also control other weeds throughout the growing season, and free ethylene gas treatments. Ethylene gas is a plant growth promoter that increases yields of cultivated crops.
The witchweed eradication program has had a positive economic impact on agricultural producers with manageable witchweed infestations. Agricultural producers only bear costs associated with the movement of regulated articles from suppressive areas into non-suppressive areas. For example, crops with soil attached after harvesting must be cleaned in order to remove witchweed seeds. In addition, producers moving regulated articles must arrange for inspection to obtain a certificate or limited permit or enter into a compliance agreement, which will allow them to issue certificates and limited permits. Agricultural machinery must also be cleaned and treated prior to movement, but 100 percent of machinery treatment and cleaning expenses are covered by the Federal Government.
Although data were unavailable, quarantine compliance costs borne directly by agricultural producers are apparently very small.
The rule will affect at least 29 entities located within the newly expanded suppressive areas in North Carolina and South Carolina. In the suppressive areas of North Carolina, roughly 15 to 20 percent of the agricultural producers grow corn, 20 to 25 percent grow soybeans, 30 percent grow cotton, and the remaining 25 to 35 percent grow tobacco, sweet potatoes, peanuts, and other crops. We assume a similar mix of crops is produced in the suppressive areas of South Carolina.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small agricultural producer as one with annual sales receipts of $750,000 or less. During 2000-2005, 85 percent of the agricultural producers in North Carolina had annual sales of $99,999 or less, and 15 percent had annual sales of $100,000 or more.
We do not know the specific size of these 29 farms. However, based on agricultural State statistics, the majority (i.e., 83 percent) of North Carolina and South Carolina farms had less than $100,000 in annual sales. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the majority of these farms are small according to SBA criteria.
These farms are required to incur quarantine compliance costs. However, the annual reduction in infested acres has undoubtedly benefited growers by reducing control costs and yield losses attributable to witchweed. In addition, discounted benefits for small North Carolina and South Carolina corn producers may be much larger than the discounted costs associated with the program.
Continuing to regulate an area that is not infested with witchweed, therefore, would represent an unnecessary cost on small entities in the area. Similarly, not regulating an area infested with witchweed could jeopardize the future success of a program with a proven and cost-effective track record.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
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 information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Section 301.75-15 issued under Sec. 204, Title II, Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-293; sections 301.75-15 and 301.75-16 issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Public Law 106-224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note).
(1)
(2)
The Hardison, H.B., farm located on a field road 0.25 mile northwest of its intersection with State Secondary Road 1719 and 0.2 mile west of its intersection with State Secondary Road 1797.
The Barker, P.R., farm located on the south side of State Secondary Road 2242, 0.2 mile south of Interstate 95 on State Secondary Road 2252.
The Jackson, Ellis, farm located on the west side of State Secondary Road 1003 and 0.4 mile south of its intersection with N.C. Highway 59.
The Lovick, Eugene, farm located on the north side of State Secondary Road 1732 and 0.9 mile west of its intersection with U.S. Highway 301.
The McLaughlin, Cornell, farm located on the south side of State Secondary Road 2221 and 0.2 mile east of its intersection with State Secondary Road 2367.
The Thigpen, William, farm located on the south side of State Secondary Road 2212 and 1 mile west of its intersection with N.C. Highway 87.
The Brown, James, farm located on the south side of a private road known as Reola Drive, 0.1 mile east of its intersection with State Secondary Road 1823, which intersection is 0.7 mile south of the intersection of State Secondary Road 1823 with State Secondary Road 1774.
The Buie, Joshua, farm located on a farm road 0.8 mile south of its intersection with State Secondary Road 1529 and 0.3 mile southwest of the right of way of Interstate Highway 95.
The Lewis, Knox, farm located on the south side of State Secondary Road 1752, 0.5 mile east of its intersection with State Secondary Road 1318.
The Brady-Johnson, William, property located on a private road in the town of Salemburg, 0.1 mile north of its
The Carter, Raeford, farm located on the west side of State Secondary Road 1144, 0.2 mile north of its intersection with State Secondary Road 1143.
The Lucas, June, estate located at the end of State Secondary Road 1496, 1.0 mile northwest of its intersection with State Secondary Road 1233.
The Parker, David, farm located on the northwest side of the intersection of a private road known as David Parker Lane and State Secondary Road 1301, 0.5 mile north of the intersection of State Secondary Road 1301 with N.C. Highway 24.
The Riley, Troy Lee, property located 0.05 mile west of the end of a private road known as Stage Coach Lane, 0.2 mile north of the intersection of Stage Coach Lane and N.C. Highway 24, in the town of Autryville.
(1)
(2)
The Chestnut, Jacob T., farm located on the west side of an unpaved road known as Short Cut Road, 0.2 mile north of its junction with an unpaved road known as Pint Circle Road, 0.4 mile east of its junction with and 0.8 mile north of its junction with State Highway 90.
The Cribbs, L.V., farm located on the west side of an unpaved road known as Causey Road, 3.3 miles north of its intersection with a secondary road known as Sandplant Road and 2.1 miles west of its intersection with State Highway 76.
The Cribbs, L.V., farm located on the east side of an unpaved road known as Causey Road, 2.8 miles north of its intersection with a secondary road known as Sandplant Road and 2.1 miles west of its intersection with State Highway 76.
The Gerald, Kenneth, farm located on the south side of a secondary highway known as Lake Swamp Road, 0.4 mile east of its intersection with a secondary highway known as Nichols Highway South and 1.6 miles south of its intersection with State Highway 917.
The Gerald, Ravenell, farm located on the north side of an unpaved road known as Farming Dale Road, 0.6 mile north of its junction with State Highway 917 and 1.1 miles east of its intersection with a secondary highway known as Nichols Highway.
The Hammonds, Austin J., farm located on the north side of a secondary road known as Sandplant Road, 1.5 miles west of its intersection with State Highway 76 and 1.7 miles north of its intersection with State Highway 9.
The Livingston, Pittman, farm located on the east side of State Highway 90, 2.2 miles north of its junction with State Highway 22.
The Mae, Blossie, farm located on the west side of an unpaved road known as Dela Road, 0.3 mile south of its intersection with a secondary road known as Pint Circle Road, 0.2 mile west of its intersection with State Highway 90, and 3.5 miles north of its intersection with State Highway 22.
The McDaniel, Ellis, farm located on the south side of State Highway 917, 1.4 miles west of its intersection with a secondary highway known as Nichols Highway.
The Smith, Tommy G., farm located on the south side of a secondary road known as Old Chesterfield Road, 0.5 mile east of its intersection with State Highway 90 and 2.7 miles north of its intersection with State Highway 22.
The Strickland, Quincy, farm located on the north side of State Highway 917, 1.2 miles west of its intersection with a secondary highway known as Nichols Highway.
The Stroud, J.B., farm located on the east side of an unpaved road known as Providence Drive, 1.3 miles north of its junction with an unpaved road known as Tranquil Road, 0.5 mile west of its junction with a secondary highway known as Nichols Highway North and 2.3 miles north of its intersection with State Highway 917.
The Vault, Bennie, farm located on the west side of an unpaved road known as Strawberry Road, 0.5 mile south of its junction with State Highway 90.
Vereen, Isiah, farm located on the west side of an unpaved road known as West Shore Road, 1.6 miles south of its junction with State Highway 90.
Vereen, Lula, farm located on the north side of a secondary road known as Dogwood Road, 1.6 miles north of its intersection with State Highway 22, then 0.7 mile east of its intersection with State Highway 90.
The Willoughby, Shane, farm located on the north side of an unpaved road known as Farming Dale Road, 0.4 mile north of its junction with State Highway 917 and 1.1 miles east of its intersection with a secondary highway known as Nichols Highway.
The Worley, Floyd C., farm located on both sides of a secondary road known as Sandplant Road, 1.1 miles west of its intersection with State Highway 76 and 1.7 miles north of its intersection with State Highway 9.
The Best Woods Road and Bubba Road farm located on both sides of Best Woods Road, 1.4 miles south of its intersection with State Highway 76.
The Erwin, Harold, farm located on the west side of the State secondary road known as Laughin Road, 1 mile north of its intersection with State Highway 76.
The Gerald, Issaic, farm located on the west side of a secondary road known as Foxworth Road, 0.3 mile northwest of its intersection with Secondary Road 9.
The Holmes, Issaic, farm located on the east side of an unpaved road known as Phill Road, 0.5 mile south of its junction with State Highway 9 and 5 miles east of its intersection with State Highway 41-A.
The Johnson, J. D., farm located on the west side of an unpaved road known as Harold Road, 0.6 mile north of its intersection with Old Mullins Road and 1.3 miles west of its intersection with North Main Street in Nichols.
The Keen, Davis, Estate farm located on the south side of an unpaved road known as Frazier Road, 0.7 mile northwest of its intersection with Secondary Road 9.
The Porter, Hubert, farm located on the south side of an unpaved road known as Bubba Road, 1.3 miles south from its intersection with State Highway 76.
The Richardson, Billy, farm located on the east side of Secondary Road 908, 0.8 mile north of its intersection with State Highway 378.
The Rogers, Paul, farm located on the north side of an unpaved road known as Tobacco Barn Road, 0.8 mile west of its intersection with a State secondary road known as E. Sellers Road and 1.7 miles north of its intersection with State Highway 41-A.
Farm Credit Administration.
Notice of effective date.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) published a final rule under parts 611, 619, 620, 621, 624, 627, and 630 on December 20, 2006 (71 FR 76111). This final rule amends our disclosure and reporting regulations for Farm Credit System (System) institutions by clarifying and enhancing existing disclosures and reporting to System shareholders and investors. In accordance with 12 U.S.C. 2252, the effective date of the final rule is 30 days from the date of publication in the
The regulation amending 12 CFR parts 611, 619, 620, 621, 624, 627, and 630, published on December 20, 2006 (71 FR 76111) is effective February 16, 2007.
or
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Final rule.
NCUA is amending its rules to implement amendments to the Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act) made by the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 (Reg Relief Act). The final rule revises the maturity limit in the general lending rule and permits federal credit unions to provide certain, limited financial services to nonmembers within their fields of membership.
This final rule is effective March 26, 2007.
Moisette Green, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, at the above address or telephone:
In October 2006, Congress enacted the Reg Relief Act, which amended the general lending maturity limit for federal credit unions (FCUs) from 12 years to 15 years in § 107(5) of the FCU Act as well as § 107(12) of the FCU Act to permit FCUs to provide certain financial services to persons within their fields of membership. Pub. L. 109-351, §§ 502-503, 120 Stat. 1966 (2006). On October 19, 2006, the NCUA Board issued an interim final rule to implement these provisions of the Reg Relief Act. 71 FR 62875 (October 27, 2006). Even though the provisions of the interim final rule became effective on October 27, 2006, the Board issued the interim final rule with a 60-day comment period.
NCUA received eight comments on the interim final rule from federal credit unions and trade associations. All the commenters supported the interim final rule, and some provided additional comments. Two commenters encouraged NCUA to seek a longer maturity limit for loans on investment property. While the NCUA Board generally supports greater flexibility for permissible terms for investment loans, the suggestion is beyond the scope of NCUA's statutory authority and the interim rulemaking.
Four commenters requested clarification on whether FCUs may charge a fee for selling negotiable checks, travelers checks, money orders, and other similar money transfer instruments under § 701.30(a). Two commenters pointed out that § 701.30(b) specifically permits FCUs to charge a fee for cashing negotiable or money transfer instruments.
FCUs may charge a fee for “selling” money transfer instruments, and specifically providing that FCUs may charge a fee for “cashing” money transfer instruments does not limit that authority. The Reg Relief Act does not restrict the terms under which an FCU can sell negotiable instruments to a person within its field of membership, and the legislative history does not indicate that Congress intended the provision to have any special meaning. Therefore, the common understanding and meaning of the term “sell” in § 503 of the Reg Relief Act and § 701.30(a) of the rule apply. Selling, by definition, involves the transfer of goods or rendering services for a price.
Three commenters suggested NCUA define the term “electronic funds transfer.” The commenters stated the interim final rule was unclear on whether the term “electronic funds transfer” had the same definition as in Regulation E, 12 CFR part 205, or the term “transmittal of funds” under the anti-money laundering regulations, 31 CFR part 103. The Board believes it is unnecessary to define “electronic funds transfer” in this rule for two reasons. First, the term “electronic funds transfer” is defined in the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and Regulation E. 15 U.S.C. 1693a(6); 12 CFR 205.3. Second,
The Board notes that electronic funds transfers under Regulation E are excluded from the definition of “transmittal of funds” in the Department of Treasury's anti-money laundering regulations. 31 CFR part 103. This definition, however, does not affect FCU authority to provide wire transfers under § 701.30. FCUs providing wire transfer services and electronic funds transfers under § 701.30 must comply with the applicable requirements of 31 CFR part 103.
Two commenters requested NCUA provide guidance regarding FCU compliance with other statutes and regulations, e.g. the Bank Secrecy Act (Pub. L. 91-508), the Customer Identification Program regulation (31 CFR 103.121), NCUA security rules (12 CFR part 748), financial privacy rules (12 CFR part 716), and so forth. One of these commenters recommended NCUA establish a working group to discuss compliance requirements associated with FCUs providing financial services to nonmembers within their fields of membership. The Board believes additional guidance or a working group is unnecessary because this rule does not create any additional requirements for FCUs than there are for other financial institutions. The Board only cautions FCUs to ensure they comply with all applicable statutory or regulatory requirements if they elect to provide financial services to persons with whom the FCUs may have infrequent or irregular contact.
Finally, one commenter correctly noted the interim final rule failed to make a conforming change to the 12-year maturity limit in the current rule regarding due-on-sale clauses. 12 CFR 701.21(g)(6)(ii). Accordingly, the final rule revises this reference to reflect the change in the general lending maturity limit to 15 years.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a rule may have on a substantial number of small credit unions, defined as those under ten million dollars in assets. This rule clarifies and improves the available services FCUs may provide to their members and persons within their fields of membership, without imposing any regulatory burden. The final amendments do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions, and, therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
NCUA has determined that the final rule would not increase paperwork requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and regulations of the Office of Management and Budget. 44 U.S.C. 3501
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order. The final rule would not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the connection between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. NCUA has determined that this rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
The NCUA has determined that this final rule would not affect family well-being within the meaning of § 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-121 (SBREFA), provides generally for congressional review of agency rules. A reporting requirement is triggered in instances where NCUA issues a final rule as defined by Section 551 of the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. 551. The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this final rule is not a major rule for purposes of SBREFA.
Check, Check cashing, Credit, Credit unions, Electronic funds transfer, Money order, Money transfer.
By the National Credit Union Administration Board on February 15, 2007.
12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1757, 1765, 1766, 1781, 1782, 1787, 1789; Title V, Pub. L. 109-351; 120 Stat. 1966.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which revises Class E airspace at Creston, IA.
0901 UTC, March 15, 2007.
Grant Nichols, System Support, DOT
The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correcting amendments.
This document contains correction to final regulations (TD 9298) that were published in the
The correction is effective February 12, 2007.
Russ Weinheimer, (202) 622-6080 (not a toll-free number).
The correction notice that is the subject of this document is under section 9802 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, final regulations (TD 9298) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Excise taxes, Health care, Health insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii)
(f) * * *
(1) If none of the conditions for obtaining a reward under a wellness program are based on an individual satisfying a standard that is related to a health factor (or if a wellness program does not provide a reward), the wellness program does not violate this section, if participation in the program is made available to all similarly situated individuals. * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Correcting Amendment.
The Coast Guard is correcting a technical amendment that appeared in the
These changes are effective March 26, 2007.
If you have questions on this amendment, call Mr. Gerald Miante, Project Manager, Maritime Personnel Qualifications Division (CG-3PSO-1), U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-1407. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-493-0402.
The Coast Guard is correcting a technical amendment that appeared in the
This correction clarifies the authority of the Commanding Officer of the NMC to carry out certain maritime safety functions; and reestablishes procedures for appeal of decisions of the National Vessel Documentation Center with a revised appellate authority.
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Freedom of information, Penalties.
Administrative practice and procedure, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Seamen.
14 U.S.C. 633; 33 U.S.C. 401, 491, 525, 1321, 2716, and 2716a; 42 U.S.C. 9615; 49 U.S.C. 322; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; section 1.01-70 also issued under the authority of E.O. 12580, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193; and sections 1.01-80 and 1.01-85 also issued under the authority of E.O. 12777, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351.
(a) Officers in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI), have been designated and delegated to perform, within each OCMI's jurisdiction, the following functions: * * *
(b) The Commanding Officer of the National Maritime Center has been designated and delegated the same authority as an OCMI for the purpose of carrying out the following marine safety functions pursuant to the provisions of 46 CFR Subchapter B:
(1) Licensing, credentialing, certificating, shipment and discharge of seamen;
(2) Referring to the processing Regional Examination Center (REC) or cognizant OCMI potential violations of law, negligence, misconduct, unskillfulness, incompetence or misbehavior of persons holding merchant mariner's documents, licenses, certificates or credentials issued by the Coast Guard, and recommending suspension or revocation under 46 U.S.C. Chapter 77 when deemed appropriate; and
(3) Granting, withholding, suspending, or withdrawing course approvals.
5 U.S.C. 552; 14 U.S.C. 633; 46 U.S.C. 7701; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 93; Pub.L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; § 1.01-35 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.
(c) The Commanding Officer of the National Maritime Center has been designated and delegated to:
(1) Give direction to Coast Guard activities relating to marine safety functions consisting of the licensing, credentialing, certificating, shipment and discharge of seamen;
(2) Refer to the processing Regional Examination Center (REC) or cognizant OCMI potential violations of law, negligence, misconduct, unskillfulness, incompetence or misbehavior of persons holding merchant mariner's documents, licenses, certificates or credentials issued by the Coast Guard, and recommend suspension or revocation under 46 U.S.C. Chapter 77 when deemed appropriate; and
(3) Grant, withhold, suspend, or withdraw course approvals.
(d) The Commanding Officer of the National Maritime Center has the same authority as an OCMI for the purpose of carrying out the marine safety functions listed in paragraph (c) of this section pursuant to the provisions of Subchapter B of this chapter.
(e) Applicants for merchant mariner's documents, licenses, certificates or credentials may apply to the Coast Guard National Maritime Center or any of the Regional Examination Centers. Applicants may contact the National Maritime Center at 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 630, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1804, or by telephone at 202-493-1002. A list of Regional Examination Locations is available through the Coast Guard Web site at
(f) For descriptions of Coast Guard districts and marine inspection zones, see 33 CFR part 3.
(h) * * *
(3) Commandant (CG-3PC) for all appeals involving suspension or withdrawal of course approvals, all marine personnel issues appealed from the National Maritime Center or from an OCMI through a District Commander, and all appeals regarding the documentation of a vessel under part 67 or part 68 of this title. All appeals regarding the documentation of a vessel under part 67 or part 68 of this title must be addressed to Commandant CG-3PC(d), Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second St., SW, Washington, DC 20593, and a copy of each such appeal must be sent to the National Vessel Documentation Center, 792 T J Jackson Drive; Falling Waters, WV 25419;
Any person directly affected by a decision or action of an officer or employee of the Coast Guard acting on or in regard to the documentation of a vessel under part 67 or part 68 of this title, may make a formal appeal of that decision or action to the Director of Inspection and Compliance, Commandant (CG-3PC), in accordance with the procedures contained in § 1.03-15 of this subpart. The decision of the Director of Inspection and
14 U.S.C. 633; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, and 2110; 46 U.S.C. chapter 71; 46 U.S.C. 7502, 7505, 7701, and 8906; Executive Order 10173; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Section 10.107 is also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The Commanding Officer of the National Maritime Center has the same authority as an OCMI for the purpose of carrying out the marine safety functions listed in § 1.01-15(c) of this title pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA), NOAA, announces temporary restrictions consistent with the requirements of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan's (ALWTRP) implementing regulations. These regulations apply to lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishermen in an area totaling approximately 1,245 nm
Effective beginning at 0001 hours February 26, 2007, through 2400 hours March 12, 2007.
Copies of the proposed and final Dynamic Area Management (DAM) rules, Environmental Assessments (EAs), Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (ALWTRT) meeting summaries, and progress reports on implementation of the ALWTRP may also be obtained by writing Diane Borggaard, NMFS/Northeast Region, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
Diane Borggaard, NMFS/Northeast Region, 978-281-9300 x6503; or Kristy Long, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 301-713-2322.
Several of the background documents for the ALWTRP and the take reduction planning process can be downloaded from the ALWTRP web site at
The ALWTRP was developed pursuant to section 118 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury of three endangered species of whales (right, fin, and humpback) due to incidental interaction with commercial fishing activities. In addition, the measures identified in the ALWTRP would provide conservation benefits to a fourth species (minke), which are neither listed as endangered nor threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ALWTRP, implemented through regulations codified at 50 CFR 229.32, relies on a combination of fishing gear modifications and time/area closures to reduce the risk of whales becoming entangled in commercial fishing gear (and potentially suffering serious injury or mortality as a result).
On January 9, 2002, NMFS published the final rule to implement the ALWTRP's DAM program (67 FR 1133). On August 26, 2003, NMFS amended the regulations by publishing a final rule, which specifically identified gear modifications that may be allowed in a DAM zone (68 FR 51195). The DAM program provides specific authority for NMFS to restrict temporarily on an expedited basis the use of lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishing gear in areas north of 40° N. lat. to protect right whales. Under the DAM program, NMFS may: (1) require the removal of all lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishing gear for a 15-day period; (2) allow lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishing within a DAM zone with gear modifications determined by NMFS to sufficiently reduce the risk of entanglement; and/or (3) issue an alert to fishermen requesting the voluntary removal of all lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet gear for a 15-day period and asking fishermen not to set any additional gear in the DAM zone during the 15-day period.
A DAM zone is triggered when NMFS receives a reliable report from a qualified individual of three or more right whales sighted within an area (75 nm
On February 11, 2007, an aerial survey reported a sighting of three right whales in the proximity 41°54′ N. lat. and 69°46′ W. long. This position lies southeast of Boston, MA. After conducting an investigation, NMFS ascertained that the report came from a qualified individual and determined that the report was reliable. Thus, NMFS has received a reliable report from a qualified individual of the requisite right whale density to trigger the DAM provisions of the ALWTRP.
Once a DAM zone is triggered, NMFS determines whether to impose restrictions on fishing and/or fishing gear in the zone. This determination is based on the following factors, including but not limited to: the location of the DAM zone with respect to other fishery closure areas, weather conditions as they relate to the safety of human life at sea, the type and amount of gear already present in the area, and a review of recent right whale entanglement and mortality data.
NMFS has reviewed the factors and management options noted above relative to the DAM under consideration. As a result of this review, NMFS prohibits lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet gear in this area during
42°14′ N., 70°13′ W. (NW Corner)
42°14′ N., 69°20′ W.
41°35′ N., 69°20′ W.
41°35′ N., 69°59′ W. and follow the coastline north to
42°05′ N., 70°13′ W.
42°14′ N., 70°13′ W. (NW Corner)
42°14′ N., 69°24′ W. (NW Corner)
42°14′ N., 69°20′ W.
41°35′ N., 69°20′ W.
41°35′ N., 69°59′ W. and follow the coastline north to
41°45′ N., 69°56′ W.
41°45′ N., 69°33′ W.
41°49′ N., 69°24′ W. (NW Corner)
In addition to those gear modifications currently implemented under the ALWTRP at 50 CFR 229.32, the following gear modifications are required in the DAM zone. If the requirements and exceptions for gear modification in the DAM zone, as described below, differ from other ALWTRP requirements for any overlapping areas and times, then the more restrictive requirements will apply in the DAM zone. Special note for gillnet fisherman: A portion of this DAM zone overlaps with the Northeast multispecies seasonal Gulf of Maine Rolling Closure Area I for found at 50 CFR 648.81(f)(1)(i) and the Harbor Porpoise Massachusetts Bay Closure Area found at 50 CFR 229.33(a)(4). Due to these closures, sink gillnet gear is prohibited from these portions of the DAM zone during March.
Fishermen utilizing lobster trap/pot gear within the portion of the Northern Inshore State Lobster Waters, Northern Nearshore Lobster Waters and Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge that overlap with the DAM zone are required to utilize all of the following gear modifications while the DAM zone is in effect:
1. Groundlines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line. Floating groundlines are prohibited;
2. All buoy lines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line, except the bottom portion of the line, which may be a section of floating line not to exceed one-third the overall length of the buoy line;
3. Fishermen are allowed to use two buoy lines per trawl; and
4. A weak link with a maximum breaking strength of 600 lb (272.4 kg) must be placed at all buoys.
Fishermen utilizing lobster trap/pot gear within the portion of the Offshore Lobster Waters Area that overlap with the DAM zone are required to utilize all of the following gear modifications while the DAM zone is in effect:
1. Groundlines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line. Floating groundlines are prohibited;
2. All buoy lines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line, except the bottom portion of the line, which may be a section of floating line not to exceed one-third the overall length of the buoy line;
3. Fishermen are allowed to use two buoy lines per trawl; and
4. A weak link with a maximum breaking strength of 1,500 lb (680.4 kg) must be placed at all buoys.
Fishermen utilizing anchored gillnet gear within the portions of the Other Northeast Gillnet Waters Area and Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area that overlap with the DAM zone are required to utilize all the following gear modifications while the DAM zone is in effect:
1. Groundlines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line. Floating groundlines are prohibited;
2. All buoy lines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line, except the bottom portion of the line, which may be a section of floating line not to exceed one-third the overall length of the buoy line;
3. Fishermen are allowed to use two buoy lines per string;
4. Each net panel must have a total of five weak links with a maximum breaking strength of 1,100 lb (498.8 kg). Net panels are typically 50 fathoms (91.4 m) in length, but the weak link requirements would apply to all variations in panel size. These weak links must include three floatline weak links. The placement of the weak links on the floatline must be: one at the center of the net panel and one each as close as possible to each of the bridle ends of the net panel. The remaining two weak links must be placed in the center of each of the up and down lines at the panel ends;
5. A weak link with a maximum breaking strength of 1,100 lb (498.8 kg) must be placed at all buoys; and
6. All anchored gillnets, regardless of the number of net panels, must be securely anchored with the holding power of at least a 22 lb (10.0 kg) Danforth-style anchor at each end of the net string.
The restrictions will be in effect beginning at 0001 hours February 26, 2007, through 2400 hours March 12, 2007, unless terminated sooner or extended by NMFS through another notification in the
The restrictions will be announced to state officials, fishermen, ALWTRT members, and other interested parties through e-mail, phone contact, NOAA website, and other appropriate media immediately upon issuance of the rule by the AA.
In accordance with section 118(f)(9) of the MMPA, the Assistant Administrator (AA) for Fisheries has determined that this action is necessary to implement a take reduction plan to protect North Atlantic right whales.
Environmental Assessments for the DAM program were prepared on December 28, 2001, and August 6, 2003. This action falls within the scope of the analyses of these EAs, which are available from the agency upon request.
NMFS provided prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on the regulations establishing the criteria and procedures for implementing a DAM zone. Providing prior notice and opportunity for comment on this action, pursuant to those regulations, would be impracticable because it would prevent NMFS from executing its functions to protect and reduce serious injury and mortality of endangered right whales. The regulations establishing the DAM program are designed to enable the agency to help protect unexpected concentrations of right whales. In order to meet the goals of the DAM program, the agency needs to be able to create a DAM zone and implement restrictions on fishing gear as soon as possible once the criteria are triggered and NMFS determines that a DAM restricted zone is appropriate. If NMFS were to provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment upon the creation of a DAM restricted zone, the aggregated right whales would be vulnerable to entanglement which could result in serious injury and mortality. Additionally, the right whales would most likely move on to another location before NMFS could implement the restrictions designed to protect them, thereby rendering the action obsolete. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the AA finds that good cause exists to waive prior notice and an opportunity to comment on this action to implement a DAM restricted zone to reduce the risk of entanglement of endangered right whales in commercial lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet gear as such procedures would be impracticable.
For the same reasons, the AA finds that, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good
NMFS determined that the regulations establishing the DAM program and actions such as this one taken pursuant to those regulations are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management program of the U.S. Atlantic coastal states. This determination was submitted for review by the responsible state agencies under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Following state review of the regulations creating the DAM program, no state disagreed with NMFS' conclusion that the DAM program is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management program for that state.
The DAM program under which NMFS is taking this action contains policies with federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment under Executive Order 13132. Accordingly, in October 2001 and March 2003, the Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs, Department of Commerce, provided notice of the DAM program and its amendments to the appropriate elected officials in states to be affected by actions taken pursuant to the DAM program. Federalism issues raised by state officials were addressed in the final rules implementing the DAM program. A copy of the federalism Summary Impact Statement for the final rules is available upon request (
The rule implementing the DAM program has been determined to be not significant under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1361
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is closing directed fishing for the rock sole, flathead sole, and “other flatfish” fishery category by vessels using trawl gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the first seasonal allowance of the 2007 halibut bycatch allowance specified for the trawl rock sole, flathead sole, and “other flatfish” fishery category in the BSAI.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 17, 2007, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., April 1, 2007.
Jennifer Hogan, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The first seasonal allowance of the 2007 halibut bycatch allowance specified for the trawl rock sole, flathead sole, and “other flatfish” fishery category in the BSAI is 448 metric tons as established by the 2006 and 2007 final harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (71 FR 10894, March 3, 2006).
In accordance with § 679.21(e)(7)(v), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the first seasonal allowance of the 2007 halibut bycatch allowance specified for the trawl rock sole, flathead sole, and “other flatfish” fishery category in the BSAI has been caught. Consequently, NMFS is closing directed fishing for rock sole, flathead sole, and “other flatfish” by vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI.
“Other flatfish” includes Alaska plaice, as well as all other flatfish species except for Pacific halibut (a prohibited species), Greenland turbot, rock sole, yellowfin sole, flathead sole, and arrowtooth flounder.
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for rock sole, flathead sole, and “other flatfish” by vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of February 15, 2007.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule; correction.
We are correcting an error in our proposed rule to amend the regulations for importing animals and animal products by adding the Mexican State of Nayarit to the list of regions considered free of classical swine fever (CSF). We would also add Nayarit to the list of CSF-free regions whose exports of live swine, pork, and pork products to the United States must meet certain certification requirements to ensure their freedom from CSF. The proposed rule was published in the
Dr. Chip Wells, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Regionalization Evaluation Services-Import, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-4356.
On January 31, 2007, we published in the
In the summary of the proposed rule, and in the supplementary information under the heading “Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act,” we stated that we would add Nayarit to the list of CSF-affected regions whose exports of live swine, pork, and pork products to the United States must meet certain certification requirements to ensure their freedom from CSF. This information was incorrect. We are proposing to recognize the State of Nayarit as free of this disease, so it should have read that we would add the State to the list of CSF-free regions to which those requirements apply. This document corrects these errors.
In FR Doc. E7-1530, published on January 31, 2007 (72 FR 4463-4467) make the following corrections: On page 4463, under Summary, third sentence, and on page 4466, first column, first full sentence, correct “CSF-affected” to read “CSF-free”.
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 EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 airplanes. This proposed AD would require installing updated software revisions and, as applicable, doing concurrent actions. This proposed AD results from a report of an error in the implementation procedure of the Primus Epic digital software platform, which could result in improper functioning of certain flight systems. Further, current revisions of the Primus Epic software may cause blinking of all cockpit flight displays. We are proposing this AD to prevent improper functioning of certain flight systems and blinking of cockpit flight displays, which could lead to increased pilot workload during critical phases of flight.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 26, 2007.
Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD.
•
•
•
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 proposed AD.
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1175; 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 Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the airworthiness authority for Brazil, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 airplanes. The ANAC advises of a reported error in the implementation procedure of the Primus Epic digital software platform, which may lead to an ineffective power-up built-in test (PBIT) of certain fly-by-wire (FBW), autoflight, and avionics system functions, which could result in improper functioning of those systems. Further, current Primus Epic software revisions may cause blinking of all cockpit flight displays. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to increased pilot workload during critical phases of flight.
EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 170-31-0013, Revision 01, dated January 13, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for installing Primus Epic software part number (P/N) PS7027709-00113 (load version 17.3). For airplanes equipped with a lightning sensor system (LSS) and software load version 15.3 or 15.4, the installation includes doing certain wiring revisions of the LSS connector. For airplanes that have received all described software upgrades in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-31-0013, dated December 17, 2005, an additional action is described by Service Bulletin 170-31-0013, Revision 01. The additional action includes installing a new, upgraded loadable diagnostic information (LDI) database.
The ANAC mandated the service information and issued Brazilian airworthiness directive 2006-06-01, effective June 28, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Brazil.
For certain airplanes, EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-31-0013, Revision 01, specifies prior or concurrent accomplishment of certain actions specified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-73-0001, dated September 13, 2005, and Revision 01, dated September 23, 2005. These actions include installing full-authority digital engine-control (FADEC) software version V5.20.
These airplane models are manufactured in Brazil 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 ANAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the ANAC'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 service information described previously.
The ANAC airworthiness directive 2006-06-01 does not specifically state that prior or concurrent installation of FADEC software version V5.20 is required. However, to ensure proper correction of the unsafe condition, this proposed AD would require accomplishing this concurrent action. EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-31-0013, Revision 01, describes EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-73-0001 as the appropriate source of service information for doing the concurrent action. This difference has been coordinated with the ANAC.
We consider this proposed AD interim action. The manufacturer is developing a modification that will further address the unsafe condition identified in this proposed AD. Once this modification is approved and available, we may consider additional rulemaking.
This proposed AD would affect about 68 airplanes of U.S. registry. Software upgrades would be provided by the manufacturer at no charge to operators, and parts for wiring changes would be provided from operator stores. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour.
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 March 26, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to EMBRAER Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE, -100 SU, -200 LR, -200 STD, and -200 SU airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-31-0013, Revision 01, dated January 13, 2006.
(d) This AD results from a report of an error in the implementation procedure of the Primus Epic digital software platform, which could result in improper functioning of certain flight systems. Further, current revisions of the Primus Epic software may possibly cause blinking of all cockpit flight displays. We are issuing this AD to prevent improper functioning of certain flight systems and blinking of cockpit flight displays, which could lead to increased pilot workload during critical phases of flight.
(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 30 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect to determine the part number (P/N) of the Primus Epic software and the upgrade version number of the full-authority digital engine-control (FADEC) software installed on the airplane.
(g) Within the compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable, install Primus Epic P/N PS7027709-00113 (load version 17.3) and do applicable wiring revisions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-31-0013, Revision 01, dated January 13, 2006.
(1) For airplanes equipped with software having P/N PS7027709-00108 (load version 15.3), P/N PS7027709-00109 (load version 15.4), or P/N PS7027709-00110 (load version 15.5): Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For airplanes equipped with software having P/N PS7027709-00106 (load version 17.1) or P/N PS7027709-00112 (load version 17.2.02): Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD.
(h) For airplanes which do not have FADEC software upgrade version V5.20 installed at the time of the inspection required by paragraph (f) of this AD: Prior to or concurrently with the installation required by paragraph (g) of this AD, install FADEC software upgrade version V5.20 as specified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-73-0001, dated September 13, 2005; or Revision 01, dated September 23, 2005.
(i) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD according to EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-31-0013, dated December 17, 2005, are considered acceptable for compliance with paragraph (g) of this AD; except that, for airplanes identified in paragraph 1D., “Additional Action,” of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-31-0013, Revision 01, dated January 13, 2006, the additional action specified in Service Bulletin 170-31-0013, Revision 01, must be done as required by this AD.
(j)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, 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.
(k) Brazilian airworthiness directive 2006-06-01, effective June 28, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. This proposed AD would require revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. This proposed AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 26, 2007.
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 proposed AD.
Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2141; 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 FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (
In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.
The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) has issued a regulation that is similar to SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks.
We have determined that the actions identified in this proposed AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. The EASA advises that Airbus has issued new fuel airworthiness limitations (FALs) to address failure conditions for which an unacceptable probability of ignition risk could exist if specific tasks or practices or both are not performed in accordance with the manufacturer's requirements. The new FALs are intended to satisfy the JAA's Interim Policy of Fuel Tank Safety and SFAR 88 requirements.
Airbus has issued A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS—Airworthiness Limitations Section, dated February 28, 2006, which is a repository for stand-alone documents that are approved independently from each other. The Airbus ALS comprises the following documents:
• ALS Part 1—Safe Life Airworthiness Limitation Items.
• ALS Part 2—Damage-Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items.
• ALS Part 3—Certification Maintenance Requirements.
• ALS Part 4—(Reserved).
• ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations.
Airbus ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated February 28, 2006, refers to Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (approved by the EASA on March 14, 2006). Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks,” of Document 95A.1931/05 describes certain FAL inspections, which are periodic inspections of certain features for latent failures that could contribute to an ignition source. Section 2, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations,” of Document 95A.1931/05 identifies critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs). A CDCCL is a limitation requirement to preserve a critical ignition source prevention feature of the fuel tank system design that is necessary to prevent the occurrence of an unsafe condition. The purpose of a CDCCL is to provide instruction to retain the critical ignition source prevention feature during configuration change that may be caused by alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions. A CDCCL is not a periodic inspection.
Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The EASA mandated the service information and issued airworthiness directive 2006-0203, dated July 11, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the European Union.
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. As described in FAA Order 8100.14A, “Interim Procedures for Working with the European Community on Airworthiness Certification and Continued Airworthiness,” dated August 12, 2005, the EASA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the EASA'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 revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems.
This proposed AD would affect about 720 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $115,200, or $160 per airplane.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD 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 March 26, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any category.
This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections and critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs). Compliance with the operator maintenance documents is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections and CDCCLs, the operator may not be able to accomplish inspections and CDCCLs described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (i) of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections and CDCCLs that will preserve the critical ignition source prevention feature of the affected fuel system.
(d) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss 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 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated February 28, 2006, as defined in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on March 14, 2006), Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks.” For all tasks identified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1931/05, the initial compliance times start from the effective date of this AD and must be accomplished within the repetitive interval specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1931/05.
(g) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated February 28, 2006, as defined in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (approved by the EASA on March 14, 2006), Section 2, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations.”
(h) Except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD: After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used.
(i)(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.
(j) EASA airworthiness directive 2006-0203, dated July 11, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes. This proposed AD would require installing Teflon sleeving around the fuel pump wire harness inside the conduit in the aft supplemental fuel tank. This proposed AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 9, 2007.
Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD.
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to
• Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590.
• Fax: (202) 493-2251.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for the service information identified in this proposed AD.
Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5262; fax (562) 627-5210.
We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings,
Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (
We have determined that the actions identified in this proposed AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
We have received a report indicating that fuel leaked from the No. 1 main fuel tank boost pump electrical conduit into the fuel shroud drain system, on a Model DC-10-30 airplane. The airplane had accumulated about 25,000 total flight hours. Investigation revealed that electrical arcing between chafed wiring and the inside of the conduit wall caused a hole in the conduit. Fuel then leaked into the conduit through the hole from the fuel tank. This condition, if not prevented, could result in the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
We have reviewed McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 24-128, dated January 19, 1984. The service bulletin describes procedures for installing Teflon sleeving around the fuel pump wire harness inside the conduit in the aft supplemental fuel tank. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.
We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this proposed AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin.”
The service bulletin recommends accomplishing the modification within 34,000 flight hours after installing the supplemental fuel tank. When the service bulletin was issued in 1984, we did not have a safety concern that warranted AD action. However, the service bulletin was re-evaluated as part of the SFAR 88 review activity. We determined that AD action is warranted. From that review, we also determined that the recommended compliance time should be re-examined. Boeing subsequently recommended a 60-month compliance time, which is consistent with the compliance time recommended in similar Boeing service bulletins. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, we considered the typical utilization of the affected airplanes, the degree of urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, and the time necessary to perform the modification (2 hours). In light of all of these factors, we find that a 60-month compliance time represents an appropriate interval of time for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety.
There are about 5 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 5 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. The cost of required parts is negligible. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $800, or $160 per airplane.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD 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 April 9, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 24-128, dated January 19, 1984.
(d) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss 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 60 months after the effective date of this AD, install Teflon sleeving around the fuel pump wire harness inside the conduit in the aft supplemental fuel tank, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 24-128, dated January 19, 1984.
(g)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Request for data and information.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is seeking information to formulate a regulatory position on insect repellent products that contain over-the-counter (OTC) sunscreen ingredients. FDA is considering amending its monograph for OTC sunscreen drug products (the regulation that establishes conditions under which these drug products are generally recognized as safe and effective and not misbranded) to add conditions for marketing insect repellent-sunscreen drug products. The insect repellent ingredients in these products are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Elsewhere in this issue of the
Submit written or electronic comments by May 23, 2007.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. 2006N-0479 or RIN 0910-AF43, by any of the following methods:
Submit electronic comments in the following ways:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Agency Web site:
Submit written submissions in the following ways:
• FAX: 301-827-6870.
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions]: Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
To ensure more timely processing of comments, FDA is no longer accepting comments submitted to the agency by e-mail. FDA encourages you to continue to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal or the agency Web site, as described in the
Matthew R. Holman, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, MS 5411, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-2090.
FDA and EPA are seeking information to formulate a regulatory position for combination insect repellent-sunscreen drug products for use on human skin. Because sunscreen drug products are regulated by FDA and the insect repellent components of these products are separately regulated by EPA, both agencies are seeking comments to
Currently, approximately 20 combination insect repellent-sunscreen drug products are available for consumers. These products consist of one of three insect repellents (N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET), oil of citronella, or IR3535) and a sunscreen component (one or more sunscreen ingredients). Combination insect repellent-sunscreen drug products are available in lotion, cream, and spray-on formulations and are currently marketed for use by the entire family. Due to concerns about the potential conflict in the directions for use and other labeling requirements for the insect repellent and the sunscreen components of the product, EPA postponed a regulatory decision on combination DEET/sunscreen products in its Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for DEET (December 1998) until additional information could be obtained. This document solicits opinion and comment from the public to assist both agencies in regulating these products.
EPA regulates insect repellents under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Three insect repellent active ingredients are currently used in combination with sunscreens: DEET, oil of citronella, and IR3535. EPA recently registered two other insect repellents, p-menthane-3,8-diol and picaridin. However, neither is currently available in combination with a sunscreen. Both DEET and oil of citronella have undergone reregistration, which entailed an evaluation and analysis of the complete database for each ingredient by EPA. IR3535, p-menthane-3,8-diol, and picaridin are registered chemicals evaluated by the registration process, which involves a similar analysis by EPA. They have not yet undergone the reregistration analysis.
In December 1998, EPA completed its RED for DEET (Ref. 1), which includes the active ingredient N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide and its isomers. DEET products, which are applied directly to skin and/or clothing, are available in numerous formulations (e.g., aerosol and non-aerosol sprays, creams, lotions, sticks, foams, and towelettes) and concentrations (products range from about 4 percent to 100 percent active ingredient). DEET is an insect and mite repellent labeled for use in households/domestic dwellings, on the human body and clothing, on cats, dogs, and horses, and in pet living/sleeping quarters.
Based on pesticide usage information mainly for 1990 (Ref. 1), an average annual estimate of the domestic usage of DEET is 4 million pounds (active ingredient). About 30 percent of the U.S. population uses DEET annually as an insect repellent (this figure includes about 27 percent of adult males, 31 percent of adult females, and 34 percent of children). Approximately 21 percent of U.S. households use DEET annually. About 19 percent of households use DEET on household members, and about 4 percent of households that have cats and/or dogs use DEET on those pets.
EPA indicated in its DEET RED (Ref. 1):
The Agency is concerned about consumer use of products that combine sunscreen and DEET, since directions to reapply sunscreens generously and frequently may promote greater use of DEET than needed for pesticidal efficacy and thus pose unnecessary exposure to DEET. DEET labels currently recommend that products be used sparingly and not be reapplied too often. Sunscreen products, however, recommend frequent reapplication. No benefits attach to use of DEET more frequently than necessary to achieve its purpose.
EPA did not make a regulatory decision regarding these DEET-sunscreen products at that time because it believed that it had not yet obtained adequate information.
In February 1997, EPA completed its RED for Oil of Citronella (Ref. 2). This decision includes a comprehensive reassessment of the required target data and the use patterns of currently registered oil of citronella products. Oil of citronella is a biochemical pesticide. It is registered as an animal repellent and as an insect repellent/feeding depressant. Oil of citronella is the volatile oil obtained from the steam distillation of freshly cut or partially dried grasses (
Based on pesticide survey usage information for 1991 and 1992 (Ref. 2), annual oil of citronella domestic usage ranged approximately from 33,000 to 48,000 pounds active ingredient for four sites: Domestic dwellings; ornamentals; human face, skin, and clothing; and manufacturing. The largest markets, in terms of total pounds active ingredient, for oil of citronella as an insect repellent are: Human face, skin, and clothing (56 to 74 percent); domestic dwelling [outdoor] (22 to 41 percent); and ornamentals (1.5 to 2.0 percent). The balance is used for manufacturing.
In the RED (Ref. 2), EPA required all oil of citronella products with label claims for repelling mosquitoes, fleas, and ticks to have a minimum protection time of 1 hour. The directions for use must also contain the following statement pertaining to maintenance of repellent activity: “For maximum repellent effectiveness of this product, repeat applications at 1 hour intervals.” The RED allows the labeling to claim a protection time longer than 1 hour so long as it can be supported by product performance data showing an acceptable level of repellent activity. Because the principal uses of oil of citronella are dermal, special precautionary labeling related to dermal sensitization and irritation is required for all products with use directions for dermal application. EPA (Ref. 2) requires oil of citronella-sunscreen products for dermal application to bear the following precautionary statements regarding dermal sensitivity: “For external use only. Avoid contact with eyes. Discontinue if irritation or rash appears. Use on children under 6 months of age only with the advice of a physician.” These precautionary statements are consistent with the warnings and directions (regarding use on children under 6 months of age) that appear in FDA's stayed monograph for OTC sunscreen drug products (part 352 (21 CFR part 352)).
The third currently registered insect repellent used in combination with a sunscreen is IR3535 (CAS number 52304-36-6). In 1997, EPA classified IR3535 as a biochemical for the following reasons (Ref. 3): (1) It is functionally identical to naturally occurring beta-alanine, (2) both ingredients repel insects, (3) their basic molecular structure is identical, (4) the end groups are not likely to contribute to toxicity, and (5) IR3535 acts to control the target pest via a nontoxic mode of action. IR3535 is a technical grade synthetic biochemical pesticide that is produced by an integrated process. It is a liquid containing 98 percent 3-[N-Butyl-N-acetyl]-aminopropionic acid, ethyl ester as the active ingredient and 2 percent inert ingredients.
There are two insect repellent active ingredients that are not currently used in a combination insect repellent-sunscreen drug product. However, for the purposes of completeness, all
The first ingredient is p-menthane-3,8-diol, a biochemical pesticide that is chemically synthesized, although the natural oil can be extracted from lemon eucalyptus leaves and twigs (Ref. 4). It can be used in spray and lotion products to repel insects such as mosquitoes.
The other insect repellent is KBR 3023, which contains the active ingredient picaridin. This chemical is currently formulated only for application to human skin. In December 2000, EPA registered a 15 percent pump-spray, 10 percent aerosol spray, 7 percent cream, 7 percent pump-spray, 5 percent cream, and 5 percent pump-spray (Ref. 5).
In the
Initially, the final monograph was to become effective on May 21, 2001, but FDA subsequently extended that date to December 31, 2002 (65 FR 36319, June 8, 2000). FDA then stayed the effective date of the monograph until further notice (66 FR 67485, December 31, 2001). FDA has delayed this effective date as it prepares an amendment to part 352 to address formulation, labeling, and testing requirements for ultraviolet A (UVA) radiation protection and to revise some of the requirements for ultraviolet B (UVB) radiation protection in a more comprehensive final monograph.
Historically, FDA has used its enforcement discretion to allow the marketing of insect repellent-sunscreen drug products pending the issuance of the final sunscreen monograph so long as the products contained sunscreen ingredients included in the FDA rulemaking and were registered with EPA. These types of products were first marketed before the OTC drug review began in 1972, and FDA has not explicitly addressed them at any time in the rulemaking for OTC sunscreen drug products. Because they have always contained a pesticide, the combination insect repellent-sunscreen products have also historically been registered with and regulated by EPA.
FDA is now interested in determining whether it should further amend that monograph to address these combination products. Once the final monograph for sunscreen drug products becomes effective, any combination product containing an unsuitable inactive ingredient or an active drug ingredient that is not included in the final monograph will be considered a new drug and need an NDA to be legally marketed, even if the product is also registered with EPA. Thus, one purpose of this document is to gather information to help FDA formulate its regulatory position toward these combination products.
In the
Interested persons are asked to review and comment upon all aspects of both FDA's and EPA's documents. Interested persons should submit all comments to both agencies. Both agencies have potential safety and effectiveness concerns for some of these products because of the different intervals of time required or recommended between applications of sunscreens versus insect repellents. FDA is particularly interested in receiving comments on the following topics:
Because they contain ingredients regulated by EPA and FDA, all insect repellent-sunscreen drug products currently need to comply with both EPA's testing and laboratory requirements in 40 CFR part 158 and FDA's current good manufacturing practice for finished pharmaceuticals requirements in part 211 (21 CFR part 211). The products will also have to meet the testing procedures for OTC sunscreen drug products in part 352, subpart D, when that monograph becomes effective. The agencies are not aware of any specific manufacturing requirements that conflict and invite specific comment and information on this subject.
1. Are manufacturers of insect repellent-sunscreen drug products or others aware of any conflicts between the EPA and FDA manufacturing requirements for these products? If yes, is there any way to resolve the conflict(s)?
2. Approximately 20 insect repellent-sunscreen drug products are currently registered with EPA. If there is a future FDA rulemaking for all combination insect repellent-sunscreen drug products, how should these currently registered products be addressed in the sunscreen monograph? What requirements should be retained, revised, or eliminated from the sunscreen monograph?
3. Have manufacturers of currently marketed insect repellent-sunscreen drug products conducted any of the testing described in part 352, subpart D, for their combination product(s), notwithstanding that the effective date of part 352 has been stayed? If yes, what problems, if any, have they encountered?
During completion of its DEET RED, EPA solicited information from registrants of insect repellent-sunscreen drug products on the possibility of formulation conflicts. At that time, EPA received information that suggests a potential formulation conflict is encountered when sunscreen and insect repellent are used separately (or sequentially applied) (Ref. 6). It is unclear whether this formulation issue poses a similar or related problem when these ingredients are combined into a single product. The agencies invite specific comment and information on this subject.
Insect repellent and sunscreen products each have different labeling
The agencies are concerned that the labeling format and some of the content requirements vary between the EPA and FDA requirements. For example, FDA uses the word “warning” on labels, while EPA uses the word “caution” and only uses the word “warning” as an indicator of toxicity level on pesticide labels. Many of the required warning section headings are also different. In addition, the application directions for the sunscreen and the insect repellent components may be significantly different. For example, the application directions for sunscreens state to “apply liberally (or generously) * * * as needed” and provide for application to more areas of the body than do the application instructions for insect repellents, which tend to restrict the frequency of application and where and how the product can be applied.
EPA requirements for DEET include labeling that states: “Apply sparingly around ears.” and “Do not apply to children's hands.” The directions for some DEET products require a 6-hour interval between applications and state: “Use just enough repellent to cover exposed skin and/or clothing” and “avoid over-application of this product.” Also, a currently marketed insect repellent (DEET)-sunscreen drug product states in its labeling “frequent reapplication and saturation is unnecessary for effectiveness.” While frequent reapplication may not be necessary for the effectiveness of the DEET in this product, frequent reapplication may be necessary for the effectiveness of the sunscreen.
Hence, there are many differences between the labeling required by FDA for OTC drugs and EPA for pesticides. The labeling formats, labeling content, and the order in which information is presented are quite different. FDA and EPA are exploring whether they can reconcile these differences, safeguard the public health, and still adequately meet the requirements of FFDCA and FIFRA.
1. Concerning an integrated label, can the different instructions for the two components (regarding frequency of application and where the product can be applied) be reconciled into a single direction that does not lead to improper application (i.e., incorrect location), over-application of the insect repellent, or under-application of the sunscreen? Is there labeling that would reflect the differences in reapplication intervals for DEET when combined with sunscreen ingredients? Oil of citronella when combined with sunscreen ingredients? IR3535 when combined with sunscreen ingredients?
2. The FFDCA requires that all OTC drug products list the established name of each inactive ingredient on the outside container of the retail package (see section 502(e)(1)(A)(iii) of FFDCA (21 U.S.C. 352(e)(1)(A)(iii)); also see § 201.66(c)(8)). EPA does not require a complete declaration of “inactive or inert” ingredients and normally does not require insect repellent manufacturers to list the identities of inert ingredients on product labels. However, under FIFRA, if one inert ingredient is disclosed in product labeling, then all inert ingredients must be disclosed. EPA is currently discussing, with a wide spectrum of stakeholders, how to make information concerning inert ingredients more widely available. The results of those discussions will affect combination insect repellent-sunscreen drug products as well as other pesticide products. Failure to list all of the inactive ingredients in the product's labeling, including all such ingredients in the insect repellent, would cause a combination insect repellent-sunscreen drug product to be misbranded under the FFDCA (see section 502(e)(1)(A)(iii) of FFDCA). Is there a way to label combination sunscreen-insect repellent drug products that satisfies FFDCA's requirements under section 502(e)(1)(A) of FFDCA but does not violate FIFRA? Are those ingredients that are “inert” under FIFRA also necessarily “inactive” under FFDCA?
FDA is aware of only two studies examining percutaneous absorption when combining an insect repellent with a sunscreen. One study involved hairless mice (Ref. 6) and the other study involved piglets (Ref. 7). Both studies demonstrate increased absorption of the insect repellent DEET and different sunscreens when the components were combined. Thus, FDA would like more information concerning the safety of insect repellent-sunscreen drug products:
1. Is there data available to show whether increased absorption of the sunscreen ingredients(s) does or does not occur as a result of being combined with an insect repellent ingredient? If so, please provide. For example, is there any evidence that absorption increases as the particle size of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide decreases (down to a few nanometers) in insect repellent-sunscreen products? If so, is there evidence regarding the health or safety effects associated with the increased absorption?
2. Are there reports or other information relating to skin irritation resulting from use of a combination insect repellent-sunscreen drug product are manufacturers of these products or others aware of? Provide a summary of the types of events reported and, if possible, estimate an incidence of occurrence.
For some insect repellent-sunscreen products, FDA has effectiveness concerns because of the interval of time required or recommended between applications of the product. EPA identifies reapplication times on insect repellent labels so consumers can maintain the maximum protection against insect bites but avoid over-exposure. This reapplication time relates to the effectiveness of the insect repellent portion of the product and not to the sunscreen protection. The directions for sunscreen products, which encourage frequent reapplication of the drug, relate to the effectiveness of the sunscreen component of the product and not to the insect repellent component.
The differences in directions for use for the insect repellent component and the sunscreen component need to be resolved to ensure safety and effectiveness of both components and the combination product as a whole. For example, the directions for some products containing DEET require a 6-hour interval between applications and state “use just enough repellent to cover exposed skin and/or clothing” and “avoid over-application of this product.” In contrast, the directions for sunscreen drug products in § 352.52(d)(1) and (d)(2) state to “apply liberally, generously, smoothly, or evenly * * * before sun exposure and as needed,” and “reapply as needed or after towel drying, swimming, or (select ‘sweating’ or ‘perspiring’).” Section 352.60(d) of the sunscreen monograph also states that “when the time intervals or age limitations for administration of
Concerns about effectiveness also stem from a study (Ref. 8) indicating that separate application of sunscreen followed by DEET resulted in a decrease in sun protection factor (SPF) after application of the insect repellent. Thus, FDA is soliciting comment on the following questions:
1. Is there additional evidence suggesting that application of a sunscreen product followed by application of a separate insect repellent product results in a decrease in the sunscreen's SPF? Is there evidence suggesting that sequential application of the products has no adverse effect on the sunscreen?
2. Is there evidence suggesting that combining a sunscreen and insect repellent in a single formulation adversely impacts the effectiveness of the sunscreen? Is there evidence suggesting that such a combination has no adverse impact on the sunscreen component?
3. Are there effective concentrations of the insect repellent ingredients that could be used to allow for liberal application and frequent reapplication of the insect repellent-sunscreen drug products, as directed by the sunscreen directions, without jeopardizing the safety of the consumer? How does this vary by insect repellent ingredient? Would any of the insect repellent ingredients be effective at such concentrations?
4. Is there information available to show whether there are any chemical or physical incompatibilities between insect repellent and sunscreen active ingredients when used in combination products or when used separately? Are there any sunscreen ingredients that should not be used with a specific insect repellent ingredient?
5. If an insect repellent ingredient (e.g., DEET) is labeled for 6-hour intervals between applications, can the effectiveness of the sunscreen be assured if the product cannot be applied more often than every 6 hours? Is there a need for a minimal SPF to assure the effectiveness of the combination product considering the wide variation in minimal erythemal dose (MED) between individuals and the need for reapplication due to physical stress such as toweling or rubbing of the skin? If the answer is yes, what minimal SPF value should be required, and what is the basis for that SPF value?
6. Is there information available to demonstrate that there are product performance benefits [other than the convenience of using one product instead of two] derived from the concurrent application of the insect repellent and the sunscreen (as opposed to sequential application of these products separately)? Please submit any data that you reference.
7. Oil of Citronella products are labeled to repeat applications at 1 hour intervals for maximum repellent effectiveness. Is it possible that insect repellent-sunscreen drug products can be formulated in such a way that the insect repellent reapplication intervals coincide more closely with the sunscreen reapplication intervals? Can this be done without jeopardizing the safety or effectiveness of these products?
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
The following references are on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see
1. EPA Reregistration Eligibility Decision for DEET, 1998.
2. EPA Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Oil of Citronella, 1997.
3. EPA Biopesticide Registration Eligibility Document for IR3535, 1999.
4. EPA Biopesticide Registration Eligibility Document for p-menthane-3,8-diol, 2000.
5. EPA Decision Memorandum on KBR 3023, 2000.
6. Ross, E. A. et al., “Insect Repellent Interactions: Sunscreens Enhance DEET (
7. Gu, X. et al., “In Vitro Evaluation of Concurrent Use of Commercially Available Insect Repellent and Sunscreen Preparations,”
8. Montemarano, A. D. et al., “Insect Repellents and the Efficacy of Sunscreens,”
This request for information and comment is issued under sections 201, 501, 502, 503, 505, 510, and 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 353, 355, 360, and 371) and under authority of the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This proposed rule is issued by the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to place the substance lisdexamfetamine, including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, into schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This proposed action is based on a recommendation from the Assistant Secretary for Health of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and on an evaluation of the relevant data by DEA. This scheduling of lisdexamfetamine in schedule II will not be finalized until a New Drug Application (NDA) for a lisdexamfetamine product is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). If finalized, this action would impose the regulatory controls and criminal sanctions of schedule II on those who handle lisdexamfetamine and products containing lisdexamfetamine.
Written comments must be postmarked, and electronic comments must be sent, on or before March 26, 2007.
To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA-301” on all written and electronic correspondence. Written comments sent via regular mail should be sent to the Deputy Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA
Christine Sannerud, PhD, Chief, Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537, (202) 307-7183.
Lisdexamfetamine is a central nervous system stimulant drug. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently reviewing a New Drug Application (NDA) for lisdexamfetamine. Upon approval of this pending NDA, lisdexamfetamine will be marketed as a prescription drug product for the treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
Lisdexamfetamine is an amide ester conjugate comprised of the amino acid L-lysine covalently bound to the amino group of d-amphetamine. The chemical name of its dimesylate salt form is (2S)-2,6-diamino-N-[(1S)-1-methyl-2-phenethyl]hexanamide dimethanesulfonate (CAS number 608137-32-3). Lisdexamfetamine per se is pharmacologically inactive and its effects are due to its in vivo metabolic conversion to d-amphetamine. In this regard, lisdexamfetamine acts as a prodrug.
Lisdexamfetamine shares substantial pharmacological effects and abuse potential with amphetamine. Lisdexamfetamine is positively reinforcing in monkeys. It generalizes to the discriminative stimulus effects of d-amphetamine in monkeys. It produces locomotor stimulation in rats. In adults, the total amphetamine exposure resulting from 75 mg oral lisdexamfetamine is equivalent to 35 mg oral Adderall XR, an extended release amphetamine product. Peak plasma concentrations of d-amphetamine following oral ingestion of 50 and 70 mg lisdexamfetamine correspond closely to those produced by oral ingestion of 30 and 50 mg immediate-release d-amphetamine product. In controlled clinical studies, lisdexamfetamine has been found to be similar to d-amphetamine in psychoactive measures. It produces euphoria in humans typical of d-amphetamine. Lisdexamfetamine shows an adverse event profile similar to that of d-amphetamine. Some adverse effects of lisdexamfetamine include insomnia, nervousness, irritability, anorexia, weight loss, mood alterations, and increases in blood pressure and heart rate.
Lisdexamfetamine has not been studied for its psychological and physical dependence potential. However, since lisdexamfetamine is a prodrug for d-amphetamine, it is expected to possess dependence potential similar to that of d-amphetamine. d-Amphetamine is known to cause both psychological and physical dependence. Some symptoms of d-amphetamine withdrawal include depression, increase in sleep and food intake, drug craving, anhedonia, irritability and poor concentration.
Lisdexamfetamine is a new molecular entity and has not been marketed in the United States or other countries. Therefore, there has been no evidence of diversion, abuse, or law enforcement encounters involving lisdexamfetamine. On November 14, 2006, the Assistant Secretary for Health, DHHS, sent the Deputy Administrator of DEA a scientific and medical evaluation and a letter recommending that lisdexamfetamine be placed into schedule II of the CSA. Enclosed with the November 14, 2006 letter was a document prepared by the FDA entitled, “Basis for the Recommendation for Control of Lisdexamfetamine in Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act.” The document contained a review of the factors which the CSA requires the Secretary to consider (21 U.S.C. 811(b)).
The factors considered by the Assistant Secretary of Health and DEA with respect to lisdexamfetamine were:
(1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse;
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effects;
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug;
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse;
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse;
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health;
(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability; and
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this subchapter. (21 U.S.C. 811(c))
Based on the recommendation of the Assistant Secretary for Health, received in accordance with section 201(b) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 811(b)), and the independent review of the available data by DEA, the Deputy Administrator of DEA, pursuant to sections 201(a) and 201(b) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 811(a) and 811(b)), finds that:
(1) Lisdexamfetamine has a high potential for abuse;
(2) Upon approval of the pending NDA, lisdexamfetamine will have a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and
(3) Abuse of lisdexamfetamine may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.
Based on these findings, the Deputy Administrator of DEA concludes that lisdexamfetamine, including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, warrants control in schedule II of the CSA, if and when an NDA for lisdexamfetamine is approved.
Interested persons are invited to submit their comments, objections or requests for a hearing with regard to this proposal. Requests for a hearing should state, with particularity, the issues concerning which the person desires to be heard. All correspondence regarding this matter should be submitted to the Deputy Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC, 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL. In the event that comments, objections, or requests for a hearing raise one or more issues which the Deputy Administrator finds warrant a hearing, the Deputy Administrator shall order a public hearing by notice in the
If this rule is finalized as proposed, lisdexamfetamine would be subject to CSA regulatory controls and administrative, civil and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, importing and exporting of a schedule II controlled substance, including the following:
In accordance with the provisions of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811(a)), this action is a formal rulemaking “on the record after opportunity for a hearing.” Such proceedings are conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557 and, as such, are exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to Executive Order 12866, section 3(d)(1).
The Deputy Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this proposed rule and by approving it certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Lisdexamfetamine products will be prescription drugs used for the treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Handlers of lisdexamfetamine will also handle other controlled substances used to treat ADHD which are already subject to the regulatory requirements of the CSA.
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform.
This rulemaking does not preempt or modify any provision of state law; nor does it impose enforcement responsibilities on any state; nor does it diminish the power of any state to enforce its own laws. Accordingly, this rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $118,000,000 or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by § 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act). This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and export markets.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Narcotics, Prescription drugs.
Under the authority vested in the Attorney General by section 201(a) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811(a)), and delegated to the Administrator of DEA by U.S. Department of Justice regulations (28 CFR 0.100), and redelegated to the Deputy Administrator pursuant to 28 CFR 0.104, the Deputy Administrator hereby proposes that 21 CFR part 1308 be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 1308 continues to read as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b) unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 1308.12 is proposed to be amended by adding a new paragraph (d)(5) to read as follows:
(d) * * *
(5) Lisdexamfetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts of its isomers 1205
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS issues a proposed rule to amend regulations implementing the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (Observer Program). This action is necessary to avoid expiration of these regulations on December 31, 2007, and ensure uninterrupted observer coverage in North Pacific groundfish fisheries. The proposed rule is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMPs).
Written comments must be received by March 23, 2007.
Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Mail: to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802;
• Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9
• Fax: (907) 586-7557;
• E-mail:
• Webform at the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action may be obtained from the mailing address above or by calling the Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, at 907-586-7228.
Jason Anderson, 907-586-7228, or
NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) under the FMPs. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has prepared the FMPs pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations that pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600.
Groundfish fisheries in the GOA and BSAI are managed under quotas set annually for groundfish species and for several other species that groundfish fishery participants are prohibited from retaining. Management programs under the FMPs allocate specific quotas among areas, seasons, gear types, processor and catcher vessel sectors, cooperatives, and individual fishermen. Annual quotas are based on NMFS stock assessments and Council recommendations. The Alaska Region NMFS is responsible for monitoring the catch of these quotas, and for closing the fisheries when quotas are reached. Stock assessments, quota monitoring, and management require an accounting for all groundfish and prohibited species catch, including discarded catch.
Observer requirements for fisheries off Alaska have been in place since the mid-1970s, when the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (re-authorized in 1996 as the Magnuson-Stevens Act) was implemented and NMFS began to monitor U.S. EEZ foreign groundfish fisheries. The Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and the Council recognized that living marine resources cannot be effectively managed without the types of information that are either available only or most efficiently through an observer program. Therefore, when foreign vessel fisheries ended in 1991, the Council developed and the Secretary approved a domestic Observer Program that authorized the placement of observers on domestic fishing vessels and at shoreside processing plants participating in Alaskan groundfish fisheries. The domestic Observer Program was implemented through Amendment 18 to the GOA FMP and Amendment 13 to the BSAI FMP (54 FR 50386, December 6, 1989, and 55 FR 4839, February 12, 1990). Observer coverage requirements have remained mostly unchanged since approval of the program.
The current Observer Program has an integral role in the management of North Pacific fisheries. The information collected by observers provides the best available scientific information for managing the fisheries and developing measures to minimize bycatch in furtherance of the purposes and national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Observers collect catch data used by managers for quota monitoring and management of groundfish and prohibited species, biological data and samples used by scientists for stock assessment analyses, information used by managers to document and reduce fishery interactions with protected resources, and information and samples used by scientists in marine ecosystem research. The Observer Program also provides information, analyses, and support in the development of proposed policy and management measures. Further, observers interact with the fishing industry on a daily basis and the Observer Program strives to promote constructive communication between the agency and interested parties. Observations are used by managers and enforcement personnel to document the effectiveness of the management programs of various entities, including NMFS, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
High quality observer data are a cornerstone of Alaska groundfish fisheries management. However, the quality and utility of observer data suffer due to the current structure of procuring and deploying observers. Under the current program, coverage levels vary with the size of the vessel or the quantity of fish processed. Vessel owners and operators choose when and where to carry observers, and fishery managers do not control when and where observers are deployed. To address these concerns, the Council directed NMFS to develop an alternate program structure. Since the early 1990's, the Council and NMFS have explored alternative program structures as part of three separate actions. However, the Council identified problems with each of these actions and none were adopted. While the Council was developing and considering options for an alternate program structure, the Council recommended, and the Secretary approved, several extensions of the Observer Program regulations. A thorough discussion of the history of the Observer Program, including past efforts to restructure and extend the Observer Program, is provided in the EA/RIR/
In October 2002, the Council tasked its observer advisory committee (OAC) to develop a problem statement and alternatives for restructuring the Observer Program. In April 2003, the Council adopted a suite of alternatives that contemplated restructuring the Observer Program in a stepwise approach, beginning in the GOA. However, as NMFS began evaluating these alternatives, it became apparent that certain operational and data quality issues would be difficult to resolve in a revised program under which NMFS contracted directly with observers for observer services in the GOA, but retained the current system for procuring observer services in the BSAI.
From December 2003 through June 2005, the Council refined the suite of alternatives, and in June 2005 adopted the current alternatives for analysis. These alternatives include options to restructure the Observer Program for all groundfish and halibut vessels fishing in the GOA only, for halibut vessels and certain sectors fishing in both the GOA and BSAI, and for all groundfish and halibut fisheries. Shoreside and stationary floating processors were included under each alternative depending on their location and management program. In addition to the “no-action” alternative under which the Observer Program would expire, the Council also asked staff to analyze an alternative that would remove the December 31, 2007, expiration date and continue current observer coverage regulations without an expiration date.
While the Council intended to adopt a preferred alternative by January 1, 2008, several issues arose during the course of analysis of the alternatives that has made this difficult. First, due to uncertainty about the applicability of overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act to contracted observers, staff were unable to adequately analyze observer costs under any of the restructure alternatives. Second, the Research Plan authority to assess a fee for observer coverage could not be exclusively applied to a subset of the North Pacific groundfish fisheries vessels. Therefore, all the action alternatives except Alternative 2 (extension of the current program) required new statutory authorization for fee collection from a portion of the fleet or to implement different fee mechanisms for different sectors, as were considered in the analysis.
Because observer costs cannot be adequately calculated and the uncertainty that Congress would authorize fee collection, NMFS recommended that the Council adopt Alternative 2 as its preferred alternative. The Council concurred and adopted Alternative 2 at its February 2006 meeting. The Council also amended the problem statement to reflect that, while Alternative 2 does not address most of the issues in the problem statement, it ensures Observer Program viability, and the continued collection of information necessary to manage the North Pacific fisheries. While the costs of the restructuring alternatives cannot be adequately calculated at this time, the analysis prepared for this action includes restructuring alternatives to provide context to the Council's adoption of Alternative 2.
Expiration of the Observer Program would result in significant costs to groundfish fishery participants. Without data collected by observers, NMFS would be forced to adopt a much more conservative approach towards managing the groundfish fisheries of the GOA and BSAI. Such an approach could lead to early fisheries closures because there would be no observer data for total allowable catch (TAC) and prohibited species catch limit calculations. NMFS would likely rely on more population models to generate allowable biological catch and TAC recommendations. In addition, failure to maintain a groundfish observer program in the North Pacific would violate the terms of a variety of statutes, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA requires observer coverage as a reasonable and prudent measure for certain management actions. These are non-discretionary measures under current biological opinions and are prescribed under the incidental take statements for endangered marine mammals, salmon, and seabirds.
Also in June 2006, the Council decided it would consider a new amendment proposing restructuring alternatives for the Observer Program when (1) legislative authority is established for fee-based alternatives; (2) the cost issues described above are clarified (by statute, regulation, or guidance) to allow estimated costs associated with the fee-based alternatives; or (3) the Council responds to changes in conditions that cannot be anticipated now.
On January 12, 2007, the President signed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (Pub. Law No. 109-479). The reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act includes language that would appear to allow the Council to adopt a fee collection program as considered in the analysis. However, the exact nature of the fee program authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Act must be determined, the Council must consider a new amendment to restructure the current Observer Program, and NMFS must undergo rulemaking to implement a new Observer Program. Therefore, implementing a fee collection and restructured Observer Program prior to the December 31, 2007, expiration date would be difficult. Additionally, the observer cost issues described above remain unresolved.
For the reasons described above, NMFS proposes to remove the December 31, 2007, expiration date from the heading of 50 CFR 679.50 and from regulations at § 679.50(j)(1)(vi). The current Observer Program would continue until the Council recommends and the Secretary approves and implements further action to amend the program. Continuation of the current Observer Program is necessary to prevent interruption of many current management programs.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared an IRFA as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the objectives and legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble and are not repeated here. A copy of the IRFA is available from NMFS (see
This proposed rule would extend the effective date of regulations governing the Observer Program beyond December 31, 2007, the current expiration date. Extending the Observer Program beyond December 31, 2007, is necessary for uninterrupted continuation of many of the current management programs. The entities that would be directly regulated by this proposed action are groundfish and halibut harvesters and processors of the BSAI and GOA EEZ. These entities include the halibut vessels, groundfish catcher vessels, groundfish catcher processor vessels, and shoreside processors active in these areas. It also includes organizations to which direct allocations of groundfish are made, such as the BSAI community development quota (CDQ) groups and the American Fisheries Act (AFA) fishing sectors.
The IRFA identified the following small entities that would be impacted
Alternative 1 is the no action alternative. Under this alternative, the current Observer Program would continue to be the only system under which groundfish observers would be provided in the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries. Regulations authorizing the current program expire at the end of 2007.
No additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements are associated with this action.
Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative, and would extend the existing program. Under this alternative, the 2007 sunset date for the existing program would be removed and the program would be extended indefinitely with no changes to the overall service delivery model until the Council took further action.
Alternative 3 would restructure the Observer Program for GOA groundfish and all halibut fisheries, while BSAI groundfish fisheries would be administered under the current system. A new ex-vessel value fee program would be established to fund coverage for GOA groundfish vessels, GOA-based processors, and halibut vessels operating throughout Alaska. Regulations that divide the fleet into zero, 30 percent, and 100 percent coverage categories would no longer apply to vessels and processors in the GOA. Fishermen and processors would no longer be responsible for obtaining their own observer coverage. Rather, NMFS would determine when and where to deploy observers based on data collection and monitoring needs, and would contract directly for observers using fee proceeds and/or direct Federal funding.
Alternative 4 would restructure the Observer Program for all fisheries with coverage less than 100 percent. All vessels and processors assigned to Tiers 3 and 4 would participate in the new program throughout Alaska and pay an ex-vessel value based fee. In general, this alternative would apply to all halibut vessels, all groundfish catcher vessels less than 125 ft (38.1 m) in length overall and all non-AFA shoreside processors. All vessels and processors assigned to Tiers 1 and 2 (100 percent or greater coverage) would continue to operate under the current “pay-as-you-go” system throughout Alaska.
Alternative 5 would restructure the Observer Program for all groundfish and halibut fisheries off Alaska. This alternative would establish a new fee-based groundfish observer program in which NMFS has a direct contract with observer providers for all GOA and BSAI groundfish and halibut vessels. Under this alternative, vessels with 100 percent or greater coverage requirements would pay a daily observer fee and vessels with coverage requirements less than 100 percent would pay an ex-vessel value based fee.
As noted in the preamble above, Alternative 1 would result in significant costs to the fleet.
The impacts to small entities of the Alternatives 2 through 5, expressed as a percentage of the ex-vessel value of groundfish and halibut landed, are presented in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this action and are summarized here. Current observer costs expressed as a percentage of ex-vessel landed catch value can be considered a reasonable estimate of the costs to each sector of the fleet under Alternative 2 (rollover of the existing program). In the BSAI management area for the years 2000 through 2003, these costs averaged 2.54 percent for catcher/processors, 1.49 percent for catcher vessels, and 0.89 percent for all processors, including motherships. In the GOA management area for these same years, these costs averaged 1.11 percent for catcher/processors, 1.71 percent for catcher vessels, and 0.65 percent for all processors.
Although adoption of Alternative 3, 4 or 5 would require new statutory authority that currently does not exist, adoption of any of these alternatives as presented in the EA/RIR/IRFA would require selection of a low, middle, or high ex-vessel fee percentage. Estimated costs expressed as a percentage of ex-vessel value of groundfish and halibut landings for the low, middle, and high endpoint options for Alternative 3 are 0.52 percent, 0.70 percent, and 1.05 percent, respectively. Estimated costs in terms of a percent of ex-vessel value for Alternative 4 are 0.69 percent, 0.83 percent, and 1.15 percent. Finally estimated costs in terms of a percent of ex-vessel value for Alternative 5 are 0.69 percent, 0.83 percent, and 1.15 percent.
The analysis did not reveal any Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action.
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 679 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 773
2. In § 679.50, paragraph (j)(1)(vi) is removed and the section heading is revised to read as follows:
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of the one hundred and fiftieth meeting of the Board for International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD). The meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 3:45 p.m. on February 27, 2007 at the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) located at 1307 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The meeting is being held in NASULGC's main conference room located on the ground floor.
The morning session will be opened by Mr. Peter McPherson, Chairman of the BIFAD. The first presentation to the Board will cover Transformational Development and Budget Implications for U.S. Universities. This will be followed by a presentation on Increasing the Role of Universities in African Development—New Perspectives. At mid-morning the Board will then host an open discussion to explore the strategic direction of BIFAD for 2007. At noon Mr. James R. Kunder, Acting Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), will join the Board for an executive luncheon. Following the luncheon Mr. Kunder will swear-in new BIFAD members. Title XII implementation will be the focus of the afternoon business sessions. Included will be presentations and discussion on USAID's horticultural development initiative, management of the Collaborative Research Support Programs (CRSPS), and the Strategic Partnership for Agricultural Research & Education (SPARE).
The meeting is free and open to the public; with the exception of the executive luncheon which is closed. Those wishing to attend the meeting or obtain additional information about BIFAD should contact Ronald S. Senykoff, the Designated Federal Officer for BIFAD. Write him in care of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Ronald Reagan Building, Office of Agriculture, Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2.11-085, Washington DC, 20523-2110 or telephone him at (202) 712-0218 or fax (202) 216-3010.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request for revision of a currently approved information collection for Fruit and Vegetable Market News.
Comments must be received by April 23, 2007.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the internet at
Contact Terry C. Long, Chief; Fruit and Vegetable Market News Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, (202) 720-2175, Fax: (202) 720-0547.
The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621
The fruit and vegetable industry provides information on a voluntary basis, and is gathered through confidential telephone and face-to-face interviews by market reporters. Reporters request supplies, demand, and prices of over 330 fresh fruit, vegetable, nut ornamental, and other specialty crops. The information is collected, compiled, and disseminated by Market News in its critical role as an impartial third party. It is collected and reported in a manner which protects the confidentiality of the respondent and their operations.
The fruit and vegetable market news reports are used by academia and various government agencies for regulatory and other purposes, but are primarily used by the fruit, vegetable and ornamental trade, which includes packers, processors, brokers, retailers, producers, and associated industries. Members of the fruit and vegetable industry regularly make it clear that they need and expect the Department of Agriculture will issue price and supply market reports for commodities of regional, national and international significance in order to assist in making immediate production and marketing
Comments are invited on: (1) 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) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
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.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice; reopening of comment period for draft environmental assessment.
We are reopening the comment period for a draft environmental assessment prepared with respect to a petition from Syngenta Seeds, Inc., seeking a determination of nonregulated status for corn rootworm-resistant corn derived from a transformation event designated as MIR604. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments on the draft environmental assessment.
We will consider all comments on the draft environmental assessment that are received on or before March 9, 2007.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Dr. Catherine Preston, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-5874, e-mail:
On January 10, 2007, we published in the
In our notice, we stated that we will consider comments on the petition that are received on or before March 12, 2007, and comments on the draft environmental assessment that are received on or before February 9, 2007. We are reopening the comment period for the draft environmental assessment for an additional 15 days from the date of publication of this notice. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments on the draft environmental assessment. We will also consider all comments on the draft environmental assessment we receive between February 10, 2007, and the date of this notice.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of Membership of the USCCR Performance Review Board.
This notice announces the appointment of the Performance Review Board (PRB) of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. Publication of PRB membership is required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).
The PRB provides fair and impartial review of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' Senior Executive Service performance appraisals and makes recommendations regarding performance ratings and performance awards to the Staff Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights for the FY 2006 rating year.
Tyro Beatty, Director of Human Resources, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20425. Telephone: (202) 376-8364.
Cynthia G. Pierre, Director, Field Management Programs, EEOC.
Lawrence W. Roffee, Executive Director, U.S. Access Board.
David Enzel, Deputy Director, HUD Office of Appeals Policy Management.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
February 22, 2007.
Helen Kramer or Judy Lao, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14
On June 2, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Taiwan for the period of review (“POR”) of June 1, 2005, through May 31, 2006.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR § 351.213(h)(2), the Department may extend the deadline for completion of the preliminary results of a review by 120 days if it determines that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order for which the administrative review was requested. Due to the complexity of the issues involved and the time required to analyze Ta Chen's supplemental questionnaire responses, as well as the demands of other proceedings handled by the office administering this review, the Department has determined that it is not practicable to complete this review within the original time period. Accordingly, the Department is extending the time limit for the preliminary results by 120 days, to not later than July 2, 2007, in accordance with Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The deadline for the final results of this review will continue to be 120 days after publication of the preliminary results.
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act.
Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration.
Notice Announcing the Availability of Grant Funds.
This Notice announces the availability of grant funds in calendar year 2007 for U.S. manufacturers of certain worsted wool fabrics. The purpose of this notice is to provide the general public with a single source of program and application information related to the worsted wool grant offerings, and it contains the information about the program required to be published in the
Applications by eligible U.S. producers of certain worsted wool fabrics must be received or postmarked by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Standard Time on March 26, 2007. Applications received after the closing date and time will not be considered.
Applications must be submitted to the Industry Assessment Division, Office of Textiles and Apparel, Room 3001, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-4058.
Jim Bennett, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4058.
At the conclusion of the application, the applicant must attest that “all information contained in the application is complete and correct and no false claims, statements, or representations have been made.” Applicants should be aware that, generally, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3729, persons providing a false or fraudulent claims, and, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001, persons making materially false statements or representations, are subject to civil or criminal penalties, respectively.
Information that is marked “business confidential” will be protected from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law.
This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 269, 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the respective control numbers 0348-0039, 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of 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 PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
It has been determined that this notice is not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Consent Motion To Terminate the Panel Review of the final antidumping duty determination and order made by the International Trade Commission, respecting Purified Carboxymethylcellulose (“CMC”) from Mexico, Secretariat File No. USA-MEX-2005-1904-05.
Pursuant to the Notice of Consent Motion To Terminate the Panel Review by the complainants, the panel review is terminated as of February 13, 2007. A panel has not been appointed to this panel review. Pursuant to Rule 71(2) of the
Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.
Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) establishes a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination.
Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico established
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of an exempted fishing permit application (EFP); intent to issue the EFP; request for comments.
NMFS announces the receipt of an exempted fishing permit (EFP) application, and the intent to issue EFPs for vessels participating in an observation program to monitor the incidental take of salmon and groundfish in the shore-based component of the Pacific whiting fishery. The EFPs are necessary to allow trawl vessels fishing for Pacific whiting to delay sorting their catch, and thus to retain prohibited species and groundfish in excess of cumulative trip limits until the point of offloading. These activities are otherwise prohibited by Federal regulations. The EFPs will be effective no earlier than April 1, 2007, and would expire no later than December 31, 2007, but could be terminated earlier under the terms and conditions of the EFPs and other applicable laws.
Comments must be received by March 9, 2007.
Send comments or request for copies of the EFP application to Gretchen Arentzen, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115 0070 or email
Gretchen Arentzen or Becky Renko at (206)526 6140.
This action is authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act provisions at 50 CFR 600.745, which state that EFPs may be used to authorize fishing activities that would otherwise be prohibited. At the November 2006 Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) meeting in Del Mar, California, NMFS received an application for these EFPs from the States of Washington, Oregon, and California. An opportunity for public testimony was provided during the Council meeting. The Council recommended that NMFS issue the EFPs, as requested by the States, and forwarded the EFP applications to NMFS.
Each year since 1992, EFPs have been issued to vessels in the Pacific whiting shoreside fishery to allow unsorted catch to be landed. Without an EFP, groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.306(a) require vessels to sort their catch at sea. The vessels fishing under the EFPs are required to deliver catch to designated processors. EFPs have been used to: track the incidental take of Chinook salmon as required in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Biological Opinion for Chinook salmon catch in the Pacific whiting fishery; and to track the catch of whiting and other groundfish species such that the fishing industry is not unnecessarily constrained and that the OYs, harvest guidelines, sector allocation and overfished species bycatch limits are not exceeded.
Over the past five years, the number of vessels issued these EFPs has been between 31 and 38 vessels. Issuance of the 2007 EFPs, to approximately 40 vessels, will allow samplers located at the shoreside processing facilities to collect information on the incidental catch of salmon and groundfish in unsorted whiting deliveries. Unlike the at-sea sectors of the Pacific whiting fishery, where catch is sorted and processed shortly after it has been taken, vessels in the shoreside fishery must hold primary season Pacific whiting on the vessel for several hours or days until it can be offloaded at a shoreside processor. Pacific whiting deteriorates rapidly, so it must be handled quickly and immediately chilled to maintain product quality. This is particularly true if the Pacific whiting is to be used to make surimi (a fish paste product). The quality or grade of surimi is highly dependent on the freshness of the Pacific whiting, which demands careful
In 2004, 2005, and 2006, NMFS provided electronic monitoring systems to catcher vessels fishing under the whiting EFP as part of a pilot study to evaluate if these systems would be useful tools to verify retention and/or document discard at sea. Based on the results from the 2004, 2005, and 2006 pilot studies, NMFS has determined that an EFP is an effective tool for monitoring maximized retention in the whiting fishery.
In addition to providing information that will be used to monitor the attainment of the shore-based whiting allocation, information gathered through these EFPs is expected to be used in a future rulemaking. The Council recommended using EFPs only until a permanent monitoring program can be developed and implemented. For 2008, NMFS intends to implement, through federal regulation, a monitoring program for the shore-based Pacific whiting fleet. At its September 2006 meeting, the Pacific Council was provided with a joint agency report on whiting fishery monitoring and management, and subsequently provided guidance to NMFS on development of draft alternatives for the monitoring program. Based on information learned during the 2004, 2005 and 2006 EFPs, guidance from the Pacific Council, and informational meetings between Federal and state agencies and industry members, NMFS developed a draft set of monitoring program alternatives and accompanying draft regulations to be implemented in the 2008 fishery. These draft alternatives and regulations were presented to the Pacific Council at their November 2006 meeting. An opportunity for public testimony was provided during the Council meeting. NMFS will complete the EA and provide a final draft to the Council in April 2007, at which time the Council will take final action on the proposed alternatives. NMFS will then publish the proposed rule prior to the start date of the 2008 shore-based primary Pacific whiting season. Given this timeline, 2007 will serve as a transition year, in which the EFPs issued to participating vessels will have requirements as similar as possible to the proposed Federal regulations. In addition, NMFS intends to implement, through notice and comment rulemaking, temporary processor regulations for 2007. That action is intended to address catch accounting difficulties that occurred during the 2006 Pacific whiting shoreside fishery and to improve the agency's ability to monitor the attainment of allocations, bycatch limits, and prohibited species take. The proposed action defines requirements for recordkeeping, reporting, catch sorting, and weighing that apply to individuals who receive, buy, or accept Pacific whiting from a vessel using midwater trawl gear during the primary season for the shore-based sector. NMFS anticipates publishing shortly a proposed rule to implement this action in the
16 U.S.C. 1801
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Determination to add a product in unrestricted quantities to Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) has determined that certain two-way stretch woven fabric of polyester/rayon/spandex, as specified below, are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the CAFTA-DR region. The product will be added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR in unrestricted quantities.
February 22, 2007.
Richard Stetson, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482 2582.
Section 203(o)(4) of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (CAFTA-DR Act); the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), accompanying the CAFTA-DR Act; Presidential Proclamations 7987 (February 28, 2006) and 7996 (March 31, 2006).
The CAFTA-DR Agreement provides a list in Annex 3.25 for fabrics, yarns, and fibers that the Parties to the CAFTA-DR Agreement have determined are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party. The CAFTA-DR Agreement provides that this list may be modified pursuant to Article 3.25(4)-(5), when the President of the United States determines that a fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party. See Annex 3.25, Note; see also section 203(o)(4)(C) of the Act.
The CAFTA-DR Act requires the President to establish procedures governing the submission of a request and providing opportunity for interested entities to submit comments and supporting evidence before a commercial availability determination is made. In Presidential Proclamations 7987 and 7996, the President delegated to CITA the authority under section 203(o)(4) of CAFTA-DR Act for modifying the Annex 3.25 list. On February 23, 2006, CITA published interim procedures it would follow in considering requests to modify the Annex 3.25 list (71 FR 9315).
On January 16, 2007, the Chairman of CITA received a request from Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A., on behalf of Lido Industries, for certain two-way stretch woven fabric of polyester/rayon/spandex, of the specifications detailed below. On January 18, 2007, CITA notified interested parties of, and posted on its website, the accepted petition and requested that interested entities provide, by January 30, 2007, a response advising of its objection to the request or its ability to supply the subject product, and rebuttals to responses by February 5, 2007.
No interested entity filed a response advising of its objection to the request or its ability to supply the subject product.
In accordance with Section 203(o)(4) of the CAFTA-DR Act, and its
The subject fabrics are added to the list in Annex 3.25 CAFTA-DR Agreement in unrestricted quantities.
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Determination to add a product in unrestricted quantities to Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement
February 22, 2007.
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) has determined that certain two-way stretch woven fabric of polyester, rayon, and elastomeric yarns, as specified below, are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the CAFTA-DR countries. The product will be added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement in unrestricted quantities.
Richard Stetson, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482 2582.
Section 203(o)(4) of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (CAFTA-DR Act); the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), accompanying the CAFTA-DR Act; Presidential Proclamations 7987 (February 28, 2006) and 7996 (March 31, 2006).
The CAFTA-DR Agreement provides a list in Annex 3.25 for fabrics, yarns, and fibers that the Parties to the CAFTA-DR Agreement have determined are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party. The CAFTA-DR Agreement provides that this list may be modified pursuant to Article 3.25(4)-(56), when the President of the United States determines that a fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the territory of any Party. See Annex 3.25, Note; see also section 203(o)(4)(C) of the Act.
The CAFTA-DR Act requires the President to establish procedures governing the submission of a request and providing opportunity for interested entities to submit comments and supporting evidence before a commercial availability determination is made. In Presidential Proclamations 7987 and 7996, the President delegated to CITA the authority under section 203(o)(4) of CAFTA-DR Act for modifying the Annex 3.25 list. On February 23, 2006, CITA published interim procedures it would follow in considering requests to modify the Annex 3.25 list (71 FR 9315).
On January 17, 2007, the Chairman of CITA received a commercial availability request from Alston & Bird, LLP, on behalf of Glen River Trading, for certain two-way stretch woven fabrics of polyester, rayon, and elastomeric yarns, of the specifications detailed below. On January 19, 2007, CITA notified interested parties of, and posted on its website, the accepted petition and requested that interested entities provide, by January 31, 2007, a response advising of its objection to the commercial availability request or its ability to supply the subject product. CITA also explained that rebuttals to responses were due to CITA by February 6, 2007.
No interested entity filed a response advising of its objection to the request or its ability to supply the subject product.
In accordance with Section 203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA-DR Act, and its procedures, as no interested entity submitted a response objecting to the request or expressing an ability to supply the subject product, CITA has determined to add the specified fabrics to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement.
The subject fabrics are added to the list in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA-DR Agreement in unrestricted quantities.
11 a.m., Friday, March 2, 2007.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance Matters.
Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.
11 a.m., Friday, March 9, 2007.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance Matters.
Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.
11 a.m., Friday, March 16, 2007.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Enforcement Matters.
Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.
11 a.m., Friday, March 23, 2007.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed
Surveillance Matters.
Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.
11 a.m., Friday, March 30, 2007.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance Matters.
Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of seminars.
The staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or “the Commission”) will conduct two seminars to help mattress manufacturers, importers, retailers and others in the mattress industry better understand the requirements of the Commission's new mattress flammability standard so that they will be prepared when the standard goes into effect on July 1, 2007. The seminars will take a practical approach and will focus on the following topics: developing a prototyping plan, ensuring compliance through quality control, and working with a test lab to conduct the required testing.
One seminar will be at CPSC's headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland on Wednesday, March 28, 2007. The other will be held in San Diego, California on Wednesday, April 11, 2007. See the
Persons who would like to present information at the seminars that could be helpful to mattress manufacturers should submit a request outlining their presentation. These requests must be submitted on the CPSC's Web site no later than February 28, 2007. Persons may also request to set up a table-top display with information that could assist manufacturers in complying with the mattress flammability standard. These requests must also be submitted on CPSC's Web site no later than February 28, 2007. Selected presenters will be notified by March 7, 2007. If presenting information, the presentation must be offered at both seminars. Persons may also submit questions that they would like to have addressed by presenters at the seminars related to the topics described in this notice. Such questions must be submitted on the CPSC's Web site,
The seminars will be held on March 28 in Bethesda, Maryland from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and April 11 in San Diego, California from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Requests to make a presentation, including an outline of their presentation, or to set up a table-top display, must be submitted on CPSC's Web site no later than February 28, 2007. Questions for the presenters must be submitted on CPSC's Web site,
The seminars will take place at CPSC headquarters, 4330 East West Highway, Hearing Room (4th floor), Bethesda, Maryland 20814 and at the San Diego State Building, 1350 Front Street, Room B-109, San Diego, California. To register for the seminars or to request to make a presentation, provide a table-top display, or submit questions please go to the Commission's Web site,
For information about the seminars, contact Allyson Tenney, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, (301) 504-7567; e-mail
On March 15, 2006, the Commission published the Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress Sets, 16 CFR part 1633, 71 FR 13472. The standard establishes performance requirements that all mattress sets manufactured, imported or renovated on or after July 1, 2007 must meet. With certain exceptions, the standard requires mattress manufacturers to test three specimens of each prototype before a mattress set is introduced into commerce. A prototype is a specific design of a mattress set that serves as a model for the production units that will be introduced into commerce.
Because small variations in construction of a mattress set can affect fire performance, the standard establishes certain quality assurance requirements. The standard also requires manufacturers to maintain certain records to document compliance with the standard.
This is a complex standard with requirements that must be closely followed to ensure that mattress sets will comply with the standard's criteria. As the standard's effective date of July 1, 2007 approaches, the Commission staff recognizes that mattress manufacturers, importers and retailers need practical information on what they must do to be sure their mattresses will meet the standard.
The Commission staff is scheduling two seminars, one on the East Coast (Bethesda, Maryland) and one on the West Coast (San Diego, California). The CPSC staff anticipates that the seminars will occur over one day, but staff will be available at the seminar location on the following day to answer questions if desired. Most of the day will be spent with panel discussions on the topics listed below followed by smaller break-out sessions on the topics of testing/labs issues; prototype/component issues; and compliance/recordkeeping issues.
The seminars are free, public events, but registration is required for each attendee. Please register on the Commission's Web site at
The CPSC staff is requesting submissions from persons who wish to make presentations at the seminars, set up table-top displays with information that could assist mattress manufacturers, or ask questions of the presenters or CPSC staff. Note that the Commission cannot endorse any particular products or companies. All participants are prohibited from selling or soliciting sales of their products at the seminars. The presentations, table-top displays and questions should be informational, not promotional. Also note that if presenting information, the presentation must be offered at both seminars.
At each seminar there will be three panels. Each panel will have three selected presenters, each of whom will make a 15 minute presentation. The panels will cover (and presentations should address) the following topics:
•
•
•
Table-top displays should present information that will be helpful to mattress manufacturers as they seek to understand and comply with the standard. The displays may include various products and components that would assist manufacturers in developing prototypes that meet the standard. Displays could also include information on construction techniques, quality assurance programs, and/or testing. No more than 20 table-top displays will be permitted. The Commission cannot endorse any particular products or companies, and a statement to that effect will be shown near the table-top displays. No sales may be solicited or made at the seminars.
• Scope of the standard,
• Prototyping,
• Quality control/production,
• Component issues,
• Testing, and
• Recordkeeping.
Outlines of presentations, descriptions of table-top displays and questions must be submitted in advance in accordance with the dates and procedures listed in the
Department of Defense; Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Civilian Personnel Policy).
Notice.
This is the final notice that the Department of Defense (DoD or “the Department”), is establishing a higher initial maximum uniform allowance to procure and issue uniform items for uniformed police personnel. This action is pursuant to the authority granted to DoD by § 591.104 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which states that an agency may establish one or more initial maximum uniform allowance rates greater than the Governmentwide maximum uniform allowance rate established under 5 CFR 591.103.
Mr. George T. Bell, 703-696-1268.
DoD is implementing a higher initial maximum uniform allowance to procure and issue uniform items for uniformed police personnel. This is in accordance with 5 CFR 591.104, which states that an agency may establish one or more initial maximum uniform allowance rates greater than the Governmentwide maximum uniform allowance rate established under 5 CFR 591.103. The current $400.00 limit has become inadequate to maintain the uniform standards and professional image expected of Federal police officers. The uniform items for uniformed police personnel include the following items or similar items such as: Goretex gloves; 6-pocket pants; 4-pocket long sleeve shirts; cold weather duty jackets; light weight duty jackets; sweaters; all season trousers; summer duty shirts; winter duty shirts; raincoats; sheriff's type hats; ties; shoes; leather boots; heavy duty coats; shoulder patches, and cloth
Department of Education.
The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 26, 2007.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested,
Individuals or household.
Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Project Period: Up to 18 months.
This priority is: Grants to local educational agencies, local councils, community-based organizations, including faith-based organizations, and other public and nonprofit private entities, or a combination of such entities, to assist eligible children to become ready for school.
To be eligible for funding, a project must propose one or more of the following—
(1) To deliver services to eligible children and their families that foster eligible children's emotional, behavioral, and social development;
(2) To coordinate and facilitate access by eligible children and their families to the services available through community resources, including mental health, physical health, substance abuse, educational, domestic violence prevention, child welfare, and social services;
(3) To provide ancillary services such as transportation or child care in order to facilitate the delivery of any other authorized services or activities;
(4) To develop or enhance early childhood community partnerships and build toward a community system of care that brings together child-serving agencies or organizations to provide individualized supports for eligible children and their families;
(5) To evaluate the success of strategies and services provided pursuant to the grant in promoting young children's successful entry to school and to maintain data systems required for effective evaluations; and
(6) To pay for the expenses of administering the grant activities, including assessment of children's eligibility for services.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Project Period: Up to 18 months.
1.
2.
1.
You may also contact ED Pubs at its Web site:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.215H.
Copies of the application package for this competition can also be found at:
Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (
2.
a.
(1) A description of the population that the applicant intends to serve and the types of services to be provided under the grant;
(2) A description of the manner in which services under the grant will be coordinated with existing similar services provided by public and nonprofit private entities within the State; and
(3) An assurance that—
• Services under the grant will be provided by or under the supervision of qualified professionals with expertise in early childhood development;
• These services will be culturally competent;
• These services will be provided in accordance with the permissible uses of funds as described elsewhere in this notice;
• Funds will be used to supplement, and not supplant, non-Federal funds; and
• Parents of students participating in services will be involved in the design and implementation of the services.
b.
c.
3.
Applications Available: February 22, 2007.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: April 13, 2007.
Applications for grants under the Foundations for Learning Grants Program may be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov), or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or by mail or hand delivery, please refer to section IV. 6.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed
Deadline for Intergovernmental review: June 12, 2007.
4.
5.
(1) Grant funds may be used only to pay for services that cannot be paid for using other Federal, State, or local public resources or through private insurance.
(2) A grantee may not use more than 3 percent of the amount of the grant to pay the expenses of administering the authorized activities, including assessment of children's eligibility for services.
We reference additional regulations outlining funding restrictions in the
6.
a.
To comply with the President's Management Agenda, we are participating as a partner in the Government-wide Grants.gov Apply site. The Foundations for Learning Grants Program, CFDA Number 84.215H, is included in this project. We request your participation in Grants.gov.
If you choose to submit your application electronically, you must use the Government-wide Grants.gov Apply site at
You may access the electronic grant application for the Foundations for learning Grants Program at
• Your participation in Grants.gov is voluntary.
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not consider your application if it is date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov at
• To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit your application in paper format.
• If you submit your application electronically, you must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. Please note that two of these forms—the SF 424 and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424—have replaced the ED 424 (Application for Federal Education Assistance).
• If you submit your application electronically, you must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified in this paragraph or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department). The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by e-mail. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with
If you submit an application after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed elsewhere in this notice under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
b.
If you submit your application in paper format by mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier), you must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address:
or
Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you submit your application in paper format by hand delivery, you (or a courier service) must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.215H), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and— if not provided by the Department— in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application receipt. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
Applicants are encouraged to demonstrate a strong capacity to provide reliable data on these indicators in responding to the selection criteria, “Quality of project services” and “Quality of the project evaluation.”
Earl Myers, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW., room 3E254, Washington, DC 20202-6450. Telephone: (202) 708-8846 or by e-mail:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-888-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
United States Election Assistance Commission.
Notice of Public Meeting.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007, 8 a.m.-8:30 a.m.
Ritz-Carlton Atlanta, 191 Peachtree Street, NE., Ballroom Pre-Function III/IV, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 659-0400.
The Commission will consider accrediting iBeta Quality Assurance and SysTest Labs LLC. to receive federal approval to test voting systems against federal voting system standards and guidelines based upon the recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as required by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).
This notice of a meeting will not be published in the
Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (202) 566-3100.
Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Record of Decision (ROD).
DOE has prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS-0385), pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), to assess the environmental impacts associated with a proposal to expand the crude oil storage capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) from 727 million barrels (MMB) to 1 billion barrels, and to fill the Reserve to the full authorized volume of 1 billion barrels. The proposal was to develop one new storage facility and expand the capacity of two or three existing SPR storage facilities.
After careful consideration of the environmental impacts of the alternatives, along with an evaluation of SPR distribution capabilities, geological technical assessments, projected costs, and operational impacts associated with existing commercial operations, DOE has decided to develop a new 160 MMB SPR storage facility at Richton (Mississippi), expand the storage capacity at the existing Bayou Choctaw (Louisiana) SPR facility by 33 MMB, expand the storage capacity at the existing Big Hill (Texas) SPR facility by 80 MMB, and fill the Reserve to 1 billion barrels of oil as authorized by Congress.
This ROD has been prepared in accordance with the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) for implementing NEPA and DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021). The accompanying Floodplain Statement of Findings has been prepared in accordance with DOE's regulations “Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements” (10 CFR Part 1022). Because the decision differs somewhat from the alternatives evaluated in the EIS, DOE has prepared a Supplement Analysis (SA) (DOE/EIS-0385-SA-1) to determine whether a supplement to the final EIS is required. DOE has determined that the minor modification to the Bayou Choctaw expansion site, i.e., an increase in capacity of 33 MMB compared to 20 MMB as described in the final EIS, is not a substantial change to the proposed action that is relevant to environmental concerns, and there are no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts, within the meaning of 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1) and 10 CFR 1021.314(c). Therefore, a supplement to the SPR final EIS is not needed.
The final EIS is available on the DOE NEPA Web site at
For further information on the site selection for the expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, contact David Johnson at the Office of Petroleum Reserves (FE-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, by telephone at 202-586-4733, by facsimile at 202-586-7919, or by electronic mail at
On August 8, 2005, the President signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT, Pub. L. 109-58). Section 303 of EPACT states that: “Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete a proceeding to select, from sites that the Secretary has previously studied, sites necessary to enable acquisition by the Secretary of the full authorized volume of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.”
EPACT Section 301(e) directs the Secretary to “* * * acquire petroleum in quantities sufficient to fill * * *” the SPR to 1 billion barrels, the capacity of the SPR authorized by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Thus, the purpose and need for agency action is to select and develop sites necessary to add 273 MMB of new storage capacity to the SPR, so that SPR capacity can be expanded from 727 MMB to 1 billion barrels.
On January 23, 2007, the President proposed an expansion of the SPR to 1.5 billion barrels. Any DOE proposal in this regard, however, is independent of the current expansion to 1 billion barrels and would be subject to a separate NEPA review process.
DOE determined that the proposed SPR site selection and expansion constitute a major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment within the meaning of NEPA. For this reason, DOE prepared an EIS, Site Selection for the Expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0385). DOE published a Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS on September 1, 2005 (70 FR 52088), and held four public scoping meetings. Copies of the comment letters received during the scoping period and complete public scoping meeting transcripts are available at
DOE filed the draft EIS with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 19, 2006. EPA published a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the
The EPA published a NOA of the final EIS in the
DOE's proposed action is to develop one new site, expand capacity at two or three existing sites, and fill the SPR to its full authorized volume of 1 billion barrels. Storage capacity would be developed by solution mining of underground storage caverns in salt domes and disposing of the resulting salt brine by ocean discharge or underground injection. New pipelines, marine terminal facilities, and other infrastructure would also be required. Proposed construction and operation activities include clearing and preparing sites; constructing pipelines and facilities for raw water intake, disposing of brine, and distributing crude oil; constructing transmission lines to provide electrical power to the sites; and constructing or augmenting support buildings and other facilities.
In developing the range of reasonable alternatives, DOE first considered expansions of three existing storage sites, which would capitalize on existing site infrastructure and operations and thereby minimize development time and construction costs. DOE, however, cannot reach its goal of 273 MMB of additional storage capacity by expanding only at existing sites. Therefore, the alternatives considered are a combination of one new site and two or three expansion sites, as shown in the table below.
A brief description of each new site and expansion site is below:
As required by EPACT Section 303, DOE limited its review of potential new sites for expansion of the SPR to: (1) sites that DOE addressed in a 1992 draft EIS for site expansion (DOE/EIS-0165-D); and (2) sites proposed by a state in
Subsequent to the publication of the draft EIS, DOE determined that development of a new SPR site at the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port's (LOOP) Clovelly facility was not feasible because of geotechnical issues and thus is not a reasonable alternative. LOOP's development on the salt dome and the small size of the dome required that DOE propose placing new SPR caverns below and in between Clovelly's existing caverns. DOE found that this configuration presented several risk factors to the integrity of the Clovelly caverns and infrastructure and overall operation of the proposed site. DOE therefore removed the site from detailed consideration in the final EIS.
Sandia National Laboratories completed a Geological Technical Assessment (Sandia Assessment) of the Bruinsburg salt dome just before the final EIS was published that indicated that the salt dome may not be able to provide the needed storage capability; however, DOE retained it as a potential new site in the final EIS because DOE needed time to further analyze the results of the study. See below for additional information regarding the Bruinsburg site and the Sandia Assessment.
The Bruinsburg salt dome is located in Claiborne County, MS, 10 miles (16 kilometers) west of the town of Port Gibson and 40 miles (64 kilometers) southwest of the City of Vicksburg. The proposed storage site of approximately 266 acres (108 hectares) encompasses a cypress swamp, cotton fields, forested areas, and a bluff overlooking the Mississippi River. The infrastructure associated with the Bruinsburg storage site would include new terminals with a tank farm at Peetsville, MS, and Anchorage, LA. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Mississippi River.
The Sandia Assessment is based on a comprehensive evaluation of all data readily available from both published and oil-industry sources. These data are from well and seismic studies and include data compiled by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Geology, as well as proprietary seismic data. In addition, Sandia contracted for two new seismic survey lines on the Bruinsburg salt dome in order to define the extent of the salt formation available for cavern development. DOE has analyzed the results of the Sandia Assessment and concluded that the Bruinsburg salt dome only has the capacity to store up to 70 MMB of oil, which is less than the 160 MMB capacity required.
The Chacahoula salt dome site is located 40 miles (64 kilometers) north of the Gulf of Mexico in northwestern Lafourche Parish, southwest of Thibodaux, LA. The proposed storage site of approximately 227 acres (92 hectares) lies largely underwater in wetlands. No new terminals would be required for this proposed new site since the terminal(s) already exist and the current distribution capacity is sufficient to handle the potential increase in oil storage and distribution associated with the Chacahoula site. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Intracoastal Waterway.
The Richton salt dome is located in northeastern Perry County, MS, 18 miles (29 kilometers) east of Hattiesburg, MS. The proposed storage site of approximately 238 acres (96 hectares) is comprised of an actively managed pine plantation with a small emergent wetland area. The infrastructure associated with the Richton storage site would include new terminals with a tank farm at Liberty, MS, and Pascagoula, MS. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from both the Leaf River and the Gulf of Mexico at Pascagoula.
The Stratton Ridge salt dome is located in Brazoria County, TX, 3 miles (4.8 kilometers) east of Lake Jackson-Angleton, TX. The proposed storage site of approximately 269 acres (109 hectares) is currently used for cattle ranching and has some forested wetlands. The infrastructure associated with the Stratton Ridge storage site would include a new terminal with a tank farm in Texas City, TX. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Intracoastal Waterway.
The Bayou Choctaw storage site occupies a 356-acre (144-hectare) site in Iberville Parish, LA, about 12 miles (19 kilometers) southwest of Baton Rouge. The Mississippi River is located about 4 miles (6.4 kilometers) east of the salt dome, and the Intracoastal Waterway is about 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers) to the west. The general area is swampy with an elevation ranging from less than 5 feet (1.5 meters) to more than 10 feet (3 meters) above mean sea level. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Intracoastal Waterway.
In the final EIS, DOE considered the expansion of the Bayou Choctaw site by 20 MMB, which would involve the development of two new 10 MMB caverns within the existing boundaries of the facility, a 0.6-mile (0.9-kilometer) brine disposal pipeline, and a 96-acre (39-hectare) brine injection field. In the SA, DOE considered the expansion of the Bayou Choctaw site by 33 MMB, which would involve the development of two new 11.5 MMB caverns within the existing boundaries of the facility and use of an existing commercial cavern. The length of the brine disposal pipeline and the size of the brine disposal injection field would be the same if Bayou Choctaw is expanded to 20 MMB or 33 MMB. Expansion beyond 33 MMB is limited due to the size of the salt dome.
The Big Hill SPR storage site is located in Jefferson County, TX, 17 miles (27 kilometers) southwest of Port Arthur. The existing site occupies approximately 250 acres (101 hectares). The surrounding area is predominantly rural with agricultural production as the primary land use. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown would come from the Intracoastal Waterway. The Big Hill storage site has a current capacity of 170 MMB and could be expanded by acquiring land and developing several additional caverns.
The West Hackberry SPR storage site occupies a 565-acre (229-hectare) site in Cameron and Calcasieu Parishes in southwestern Louisiana. The site is located approximately 20 miles (32 kilometers) southwest of the city of Lake Charles and 16 miles (26 kilometers) north of the Gulf of Mexico. The area is predominantly disturbed grassland habitat. No new infrastructure would be
The final EIS identifies the Richton alternative with expansion of Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, and West Hackberry as the Preferred Alternative. The SA revised the Preferred Alternative to be the Richton alternative with expansion of Bayou Choctaw and Big Hill.
In making its decision, DOE considered the environmental impacts that could occur from the construction and operation of a new SPR storage site and the expansion of two or three of the existing sites. The final EIS presents the environmental impacts for 10 resource areas. Of these 10 areas, the largest potential impacts are to land use, water resources, biological resources, and cultural resources. Although impacts occur in other resource areas, these impacts are smaller and of similar magnitude across all alternatives. Below is a brief summary of the impacts associated with these four resource areas for each alternative. For each alternative, there is a discussion of each new site and the expansion sites associated with each new site.
There are no potential land use conflicts at the Bayou Choctaw and Big Hill expansions sites. At West Hackberry, there were no land use conflicts at the time that the final EIS was issued because there were no ongoing commercial operations in the caverns in the West Hackberry salt dome. Comments on the final EIS indicate that Sempra Pipeline and Storage Corporation plans to use the caverns for commercial operations. This potential conflict is discussed further below in the Comments Received on the Final EIS and Basis for Decision sections.
Construction and operation associated with the expansion of the Bayou Choctaw, Big Hill, and West Hackberry sites and associated infrastructure would potentially affect 12, 4, and 3 water bodies, respectively. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown at Bayou Choctaw would come from Cavern Lake, which is fed by the Intracoastal Waterway. Water for cavern development, maintenance, and drawdown at Big Hill would come from the Intracoastal Waterway. Water for maintenance and drawdown at West Hackberry would come from the Intracoastal Waterway. None of these uses of water would have a significant impact on water resources. Since DOE would acquire caverns at West Hackberry, construction of new caverns would not occur at this site. A small increase in the size of the security buffer around the site would be needed, but this would not have a significant impact on water resources.
This summary of impacts to biological resources considers Federally threatened and endangered species, essential fish habitat (EFH), and wetlands. Impacts to these resources at expansion sites are common to all alternatives and are described first, separately from the descriptions of impacts of the alternatives, which focus on impacts at the new sites.
Expansion at existing sites would not affect any Federally threatened or endangered species. The Bayou Choctaw and West Hackberry expansions would not affect EFH. The Big Hill expansion would cause a temporary impact to about five acres of EFH due to pipeline construction.
The discussions below regarding total wetland acres affected for the new site alternatives include the wetland impacts associated with the expansion sites, in all cases including expansion at West Hackberry (without which five fewer acres of wetlands would be affected).
The Bruinsburg alternatives would potentially affect about 708 acres (287 hectares) of wetlands. This includes a permanent loss through filling of about 156 acres (63 hectares) and a permanent conversion to emergent wetlands of about 123 acres (50 hectares) of relatively rare and ecologically important forested wetlands. About 118 acres (48 hectares) of forested wetlands would be disturbed and cleared by construction activities within the temporary easement of the rights-of-way during construction. The total affected acreage includes the three expansion sites described above.
The Chacahoula alternatives would potentially affect 2,502 acres (1,013 hectares) of wetlands. About 182 acres (74 hectares) of ecologically important forested wetlands would be filled and about 699 acres (283 hectares) of forested wetlands would be permanently converted to emergent wetland. About 505 acres (204 hectares) of forested wetlands would be disturbed and cleared by construction activities within the temporary easement of the rights-of-way. The total affected acreage includes the three expansion sites described above.
The Richton alternatives would potentially affect 1,557 acres (630 hectares) of wetlands. The majority of the wetland areas affected (more than 1,400 acres [583 hectares]) by the Richton alternatives would be located in the long pipeline rights-of-way, which total over 200 miles and which pass through some forested and emergent wetlands. The Richton alternatives would permanently fill about 59 acres (24 hectares) of forested wetlands and about 295 acres (119 hectares) of forested wetlands would be permanently converted to emergent wetlands. About 506 acres (205 hectares) of forested wetlands would be disturbed and cleared by construction activities within the temporary easement of the rights-of-way. The total affected acreage includes the three expansion sites described above.
The Stratton Ridge alternatives would potentially affect 841 acres (349 hectares) of wetlands. This includes a permanent loss through filling of 227 acres (92 hectares) of relatively rare and ecologically important forested wetlands. About 70 acres (28 hectares) of forested wetlands would be permanently converted to emergent wetlands. About 9 acres (4 hectares) of forested wetlands would be disturbed and cleared by construction activities within the temporary easement of the rights-of-way. The total affected acreage includes the three expansion sites described above in detail for the Bruinsburg alternatives.
The proposed action would have the potential to damage or destroy archeological sites, Native American cultural sites, or historic buildings or structures; or to change the characteristics of a property that would diminish qualities that contribute to its historic significance or cultural importance. Below are the potential impacts for each alternative:
DOE received two comment letters regarding DOE's selection of Richton rather than Bruinsburg as its preferred new storage site. These comment letters were from U.S. Congressman Bennie G. Thompson, Second District, Mississippi, and Mr. Allen Burks of the Claiborne County Board of Supervisors. Congressman Thompson expressed some concerns with the selection of Richton and his belief that the Bruinsburg site is a more favorable site since it would have fewer environmental impacts and cost less than the Richton site. Mr. Burks requested the reconsideration of the Bruinsburg site because, in his view, it offers significant cost, environmental, operational, and distribution advantages over the Richton site. DOE did not select the Bruinsburg site for several reasons, as discussed below; however, the primary reason was the small size of the salt dome. As discussed above, based on the Sandia Assessment, DOE concluded that the Bruinsburg salt dome only has the capacity to store up to 70 MMB of oil, which is less than the 160 MMB capacity required. The Richton salt dome, on the other hand, is very large and can easily accommodate the planned capacity of 160 MMB.
Congressman Thompson also expressed concerns regarding the risk from hurricanes and brine disposal impacts associated with the Richton site. The SPR's storage of oil in underground storage caverns in salt formations is the safest and most secure form of storage available. The depth of the storage caverns and the self-sealing characteristic of the salt formation make salt dome storage virtually immune to natural disasters, such as hurricanes, and would not create a safety hazard for the population of Mississippi. In addition, Richton's location over 80 miles from the Gulf coast provides a significant land mass buffer against potential damages from the hurricane effects to surface buildings and structures at the storage sites. Congressman Thompson also expressed concern about brine disposal in the Gulf of Mexico. Based on DOE's experience with the SPR, the disposal of brine in the Gulf of Mexico has been proven to be reliable and cost effective and has had no harmful impacts on the fish population.
Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour supported the selection of Richton as preferred, but added that he believes Bruinsburg remains an important site for future consideration. Governor Barbour submitted for the record an independent geological evaluation prepared by Mr. Karl Kaufman of Valioso Petroleum Company, Inc., that questions the completeness and accuracy of the geological interpretations presented in the Sandia Assessment. Mr. Kaufman stated that the Sandia Assessment grossly understates the true areal extent of the Bruinsburg salt dome because well control data have been ignored, spatial uncertainty has not been resolved and additional data have not been considered. A second comment letter from Charles Morrison Consulting Geophysicist, Inc., stated that the Sandia Assessment was highly flawed and possibly biased in regard to the geological and geophysical conclusions reached.
DOE and the geotechnological staff at Sandia National Laboratories have reviewed the concerns expressed by these geological consultants and have confirmed their prior geological findings, as to the insufficient salt dome size. The Sandia Assessment is based on a comprehensive evaluation of all data readily available from both published and oil-industry sources, including both existing and new well and seismic data, as discussed above.
Sempra Pipeline and Storage Corporation submitted a comment informing DOE of its recent purchase of the property adjacent to the existing West Hackberry site, formerly owned by Dominion Natural Gas Storage, Inc., which DOE discussed in the final EIS. Sempra stated that the property is a critical part of its natural gas infrastructure portfolio, and is expected to be in service in April 2009. Sempra also stated its understanding that DOE would weigh the cost of land acquisition during its decisionmaking. DOE has not selected West Hackberry for expansion for the reasons stated below.
A comment submitted by the owner of land that overlays a salt dome in Claiborne County inquired whether DOE will select other storage sites, in addition to the Richton site. DOE will only construct one new storage site in its planned expansion of the SPR to 1 billion barrels.
The National Park Service's Natchez Trace Parkway stated its support for the selection of Richton as the preferred alternative because it would have no environmental effect on the Parkway. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service field office in Temple, TX, acknowledged and approved of the characterization of important farmlands for the Big Hill and Stratton Ridges sites in the final EIS.
The Chacahoula, Bruinsburg, Richton, and Stratton Ridge alternatives, which include the expansion of existing storage sites, all have the potential for adverse impacts on environmental resources. After considering the impacts to each resource, DOE has identified the Bruinsburg and Stratton Ridge alternatives as the environmentally preferable alternatives. The Chacahoula alternatives would affect hundreds more acres of ecologically important forested wetlands than any other alternative. The wetlands at the proposed Chacahoula site are also relatively contiguous and in a mostly undisturbed area in Louisiana, which adds to the ecological function and value of the wetlands. The Richton alternatives would affect several hundred acres of wetlands through more than 200 miles of pipeline and power line rights-of-way. Most of the wetland impacts associated with the Richton alternatives, however, would either be temporary or be a permanent conversion, meaning that some of the function of the wetlands would be retained. Nonetheless, total acreage of wetlands affected from rights-of-way for the Richton alternatives would be greater than from the Stratton Ridge or Bruinsburg alternatives. USFWS and MS NHP identified two Federally listed species and a Federal candidate species that may be adversely affected by the withdrawal of water from the Leaf River. The Richton alternatives are also the only alternatives that may affect
DOE included a Floodplains and Wetlands Assessment as appendix B in the final EIS. The assessment and these findings have been prepared in accordance with DOE's regulations “Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements,” 10 CFR Part 1022. DOE has concluded that there are no practicable alternatives to construction within floodplains for the individual proposed new SPR sites or expansion sites. Site locations, the location of onsite facilities, and site access roads are dictated by the locations and configuration of the salt domes, which constitute a unique geologic setting. In addition, DOE needs a raw water source that is adequate for solution mining of storage caverns. Similarly, because the salt dome sites are largely located in lowland areas surrounded by wide expanses of floodplain, there are no practicable alternatives to the location of the pipelines running to and from these sites within floodplains. The raw water intake structures and associated pipeline rights-of-way also are water dependent because of their function and therefore cannot be located outside of the floodplain associated with the water source. Pipelines, power lines, and roads cannot avoid crossing waterways and the associated floodplains. DOE considered alternatives for minimizing the potential impacts of pipeline and power line rights-of-way in floodplains and wetlands. The primary approach that DOE employed was to select pipeline and power line rights-of-way along existing rights-of-way. The Gulf Coast consists of a large number of gas and oil fields and associated facilities, which offer a network of existing pipeline and power line rights-of-way. This network of utilities enabled DOE to minimize the potential impacts to floodplains and wetlands. Floodplain maps of all the alternatives considered in the EIS are available in appendix B of the final EIS.
To comply with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and DOE's regulations, DOE will follow the U.S. Water Resources Council's (1978) Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988 and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Unified National Program for Floodplain Management while planning its mitigation strategy for the selected SPR alternative. Those actions would include the following: the use of minimum grading requirements to save as much of the site from compaction as possible; returning the site and rights-of-way to original contours where feasible; preserving free natural drainage when designing and constructing roads, fills, and large built-up centers; maintaining wetland and floodplain vegetation buffers to reduce sedimentation and discharge of pollutants to nearby water bodies, where feasible; constructing stormwater management facilities (where appropriate) to minimize any alteration in natural drainage and flood storage capacity; directional drilling of larger wetland and stream crossings, where feasible; locating buildings above the base flood elevation or flood proofing; complying with the floodplain ordinance/regulations for the jurisdiction where the selected alternative is located; and performing a hydrological demonstration (using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Hydrologic Engineering Center, Hydrologic Modeling System or an approved floodplain model) to confirm that proposed fill and structures within the floodplain would not increase the base flood elevation.
Any structures located within the floodplain would be designed in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements for nonresidential buildings and structures located in special flood hazard areas. The NFIP regulations require vulnerable structures to be constructed above the 100-year flood elevation or to be watertight. DOE would coordinate with and secure approval from the floodplain coordinator at the appropriate state agency or the local government, if it has adopted the NFIP, during the design stage/site plan process.
DOE has decided to: construct a new storage facility at Richton, MS, with a total capacity of 160 MMB of crude oil; expand the storage capacity of two existing SPR sites by a total of 113 MMB by developing 8 new 10-MMB caverns at Big Hill, TX, developing 2 new 11.5-MMB caverns at Bayou Choctaw, LA, and acquiring an existing privately-owned 10-MMB cavern that lies within the Bayou Choctaw site; and fill the SPR to 1 billion barrels, as authorized by Congress.
DOE's decision is based on careful consideration of the environmental impacts of the alternatives along with an evaluation of SPR distribution capabilities, geological technical assessments, projected costs, and operational impacts associated with existing commercial operations.
The Stratton Ridge alternatives were not selected based on the new storage site's location within the Seaway crude oil distribution complex and the site's potential impacts to existing commercial operations. The SPR currently has two large sites, Bryan Mound and Big Hill, which can adequately serve refiners in the Seaway distribution complex. Additional storage in this area would not enhance the SPR's distribution capabilities or address the SPR's need for increased oil storage in the Capline distribution complex, which serves the refiners on the lower Mississippi River and the Capline Interstate Pipeline system. In addition, Dow Chemical Company, which occupies the majority of the Stratton Ridge salt dome, relies on the salt for its petrochemical operations. Dow submitted comments on the draft EIS stating that the property is critical to its future salt needs and continuing operations of Dow Chemical in Freeport, TX.
The primary reason for not selecting the Bruinsburg alternatives is the small size of the salt dome, which only has the capacity to store up to 70 MMB of oil, as discussed above. Also, due to its location, development of the caverns at Bruinsburg would require disposing of large volumes of brine through underground disposal wells. DOE has extensive experience with underground brine disposal wells for smaller volumes. Injection wells can be difficult and expensive to operate, the geology must be appropriate for wells to be drilled, and the receiving aquifer must be hydrologically suited for injections. Disposing of large volumes of brine through underground injection at Bruinsburg presents significant development risks.
The Chacahoula alternatives were not selected based on significant potential environmental impacts to the Louisiana wetlands. The entire site is located in an ecologically important bald cypress forested wetland area. The alternatives were estimated to potentially impact a total of 2,502 acres of wetlands, requiring extensive wetland mitigation.
The Richton alternatives present significant benefits relative to the other alternatives by enhancing the SPR's oil distribution capabilities with connections to the Capline Pipeline System as well as refineries and marine facilities in Pascagoula. The Richton salt dome is large and undeveloped, which provides DOE with sufficient capacity to develop 160 MMB of storage space without potential impacts to other commercial operations or high geotechnical risk. The Richton site is also located approximately 80 miles
The decision announced by DOE in this ROD differs from the Preferred Alternative identified in the final EIS, which included expanding the storage capacity of 3 existing SPR facilities (West Hackberry and Bayou Choctaw, LA, and Big Hill, TX) by a total of 115 MMB, and constructing a new 160-MMB SPR facility at Richton, MS. The ROD replaces the planned expansion of West Hackberry (by 15 MMB) with a larger expansion of storage capacity at Bayou Choctaw (by 33 MMB instead of 20 MMB). This decision was based on: (a) The recent acquisition by a private company of the existing caverns at West Hackberry; (b) the need for additional stocks at Bayou Choctaw to address refiner demands; and (c) the need for an additional cavern at Bayou Choctaw to support the site's maximum drawdown operations.
In comparing expansion options at Bayou Choctaw and West Hackberry, DOE considered several factors. First, as discussed in the final EIS, the three commercial caverns that DOE had proposed to acquire at West Hackberry were purchased by Sempra Pipelines and Storage Corporation in August 2006 as part of its Liberty Gas Storage System and in conjunction with the Cameron Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminal (currently under construction). As discussed above, Sempra has submitted comments on the final EIS stating that the property is a critical part of its natural gas infrastructure portfolio and the West Hackberry storage facility is expected to be in service in April 2009. As a result, DOE may not be able to acquire the West Hackberry caverns at a reasonable cost.
Second, DOE needs additional crude stocks at Bayou Choctaw to address the refiners' demands along the Mississippi River. The new 160-MMB facility at Richton, MS, will have the capability to distribute crude via pipeline to the Capline Pipeline System serving refiners in the Midwest, but not to refiners along the lower Mississippi River. The SPR facility at Bayou Choctaw has the capability to distribute oil by pipeline to a number of refiners along the Mississippi River, but is very limited in its current crude storage capabilities. As these refiners are highly dependent on foreign crude supplies, the expected demand during a supply interruption would far exceed the inventories currently available at Bayou Choctaw. This situation is expected to worsen in the future by the announced doubling of crude processing capacity of the Marathon refinery at Garyville, LA.
Third, an additional storage cavern at Bayou Choctaw supports the site's maximum drawdown capabilities. Due to the location of one of the existing caverns at the edge of the salt dome, DOE has placed constraints on the cavern's capacity and operations. An additional cavern would be of significant benefit to achieving and maintaining the site's maximum drawdown rate in the event of a drawdown of the Reserve.
For these reasons, DOE has concluded that increasing the storage capacity at Bayou Choctaw to 33 MMB, in lieu of an expansion at West Hackberry, will provide greater benefits to the SPR in terms of enhanced oil import protection capability. This proposed increase in the storage capacity at Bayou Choctaw is also considered superior to the option of increasing the capacity of the Big Hill site by 96 MMB, which would not satisfy the need for additional Capline system stocks and would increase the Big Hill site storage capacity to more than 250 MMB, creating the need for additional oil drawdown and distribution infrastructure.
Based on the SA, DOE determined that the additional expansion at Bayou Choctaw is not a substantial change to the proposed action that is relevant to environmental concerns, and there are no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts, within the meaning of 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1) and 10 CFR 1021.314(c). Therefore, a supplement to the SPR final EIS is not needed.
In conclusion, the selection of a new site at Richton with expansion of the existing Bayou Choctaw and Big Hill sites offers DOE significant benefits by enhancing the SPR's oil distribution capabilities with connections to the Capline Pipeline System, refiners along the lower Mississippi River, as well as refineries and marine facilities in Pascagoula. The Richton salt dome provides DOE with sufficient capacity to develop 160 MMB of storage space without potential impacts to other commercial operations or high geotechnical risk.
DOE has developed general mitigation measures to address potential impacts. Examples of general mitigation include programmatic agreements for dealing with impacts to cultural resources. Under the terms of programmatic agreements signed by DOE, the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) in the three states where the Richton site and the Bayou Choctaw and Big Hill expansion sites are located, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and tribes, as appropriate, DOE will identify and resolve adverse effects to historic properties in locations selected for expansion or new development. At those locations, DOE will conduct field reconnaissance and additional documentary research and consultations as appropriate to identify cultural resources including historic properties; that is, archaeological or historical sites, structures, districts, or landscapes that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. For identified historic properties, DOE will assess potential project effects and resolve adverse effects in consultation with the SHPOs and the tribes that are concurring parties or signatories to the programmatic agreements.
The wetlands permitting process provides other examples of general mitigation measures. DOE will prepare the appropriate application for a Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the 401 Water Quality Certificate from each relevant state agency. This permit process requires a comprehensive analysis of alternatives to avoid impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the United States, an analysis of measures taken to minimize impacts, and a compensation plan to mitigate for unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States, including wetlands. Avoidance and minimization strategies could include measures such as refinement or modification of facility footprints to avoid wetlands, minimization of slopes in fill areas, use of geotechnical fabric under wetland fills to minimize mudwave potential, and restoration of the disturbed wetlands outside the permanent footprint of the facility. The compensation plan will be developed by DOE and submitted with the permit application. The compensation plan, in addition to avoidance and minimization strategies during and after construction, will include provisions for compensation sites (
Mitigation measures specific to the selected Richton alternative have not been adopted at this time because DOE and the regulatory agencies agreed that the substantial amount of resources needed to develop mitigation measures
Instead, DOE will work with USFWS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, and other Federal, state, and local natural resource agencies to develop specific mitigation measures for unavoidable impacts to endangered species, EFH, wetlands, and other resources, as described in the final EIS. The mitigation plan for the alternative selected in this ROD will be developed during the permitting process, after wetland delineations and jurisdictional determinations and a functional assessment of affected wetlands is completed. DOE will also complete a formal consultation with USFWS and NOAA Fisheries and prepare a Biological Assessment as mandated under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for any endangered species that may be affected by the selected alternative. Through these activities, DOE will develop and adopt a detailed mitigation plan to take all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm, as required by 40 CFR 1505.2(c).
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of availability of Record of Decision (ROD).
This notice announces the availability of the ROD for BPA's 2007-2009 Fish and Wildlife Project Implementation Decision. BPA has decided to implement certain new and ongoing fish and wildlife mitigation projects for Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009 that help meet the agency's responsibilities to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the development and operation of the Columbia River basin hydroelectric dams from which BPA markets power. This decision is consistent with and tiered to BPA's Fish and Wildlife Implementation Plan Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0312, April 2003) and the Fish and Wildlife Implementation Plan ROD (October 31, 2003).
Copies of this ROD may be obtained by calling BPA's toll-free document request line, 1-800-622-4520. This ROD and the Fish and Wildlife Implementation Plan EIS and ROD are also available on our Web site,
Shannon Stewart, Bonneville Power Administration—KEC-4, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208-3621; toll-free telephone number 1-800-282-3713; fax number 503-230-5699; or e-mail
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This document announces the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) responses to Agency Clearance requests, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Susan Auby (202) 566-1672, or e-mail at
EPA ICR No. 1088.11; NSPS for Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db); was approved 02/01/2007; OMB Number 2060-0072; expires 02/28/2010.
EPA ICR No. 1500.06; National Estuary Program (Renewal); in 40 CFR 35.9000—35.9070; was approved 01/29/2007; OMB Number 2040-0138; expires 01/31/2010.
EPA ICR No. 2232.01; Community Water System Survey 2006; was approved 01/29/2007; OMB Number 2040-0273; expires 01/31/2010.
EPA ICR No. 2072.03; NESHAP for Lime Manufacturing (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA; was approved 01/30/2007; OMB Number 2060-0544; expires 01/31/2010.
EPA ICR No. 1686.06; NESHAP for the Secondary Lead Smelter Industry (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 63, subpart X); was approved 01/30/2007; OMB Number 2060-0296; expires 01/31/2010.
EPA ICR No. 1353.08; Land Disposal Restrictions No-Migration Variances (Renewal); in 40 CFR 268.6 and 268.40; was approved 01/29/2007; OMB Number 2050-0062; expires 01/31/2010.
EPA ICR No. 2240.02; NESHAP for Area Sources: Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production, Primary Copper Smelting, Secondary Copper Smelting, and Primary Nonferrous Metals-Zinc, and Beryllium (Final Rule); in 40 CFR, section 11149(d)-(g), 11150(a)-(b), 11162(g), 11163(c)-(g), 11164(a)-(b) and Table 1 to subpart GGGGG; was approved 01/24/2007; OMB Number 2060-0596; expires 01/31/2010.
EPA ICR No. 1052.08; NSPS Subpart D, Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam Generating Units; in 40 CFR part 60, subpart D; was approved 01/19/2007; OMB Number 2060-0026; expires 01/31/2010.
EPA ICR No. 1949.05; Information Collection Request for the EPA National Environmental Performance Track Program; was approved 01/19/2007; OMB Number 2010-0032; expires 01/31/2010.
EPA ICR No. 1093.08; NSPS for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTT; was approved 01/19/2007; OMB Number 2060-0162; expires 01/31/2010.
EPA ICR No. 1128.08; NSPS for Secondary Lead Smelters (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 60, subpart L; was approved 01/18/2007; OMB Number 2060-0080; expires 01/31/2010.
EPA ICR No. 1084.08; NSPS for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing; in 40 CFR part 60 subpart OOO; was approved 01/18/2007; OMB Number 2060-0050; expires 01/31/2010.
EPA ICR No. 1569.06; Approval of State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs (CZARA Section
EPA ICR No. 1893.04; Federal Plan Requirements for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Renewal); in 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG); was approved 01/12/2007; OMB Number 2060-0430; expires 01/31/2010.
EPA ICR No. 2219.02; Tips and Complaints Regarding Environmental Violations (Renewal); was approved 02/07/2007; OMB Number 2020-0032; expires 02/28/2010.
EPA ICR No. 2234.01; 2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment; was approved 02/07/2007; OMB Number 2040-0274; expires 02/28/2010.
EPA ICR No. 0234.09; Performance Evaluation Studies of Water and Waste Water Laboratories; OMB Number 2080-0021; on 01/19/2007 OMB extended the expiration date to 07/31/2007.
EPA ICR No. 2243.02; Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions (Proposed Rule); OMB filed comment on 01/30/2007.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 26, 2007.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0041, to (1) EPA online using
Charles M. Petko, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA), National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL), 540 South Morris Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36115-2601. Tel: 334-270-3411; fax number: 334-270-3454; e-mail address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On September 14, 2006 (71 FR 54278), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0041, which is available for online viewing at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 26, 2007.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0411, to (1) EPA online using
John Schaefer, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-05), Measurement Policy Group, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0296; fax number: (919) 541-3207; e-mail address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 21, 2006 (71 FR 35652), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0411, which is available for public viewing online at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 26, 2007.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0412, to (1) EPA online using
John Schaefer, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-05), Measurement Policy Group, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711;
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 21, 2006 (71 FR 35652), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0412, which is available for public viewing online at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 26, 2007.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0414, to (1) EPA online using
John Schaefer, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-05), Measurement Policy Group, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711;
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 21, 2006 (71
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0414, which is available for public viewing online at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 26, 2007.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0420, to (1) EPA online using
Robert C. Marshall, Jr., Office of Compliance, 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460;
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 21, 2006 (71 FR 35652), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0420, which is available for public viewing online at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the regulations published at 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN were proposed on March 31, 1997, and promulgated on June 14, 1999. These regulations apply to each glass melting furnace located at a wool fiberglass manufacturing plant;
In general, all NSPS and NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all sources subject to both the NSPS and NESHAP.
Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart PPP shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports for both the NSPS and NESHAP are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional office.
Since there are no changes in the regulatory requirements and there is no significant industry growth, the labor hours and cost figures in the previous ICR are used in this ICR, and there is no change in burden to industry.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 26, 2007.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0416, to (1) EPA online using
John Schaefer, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-05), Measurement Policy Group, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711;
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 21, 2006 (71 FR 35652), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0416, which is available for public viewing online at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for comment.
EPA is seeking information to determine how insect repellent-sunscreen combination products should be regulated in order to complete the reregistration review which was described in the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) document for the insect repellent DEET. This action would consider issues such as labeling, product performance and applicable safety standards for all currently (and any future) registered insect repellent-sunscreen combination products. The sunscreen components of these products are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Elsewhere in this issue of the
Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2007.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0087, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Richard Gebken, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-6701; fax number: (703) 308-0029; e-mail address:
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those who currently have registered products or intend in the future to register any insect repellent-sunscreen combination products, as well as those individuals who use these products. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
1.
2.
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
Currently, there are approximately 20 combination insect repellent/sunscreen products available for consumers. Each of these products contains an insect repellent component (N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET), oil of citronella or IR3535)) and a sunscreen component. Combination products are available in lotion, cream, and spray-on formulations. These products are currently marketed for use by the entire family. These products provide consumers with the convenience of using one product as opposed to the use of multiple products. In addition, it has been suggested that these products, containing both insect repellent and sunscreen components in one formulation, preserve the efficacy of both components better than if a consumer were to apply the insect repellent product and the sunscreen product sequentially.
EPA is responsible for reevaluating previously registered pesticide products through a program called “reregistration.” In order to reregister a pesticide, EPA determines whether the product meets current scientific and statutory standards. Due to concerns about the potential conflict in labeling for the insect repellent and the sunscreen portions of the product, EPA postponed a reregistration eligibility decision (RED) on whether to reregister the combination DEET/sunscreen products until additional information could be obtained. This document solicits opinion and comment from the public to assist in determining how best to regulate these products.
These combination products are regulated by both EPA and FDA. EPA has regulatory authority over these products because of the insect repellent component and the sunscreen component is regulated by FDA. Both agencies are seeking comments to determine how these products should be regulated. (FDA's notice is located elsewhere in this issue of the
1. Regulatory status of the insect repellent ingredients. EPA provides information to the public regarding the use of insect repellent products at the following web site:
• Read and follow all directions and precautions on the product label.
• Do not apply over cuts, wounds, or irritated skin.
• Do not apply to hands or near eyes and mouth of young children.
• Do not allow young children to apply repellent products.
• Use just enough repellent to cover exposed skin and/or clothing.
• Do not use under clothing.
• Avoid over-application.
• After returning indoors, wash treated skin with soap and water.
• Wash treated clothing before wearing it again.
• Use may cause skin reactions in rare cases.
The following additional statements should appear on the labels of aerosol and pump spray formulation labels:
• Do not spray in enclosed areas.
• To apply to face, spray on hands first and then rub on face. Do not spray directly onto face.
There are currently three (3) insect repellent active ingredients used in combination with sunscreen (amounting to 20 currently registered combination products). These are: N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET), oil of citronella and IR3535. Two other active ingredients are approved for use in insect repellent products, p-methane-3,8-diol and KBR 3023 (picaridin). Neither chemical, however, is currently available in a combination sunscreen formulation. Both DEET and oil of citronella have undergone reregistration which entailed an evaluation and analysis of the complete database for both chemicals. IR3535, picaridin, and p-methane-3,8-diol are newly registered chemicals which were evaluated during the registration process to ensure they met the statutory standard.
In December 1998, EPA completed reregistration and issued a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) document for the pesticide DEET. DEET products, which are applied directly to skin and/or clothing, are available in numerous formulation types (e.g., aerosol sprays, non-aerosol sprays, creams, lotions, sticks, foams, and towelettes) and concentrations (products range from 4% active ingredient (a.i.) to 100% a.i.. DEET is an insect and mite repellent used in households/domestic dwellings, on the human body and on clothing, on cats, dogs and horses and in the living and sleeping quarters of pets.
Based on pesticide usage information mainly for 1990 (DEET RED), an average annual estimate of the domestic usage of DEET is 4 million pounds (active ingredient). About 30% of the U.S. population uses DEET as an insect repellent at least once a year (about 27% of adult males, 31% of adult females and 34% of children). Approximately 21% of U.S. households use DEET annually. About 19% of households use DEET on household members, and about 4% of households that have cats and/or dogs use DEET on those pets (DEET RED).
As EPA indicated in the DEET RED: “The Agency is concerned about consumer use of products that combine sunscreen and DEET, since the directions to reapply sunscreens generously and frequently may promote greater use of DEET than needed for pesticidal efficacy, and thus pose unnecessary exposure to DEET”. DEET labels currently recommend that products be used sparingly and not be reapplied too often. Sunscreen products, however, recommend frequent reapplication. No benefits attach to use of DEET more frequently than necessary to achieve its purpose. The Agency did not make a regulatory decision about whether to reregister these combination products at the time of the DEET RED because EPA believed that adequate information was not available.
In February 1997, the EPA completed its Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) document for oil of citronella. This decision includes a comprehensive reassessment of the required target data and the use patterns of currently registered products. Oil of citronella is a biochemical pesticide. It is registered as an animal repellent and as an insect repellent/feeding depressant. Oil of citronella is the volatile oil obtained from the steam distillation of freshly cut or partially dried grasses (
Based on pesticide survey usage information for the years 1991 through 1992, annual citronella domestic usage ranged approximately from 33,000 to 48,000 pounds active ingredient for four sites (domestic dwelling; ornamentals; human face, skin, and clothing; and manufacturing). Oil of citronella is an insect repellent with its largest markets, in terms of total pounds active ingredient, allocated to human face, skin, and clothing (56% to 74%); domestic dwelling outdoor (22% to 41%); and ornamentals (1.5% to 2.0%). The balance is for manufacturing use. (Oil of Citronella RED)
The third currently registered insect repellent used in combination with sunscreen is IR3535. In 1997, the Agency classified IR3535 as a biochemical, based on facts that:
i. It is functionally identical to naturally occurring beta alanine;
ii. Both repel insects;
iii. The basic molecular structure is identical;
iv. The end groups are not likely to contribute to toxicity; and
v. It acts to control the target pest via a non-toxic mode of action.
Two insect repellent active ingredients in registered pesticides are not currently utilized in a combination product. However, for the purposes of completeness, all currently registered insect repellents are discussed within this Notice. The first chemical is
2.
Historically, FDA has used its enforcement discretion to allow the marketing of appropriate insect repellent-sunscreen combination products. These types of products were marketed before the OTC drug review began in 1972, and FDA has not explicitly addressed them at any time in the rulemaking for OTC sunscreen drug products. Because they have always contained a pesticide, the combination insect repellent-sunscreen products have also historically been registered with and regulated by EPA. FDA has not objected to the marketing of the combination products pending the issuance of the final sunscreen monograph so long as the products contained sunscreen ingredients included in the FDA rulemaking and were registered with EPA. FDA is interested in determining whether it should amend that monograph to address these combination products
EPA and FDA have identified three broad issues areas in connection with the regulation of these combination products:
Any insect repellent/sunscreen combination product would have to comply with EPA's data requirements in 40 CFR part 158 and with FDA's current good manufacturing practice for finished pharmaceuticals requirements in 21 CFR part 211. The Agencies are not aware of any specific manufacturing requirements that conflict and invite specific comment and information on this subject.
The EPA has solicited information from registrants of combination insect repellent/sunscreen products regarding the possibility of formulation conflicts. The Agency is aware of some limited, conflicting information, which raises the question of whether combining a sunscreen and an insect repellent component in a single product diminishes the efficacy of either the sunscreen or the insect repellent. Specific comments and information are invited on this subject.
Insect repellent/sunscreen products can have labeling requirements for their individual components that could theoretically conflict. The insect repellent component of the product must be labeled in accordance with 40 CFR part 156 and should comply with directions set out in its registration notice or the RED for the appropriate active ingredient. For each registered insect repellent, these requirements are listed in the registration or reregistration documents. The sunscreen component of the product must be labeled in accord with 21 CFR 201.66, 352.50, 352.52, and 352.60. The labeling format and some of the content requirements could vary between the EPA and FDA requirements. The Agency is looking at whether it is possible for products to comply with both sets of requirements and recommendations without confusing or misleading users.
The EPA is particularly interested in receiving comments on the following topics:
1.
2.
3.
For some products, there are effectiveness concerns because of the interval of time required between applications of the product. EPA identifies reapplication times on product labels so consumers maintain protection against insect bites, while avoiding over-exposure. This reapplication time relates to the effectiveness of the insect repellent portion of the product, not to the sunscreen protection. The sunscreen reapplication time is under the purview of the FDA. For some of the insect repellent products currently registered, the recommended reapplication time to maintain the effectiveness of the insect repellent could potentially be longer than that recommended to ensure the protectiveness of the sunscreen portion of the product. EPA is soliciting comment on the following questions:
1. Is it possible to formulate these products such that the insect repellent protection time coincides with the sunscreen protection time?
2. Are there effective concentrations of the insect repellent ingredients that could be used to allow for liberal application and frequent reapplication of the insect repellent-sunscreen combination products, as directed by the sunscreen instructions, without causing unnecessary exposure of the consumer to the insect repellent component of the product?
3. Is information available to demonstrate that there are any chemical or physical incompatibilities between insect repellents and sunscreen active ingredients when used separately? If so, how does this vary by the insect repellent component or by the sunscreen component? Please submit and/or summarize any information that you reference.
4. Are there some product performance benefits derived from the purposeful combination of the insect repellent and the sunscreen ingredients (as opposed to the sequential application of these products separately). What information is available which would help frame the advantages or disadvantages of these formulation combinations? How does this vary by insect repellent? Please submit and/or summarize any information that you reference.
1. Are manufacturers of the insect repellent/sunscreen combination products aware of any conflicts in the EPA and FDA manufacturing requirements? If yes, please identify and propose a way to resolve the conflict.
2. As it relates to potential future regulatory action taken with regard to these products, how should currently registered products be addressed? Should these products have to meet all of the requirements that result from the current EPA-FDA joint regulatory effort to retain their registrations? If not, what requirements should be retained, revised or eliminated?
1. There are many differences between the labeling requirements required by FDA's OTC drug labeling requirements and EPA's pesticide labeling requirements. For example, the formats and the order in which information is presented are quite different. FDA allows the use of the word “warning” on labels; however it is only allowed as an indicator of toxicity level on pesticide labels. Various required section headings are different. Please comment on how such labeling differences can be reconciled.
2. FDA ingredient statements list the “inactive or inert” ingredients more often and in greater detail than do EPA approved labels. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) does not require the listing of the identities of inert ingredients on the label. Are there ways to provide the insect repellent inert ingredients information in the product's labeling to satisfy the drug requirements of the FFDCA?
3. Is it desirable for users of these products to have a single integrated label, or would an insect repellent (EPA) and a sunscreen (FDA) section in the product's labeling be preferable?
4. Should the insect repellent/sunscreen combination products be required to have a statement on the front panel of the label specifically identifying the product as containing an insect repellent (such as, This Product Contains An Insect Repellent)? Would this be useful to help consumers distinguish between sunscreen products that contain pesticides from the typical sunscreen drug products that contain no pesticides?
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Intergovernmental relations, Pesticides, Pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of settlement.
Under Section 122(g) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a settlement for reimbursement of past response costs with the Alaron Corporation concerning the Starmet CMI Superfund Site located in Barnwell, Barnwell County, South Carolina.
The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until March 26, 2007. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
Copies of the settlement are available from Ms. Paula V. Batchelor. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-RO4-SFUND-2007-0129 or Site name Starmet CMI Superfund Site by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Written comments may be submitted to Ms. Batchelor within 30 calendar days of the date of this publication.
Paula V. Batchelor at 404/562-8887.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Availability.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the availability of the 2007 revised recommended aquatic life ambient freshwater quality criteria for copper. The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires
Copies of the criteria document entitled, Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria—Copper 2007 Revision (EPA-822-R-07-001) may be obtained from EPA's Water Resource Center by phone at (202) 566-1729, or by e-mail to
Dr. Luis Cruz, Health and Ecological Criteria Division (4304T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; (202) 566-1095;
Entities potentially interested in today's notice are those that produce, use, or regulate copper. Categories and entities interested in today's notice include:
This table is not exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities likely to be interested in this notice. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be interested.
EPA established an official public docket for the initial draft criteria document and scientific views received under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0079. The official public docket will also consist of the 2007 revised criteria document and scientific views received. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through
You may access this
An EPA recommended ambient water quality criterion is a description of the amount of a pollutant or other measurable substance in water that, when met, will protect aquatic life and/or human health. Water quality criteria are based on the factors specified in section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act, including the kind and extent of effects of the pollutant on human health and aquatic organisms. Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act) requires EPA to develop and publish and, from time to time, revise, recommended ambient water quality criteria to accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge. An EPA water criterion does not substitute for requirements of the CWA or EPA regulations, nor is an EPA criteria recommendation a regulation. It does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states, authorized tribes or the regulated community. State and tribal decision makers have discretion to adopt approaches that differ from EPA's water quality criteria recommendations on a case-by-case basis.
Ambient water quality criteria developed under section 304(a) provide guidance to states and tribes in adopting water quality criteria into their water quality standards under section 303(c) of the CWA. Once adopted by a state or tribe, the water quality standards are then a basis for developing regulatory controls on the discharge or release of pollutants and other alterations of water quality. EPA's section 304(a) criteria also provide a scientific basis for EPA to develop any necessary federal water quality regulations under section 303(c) of the CWA.
The revised recommended criteria in today's notice are based on the factors specified in section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act, including the kind and extent of effects of the pollutant on human health and aquatic organisms. EPA's recommended criteria are used by the states and tribes in developing their regulatory criteria under section 303(c) of the CWA. Under the Clean Water Act, regulatory water quality criteria must protect the designated use, independent of the economic and technical feasibility of meeting the criteria. Economic and technical feasibility factors are considered by states and tribes when they adopt designated uses into their water quality standards under section 303(c) of the Act and when states, tribes, and EPA consider variance requests. Moreover, states and tribes may also consider alternative scientifically defensible approaches to adopting criteria into their water quality standards.
Section 303(c)(1) of the CWA requires states and authorized tribes to review and modify, if appropriate, their water quality standards at least once every three years. Water quality standards consist of designated uses, water quality criteria to protect those uses, a policy for antidegradation, and general policies for application and implementation. States and authorized tribes must adopt water quality criteria that protect designated uses. Protective criteria, based on a sound scientific rationale, contain appropriate factors to protect the designated uses. Criteria may be
Pursuant to 40 CFR 131.21, water quality criteria that states and authorized tribes adopted and submitted to EPA before May 30, 2000, are in effect for CWA purposes. The criteria remain in effect unless and until EPA promulgates federal regulations that supersede them or EPA approves a revised state criteria. See, e.g., the National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR 131.36; Water Quality Standards for Idaho, 40 CFR 131.33. New or revised water quality criteria that states and authorized tribes adopted into law or regulation and submit to EPA on or after May 30, 2000, are in effect for CWA purposes only after EPA approves them.
EPA notified the public of its intentions to revise the recommended aquatic life criteria for copper in the
Copper is an abundant trace element found in the earth's crust and is a naturally occurring element that is generally present in surface waters. Copper is a micronutrient at low concentrations and recognized as essential to virtually all plants and animals. Historically, elevated levels of copper have been linked to adverse effects on aquatic organisms and concerns have prompted its inclusion as a priority pollutant. Currently, there are 629 rivers and streams listed as impaired for copper and 5 for contaminated sediments due to copper.
The aquatic life criteria document titled, “Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria—Copper 2007 Revision” (EPA-822-R-07-001), contains revised recommendations for freshwater aquatic life criteria for copper. These revised criteria recommendations are based in part on new data that have become available since EPA's last comprehensive criteria updates for copper, “Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Copper—1984” (EPA-440/5-84-031). EPA derived the freshwater criteria recommendations presented in this draft document based on the principles set forth in EPA's 1985 Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Aquatic Life Criteria for Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. In addition to incorporating new data, the freshwater criterion maximum concentration (CMC or ”acute criterion”) also relies on a new scientific model, the biotic ligand model (BLM), in the criteria derivation procedures. The freshwater criterion continuous concentration (CCC or “chronic criterion”) is based on a BLM derived acute value divided by a final acute-chronic ratio. Where used, the application of the BLM will replace the need for site-specific modifications, such as Water Effect Ratio, to account for site-specific chemistry influences on metal toxicity.
The biotic ligand model is a metal bioavailability model based on recent information about the chemical behavior and physiological effects of metals in aquatic environments. Earlier freshwater aquatic life criteria for copper published by the Agency were based on empirical relationships of toxicity to water hardness. That is, a relationship was established linking the criteria concentrations with water hardness. These hardness-dependent criteria, however, represented combined effects of different water quality variables (such as pH and alkalinity) correlated with hardness. Unlike the empirically derived hardness-dependent criteria, the BLM explicitly accounts for individual water quality variables and addresses variables that EPA had not previously factored into the hardness relationship. Where the previous freshwater aquatic life criteria were hardness-dependent, these revised criteria are dependent on a number of water quality parameters (e.g., calcium, magnesium, dissolved organic carbon) described in the document. BLM-based criteria can be more stringent than the current hardness-based copper criteria and in certain cases the current hardness-based copper criteria may be overly stringent for particular water bodies.
More information on the development and application of the biotic ligand model is available in the criteria document as well as in The Biotic Ligand Model: Technical Support Document for Its Application to the Evaluation of Water Quality Criteria for Copper (EPA 822-R-03-027) and Integrated Approach to Assessing the Bioavailability and Toxicity of Metals in Surface Waters and Sediments (EPA-822-E-99-001).
The available toxicity data, when evaluated using the procedures described in the “Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses” indicate that freshwater aquatic life should be protected if the 24-hour average and four-day average concentrations do not respectively exceed the acute and chronic criteria concentrations calculated by the Biotic Ligand Model.
A return interval of 3 years between exceedances of the criterion continues to be EPA's general recommendation. However, the resilience of ecosystems and their ability to recover differ greatly. Therefore, scientific derivation of alternative frequencies for exceeding criteria may be appropriate.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Final notice of submission for OMB review.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) hereby gives notice that it has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for an extension of the existing collection requirements under 29 CFR 1602, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements under Title VII and the ADA. The Commission has requested an extension of an existing collection as listed below.
Written comments on this final notice must be submitted on or before March 26, 2007.
The Request for Clearance (SF 83-I), supporting statement, and other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from: Mona Papillon, General Attorney, 1801 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507. Comments on this final notice must be submitted to Brenda Aquilar, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or electronically mailed to
Thomas J. Schlageter, Assistant Legal Counsel or Mona Papillon, General Attorney, at (202) 663-4660 or TDD (202) 663-4074. This notice is also available in the following formats: large print, braille, audio tape and electronic file on computer disk. Requests for this notice in an alternative format should be made to the Publications Center at 1-800-669-3362.
A notice that EEOC would be submitting this request was published in the Federal Register on November 20, 2006, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. No comments were received.
For the Commission.
The Advisory Committee was established by Pub. L. 98-181, November 30, 1983, to advise the Export-Import Bank on its programs and to provide comments for inclusion in the reports of the Export-Import Bank of the United States to Congress.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. The meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in the Main Conference Room 1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.
Agenda items include a short summary of the Bank's recent reauthorization, plus presentations from the Small Business Team and the Services Team of the 2007 Advisory Committee members.
The meeting will be open to public participation, and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written statement(s) before or after the meeting. If you plan to attend, a photo ID must be presented at the guard's desk as part of the clearance process into the building, and you may contact Teri Stumpf to be placed on an attendee list. If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such as a sign language interpreter) or other special accommodations, please contact, prior to March 1, 2007, Teri Stumpf, Room 1209, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, Voice: (202) 565-3502 or TDD (202) 565-3377.
For further information, contact Teri Stumpf, Room 1209, 811 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3502.
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before April 23, 2007. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Allison E. Zaleski, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10236 NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-6466, or via fax at 202-395-5167 or via internet at
For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214 or via the Internet at
In the First Report and Order issued under CC Docket No. 99-273 in 2001, the Commission adopted several of its tentative proposals. The Commission concluded that the local exchange carriers (LECs) must provide competing directory assistance (DA) providers that qualify under section 251 with nondiscriminatory access to the LEC's local directory assistance databases, and must do so at nondiscriminatory and reasonable rates. The Commission determined that LECs are not required to grant competing DA providers nondiscriminatory access to non-local director assistance databases. All of the requirements are implemented under sections 251 and/or 222 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Federal Communications Commission.
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Persons wishing to comment on this information collection should submit comments April 23, 2007. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Allison E. Zaleski, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Room 10236 NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-6466, or via fax at 202-395-5167, or via the Internet at
For additional information about the information collection(s) send an e-mail to
Section 80.302 is necessary when changes occur in the operation of a public coast station which include discontinuance, reduction or suspension of a watch required to be maintained on 2182 kHz or 156.800 MHz, notification must be made by the licensee to the nearest district office of the U.S. Coast Guard as soon as practicable. This notification must include the estimated or known resumption time of the watch.
The information is used by the U.S. Coast Guard district office nearest to the coast station. Once the Coast Guard is aware that such a situation exists, it is able to inform the maritime community that radio coverage has or will be affected and/or seek to provide coverage of the safety watch via alternate means.
Section 90.505 requires applicants proposing developmental operations to submit supplemental information showing why the authorization is necessary and what its use will be. This reporting requirement will be used by the Commission staff in evaluating the applicant's need for such frequencies and the interference potential to other stations operating on the proposed frequencies.
Any interested party seeking preemption of a state commission's jurisdiction based on the state commission's failure to act shall notify the Commission as follows: (1) File with the Secretary of the Commission a detailed petition, supported by an affidavit, that states with specificity the basis for any claim that it has failed to act; and (2) serve the state commission and other parties to the proceeding on the same day that the party serves the petition on the Commission. Within 15 days of the filing of the petition, the state commission and parties to the proceeding may file a response to the petition. All of the requirements are used to ensure that petitioners have complied with their obligations under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before March 26, 2007. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
You may submit all your Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments by e-mail or U.S. postal mail. To submit your comments by e-mail send them to
For additional information about the information collection(s) send an e-mail to
(1) There are approximately 20,000 MVPDs serving approximately 72,000,000 subscribers in the United States.
(2) The average rate of churn (subscriber termination) for all MVPDs is estimated to be 1% per month, or 12% per year.
(3) MVPDs own the home wiring in 50% of the occurrences of voluntary subscriber termination.
(4) Subscribers or property owners already have gained ownership of the wiring in the other 50% of occurrences (e.g., where the MVPD has charged the subscriber for the wiring upon installation, has treated the wiring as belonging to the subscriber for tax purposes, or where state and/or local law treats cable home wiring as a fixture).
(5) Where MVPDs own the wiring, we estimate that they intend to actually remove the wiring 5% of the time, thus initiating the disclosure requirement.
We believe in most cases that MVPDs will choose to abandon the home wiring because the cost and effort required to remove the wiring generally outweigh its value. The burden to disclose the information at the time of termination will vary depending on the manner of disclosure, e.g., by telephone, customer visit or registered mail. Virtually all voluntary service terminations are done by telephone. In addition, 47 CFR 76.802 states that if a subscriber in an MDU declines to purchase the wiring, the MDU owner or alternative provider (where permitted by the MDU owner) may purchase the home wiring where reasonable advance notice has been provided to the incumbent.
(1) According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the nation's population was approximately 281,000,000.
(2) The American Housing Survey for the United States, 2001, Table 2-25, and the 2000 Census stated that the total number of living units of all types in the United States was approximately 106,000,000, or an average of 2.65 people per unit.
(3) The American Housing Survey also estimated that 24,600,000 occupied housing units were classified as “multi-units,” that is, they are in MDUs with two or more units per building.
(4) The American Housing Survey data also found that there were approximately 7,600,000 buildings classified as MDUs in the United States.
(5) Approximately 66,000,000 people resided in these 24,600,000 occupied housing units in these MDUs in 2000.
(6) We estimate that 2,000 MDU owners will provide advance notice to the incumbent MVPD that the MDU owner wishes to use the home run wiring to receive service from an alternative video service provider.
We use the term “MDU owner” to include whatever entity owns or controls the common areas of an apartment building, condominium or cooperative. For building-by-building disposition of home run wiring, the MDU owner gives the incumbent service provider a minimum of 90 days' written notice that its access to the entire building will be terminated. The incumbent then has 30 days to elect what it will do with the home run wiring. Where parties negotiate a price for the wiring and are unable to agree on a price, the incumbent service provider must elect among abandonment, removal of the wiring, or arbitration for a price determination. Also, regarding cable home wiring, when the MDU owner notifies the incumbent service provider that its access to the building will be terminated, the incumbent provider must, within 30 days of the initial notice and in accordance with our home wiring rules:
(1) Offer to sell to the MDU owner any home wiring within the individual dwelling units which the incumbent provider owns and intends to remove, and
(2) Provide the MDU owner with the total per-foot replacement cost of such home wiring.
The MDU owner must then notify the incumbent provider as to whether the MDU owner or an alternative provider intends to purchase the home wiring not later than 30 days before the incumbent's access to the building will be terminated. For unit-by-unit disposition of home run wiring, an MDU owner must provide at least 60 days' written notice to the incumbent MVPD that it intends to permit multiple MVPDs to compete for the right to use the individual home run wires dedicated to each unit. The incumbent service provider then has 30 days to provide the MDU owner with a written election as to whether, for all of the incumbent's home run wires dedicated to individual subscribers who may later choose the alternative provider's service, it will remove the wiring, abandon the wiring, or sell the wiring to the MDU owner.
In other words, the incumbent service provider will be required to make a single election for how it will handle the disposition of individual home run wires whenever a subscriber wishes to switch service providers; that election will then be implemented each time an individual subscriber switches service providers.
Where parties negotiate a price for the wiring and are unable to agree on a price, the incumbent service provider must elect among abandonment, removal of the wiring, or arbitration for a price determination. The MDU owner also must provide reasonable advance notice to the incumbent provider that it will purchase, or that it will allow an alternative provider to purchase, the cable home wiring when a terminating individual subscriber declines. If the alternative provider is permitted to purchase the wiring, it will be required to make a similar election during the initial 30-day notice period for each subscriber who switches back from the alternative provider to the incumbent MVPD.
While the American Housing Survey estimates that there were some 7,600,000 MDUs with 24,600,000 resident occupants in the United States in 2000, we estimate that there will be only 12,500 notices and 12,500 elections being made on an annual basis. In many buildings, the MDU owner will be unable to initiate the notice and election processes because the incumbent MVPD service provider continues to have a legally enforceable right to remain on the premises. In other buildings, the MDU owner may simply have no interest in acquiring a new MVPD service provider.
The hearing date, time, and location are as follows:
Friday, February 23, 2007.
9 a.m.-2:30 p.m.
9 a.m.-9:30 a.m.: Welcome/Opening Remarks
Whitaker Center for Science and the Arts, Sunoco Performance Theater, 222 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101.
The purpose of the hearing is to fully involve the public in the process of the 2006 Quadrennial Broadcast Media Ownership Review that the Commission is currently conducting. The hearing is open to the public, and seating will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. This hearing is the third in a series of media ownership hearings the Commission intends to hold across the country.
There will be one panel of presenters followed by public comment. The hearing format will enable members of the public to participate via “open microphone.”
Open captioning and sign language interpreters 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. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to fill. Send an e-mail to
Further details including names of the panelists will be released prior to the hearing.
For additional information about the hearing, please visit the FCC's Web site at
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than March 8, 2007.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 16, 2007.
This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. E7-2770) published on page 7656 of the issue for Friday, February 16, 2007.
Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City heading, the entry for Bishop Limited Partnership, and its general partner, Cheryl R. Bishop, Burlington, Washington, is revised to read as follows:
Comments on this application must be received by March 6, 2007.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 16, 2007.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 16, 2007.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 15, 2007.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 16, 2007.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 15, 2007.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 19, 2007.
In connection with this application, Applicant also has applied to engage in commercial and residential loan origination activities, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 16, 2007.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 8, 2007.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 16, 2007.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Notice of a Modified or Altered System of Records.
The Privacy Act of 1974 and section 1106 of the Social Security Act (the Act) explain when and how CMS may release the personal data of people with Medicare. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Public Law 108-173) added requirements for releasing and using personal data. The primary purpose of this system is to collect, maintain, and process information on all Medicare covered, and as many non-covered drug events as possible, for people with Medicare who have a Medicare Part D plan. The system will help CMS determine appropriate payment of covered drugs. It will also provide for processing, storing, and maintaining drug transaction data in a large-scale database, while putting data into data marts to support payment analysis. CMS would allow the release of information in this system to: (1) Support regulatory, analysis, oversight, reimbursement, and policy functions performed within the agency or by a contractor, consultant, or a CMS grantee; (2) help another Federal and/or state agency, agency of a state government, an agency established by state law, or its fiscal agent; (3) help Medicare Part D plans; (4) support an individual or organization for a research, an evaluation, or an epidemiological or other project related to protecting the public's health, the prevention of disease or disability, the restoration or maintenance of health, or for payment related purposes; (5) help Quality Improvement Organizations; (6) support lawsuits involving the agency; and (7) combat fraud, waste, and abuse in certain health benefits programs.
To meet these additional requirements, CMS proposes to modify the existing system of records (SOR) titled “Medicare Drug Data Processing System (DDPS),” System No. 09-70-0553, established at 70
CMS proposes to make the following modifications to the DDPS system:
• Revise routine use number 1 to include CMS grantees that perform a task for the agency.
• Add a new routine use number 2 to allow the release of information to other Federal and state agencies for accurate payment of Medicare benefits; to administer a Federal health benefits program, or to fulfill a requirement or allowance of a Federal statute or regulation that implements a health benefits program funded in whole or in part with Federal funds; and help Federal/state Medicaid programs that may need information from this system.
• Broaden the scope of routine use number 4 to allow the release of data to an individual or organization for a research, evaluation, or epidemiological or other project related to protecting the public's health, the prevention of disease or disability, the restoration or maintenance of health, or payment-related projects.
• Delete routine use number 5 which authorizes disclosure to support constituent requests made to a congressional representative.
• Broaden the scope of routine use number 7 and 8, to include combating “waste,” fraud, and abuse that results in unnecessary cost to all Federally-funded health benefit programs.
• Revise language regarding routine uses disclosures to explain the purpose of the routine use and make clear CMS's intention to release personal information contained in this system.
• Reorder and prioritize the routine uses.
• Update any sections of the system affected by the reorganization or revision of routine uses because of MMA provisions.
• Update language in the administrative sections to be consistent with language used in other CMS SORs.
Although the Privacy Act allows CMS to only ask for comments on the modified routine uses, CMS is asking for comments on all proposed changes discussed in this notice. See the
The modified system will become effective 30 days from the publication of the notice, or 40 days from the date it was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress on 02/13/2007, whichever is later, unless CMS receives comments that require changes to this notice.
The public should send comments to: CMS Privacy Officer, Division of Privacy Compliance, Enterprise Architecture and Strategy Group, Office of Information Services, CMS, Room N2-04-27, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850. Comments received will be available for review at this location, by appointment, during regular business hours, Monday through Friday from 9 a.m.-3 p.m., eastern time zone.
Amanda Ryan, Health Insurance Specialist, Division of Payment Systems, Medicare Plan Payment Group, Centers for Beneficiary Choices, CMS, Room C1-26-14, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850. The telephone number is 410-786-0419 or contact
In December 2003, Congress added Part D under Title XVIII when it passed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. The Act allows Medicare to pay plans to provide Part D prescription drug coverage as described in Title 42, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 423.401. The Act allows Medicare to pay plans in one of four ways: 1. direct subsidies; 2. premium and cost-sharing subsidies for qualifying low-income individuals (low-income subsidy); 3. Federal reinsurance subsidies; and 4. risk-sharing. Throughout this notice, the term “plans” means all entities that provide Part D prescription drug coverage and submit claims data to CMS for payment calculations.
As a condition of payment, all Part D plans must submit data and information necessary for CMS to carry out payment provisions (§ 1860D-15(c)(1)(C) and (d)(2) of the Act, and 42 CFR 423.322). In addition, these data may be disclosed to other entities, pursuant to § 1860D-12(b)(3)(D) and 42 CFR 423.505 (b)(8) and (f)(3) and (5) for the purposes described in the routine uses described in this SOR notice. Furthermore, this data may be disclosed pursuant to § 1106 of the Act.
This notice explains how CMS would collect data elements on 100% of the Part D prescription drug “claims” or events according to the statute. The data, including dollar fields, would be used for payment purposes, as well as other purposes allowed by § 1860-D. However, some of the other data elements such as pharmacy and prescriber identifiers would be used to validate claims and meet other legislative requirements such as quality monitoring, program integrity, and oversight.
This system is mandated under provisions of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, amending the Social Security Act by adding Part D under Title XVIII (§§ 1860D-15(c)(1)(C) and (d)(2), as described in Title 42, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §§ 423.401 and 1860D-12(b)(3)(D) of the Act, as described in 42 CFR §§ 423.505(b)(8) and (f)(3) and (5)).
The system contains summary prescription drug claim information on all covered and non-covered drug events for people with Medicare. The data in this system includes prescription drug claim data, health insurance claim number, card holder identification number, date of service, gender, and date of birth (if provided). It also contains provider characteristics, prescriber identification number, assigned provider number (facility, referring/servicing physician), national drug code, total charges, Medicare payment amount, and beneficiary's liability amount.
Below are CMS' policies and procedures for giving out information maintained in the system. CMS would only release the minimum personal data necessary to achieve the purpose of the DDPS.
1. The information or use of the information is consistent with the reason that the data is being collected.
2. The individually identifiable information is necessary to complete the project (taking into account the risk on the privacy of the individual).
3. The organization receiving the information establishes administrative, technical, and physical protections to prevent unauthorized use of the information; returns or destroys all individually identifiable information when the contract ends; and agrees not to use or give out the information for any purpose other than the reason provided for needing the information.
4. The data are valid and reliable.
The Privacy Act allows CMS to give out identifiable and not-identifiable information for routine uses without an individual's consent. The data described in this notice is listed under Section I. B. above.
A. In addition to those entities specified in the Privacy Act of 1974, CMS may release information from the DDPS without individual consent for some routine uses. Below are the modified routine uses for releasing information without individual consent that CMS would add or modify in the DDPS.
1. To support Agency contractors, consultants, or CMS grantees who are helping CMS with the DDPS and who have a need to access the records in order to provide assistance. Recipients shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
CMS must be able to give a contractor, consultant, or CMS grantee necessary information in order to complete their contractual responsibilities. In these situations, protections are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor, consultant, or grantee from using or releasing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract. The contract also requires the contractor, consultant, or grantee to return or destroy all information when the contract ends.
2. To help another Federal or state agency, agency of a state government, an agency established by state law, or its fiscal agent to:
a. contribute to the accuracy of CMS' payment of Medicare benefits,
b. administer a Federal health benefits program or fulfill a Federal statute or regulatory requirement or allowance that implements a health benefits program funded in whole or in part with Federal funds, or
c. access data required for Federal/state Medicaid programs.
Other Federal or state agencies in their administration of a Federal health program may require DDPS information in order to support evaluations and
In addition, disclosure under this routine use shall be used by state agencies pursuant to agreements with the HHS for determining Medicare or Medicaid eligibility, for quality control studies, for determining eligibility of recipients of assistance under titles IV, XVIII, and XIX of the Act, and for the administration of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Data will be released to the state only on those individuals who are or were patients under the services of a program within the state or who are residents of that state.
3. To support plans and other entities in protecting their members (and former members for the periods enrolled in a given plan) against unauthorized medical expenses, including unauthorized prescription drug expenses, and providing information about events that affect their members' rights to any benefit or payment. This includes having information to coordinate benefits with Medicare and the Medicare Secondary Payer provision at 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b).
Other insurers may need data in order to support evaluations and monitoring of Medicare claims information, including proper reimbursement for services. In order to receive the information, plans and other entities must:
a. certify that the individual is or was a plan member or is insured and/or employed by, or contracted with another entity for whom they serve as a Third Party Administrator;
b. use the information only to process the individual's insurance claims; and
c. safeguard the confidentiality of the data to prevent unauthorized access.
4. To assist an individual or organization with research, an evaluation, or an epidemiological or other project related to protecting the public's health, the prevention of disease or disability, restoration or maintenance of health, or for payment related purposes. CMS must:
a. determine if the use or release of data violate legal limitations under which the record was provided, collected, or obtained;
b. determine that the purpose for the release of information:
(1) cannot be reasonably accomplished unless the record is provided in individually identifiable form,
(2) is of sufficient importance to warrant the effect or risk on the privacy of the individual, and
(3) meets the objectives of the project;
c. requires the recipient of the information to:
(1) establish reasonable administrative, technical, and physical protections to prevent unauthorized use or release of information,
(2) return or destroy the information unless there is an acceptable research reason for keeping the information, and
(3) no longer use or release information except:
(a) in emergency circumstances affecting the health or safety of any individual,
(b) for use in another research project, under these same conditions and with written CMS approval,
(c) for an audit related to the research, or
(d) when required by Federal law.
d. get signed, written statements from the entity receiving the information that they understand and will follow all provisions in this notice.
e. complete and submit a Data Use Agreement (CMS Form 0235) in accordance with current CMS policies.
DDPS data will provide for research, evaluation, and epidemiological projects, a broader, longitudinal, national perspective of the status of Medicare beneficiaries. CMS anticipates that many researchers will have legitimate requests to use these data in projects that could ultimately improve the care provided to Medicare beneficiaries and the policy that governs the care.
5. To support Quality Improvement Organizations (QIO) in the claims review process, or with studies or other review activities performed in accordance with Part B of Title XI of the Act. QIOs can also use the data for outreach activities to establish and maintain entitlement to Medicare benefits or health insurance plans.
QIOs will work to implement quality improvement programs, provide consultation to CMS, its contractors, and to state agencies. QIOs will assist the state agencies in related monitoring and enforcement efforts, assist CMS and intermediaries in program integrity assessment, and prepare summary information for release to CMS.
6. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), court, or adjudicatory body when there is a lawsuit in which the Agency, any employee of the Agency in his or her official capacity or individual capacity (if the DOJ agrees to represent the employee), or the United States Government is a party or CMS' policies or operations could be affected by the outcome. The information must be both relevant and necessary to the lawsuit, and the use of the records is for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which CMS collected the records.
Whenever CMS is involved in litigation, or occasionally when another party is involved in litigation and CMS' policies or operations could be affected by the outcome of the litigation, CMS would be able to disclose information to the DOJ, court, or adjudicatory body involved.
7. To help a CMS contractor that assists in the administration of a CMS health benefits program or a grantee of a CMS-administered grant program if the information is necessary, in any capacity, to combat fraud, waste, or abuse in such program. CMS will only provide this information if CMS can enter into a contract or grant for this purpose.
CMS must be able to give a contractor or CMS grantee necessary information in order to complete their contractual responsibilities. In these situations, protections are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor or grantee from using or releasing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract. It also requires the contractor or grantee to return or destroy all information when the contract ends.
8. To help another Federal agency or any United States government jurisdiction (including any state or local governmental agency) if the information is necessary, in any capacity, to combat fraud, waste, or abuse in a health benefits program that is funded in whole or in part by Federal funds.
Other agencies may require DDPS information for the purpose of combating fraud, waste, or abuse in such Federally-funded programs.
B. To the extent this system contains Protected Health Information (PHI) as defined by HHS regulation “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” (45 CFR Parts 160 and 164, Subparts A and E) 65 FR 82462 (December 28, 2000), release of information that are otherwise allowed by these routine uses may only be made if, and as, permitted or required by the “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information.” (See 45 CFR 164.512(a)(1)).
C. In addition, CMS will not give out information that is not directly identifiable if there is a possibility that a person with Medicare could be identified because the sample is small enough to identify participants. CMS would make exceptions if the information is needed for one of the routine uses or if it's required by law.
CMS has protections in place for authorized users to make sure they are properly using the data and there is no unauthorized use. Personnel having access to the system have been trained in the Privacy Act and information security requirements. Employees who maintain records in this system can't release data until the recipient agrees to implement appropriate management, operational and technical safeguards that will protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information and information systems.
This system would follow all applicable Federal laws and regulations, and Federal, HHS, and CMS security and data privacy policies and standards. These laws and regulations include but are not limited to: the Privacy Act of 1974; the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002; the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986; the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996; the E-Government Act of 2002, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996; the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, and the corresponding implementing regulations. OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Resources, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources also applies. Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards include but are not limited to all pertinent National Institute of Standards and Technology publications, the HHS Information Systems Program Handbook, and the CMS Information Security Handbook.
CMS doesn't anticipate a negative effect on individual privacy as a result of giving out personal information from this system. CMS established this system in accordance with the principles and requirements of the Privacy Act and would collect, use, and release information that follow these requirements. CMS would only give out the minimum amount of personal data to achieve the purpose of the system. Release of information from the system will be approved only to the extent necessary to accomplish the purpose of releasing the data. CMS has assigned a higher level of security clearance for the information maintained in this system in an effort to provide added security and protection of individuals' personal information of an individuals' personal information, and, if feasible, ask that once the information is no longer needed that it be returned or destroyed.
CMS would take precautionary measures to minimize the risks of unauthorized access to the records and the potential harm to individual privacy, or other personal or property rights. CMS would collect only information necessary to perform the system's functions. In addition, CMS would only give out information if the individual, or his or her legal representative has given approval, or if allowed by one of the exceptions noted in the Privacy Act.
Medicare Drug Data Processing System (DDPS), HHS/CMS/CBC.
Level Three Privacy Act Sensitive.
CMS Data Center, 7500 Security Boulevard, North Building, First Floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850 and at various contractor sites.
The system contains summary prescription drug claim information on all covered and non-covered drug events for people with Medicare.
The data in this system includes prescription drug claim data, health insurance claim number, card holder identification number, date of service, gender, and date of birth (if provided). It also contains provider characteristics, prescriber identification number, assigned provider number (facility, referring/servicing physician), national drug code, total charges, Medicare payment amount, and beneficiary's liability amount.
This system is mandated under provisions of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, amending the Social Security Act (the Act) by adding Part D under Title XVIII (§§ 1860D-15(c)(1)(C) and (d)(2), as described in Title 42, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 423.401 and 1860D-12(b)(3)(D) of the Act, as described in 42 CFR 423.505(b)(8) and (f)(3) and (5). Furthermore, this data may be disclosed pursuant to § 1106 of the Act.
The primary purpose of this system is to collect, maintain, and process information on all Medicare covered and as many non-covered drug events as possible, for people with Medicare who have a Medicare Part D plan. The system will help CMS determine appropriate payment of covered drugs. It will also provide for processing, storing, and maintaining drug transaction data in a large-scale database, while putting data into data marts to support payment analysis. CMS would allow the release of information in this system to: (1) Support regulatory, analysis, oversight, reimbursement, and policy functions performed within the agency or by a contractor, consultant, or a CMS grantee; (2) help another Federal and/or State agency, agency of a State government, an agency established by State law, or its fiscal agent; (3) help Medicare Part D plans; (4) support an individual or organization for a research, an evaluation, or an epidemiological or other project related to protecting the public's health, the prevention of disease or disability, the restoration or maintenance of health, or for payment related purposes; (5) help Quality Improvement Organizations; (6) support lawsuits involving the agency; and (7) combat fraud, waste, and abuse in certain health benefits programs.
A. In addition to those entities specified in the Privacy Act of 1974, CMS may release information from the DDPS without individual consent for some routine uses. Below are the modified routine uses for releasing information without individual consent that CMS would add or modify in the DDPS.
1. To support Agency contractors, consultants, or CMS grantees who are helping CMS with the DDPS and who have a need to access the records in order to provide assistance. Recipients shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
2. To help another Federal or State agency, agency of a State government, an agency established by State law, or its fiscal agent to:
a. Contribute to the accuracy of CMS' payment of Medicare benefits,
b. Administer a Federal health benefits program or fulfill a Federal statute or regulatory requirement or allowance that implements a health benefits program funded in whole or in part with Federal funds, or
c. Access data required for Federal/State Medicaid programs.
3. To support plans and other entities in protecting their members (and former
4. To assist an individual or organization with research, an evaluation, or an epidemiological or other project related to protecting the public's health, the prevention of disease or disability, restoration or maintenance of health, or for payment related purposes. CMS must:
a. Determine if the use or release of data violate legal limitations under which the record was provided, collected, or obtained;
b. Determine that the purpose for the release of information:
(1) Cannot be reasonably accomplished unless the record is provided in individually identifiable form, (2) is of sufficient importance to warrant the effect or risk on the privacy of the individual, and
(3) Meets the objectives of the project;
c. Requires the recipient of the information to:
(1) Establish reasonable administrative, technical, and physical protections to prevent unauthorized use or release of information, (2) return or destroy the information unless there is an acceptable research reason for keeping the information, and
(3) No longer use or release information except:
(a) In emergency circumstances affecting the health or safety of any individual,
(b) For use in another research project, under these same conditions and with written CMS approval,
(c) For an audit related to the research, or (d) when required by Federal law.
d. Get signed, written statements from the entity receiving the information that they understand and will follow all provisions in this notice.
e. Complete and submit a Data Use Agreement (CMS Form 0235) in accordance with current CMS policies.
5. To support Quality Improvement Organizations (QIO) in the claims review process, or with studies or other review activities performed in accordance with Part B of Title XI of the Act. QIOs can also use the data for outreach activities to establish and maintain entitlement to Medicare benefits or health insurance plans.
6. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), court, or adjudicatory body when there is a lawsuit in which the Agency, any employee of the Agency in his or her official capacity or individual capacity (if the DOJ agrees to represent the employee), or the United States Government is a party or CMS' policies or operations could be affected by the outcome. The information must be both relevant and necessary to the lawsuit, and the use of the records is for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which CMS collected the records.
7. To help a CMS contractor that assists in the administration of a CMS health benefits program or a grantee of a CMS-administered grant program if the information is necessary, in any capacity, to combat fraud, waste, or abuse in such program. CMS will only provide this information if CMS can enter into a contract or grant for this purpose.
8. To help another Federal agency or any United States government jurisdiction (including any State or local governmental agency) if the information is necessary, in any capacity, to combat fraud, waste, or abuse in a health benefits program that is funded in whole or in part by Federal funds.
B. To the extent this system contains Protected Health Information (PHI) as defined by HHS regulation “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” (45 CFR Parts 160 and 164, Subparts A and E) 65 FR 82462 (December 28, 2000), release of information that are otherwise allowed by these routine uses may only be made if, and as, permitted or required by the “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information.” (See 45 CFR 164.512(a)(1)).
C. In addition, CMS will not give out information that is not directly identifiable if there is a possibility that a person with Medicare could be identified because the sample is small enough to identify participants. CMS would make exceptions if the information is needed for one of the routine uses or if it's required by law.
Records are stored on both tape cartridges (magnetic storage media) and in a DB2 relational database management environment (DASD data storage media).
Information is most frequently retrieved by HICN, provider number (facility, physician, IDs), service dates, and beneficiary State code.
CMS has protections in place for authorized users to make sure they are properly using the data and there is no unauthorized use. Personnel having access to the system have been trained in the Privacy Act and information security requirements. Employees who maintain records in this system can't release data until the recipient agrees to implement appropriate management, operational and technical safeguards that will protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information and information systems.
This system would follow all applicable Federal laws and regulations, and Federal, HHS, and CMS security and data privacy policies and standards. These laws and regulations include but are not limited to: the Privacy Act of 1974; the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002; the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986; the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996; the E-Government Act of 2002, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996; the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, and the corresponding implementing regulations. OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Resources, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources also applies. Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards include but are not limited to all pertinent National Institute of Standards and Technology publications, the HHS Information Systems Program Handbook, and the CMS Information Security Handbook.
Records will be retained until an approved disposition authority is obtained from the National Archive and Records Administration.
Director, Division of Payment Systems, Medicare Plan Payment Group, Centers for Beneficiary Choices, CMS, Room C1-26-14, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.
For purpose of notification, the subject individual should write to the system manager who will require the system name, and the retrieval selection criteria (e.g., HICN, facility/pharmacy number, service dates, etc.).
For purpose of access, use the same procedures outlined in Notification
The subject individual should contact the system manager named above, and reasonably identify the record and specify the information to be contested. State the corrective action sought and the reasons for the correction with supporting justification. (These procedures are in accordance with Department regulation 45 CFR 5b.7).
Summary prescription drug claim information contained in this system is obtained from the Prescription Benefit Package (PBP) Plans and Medicare Advantage (MA-PBP) Plans daily and monthly drug event transaction reports, Medicare Beneficiary Database (09-70-0530), and other payer information to be provided by the TROOP Facilitator.
None.
FYSB will conduct an assessment of the mentoring community to identify and assess needs for the purpose of building a toolkit of practical information and tools to assist mentoring programs in promoting cultural competence and diversity of their programs. The toolkit modules address recruiting minority mentors, assessing and matching mentors and mentees, training, educating program staff and participants, and promoting ethnic identity development.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for LEVEMIR and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of Patents and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent that claims that human drug product.
Submit written comments and petitions to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy (HFD-7), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-594-2041.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the human drug product becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted, as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA recently approved for marketing the human drug product LEVEMIR (insulin determir (rDNA origin)). LEVEMIR is indicated for once or twice-daily subcutaneous administration in the treatment of adult patients with diabetes mellitus who require basal (long acting) insulin for the control of hyperglycemia. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for LEVEMIR (U.S. Patent No. 5,750,497) from Novo Nordisk A/S, and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated July 24, 2006, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of LEVEMIR represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the Patent and Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for LEVEMIR is 2,896 days. Of this time, 1,971 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 925 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension,
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Comments and petitions should be submitted to the Division of Dockets Management. Three copies of any mailed information are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Comments and petitions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Colorado (FEMA-3271-EM), dated January 7, 2007, and related determinations.
February 12, 2007.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
The notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Colorado is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of January 7, 2007:
Cheyenne, Huerfano, and Kiowa Counties for emergency protective measures (Category B), including snow removal, under the Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the incident period.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-1680-DR), dated February 8, 2007, and related determinations.
February 8, 2007.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated February 8, 2007, 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 Florida resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding on December 25, 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 Florida.
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 Individual 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 Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. If Public Assistance is later warranted, Federal funds provided 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 time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Director, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Jesse Munoz, 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 Florida to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:
Volusia County for Individual Assistance.
All counties within the State of Florida are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Illinois (FEMA-1681-DR), dated February 9, 2007, and related determinations.
February 9, 2007.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated February 9, 2007, 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 Illinois resulting from a severe winter storm during the period of November 30 to December 1, 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 Illinois.
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 that you 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 Illinois to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:
Bond, Calhoun, Christian, DeWitt, Fayette, Jersey, Logan, Macon, Macoupin, Madison, McLean, Monroe, Montgomery, Piatt, Sangamon, Shelby, St. Clair, and Woodford Counties for Public Assistance.
All counties within the State of Illinois are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1676-DR), dated January 15, 2007, and related determinations.
February 9, 2007.
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 Missouri 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 15, 2007:
Barry, Camden, Christian, Crawford, Dade, Dallas, Franklin, Gasconade, Greene, Hickory, Jasper, Laclede, Lawrence, Maries, McDonald, Miller, Newton, Osage, Phelps, Polk, Pulaski, St. Clair, Stone, Webster, and Wright Counties for Public Assistance Categories C-G (already designated for Public Assistance Categories A and B [debris removal and emergency protective measures], including direct Federal assistance.)
Benton, Boone, Cedar, and Texas Counties for Public Assistance.
Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior.
Notice of meeting.
The Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary is announcing a public meeting of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Public Advisory Committee.
March 2, 2007, at 9 a.m.
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Office, 441 West 5th Avenue, Suite 500, Anchorage, Alaska.
Douglas Mutter, Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, 1689 “C” Street, Suite 119, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, (907) 271-5011.
The Public Advisory Committee was created by Paragraph V.A.4 of the Memorandum of Agreement and Consent Decree entered into by the United States of America and the State of Alaska on August 27, 1991, and approved by the United States District Court for the District of Alaska in settlement of
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. 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 IC, which is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2007. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
You must submit comments on or before April 23, 2007.
Send your comments on the IC to Hope Grey, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 222-ARLSQ, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203 (mail);
To request additional information about this IC, contact Hope Grey by mail, fax, or e-mail (see ADDRESSES) or by telephone at (703) 358-2482.
This IC covers permit applications that our Division of Management Authority uses to determine the eligibility of applicants for permits requested in accordance with the criteria in various Federal wildlife conservation laws and international treaties, including:
(1) Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
(2) Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.).
(3) Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.).
(4) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668).
(5) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (27 U.S.T. 1087).
(6) Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361-1407).
(7) Wild Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4901-4916).
Service regulations implementing these statutes and treaties are in Chapter I, Subchapter B of Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These regulations stipulate general and specific requirements that when met allow us to issue permits to authorize activities that are otherwise prohibited.
This revised IC includes:
(1) Modifications to the format and content of the currently approved application forms so that they are easier to understand and complete.
(2) FWS Forms 3-200-61, 3-200-69, and 3-200-70, which are currently approved under OMB control numbers 1018-0130 and 1018-0022.
(3) FWS Form 3-200-76, which is a new form for the export of caviar or meat of paddlefish or sturgeon from the wild. Applicants currently use FWS Form 3-200-27 for this activity. The new form will simplify the reporting requirements and reduce burden on the public.
The following table lists the application forms and burden estimates. We have rounded the annual burden hours for each form to the nearest hour. Those applications with an asterisk (*) have a reporting requirement for the associated permit. Each permit specifies the required report information.
We invite comments concerning this information collection on:
(1) whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this 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.
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 approve this information collection.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. 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 IC, which is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2007. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
You must submit comments on or before April 23, 2007.
Send your comments on the IC to Hope Grey, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 222-ARLSQ, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203 (mail);
To request additional information about this IC, contact Hope Grey by mail, fax, or e-mail (see ADDRESSES) or by telephone at (703) 358-2482.
Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge contains significant natural and recreational resources. We estimate that the area has over 50,000 visits per year, which can result in significant resource and social impacts.
In 2006, we began a research study to gather information to help support application of visitor carrying capacity at the refuge. We conducted a survey of visitors to the refuge to determine relevant indicators of quality for the visitor experience. Indicators of quality are measurable, manageable variables that reflect the essence or meaning of management objectives. OMB approved this collection of information and assigned control number 1018-0132, which expires May 31, 2007.
We plan to ask OMB to renew this information collection to include phase 2 of this study. During phase 2, we propose to survey visitors and nearby landowners to identify standards of quality for relevant indicator variables and determine attitudes toward management actions that we might use to ensure that the standards of quality are maintained. We will conduct two separate surveys. One survey will include a sample of visitors to Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge and the second survey will include private landowners adjacent to the refuge. We will collect the same information in both surveys; however, we will ask adjacent landowners for additional information about their frequency of use of the refuge.
We invite comments concerning this information collection on:
(1) whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this 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.
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 approve this information collection.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection described below. 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 April 23, 2007.
Send your comments on the information collection to Hope Grey, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 222-ARLSQ, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203 (mail);
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Hope Grey by mail, fax, or e-mail (see ADDRESSES) or by telephone at (703) 358-2482.
We have contracted with Management Systems International to perform an independent evaluation of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). Although the NWRS has existed for more than 100 years, it has never undergone an independent evaluation of its overall effectiveness in achieving its conservation mission. We are now seeking such an evaluation to identify program strengths and weaknesses, as well as gaps in performance information. Such evaluations are an important element of the OMB Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) assessments, and this evaluation will satisfy the PART requirements. The evaluation includes two data collection components involving the public:
(1) An online survey of partners (e.g., volunteer groups, local and national conservation organizations, hunting and fishing groups, and other civic organizations).
(2) Individual and small group interviews of State fish and game officials and partners.
The perspective and observations of NWRS partners and State fish and game officials are critical to fully understand the issues and questions that the independent evaluation will explore. During 2007, we plan to interview 40 State fish and wildlife officials and 110 individuals from partner organizations. The small number of individuals interviewed and the nature of the interview process do not allow for generalization of interview findings to
The partners' survey addresses both of these shortcomings. By administering the web-based survey to a random sample of 500 partners, we will be able to identify important patterns (findings) across the population of partners and to develop conclusions to the key questions being examined by the evaluation. We plan to conduct the survey for a 2-week period during the first half of 2007. The partners' survey will collect data in three broad categories:
(1) Basic demographic data at the institutional level, including:
(a) Size of the partner organization.
(b) Length/duration of the partnership with the refuge.
(c) Type of organization (e.g., wildlife conservation, educational, etc.).
(2) Quality and characteristics of the relationship and interaction between partner organizations and the NWRS, including:
(a) Type of activities that the partner group conducts.
(b) Frequency and nature of interaction between the partner group and the refuge.
(c) Quality of the partnership between the partner organization and the refuge.
(3) Partners' perspective regarding the effectiveness and quality of NWRS programs and the progress being made towards the long-term goals of the NWRS.
The survey data will help us identify important patterns and characteristics. However, the survey will not, in most cases, provide the depth of information necessary to explain the observed patterns. Indepth interviews will provide an opportunity to explore in detail the main factors that cause or contribute to the patterns observed from the survey.
We invite comments concerning this information collection on:
(1) whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this 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.
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 approve this information collection.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (Fish and Wildlife Service) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. The ICR, which is summarized below, describes the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
You must submit comments on or before March 26, 2007.
Send your comments and suggestions on this ICR to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-6566 (fax) or
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Hope Grey by mail, fax, or e-mail (see
We have developed a new permit application form specific to permit requests for the export of caviar and/or meat of wild-origin paddlefish and/or U.S. native sturgeon species. In the past, we have used FWS Form 3-200-27 (Export of Wildlife Removed from the Wild) to collect the information necessary for us to evaluate these permit requests. When using that general form, applicants have had considerable difficulty understanding what information is necessary and how to supply it. The new form, FWS Form 3-200-76, clarifies these issues.
One commenter was a State fisheries coordinator who supported the new form. The second commenter stated that the proposed form has more focused information and would assist applicants in preparing applications. The second commenter also had two suggestions:
(1) That we increase the estimated time to complete the application. After considering this comment, we increased the estimated average time to complete an application to 3 hours and revised the estimated annual burden on the public.
(2) That we revise the wording in the application to more accurately reflect how caviar exporters work. Wholesalers and suppliers typically do not provide the fishermen information directly to the applicant because it may be considered proprietary information. Due to the concern, we are not requiring that the intermediary provide the information to the applicant who is responsible for submitting the application. Instead, the supplier may submit it directly to the Service provided that it is clear which application is being referenced. In such cases, if the supplier believes the information is proprietary, the supplier should identify it as proprietary and/or business confidential, as appropriate. The applicant is still responsible for providing a complete application to the Service.
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
(1) whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this 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.
Comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species and marine mammals.
Written data, comments or requests must be received by March 26, 2007.
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281.
Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to import one male bred-in-captivity Malayan tapir (
The applicant requests a permit to export hair from one male Bactrian camel (
The applicant requests a permit to export one male captive bred giant panda (
The applicant requests a permit to export one male captive bred Central American river turtle (
The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one scimitar-horned oryx (
The public is invited to comment on the following application for a permit to
The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear (
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of final determination.
Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(l)(2), notice is hereby given that the Department of the Interior (Department) has determined that the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council, Inc., P.O. Box 1048, Mashpee, Massachusetts, 02649, is an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law. This notice is based on a determination that the petitioner satisfies all seven mandatory criteria set forth in 25 CFR 83.7, and thus meets the requirements for a government-to-government relationship with the United States.
This determination is final and will become effective 90 days from publication of this notice in the
Requests for a copy of the Summary Evaluation of the Criteria should be addressed to the Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Attention: Office of Federal Acknowledgment, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., MS: 34B-SIB, Washington, DC 20240.
R. Lee Fleming, Director, Office of Federal Acknowledgment, (202) 513-7650.
This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the ADS by Secretarial Order 3259, of February 8, 2005, as amended on August 11, 2005, and on March 31, 2006. This notice is based on a determination that the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. (MWT) meets all of the seven mandatory criteria for acknowledgment in 25 CFR 83.7.
The Department considered the Mashpee petition under slightly modified timeframes set by a July 22, 2005, Joint Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Dismissal (Agreement) resolving the case of
A notice of the proposed finding (PF) to acknowledge the petitioner was published in the
During the comment period, the petitioner submitted an updated membership list, supplemental genealogical and governmental materials, and historical documents, in response to requests for information made by the Department in the PF and in an informal technical assistance teleconference with the petitioner. These materials did not change the conclusions of the PF. The Department received several letters of support from the public for the Mashpee group. These letters did not provide substantive comment. The Department also received a letter from a former selectman of the Town of Mashpee pertaining to negotiations between the petitioner and the Town. This letter did not comment substantively on the PF. The only substantive comment by interested or informed parties came from the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General (Massachusetts AG), to which the petitioner submitted a response on October 30, 2006. The Massachusetts AG's comments are discussed under criteria 83.7(b) and 83.7(c) below.
Criterion 83.7(a) requires external identifications of the petitioner as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900. The PF concluded external observers identified the petitioning group as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900. However, it pointed out that the available identifications of the Mashpee in the record for 1900-1923 constituted sufficient but minimal evidence for substantially continuous identification for those years, and encouraged the petitioner to strengthen its evidence for criterion 83.7(a) by submitting additional identifications for that period. In response, the petitioner submitted a new argument concerning a 1907 document. As reevaluated for the FD, this document provides an additional identification of the Mashpee. When combined with the other identifications in the record for the PF for those years, the additional evidence is sufficient to show consistent identifications of the Mashpee from 1900 to 1923. The evidence submitted for both the PF and the FD demonstrates external observers identified the Mashpee as an Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900. Therefore, the petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(a).
Criterion 83.7(b) requires that a predominant portion of the petitioning group comprises a distinct community and has existed as a community from historical times until the present. The PF concluded that the petitioner presented sufficient evidence to satisfy this criterion. During the comment period, in response to the Department's request for information, the petitioner submitted a copy of the 1776 Gideon Hawley census of Mashpee. As part of an analysis of residential patterns of the Mashpee group for the colonial and Revolutionary periods, the PF described this document's details using only descriptions of it from both State reports and secondary sources. For the FD, Department researchers analyzed the newly-submitted 1776 Hawley census
In its comments on the PF dated October 2, 2006, the Massachusetts AG expressed concern that the PF did not adequately consider the evidence contained in the record of the lengthy jury trial in the Mashpee's land claim suit of 1977-1978. The jury concluded that the Mashpee group did not constitute an Indian tribe for purposes of the Indian Nonintercourse Act (25 U.S.C. 177). See
The Department gave the evidence from the trial record a thorough review at the time of the PF. The Department examined all of the transcripts of the testimony (over 7,300 pages) as part of its evaluation of the Mashpee petition before the PF's issuance. Although quality, not quantity, is critical, the Department also based the PF on considerably more evidence, over 10,100 documents totaling about 54,000 pages in the petition record. In contrast, there were only about 274 exhibits before the Court. None of these materials with the exception of the exhibits were available to the court at the time of the trial. In response to the Massachusetts AG's comments, the Department reviewed again the evidence from the trial record, particularly the cited testimony of the defendants' two expert witnesses. This review did not change the findings in the PF.
The PF additionally examined the group's community and politics for the lengthy period since the suit, approximately 30 years, as well as the earlier periods. It also incorporated more in-depth evaluations of the evidence, including detailed marriage and residency analyses, as well as 31 interviews conducted by the Department's anthropologist during an on-site investigation in 2006.
Criterion 83.7(b) requires that a predominant portion of the petitioning group comprises a distinct community and has existed as a community from historical times until the present. The PF addressed the issues dealing with distinct community raised by the defendants' expert witnesses in the trial transcript pages cited by the Massachusetts AG. Generally, the two witnesses argued the Mashpee lacked cultural distinctiveness and economic autonomy from the wider society and therefore were not a tribe. The Federal acknowledgment regulations, however, do not require a petitioner to maintain cultural distinctiveness or economic autonomy to be an Indian community. Instead, the regulations require the petitioner to be a socially distinct group of people within the wider society. In the Mashpee case, the PF described at length their continued community cohesion and social distinction from non-Indian populations since first sustained contact.
In sum, neither the comments of the Massachusetts Attorney General nor the evidence in the trial transcript it referenced changed the PF's conclusions that the Mashpee were a distinct community (criterion 83.7(b)). The Massachusetts AG raised concerns that the Department may not have fully considered the evidence and issues raised in the trial transcript. The PF was thorough in its review of the materials in the trial transcript and a larger body of evidence that the court did not have in the land claim suit. This FD reevaluated the evidence in the trial testimony. In response to the comments submitted by the Massachusetts AG citing the testimony of the two defendants' witnesses, the FD reviewed this testimony and finds that the standards and definitions of a tribe used by these witnesses differ substantially from the requirements in the seven mandatory criteria of the regulations. The FD also finds that the trial testimony did not provide any evidence or arguments not already discussed in the PF, and did not merit a change in the evaluation of the evidence under criterion 83.7(b) in the PF. Therefore this FD affirms the PF's conclusions. The petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(b).
Criterion 83.7(c) requires that the petitioner has maintained political influence or authority over its members as an autonomous entity from historical times until the present. The PF concluded that the petitioner presented sufficient evidence to satisfy this criterion. Neither the petitioner nor any third parties submitted new evidence related to the PF's conclusions regarding criterion 83.7(c). Several of the pages in the trial transcript of the 1977-1978 land claim suit that the Massachusetts AG cited in its comments dealt with issues related to criterion 83.7(c). The defendants' expert witnesses claimed, for instance, that the Mashpee were not a tribe because they lacked political autonomy from the wider society. The acknowledgment regulations only require political autonomy in relation to other Indian groups, defining autonomy as the exercise of political authority independent of any other Indian governing entity (See 25 CFR section 83.1). Participation in the political processes of the wider society, as in the Mashpee's case, is not evidence that a group does not exist as an Indian tribe exercising political influence or authority over its members. These witnesses also tended to ignore or minimize informal forms of leadership based on consensus and persuasion, and alternative forms of governance the Mashpee adopted in response to their unique history, geography, culture, and social organization, in favor of restrictive and limited notions of Indian leadership.
Political influence over the group's members was demonstrated by a long line of Mashpee leaders. Since the colonial period, the Mashpee have had sachems, proprietors, spiritual leaders, informal leaders, district and town officials, and council members who influenced and were influenced by the members on political matters of importance. The PF also showed group members considered the actions of their leaders important and were highly involved in political processes.
In sum, the reevaluation of the evidence in the trial transcript referenced in the comments of the Massachusetts AG did not result in a modification of the PF's conclusions that the Mashpee demonstrated political influence (criterion 83.7(c)). The PF dealt with the issues raised in the trial testimony affecting the evaluation of evidence under criterion 83.7(c) in its review of the materials in the trial transcript and a larger body of evidence that the court did not have in the land claim suit. This FD reevaluated the evidence in the trial testimony. In response to the comments submitted by the Massachusetts AG citing the testimony of the two defendants' witnesses, the FD reviewed this testimony and finds that the standards and definitions of a tribe used by these witnesses differ substantially from the requirements in the seven mandatory
The PF found that the petitioner met the requirements of criterion 83.7(d) by submitting its present governing document: a constitution dated September 28, 2004, which described the group's membership criteria and the current governing procedures. For the FD, the petitioner submitted a membership enrollment ordinance dated September 21, 2006, which clarifies certain sections of the constitution and provides additional evidence concerning the group's membership criteria. The FD affirms the PF's conclusion that the petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(d).
Criterion 83.7(e) requires that the petitioner's membership consist of individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe or from historical Indian tribes that combined and functioned as a single autonomous political entity. The PF found that 88 percent of the petitioning group descended from the historical tribe and met the requirement for criterion 83.7(e). The PF advised the petitioner to submit evidence to document descent for the remaining 12 percent and to update its membership list.
In response, the MWT submitted a properly certified membership list dated September 13, 2006, naming 1,453 members. The petitioner provided evidence acceptable to the Secretary demonstrating that about 97 percent of its members (1,403 of 1,453) descend from the historical Mashpee tribe as defined by the 1861 Earle Report. About 2 percent (41 members) descend from the two Christiantown Wampanoag Indian families, Peters-DeGrasse and Peters-Palmer, who did not document descent from the historical tribe as defined in the Earle Report, but who are defined as qualifying ancestors in the MWT constitution. One of these families settled in Mashpee shortly after 1861 and became part of the group by the early 1900's. Descendants of both families became part of Mashpee community socially and politically by the mid-20th century. Nine remaining members (about 1 percent), do not have complete birth records naming parents, but are expected to be able to provide the proper evidence.
The new evidence for the FD modifies the PF's conclusions by changing the number of members in the MWT from 1,462 to 1,453 and the percentage of members who have documented descent from the historical tribe from about 88 percent to approximately 97 percent. The evaluation of additional documentation submitted strengthens the conclusion that the Mashpee petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(e). This FD concludes that the evidence is sufficient to meet the requirements of criterion 83.7(e).
Criterion 83.7(f) requires that the membership of the petitioning group be composed principally of persons who are not members of any acknowledged North American Indian tribe. A review of the available documentation for the PF and the FD revealed that the membership is composed principally of persons who are not members of any acknowledged North American Indian tribe. Therefore, the petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(f).
Criterion 83.7(g) requires that neither the petitioner nor its members be the subject of congressional legislation that has expressly terminated or forbidden the Federal relationship. A review of the available documentation for the PF and the FD showed no evidence that the petitioning group was the subject of congressional legislation to terminate or prohibit a Federal relationship as an Indian tribe. Therefore, the petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(g).
A report summarizing the evidence, reasoning, and analyses that are the bases for the FD will be provided to the petitioner and interested parties, and is available to other parties upon written request.
After the publication of notice of the FD, the petitioner or any interested party may file a request for reconsideration with the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA) under the procedures set forth in section 83.11 of the regulations. The IBIA must receive this request no later than 90 days after the publication of the FD in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; issuance of permit.
This document provides notice that we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, issued two permits for the incidental take of the Utah prairie dog, a threatened species, on the Cedar Ridge Golf Course and the Paiute Tribal Lands in Iron County, Utah.
Documents and other information submitted with the permit application are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological Services Field Office, Fish and Wildlife Service, 2369 W. Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, Utah 84119.
Elise Boeke, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Utah Field Office (see
On May 15, 2006, we published a notice in the
On January 5, 2007, we issued permits (TE-125039-0, TE-143347-0) to the Applicants subject to certain conditions, which we listed on the permit. We issued the permits only after we determined that—(1) The Applicants applied in good faith, (2) granting the permits will not be to the disadvantage of the Utah prairie dog, and (3) issuing the permits will be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in the Act.
The action is authorized by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Realty Action.
Reversionary interest held by the United States in 3.9 acres of land located in Eagle River, Alaska, has been determined to be suitable for direct sale to the Corporation of Saint Andrew's Parish of the Archdiocese of Anchorage under the authority of Section 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2750, 43 U.S.C. 1713) at not less than fair market value of $850,000.
Comments must be received by 45 days from the date of publication of this Notice in the
Robert Lloyd, BLM Anchorage Field Office, 6881 Abbott Loop Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99507, (907) 267-1246.
The lands, located in Eagle River, Alaska, are described as:
The lands are currently owned by the Corporation of Saint Andrew's Parish of the Archdiocese of Anchorage and continue to be operated as Saint Andrew's Catholic Church. The patent for the lands is restricted by a reversionary clause. The lands are isolated, difficult and uneconomic for BLM to manage as part of the public lands and not needed for Federal purposes. The sale is consistent with BLM's land use planning for the area. The sale will further the original intent of the patent by facilitating the landowners' long-term growth and development goals.
Title to these lands was transferred to the Corporation of the Catholic Bishop of Juneau on October 6, 1960 (Pat. 1213492), using the Act of Congress of June 14, 1926 (44 Stat. 741: 43 U.S.C. 869), as amended by the Recreation and Public Purpose Act of June 4, 1954 (68 Stat. 173), and September 21, 1959 (73 Stat. 751), (the Act) as the authority for the transfer. The patent is subject to a reversionary clause as required by the Act. The subject lands, lots 7 and 11, comprise two of the 13 lots owned by the church in this location. Lots 7 and 11 are the only lots that contain a reversionary clause. The church has fee title to the remaining properties that surround lots 7 and 11. The patent, when issued, will be for the reversionary interest only. All other terms and conditions of Patent No. 1213492 will continue to apply.
For a period of 45 days from the date of publication of this Notice, interested parties may submit comments regarding the proposed direct sale of the reversionary interest to the BLM Anchorage Field Office Manager at the address above. Adverse comments will be evaluated and could result in the modification or vacation of this decision. The reversionary interest will not be offered for conveyance until at least 60 days after the date of this Notice.
Any written comments received during this process, as well as the commenter's name and address, will be available to the public in the administrative record and/or pursuant to Freedom of Information Act requests. You may indicate for the record that you do not wish to have your name and/or address made available to the public. Any determination by the BLM to release or withhold the names and/or addresses of those who comment will be made on a case-by-case basis. A request from a commenter to have name or address withheld from public release will be honored to the extent permissible by law.
Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), the United States hereby publishes the public comments received on the proposed Final Judgment in
Copies of any of these materials may be obtained upon request and payment of a copying fee.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (“APPA” or “Tunney Act”), 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), the United States hereby files comments received from members of the public concerning the proposed Final Judgment in this civil antitrust suit and the responses by the United States to these comments. The United States and Commonwealth of Kentucky will move the Court for entry of the proposed Final Judgment after the public comments and this Response have been published in the
The United States and Commonwealth of Kentucky (the “government”) filed a civil antitrust Complaint under Section 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 25, on April 24, 2003, alleging that the acquisition by Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. (“DFA”) of its interest in Southern Belle Dairy Co., LLC (“Southern Belle”) violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. An Amended Complaint was filed on May 6, 2004.
The Amended Complaint alleged that the acquisition will likely substantially
On October 2, 2006, the government filed a proposed Final Judgment that requires DFA to divest its interest in Southern Belle and use its best efforts to require its partner, the Allen Family Limited Partnership (“AFLP”), to divest its interest in Southern Belle. DFA proposed divesting its interest and AFLP's interest in Southern Belle to Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc. (“Prairie Farms”), and the government approved Prairie Farms as a suitable buyer of DFA's and AFLP's interests in Southern Belle.
The government and DFA have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the Tunney Act. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment would terminate this action, except that the Court would retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, or enforce the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment and to punish violations thereof.
Upon the publication of the public comments and this Response, the United States will have fully complied with the Tunney Act and will move for entry of the proposed Final Judgment as being “in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e), as amended. In making the “public interest” determination, the Court should apply a deferential standard and should withhold its approval only under very limited conditions.
Before entering the proposed Final Judgment, the Court is to determine whether the Judgment “is in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e). The Tunney Act states that, in making that determination, the Court may consider:
(A) The competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public interest; and
(B) The impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.
The United States described the courts' application of the Tunney Act public interest standard in the Competitive Impact Statement filed with the Court on October 2, 2006.
During the sixty-day comment period, the United States received four comments from dairy farmers in Kentucky, one comment from a former Southern Belle employee, one comment on behalf of a cooperative of dairy farmers in Kentucky, and one anonymous comment. These comments are attached in the accompanying Appendix. After reviewing the comments, the United States continues to believe that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest.
Southeast Graded Milk Producers Association (“SEGMPA”), a cooperative of dairy farmers in Kentucky, submitted a comment which both thanked the government for challenging DFA's acquisition of its interest in Southern Belle, and expressed concerns about DFA's raw milk procurement practices. SEGMPA has been a long-time supplier of raw milk to Southern Belle. When SEGMPA tried to re-negotiate its supply contract with Southern Belle in 2006, Southern Belle decided not to renew the contract. SEGMPA then negotiated an agreement to supply raw milk to the Flav-O-Rich dairy in London, Kentucky. Flav-O-Rich is owned by National Dairy Holdings (“NDH”), which itself is 50%-owned by DFA. Shortly after the contract negotiations with Flav-O-Rich concluded, Flav-O-Rich told SEGMPA that it could not go through with the supply contract, since DFA is the raw milk supplier to NDH's dairies, including Flav-O-Rich. According to SEGMPA, this left it with no outlet for its members' raw milk other than Southern Belle. SEGMPA went back to Southern Belle, and although it was able to negotiate a new raw milk supply contract, it was on much less favorable terms than it had previously negotiated. SEGMPA is concerned that in the future it will not be allowed to compete with DFA for raw milk supply contracts at Southern Belle, and urges that the government ensure that there is competition for raw milk as well as for school milk.
SEGMPA acknowledges in its comment that these raw milk concerns are different from the harm to competition for school milk alleged in the Amended Complaint and addressed by the proposed Final Judgment. While the government brought this case to protect competition in the market for the sale of milk served by schools in Kentucky and Tennessee, SEGMPA's concerns are about a different market,
A former Southern Belle employee, Carl Phelps, submitted a comment expressing concerns about the effect of the divestiture on the market for raw milk in Kentucky. As a Southern Belle employee, Mr. Phelps was the plant's contact with the dairy farmers that supplied Southern Belle with raw milk and the haulers that transported the milk from the farms to the Southern Belle plant in Somerset, Kentucky. When SEGMPA negotiated a milk
Mr. Phelps's first concern is that, in the future, Prairie Farms will not contract with SEGMPA for Southern Belle's raw milk, but instead choose to supply the plant with raw milk from its own members or DFA. This would effectively leave SEGMPA no customers for its members' raw milk, forcing SEGMPA to fold and its members to either join DFA or Prairie Farms. Mr. Phelps is concerned about these alternatives because he understands that SEGMPA's members have approached Prairie Fanns about joining that co-op, but have been turned down. If SEGMPA were to shut down, Mr. Phelps contends that DFA would be the only outlet for SEGMPA's farmer members and would be able to reduce prices paid to farmers because it would have no competition.
This concern about competition in the market for raw milk is not related to competition in the markets for school milk at issue in this case. Mr. Phelps, like SEGMPA and other commentors expressing concerns about competition in the market for the sale of raw milk, does not argue that the proposed Final Judgment is not “within the reaches of public interest.” Nor do they contest that because of their concerns about the market for raw milk, the divestitures required by the proposed Final Judgment will not remedy the competitive harm alleged in the Amended Complaint. Rather, Mr. Phelps and these other commentators raise competitive issues in markets separate and distinct from those relevant to this matter.
Mr. Phelps's second concern is that, despite the divestiture of Southern Belle to Prairie Farms, DFA still may be able to influence Southern Belle's behavior in the school milk markets at issue because DFA and Prairie Farms are joint venture partners in the Roberts Dairy, Hiland Dairy, and Turner Dairy. He suggests that a third party monitor Prairie Farms to ensure that its operation of Southern Belle is totally independent of DFA, and that Southern Belle will compete with dairies partially owned by DFA, such as Flav-O-Rich.
Mr. Phelps's concern that joint ventures between Prairie Farms and DFA will affect Prairie Farms' operation of Southern Belle was considered by the government when evaluating Prairie Farms as a potential purchaser of Southern Belle. The government believes that the joint ventures will not undermine the proposed relief for several reasons.
First, these joint ventures involve dairies located in completely different geographic markets than those in which Southern Belle competes for school milk contracts. The Roberts and Hiland dairies, both 50%-owned by Prairie Farms and DFA, are located in Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. In addition, Prairie Farms recently acquired a partial ownership interest in the Turner dairy, which has plants in Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee, and is 20%-owned by DFA. Turner's Kentucky plant is in Fulton, on the far western edge of the state, and does not compete against Southern Belle for school milk contracts.
Second, because these joint ventures involve different markets, Prairie Farms will not have the same incentive to lessen competition between Southern Belle and Flav-O-Rich (or any other DFA-affiliated dairy) that led to the filing of this case. The government challenged DFA's acquisition of a 50% ownership interest in Southern Belle because DFA's partial ownership of both Southern Belle and Flav-O-Rich created a substantial incentive to reduce competition between those two dairies. The acquisition of Southern Belle by Prairie Farms has eliminated that common ownership between those two dairies. In the future, Prairie Farms will have a strong incentive to compete to obtain school milk contracts for its Southern Belle dairy at the expense of Flav-O-Rich. The dairies jointly owned by Prairie Farms and DFA do not compete for school milk contracts with Southern Belle, so Prairie Farms will not be able to reduce competition for school milk between Southern Belle and any of those dairies.
Third, the government evaluated and approved Prairie Farms as a buyer of Southern Belle because it has a demonstrated ability to operate dairy processors and compete for school milk contracts independent of any influence or control by DFA. Prairie Farms, as an agricultural cooperative of dairy farmers, has an economic incentive to supply its processing plants with raw milk from its members, so it is not dependent on DFA for its raw milk supply to its wholly owned processing plants. Its dairies compete for school milk contracts, and there is no evidence that it competes less effectively in geographic markets where it competes against processing plants partially owned by DFA.
Finally, the proposed Final Judgment protects against DFA's ability to exert control over Southern Belle. Section XI of the proposed Final Judgment prohibits DFA from reacquiring, directly or indirectly, any ownership interest in Southern Belle. As a result, if Prairie Farms transferred the assets of Southern Belle to one of its joint ventures with DFA, DFA would be in violation of the proposed Final Judgment. The government reviewed the terms of the proposed sale to Prairie Farms, and is confident that DFA will not retain any control over Southern Belle. If the government learned of any agreement prohibited by the proposed Final Judgment, pursuant to Section X it could inspect DFA's records and request reports from DFA regarding its compliance. Similarly, this Court retains jurisdiction under Section XII of the proposed Final Judgment to enforce the proposed Final Judgment and punish any violations. For these reasons, the government believes that Mr. Phelps's suggested modification to the proposed Final Judgment is not warranted.
William R. Sewell and Bill Guffey, two dairy farmers from Kentucky, submitted comments raising the concern that the competition for raw milk in Kentucky could be lessened if SEGMPA is not able to supply Southern Belle with raw milk. As is the case with Carl Phelps's concerns about the market for raw milk, the concern expressed by Messrs. Sewell and Guffey does not address a violation alleged in the Amended Complaint, nor does their concern question whether the proposed Final Judgment remedies the harm alleged in the Amended Complaint.
Bradley J. Marcum, a dairy farmer from Alpha, Kentucky, submitted a comment expressing concerns about the raw milk purchasing practices for Southern Belle after its divestiture to Prairie Farms. He notes that Prairie Farms has retained many of Southern Belle's key employees, and suggests that, therefore, DFA still influences Southern Belle's decisions.
To the extent that Mr. Marcum's comment suggests that the adequacy of the divestiture of Southern Belle to Prairie Farms as a remedy to the Amended Complaint's allegations is undermined by Prairie Farms' retention of Southern Belle's employees, the government disagrees. Permitting Southern Belle's new owner to retain the plant's existing employees allows it
Ronald Patton, a dairy farmer and past-president of SEGMPA, submitted a comment expressing concerns that other parties were not allowed to purchase DFA's interest in Southern Belle, including a local group of potential investors who wished to operate the Southern Belle plant independent of DFA or any other processing company. Mr. Patton is concerned that Prairie Farms' purchase from DFA of Southern Belle and its 2006 purchase from DFA of Turner Dairies indicates that other parties were foreclosed from bidding on Southern Belle.
As described in Section IV of the proposed Final Judgment, DFA was required to inform “any potentially qualified purchaser making inquiry regarding a possible purchase of the [Southern Belle dairy] that such assets are being offered for sale,” and provide information about Southern Belle to all potential purchasers. The government, pursuant to Section IX.B-E of the proposed Final Judgment, received periodic updates on the inquiries DFA received from parties interested in purchasing Southern Belle, and the status of DFA's negotiations with those interested parties. Based on these updates, the government is aware that DFA received multiple offers to buy Southern Belle.
The proposed Final Judgment does not require DFA to accept a particular offer, only that any acquirer of Southern Belle meet the conditions set out in Section IV.H(1)-(2). These provisions require Southern Belle to be sold to a purchaser who “has the intent and capability (including the necessary managerial, operational, technical and financial capability) of competing effectively in school and fluid milk markets in Kentucky and Tennessee, * * * [and] that none of the terms of any agreement between [the purchaser] and DFA give DFA the ability to act unreasonably to raise the [purchaser's] costs, to lower the [purchaser's] efficiency, or otherwise to interfere with the ability of the [purchaser] to compete effectively.” The government reviewed information from both DFA and Prairie Farms regarding the purchase of Southern Belle and the presence of Prairie Farms in school milk markets in Kentucky and Tennessee. As noted earlier, Prairie Farms owns and operates multiple dairy processing plants elsewhere in the country, and has the knowledge and expertise to operate the Southern Belle Dairy efficiently, including the dairy's school milk business. It also has the capacity to supply its dairies with raw milk independent of DFA, whether through its own members or through other suppliers such as SEGMPA. The purchase agreement between Prairie Farms and DFA has no terms or conditions that would adversely affect the costs, efficiencies, or ability of Southern Belle to compete effectively for school and fluid milk sales. Based on this information, the government approved Prairie Farms as a buyer of Southern Belle because it met the requirements of Section IV.H(1)-(2) of the proposed Final Judgment.
The United States received an anonymous comment expressing the opinion that DFA agreed to sell Southern Belle to Prairie Farms because the sale would somehow allow DFA to eliminate SEGMPA as a competitor for raw milk contracts, and that Prairie Farms would refund the purchase price of the Southern Belle dairy back to DFA through some type of rebate mechanism. This commentor provides a lengthy history of Southern Belle, and suggests that DFA divested Southern Belle to Prairie Farms because it negotiated a side deal with Prairie Farms to have the new owner take steps to force SEGMPA out of business. The commentor, however, did not provide any evidence of such an agreement.
This comment's concerns about the market for raw milk, like other comments discussed earlier, are not germane to the evaluation of the conduct alleged in the Amended Complaint and addressed by the proposed Final Judgment. The government has no evidence of a side agreement between Prairie Farms and DFA relating to the sale of Southern Belle. If there were credible evidence of such an agreement, the government could investigate any potential violations of the proposed Final Judgment pursuant to its inspection rights in Section X of the proposed Final Judgment, and if it believed any provisions of the proposed Final Judgment were violated, Section XII of the proposed Final Judgment allows this Court to fashion an appropriate remedy.
After careful consideration of the public comments, the United States concludes that entry of the proposed Final Judgment will provide an effective and appropriate remedy for the antitrust violations alleged in the Amended Complaint and is therefore in the public interest. Accordingly, after publication of this Response in the
This certifies that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing to be served on February 7, 2007, via electronic mail and first-class mail on the following:
P. O. Box 25, Somerset, Kentucky 42502
Phone (606) 679-3504, Fax (606) 678-4696
January 9, 2007
The Association wishes to express its thanks and appreciation to the Antitrust Division for its pursuit of the foregoing matter. Without that, this small association of milk producers would have been swallowed up by Dairy Farmers of America.
As I am sure you are aware, there is much more to be done to reign in the antitrust activities of Dairy Farmers of America, and we hope you will pursue that just as you did the above-styled action. About a year ago, when DFA owned 50% of the National Dairy Holdings plant in London, Kentucky, and 50% of Southern Belle Dairy in Somerset, Kentucky, we were able to work out a contract to supply milk to the NDH plant at London, Kentucky, whereby our producers received twenty (.20¢) cents per hundredweight more for their milk. DFA killed the contract. We then had no choice except Southern Belle Dairy and since there was no competition for our milk our producers lost the twenty (.20¢) cents per hundredweight. Since DFA still owns 50% of the London plant, we still have no competition for our milk.
In other words, the foregoing lawsuit provides for competition for school milk, but does not address the problem of competition in the procurement of raw milk. That competition is stifled by the exclusive contracts that DFA has to supply milk to numerous plants. It is just such a contract that shut our association out of the NDA plant at London, Kentucky, which reduced our choice of plants to one. Each independent producer or association needs at least two (2) totally independent plants to which he could market his milk. Only then can the antitrust activities be controlled.
Thanks again for what was done. Keep up the good work.
I want to thank the DOJ's Antitrust Division for the interest you have shown regarding the ownership of Southern Belle Dairy. This is a step in the right direction but there is still more to do to ensure that the Southeastern Graded Milk Producers survive. I think a third party should be involved to make certain that Prairie Farms will not have contact with DFA because they do have joint ventures with them.
I spent 30 years working at Southern Belle as a fieldman. I came to know and care deeply for the producers and always tried to make sure whatever I did was in their best interest. When Southern Belle was being run by the Shearer family, I didn't have a problem with this goal. When Southern Belle was purchased by DFA and Bob Allen, it seemed the best interest of the producers was of little concern. To my disappointment, I was told that I was not to get any more producers. I believe this was because they didn't want Southeastern to survive. I believe they wanted to control all of the raw milk supply and to force Southeastern producers to become DFA. When it came time to renew their contract with Southeastern, the producer board was told that they had a problem renewing their contract as it was. I feel that what it all boiled down to was they didn't really want to renew their contract which would have meant they had no where to sell their milk to and so would have been forced to become DFA members. Southeastern tried to find another place to market their milk. Southeastern negotiated with Charles Hyatt at Flav-O-Rich Dairy in London, Kentucky about supplying milk to that plant. An agreement was made with National Dairy Holdings which owns Flav-O-Rich to buy Southeastern's milk.
Then, I was hired by Charles Hyatt as a fieldman for Flav-O-Rich Dairy to continue taking on producers for Southeastern and was told that I could take on all I could find to supply milk for the plant in London and a plant in Madisonville, Kentucky. I resigned from Southern Belle Dairy and was happy to do so, thinking the producers had a good deal and would be taken care of. Guess what? Flav-O-Rich Dairy is 50 percent owned by DFA. About a week after being hired, I was told the deal was off, that DFA wasn't going to furnish raw milk to the rest of their National Dairy Holdings plants if they let the Flav-O-Rich plant have Southeastern as their own raw milk supply. DFA got their way again. The producers wound up having to sign a contract that many were not happy with in order to have a place to sell their milk.
After learning that Southern Belle had been purchased by Prairie Farms, I had high hopes for the producers and the milk haulers, as many have kept in contact with me. Producers and milk haulers have called me to tell me of their fear about their future with Southern Belle. Some employees were told their jobs would be moved to Illinois; this made them very nervous about losing their jobs. Some employees were even told not to associate with certain people such as myself, making them feel this could put their job in danger.
The management at Southern Belle has known for a long time that I know the truth about their connection with DFA. Management seems to be troubled that I would try to help the producers. Since taking over Southern Belle on 10/01/06, producers and milk haulers have contacted Gary Lee, Vice President of Prairie Farms, about becoming Prairie Farms producers and they were turned down. Haulers also have talked to Gary Lee about taking on new members. Producers and haulers have been puzzled that they were not contacted about their future with the new owners, making them feel that they are of little concern.
I wonder if there might have been a deal made under the table between DFA and Prairie Farms when Southern Belle was sold to them. Perhaps, Southern Belle was a gift to Prairie Farms. Raw milk credits could be part of the deal. If this deal is approved by the DOJ, I think DFA will have it made and the SEGMPA will be put in a situation that will eventually destroy them. After all, if they were gone, DFA would be the sole supplier to the Southern Belle plant owned by Prairie Farms with joint ventures with DFA and the Flav-O-Rich plant in London, Kentucky (50 percent owned by DFA and 50 percent by National Dairy Holdings). I think DFA would probably give up something now and if the DOJ approves this, it won't be long before another plan of action will start against the Southeastern Graded Milk Producer Association. Also, with Prairie Farms owning Southern Belle and having joint ventures with DFA, if the Federal Order System is voted out or changed in any way, SEGMPA producers would be better off selling their milk to Southern Belle with an owner who is not connected to DFA because there will be no competition and DFA can potentially pay producers whatever they want to.
I hope that you will really think about what your decision will mean to the people who make up the Southeastern Graded Milk Producers Association. In my opinion, the only right way to resolve this is to make sure that whoever ends up with Southern Belle has no connection to DFA.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
I would like to express my concern about the future operation and working relationship between Southern Belle Dairy and the Southeastern Graded Milk Producers Association.
I am in the third generation of my family as a producer of this operation. I have been told about things that have happened and directions that have been given that has caused me to ask the proper individuals to reinvestigate the situation.
The future welfare of my family depends much on this ongoing operation.
I am writing the letter to express my thanks for initiating the Civil Action Suite against Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. by the Antitrust Division.
However, the speedy sale of DFA's percent of interest in Southern Belle Dairy to Prairie Farms has raised concerns that this may only a deploy to lessen the investigation by the Antitrust Division. I would hope that this would not be the case and the Antitrust Division would continue to investigate DFA.
Being a Dairy farmer and a former Board of Education member and chairman, I understand the real need for competition for raw milk and the need for competition on bids for school milk also. With the continuing investigation by the Antitrust division this is assured to happen.
Thanks for reading this and your work on this matter.
I personally would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to the Antitrust Division for its incomparable pursuit of the abovementioned matter. The Antitrust Division has been an asset to dairy owners, such as me.
Although the action of the Antitrust Division was beneficial in alleviating symptomatic problems that were occurring, the predominant problem remains. Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. still have an affluent influence upon decision making concerning the new plant of Prairie Farms, formally known as Southern Belle Dairy. Recently, it has been rumored that Prairie Farms have been manipulating individual producer pay price on raw milk. Some producers are receiving more than the contract allocated amount for raw milk; while others only receive a percentage of what the other producers are paid.
To the naked eye, it is difficult to understand why Prairie Farms would allow such a discrepancy between individual producers, yet when you begin to look closer, the picture becomes clear. Although the Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. were ordered to recede from the area and Southern Belle Dairy, many associates and “key” employees remain the same. To put it frankly, names on uniforms have changed to Prairie Farms, yet policies and business remain the same.
Thanks again for what was done. Keep up the good work.
I wish to express my gratitude to the Antitrust Division for their efforts in pursuing the above mentioned matter. Even though the sale of Southern Belle Dairy to Prairie Farms may appear to resolve the competition for school milk bids, several issues remain.
My concern is that Dairy Farmers of America and Prairie Farms have made two transactions within the past year, The DFA sales of Turner Dairies and Southern Belle. Turner Dairies also has a milk processing plant in Kentucky. DFA's hasty sale of Southern Belle to Prairie Farms raises concerns that other interested parties were not allowed to make an offer for this plant. I am knowledgeable of at least one offer that was not acted upon by DFA. The offer was from a local group of business officials who desired to see the plant operate independently of DFA and its associated partners. The independent group would have assured competition for bids for school milk and retail sales, as well as ensuring a market through which local farmers could sell raw milk rather than to the mega-coops.
It is imperative that the Antitrust Division investigate to ensure that the process under which Southern Belle Dairy was sold was fair and did not exclude other potential offers. It is my belief that the Antitrust Division has been lax regarding issues of the dairy industry, especially in area of raw milk procurement, which ultimately affects the price of school milk!
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to discussing this matter further with you.
Please consider this information before giving final approval to the Prairie Farms purchase of Southern Belle Dairy.
It seems to me that Dairy Farmer of America (DFA) and Robert Allen (Good Ole Bob) chose to sell to the entity that would serve their best interest * * * NOT the best interest of the public. I base this conclusion on the fact that at least one group that was interested was not even given the opportunity to submit a bid or make a proposal. Another interesting thing is I believe Prairie Farms would know exactly how that felt because I believe the very same thing happened to them when Suzia was forced to spin Southern Belle off in order to purchase Broughton Foods. Is it possible that Prairie Farms wasn't willing to play the DFA games at that time but for some reason they are willing to play those games now? The
You will see in the following history how DFA had played a role in going to great and expensive lengths to see that Prairie Farms did not take ownership of Southern Belle. I never could understand this because DFA and Prairie Farms had some joint ventures that Prairie Farms managed. It is my belief, and I think it could be backed up with financial information from the two organizations, that DFA should have been very happy with those joint ventures with Prairie Farms. I heard in the past that there were years that had it not been for those joint ventures with Prairie Farms, DFA would have seen red ink instead of black ink on their financials. The following history will show how DFA went to great lengths to keep Prairie Farms from owning Southern Belle yet now they seem to have pushed Southern Belle to Prairie Farms. Why? Maybe because Leonard Southwell and Roger Capps (two long-time leaders of Prairie Farms) both passed away within the last six months. Maybe they knew better than to play the DFA games. I hope you find the following history helpful and not too boring.
1951-1997: Family owned company, that family being the Ralph Shearer family. Very early on, Mr. Shearer recognized that the relationship between SEGMPA was vital to the company for two reasons.
1.) From the get go, he felt a good, close relationship with these farmers and working together with them the dairy could have a raw supply with superior quality that would give Southern Belle an edge over its competition.
2.) Then in the 60's, when the larger Co-ops became prevalent, he felt the relationship with SEGMPA became even more vital to the company. He felt these larger Co-ops would get into the processing side of the business, which they did. This along with all of the hidden charges the larger Co-ops had meant that SEGMPA would be able to supply the company at a fair price to the producers but also at a price where Southern Belle could remain competitive in the market place.
1997: Because it became more and more difficult to survive as a stand alone dairy with Dean Foods and Suzia (a relatively young company but they were giving Dean Foods a run for their money to be the largest fluid milk processor in the country), both were buying every dairy they could get their hands on. Martin Shearer had replaced his father, Ralph, as president of Southern Belle back in the 80's and Ralph Shearer passed away in the early to mid 90's. It was at this time Martin felt the best thing for the company was to join other dairies in some type of merger or sell to someone who had other plants before Dean and Suzia owned every dairy in the country. This led to the Shearer family selling the dairy to Broughton Foods in Marietta, Ohio. Broughton had a plant in Marietta and a plant in Charleston, West Virginia and would later buy a milk plant in Port Huron, Michigan and an ice cream plant in Burton, Michigan. Broughton was owned by a group of investors headed up by Marshall Reynolds of Huntington, West Virginia. Mr. Reynolds' right hand man at that time was Kirby Taylor. Kirby was also a stockholder in Broughton Foods. Martin Shearer remained as president of the Southern Belle division of Broughton Foods. Martin, following in his father's footsteps, continued the relationship with SEGMPA. He believed that relationship was good for both parties.
1998: It became known in early April that Dean and Suzia were both interested in acquiring Broughton Foods. The winner of that bidding war was Suzia. The rest of 1998 was spent by Suzia and Broughton getting DOJ approval
1999: Finally, in the spring approval to the deal was given but with one stipulation * * * that was Suzia was given six months plus a possible one month extension, it was warranted, to spin Southern Belle off. At that time the DOJ feared there would be no competition for the school milk business in parts of Kentucky and Tennessee because Suzia already owned Flav-O-Rich, a dairy located in London, Kentucky, thirty miles from the Southern Belle plant. Tracy Noll, with Suzia, who had played a role in the purchase of Broughton Foods, now was playing a role in spinning Southern Belle off. It was my understanding that Prairie Farms was interested in purchasing Southern Belle but was not given an opportunity to make a proposal. I wonder why. DFA, an investor in Suzia at the time and partner in joint ventures with Prairie Farms * * * STRANGE * * * No, I believe Suzia and DFA knew Prairie Farms would do what was best for Prairie Farms and the farmers who owned them (something DFA certainly doesn't understand) without any consideration of what was best for DFA or Suzia. The spin off was completed just as time was running out. If time had run out, DOJ had a trustee standing by to complete the spin off. Maybe it would have been best had they missed the deadline. Nevertheless, Southern Belle was purchased by a group of investors, several of which were former Broughton Foods stockholders. The group was headed up by Marshall Reynolds. Tracy Noll, for Suzia, and Kirby Taylor, for the investor group, played a significant role in the spin off. The price tag was $6,500,000., a very good deal for the investors. Martin Shearer remained on as President of the company and there were virtually no changes.
2001: Marshall Reynolds decided it might be the right time to sell the company. Leonard Southwell and Roger Capps (two long-time leaders of Prairie Farms) visited the Southern Belle plant in Somerset, Kentucky and quickly made a $13,000,000. offer for the company. This seemed to be a fair price for Prairie Farms and a very nice return for the investors. Double your money in two years * * * not bad. So it looked like Prairie Farmers would own Southern Belle. Not so fast * * * Enter Tracy Noll, no longer with Suzia, now an owner in the newly born company called National Dairy Holdings (NDH) * * * yep, the same Tracy Noll that negotiated the sale of Broughton Foods to Suzia for $80 plus million, then negotiated the spin off of Southern Belle for $6,500,000., now back on the scene and upped the offer for Southern Belle to $19,000,000. I'll bet that pissed Prairie Farmers off. You see by this time Suzia had bought Dean the number (1) and number (2) in size as far as fluid milk processors in the country. As part of the Dean-Suzia deal, DFA had to sell their stock in Suzia * * * not to worry * * * they could re-invest now and own 50 percent of the newly formed NDH, who just happened to be the recipient of the dairies the new Dean had to spin off to gain DOJ approval. How nice this was for DFA; they now had 100 percent supply agreements with many of the new Dean company dairies and were 50 percent owners in the newly formed NDH and held 100 percent supply agreements with most of the NDA plants. Sounds like a plan is coming together. By the way, if you're ever in a position to sell or buy a dairy, get Kirby Taylor, not Tracy Noll.
1.) Kirby negotiates to sell Broughton Foods to Suzia, represented by Tracy Noll for $80 plus million. Southern Belle went with the deal.
2.) Tracy Noll negotiates for Suzia to spin Southern Belle off to Kirby Taylor representing an investor group. The price: $6,500,000.
3.) Kirby Taylor negotiates for the investor group and sells Southern Belle to none other than Trace Noll, now representing NDH for $19,000,000.
I will have to commend Tracy Noll for having guts and a big set of you know what. Because you see * * * DOJ had required Suzia/Tracy Noll to spin off Southern Belle because they did not want the same company to own both Flav-O-Rich and Southern Belle. Guess what?? Flav-O-Rich was one of those plants spun off by the new Dean to NDH and part owner Tracy Noll and now he is about to buy Southern Belle. He must have figured because it was under the $50,000,000 threshold, DOJ couldn't stop it. Tracy Noll must have got nervous because on Friday before the Southern Belle Board was to meet to recommend the sale of NDH to stockholders, Kirby Taylor said, “The deal to NDH has been handed off to DFA.” If I were Prairie Farms, I would really be mad now. DFA, a partner to Prairie Farms, buys Southern Belle right out from under them. You now see what lengths DFA will go to keep Prairie Farms from having Southern Belle. On Tuesday before the Southern Belle Board meeting, enter Jerry Boss, representing DFA and Bob Allen. The next day Southern Belle voted to recommend the sale of the company to DFA. To no one's surprise, Bob Allen is going to be the managing partner for DFA. He invested $1,000,000. of his money to become a 50 percent owner in a $19,000,000. company. Good ole Bob, a perfect partner in the words of Gary Hanman (the head man of DFA). Good ole Bob must have seen $ signs, why not after walking away with $17,000,000. in a very short period of time in a deal very similar to this one and also with DFA that involved Tuscan
After the deal was complete and DFA and good ole Bob took over Southern Belle, good ole Bob almost immediately began laying the groundwork to give the SEGMPA two wonderful options:
1.) Become a DFA producer or
2.) Go fly a kite.
It was also apparent soon after Bob took over that he needed someone to be his yes man because Martin Shearer just did not fit the bill. The yes man suddenly appeared * * * why, it's Mike Chandler right out of the sales department. Mike is the kind of guy that gives all salespeople a bad name. People say he would climb a tree to tell a lie. However, he was lacking when it came to speech because he couldn't say shit with a mouthful. Now this is where DOJ gets a well deserved Pat On The Back. Much to the surprise of DFA and good ole Bob, DOJ filed a lawsuit asking DFA to divest itself of its ownership in Southern Belle. Good ole Bob had to put the brakes on his plan. After all, it wouldn't look good if he sent Martin Shearer home and kicked the producers right between the legs, at least not right now. DFA and good ole Bob put up a good fight and finally finagled a judge into giving them a Summary Judgment. Good ole Bob must have known he was going to get it, as he sent Martin Shearer home before the Summary Judgment was made public and he put his yes man in place. When the Summary Judgment in favor of DFA and good ole Bob was made public, celebrations broke out to honor the victory over DOJ. After all, who is the DOJ that would question DFA and the perfect partner, good ole Bob.
Here is another well-deserved Pat-On The Back for DOJ. You didn't quit. DOJ filed an appeal. The judge who was tricked by DFA and good ole Bob had his decision overturned. This really made DFA and good ole Bob mad. But what could they do? * * * Give up and agree to sell it and quickly find someone to move it to that would finish the job for them. Why after going to great and expensive lengths to keep Prairie Farms from owning Southern Belle do they quickly sell it to them without even giving one group a chance to make a proposal? I know opinions are like assholes; every body has one. Here's my opinion—Whatever Prairie Farms might have given will be returned to them in some way, probably in credits toward raw milk purchases, making the price tag this time around $00. plus keep lying Mike Chandler in charge to oversee DFA's best interests of seeing SEGMPA die a slow but sure death. At last, mission accomplished for DFA.
Please do whatever it takes to see Southern Belle end up in the hands of someone who has (zero) connection to DFA. Thanks for listening.
P.S. Something else you may need to take a look at. Remember the children and families and taxpayers you were trying to protect when you made the new Dean spin off those plants.
1.) The one in northern Alabama that needed to give Dean competition; you may not know but it's gone. Dean has North Alabama schools all to themselves now. Poor children.
2.) The one in Virginia that was supposed to give Dean competition in parts of Virginia; you may not know but it's gone. Poor children.
3.) The one in Indiana that was supposed to give Dean competition; you may not know it but it's gone. Poor children.
You might ought to watch the rest that were spun off because some of them may soon disappear as well.
Thanks again for listening.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(i), the Attorney General shall, prior to issuing a registration under this Section to a bulk manufacturer of a controlled substance in schedule I or II and prior to issuing a regulation under 21 U.S.C. § 952(a)(2)(B) authorizing the importation of such a substance, provide manufacturers holding registrations for the bulk manufacture of the substance an opportunity for a hearing.
Therefore, in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on November 27, 2005, Cambrex Charles City, Inc., 1205 11th Street, Charles City, Iowa 50616, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of Phenylacetone (8501), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to import Phenylacetone for use as a precursor in the manufacture of amphetamines only.
Any bulk manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic class of controlled substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
Any such written comments or objections being sent via regular mail should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537,
This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with and independent of the procedures described in 21 CFR § 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the
By Notice dated November 21, 2006 and published in the
The company plans to import the basic class of controlled substance for production of controlled substances for distribution to its customers.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. § 823(a) and § 952(a) and determined that the registration of JFC Technologies LLC to import the basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated JFC Technologies LLC to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical
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 from RegInfo.gov at
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-7316/Fax: 202-395-6974 (these are not toll-free numbers), 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.
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection requests (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 each ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained from RegInfo.gov at
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-7316 / Fax: 202-395-6974 (these are not toll-free numbers), 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 of availability of funds and solicitation for grant applications for Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development (WIRED) Initiative—Third Generation.
Funding Opportunity Number: SGA/DFA PY 06-09
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 17.268
The closing date for receipt of applications is April 13, 2007. A Webinar for prospective applicants will be held for this grant competition in February 2007. The date and access information for the Webinar will be posted on the U.S. Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration (ETA) Web site at
In the 21st century global economy, talent development is a critical component in our nation's economic competitiveness. To stay ahead of global competition, we must identify strategies to further integrate workforce development, economic development, and education at the regional level—where companies, workers, researchers, entrepreneurs and governments come together to create a competitive advantage. Launched in February 2006, the Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development (WIRED) Initiative focuses on the role of talent development in driving regional economic competitiveness, job growth and new opportunities for American workers. The goal of WIRED is to expand employment and advancement opportunities for workers and catalyze the creation of high-skill and high-wage opportunities in regional economies. The WIRED Initiative is currently providing regions across the country with grant funding and ongoing technical assistance from ETA and a cadre of experts in order to help them achieve these goals.
To further support regions that are seeking to transform their economies and enhance their global competitiveness through talent development, ETA is announcing a new round of grants for the third generation of regions under the WIRED Initiative. The third generation is designed to fully engage local workforce investment boards in collaborative partnerships and transformational leadership within regional economies nationwide. The Department of Labor is making $65 million available for this new round of grants. This round of the WIRED Initiative will take place over the course of three years and the Department anticipates that individual grant awards will total $5 million over this period. Only Governors may apply on behalf of regions within their states or across state lines. Each Governor may submit up to two applications.
This solicitation provides background information on the WIRED Initiative and critical elements required of projects funded under the solicitation. It also describes the application submission requirements, the process that eligible applicants must use to apply for funds covered by this solicitation, and how grantees will be selected. This announcement consists of eight parts:
• Part I provides background information on the WIRED Initiative.
• Part II describes the size and nature of the anticipated awards.
• Part III describes the qualifications of an eligible applicant.
• Part IV provides information on the application and submission process.
• Part V explains the review process and rating criteria that will be used to evaluate applications.
• Part VI provides award administration information.
• Part VII contains ETA contact information.
• Part VIII addresses Office of Management and Budget information collection requirements.
The world is now witnessing one of the greatest economic transformations in history. Revolutions in technology and information have ushered in the era we know as globalization. This era is marked by tremendous advances in communications, travel, and trade, allowing individuals instant access to commerce from almost anywhere in the world. As a result, American businesses now compete not only with companies across the street, but also with companies around the globe. In the new global economy, talent development is a key factor in our nation's economic competitiveness.
Global competition is typically seen as a national challenge. In reality, regions are where companies, workers, researchers, entrepreneurs and governments come together to create a competitive advantage in the global marketplace. That advantage stems from the ability to transform new ideas and new knowledge into advanced, high quality products or services—in other words, to innovate.
Those regions that are successful in creating a competitive advantage demonstrate the ability to network “innovation assets”—people, institutions, capital and infrastructure—to generate growth and prosperity in the region's economy. These regions—such as San Diego, California; the Research Triangle in North Carolina; and the Greater Austin region of Texas—are successful precisely because they have connected three key elements: workforce skills and lifelong learning strategies, investment and entrepreneurship strategies, and regional infrastructure and economic development strategies.
While some regions of the country have thrived as a result of globalization, others have struggled to compete. For example, some regions are seeking to transform their economies because they have been dependent on a single industry that is not faring well in the global economy and others have been negatively affected by global trade. These regions are being forced to revitalize and reinvent themselves.
To facilitate the growth of a regional economy requires attention to three critical elements. These elements were identified in a groundbreaking report, Innovate America, published by the Council on Competitiveness. The first element is infrastructure. This includes not only the traditional factors such as highways, bridges, and buildings, but also 21st century factors like access to broadband and wireless networks. The second is investment, including the availability of risk capital and the conditions that encourage the use of such capital.
The third critical element is talent. A region may possess a strong infrastructure and the investment resources for success, but without the talented men and women to use those elements for economic growth, they are meaningless. Talent can also drive the other two elements because investment capital is smart money and it will follow the talent while infrastructure can be built to support a growing economy. The WIRED initiative was launched in recognition that this third key element, talent, drives prosperity. In other words, the bedrock of a nation's competitiveness is a well educated and skilled workforce.
Many regions have made considerable progress in incorporating talent and skills development into their larger economic strategies and integrating workforce development, economic development, and education efforts into a comprehensive system that is both flexible and responsive to the needs of businesses and workers. However, ETA recognizes the importance of supporting regions that need additional technical
In response, ETA launched the WIRED Initiative in February 2006. The goal of the WIRED Initiative is to expand employment and advancement opportunities for American workers and catalyze the creation of high-skill and high-wage opportunities in the regional economies. ETA invested in 13 regional economies across the country—the first generation of WIRED regions—and is providing these regions with grant funding, technical assistance, access to a cadre of experts, and peer-to-peer learning opportunities.
An additional 13 regions—the second generation of WIRED regions—were invited to participate in the WIRED Initiative as “virtual” sites. These regions originally received small planning grants and the opportunity to be a part of the WIRED learning network. In January 2007, ETA announced that these regions would be provided with additional funding to support the strategies identified to transform their regional economies.
WIRED grantees have a unique opportunity to design and implement strategic approaches that will transform their regional economies and the systems that support those economies. In addition to financial support, ETA staff work closely with WIRED regions to provide technical assistance to support their development of innovative approaches to workforce development, economic development and education that go beyond traditional strategies in preparing workers to compete and succeed both within the United States and globally.
A key focus for WIRED regions is to implement strategies that will result in their workforce investment system becoming a key component of their region's economic development strategy. In this vision, elements of a transformed workforce system are:
• The workforce investment system operates as a talent development system; it is no longer defined as a job training system. Its goal is an educated and prepared workforce—on a U.S. or global standard.
• Workforce investment system formula funds are transformed, providing tuition assistance for post-secondary education for lifelong learning opportunities aligned with the region's talent development strategy.
• The workforce investment system no longer operates as an array of siloed programs and services.
• The workforce investment boards are structured and operate on a regional basis and are composed of regional strategic partners who drive investments, aligning spending with a regional economic vision for talent development.
• Economic and workforce development regions are aligned, and these regions adopt common and innovative policies across the workforce, education and economic development systems and structures that support talent development and the regional economy.
• The workforce investment system is agile enough to serve the innovation economy, recognizing the reality that
• The workforce investment system actively collaborates with economic development, business, and education partners to gather and analyze a wide array of current and real time workforce and economic data in order to create new knowledge about regional economies and support strategic planning, routinely track economic conditions, measure outcomes, and benchmark economic competitiveness in the global marketplace.
Economic regions do not typically correspond to geographic or political jurisdictions such as state, county, local workforce investment area, or municipal boundaries. Such boundaries do not always match labor market areas as evidenced by Philadelphia's tri-state area or the greater Kansas City area, among others. The WIRED Initiative focuses on labor market areas that are comprised of multiple jurisdictions within a state or across state borders, or non-contiguous regional economies. Factors that contribute to the formation of a region include economic interdependence, such as common industries or sectors; assets, such as human and financial capital and infrastructure; and networks, such as leadership or investor networks.
A key to success for the WIRED Initiative is the quality and strength of the regional partnership. The partnership should be a strong team composed of the organizations necessary to transform the regional economy, including workforce, civic, business, investor, education, government, entrepreneurial, and philanthropic organizations. To be able to drive economic transformation, the leaders involved in the partnership should be at the most senior level and have decision-making authority over their organization's activities and resources.
Governors are asked to submit an application on behalf of the regional partnership. State officials have a critical role to play in this effort by providing leadership and helping to facilitate an environment that is conducive to innovation. At the same time, regional leaders from a variety of fields must invest in this process and be dedicated to taking the necessary action steps.
Regions in the WIRED Initiative have the opportunity to participate in a robust learning network focused on creating competitive advantages for regional economies in the global marketplace. ETA works closely with and provides technical assistance and support to regions throughout the implementation of the WIRED Initiative. Regions also have opportunities for peer-to-peer learning, most notably through WIRED Academies. The Academies are held three times per year and provide regions with opportunities to network and share their challenges and promising practices, as well as consult with experts from the workforce, education, and economic development communities; Federal departments and agencies; and the private sector. The regions also have access to an interactive Web site, the Collaborative Workspace, which facilitates the exchange of resources and information among the learning network. Additionally, ETA facilitates linkages between the WIRED regions and other key Federal agencies—such as the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Energy, Transportation, Interior, Defense and Education and the National Science Foundation—to further support WIRED regions in their efforts.
ETA is compiling resource tool kits, such as a regional assessment tool and an asset mapping tool, and promising practices regarding workforce and economic development strategies. These resources will be disseminated widely to the workforce investment system and economic development community, so that all regions, even those not selected to participate, will benefit from the WIRED Initiative.
Each competitively selected project will be funded at approximately $5 million over a period of three years—$1 million in the first year, $2 million in the second year, and $2 million in the third year. However, this does not preclude funding decisions above or below this amount, based on the number and quality of submissions and
The WIRED Initiative supports the transformation of regional economies through the development and implementation of broad, comprehensive, innovative approaches to workforce development, economic development, and education. WIRED grants will be funded with H-1B fees as authorized under Sec. 414(c) of the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-277, title IV), as amended by Pub. L. 108-447 ( codified at 29 U.S.C. 2916a). These funds are focused on the development of the workforce, and may be used to provide job training and related activities for workers to assist them in gaining the skills and competencies needed to obtain or upgrade employment in industries or economic sectors projected to experience significant growth. Funds may also be used to enhance the provision of job training services and information. Activities related to training may include: supporting talent development related to entrepreneurship; supporting talent development related to small business development; and purchasing equipment to train job seekers and workers for high-growth occupations. Activities to enhance training and information may include: development and implementation of model activities to build core competencies and train workers; identifying and disseminating career and skill information; developing or purchasing regional data tools or systems to deepen understanding of the regional economic landscape and labor market; and integrated regional planning such as increasing the integration of community and technical college activities with activities of businesses and the public workforce investment system to meet the training needs of business. Applicants are expected to leverage additional resources to support the transformational strategies and activities that are beyond those allowed by these funds.
The period of performance will be 36 months from the date of execution of the grant documents. ETA may approve a request for a no-cost extension to grantees for an additional period of time based on the success of the project and other relevant factors.
State Governors
Given that one of the significant goals for WIRED is to fully align the public workforce investments with a regional economic growth agenda, regional partnership teams must include a senior representative of the workforce investment system within the region as the lead, or co-lead with at least one other regional partner, for the region's WIRED grant activities. Examples of senior workforce system representatives include the chair or the executive director of a local workforce investment board or a senior representative of a regional workforce consortium.
In addition to workforce investment system partners, other mandatory partners of a regional partnership team must include senior leaders from the following entities:
• Education, including K-12, community colleges, and four year institutions within the region;
• Regional business leadership; and
• Economic development at the regional/local level.
Joint applications for regions that cross state lines will be accepted. All participating Governors of multi-state regions must jointly submit and sign the transmittal letter for the application. Applications for multi-state regions must identify the state entity that will be the grant recipient, the state agency or local workforce investment board that will serve as the project's fiscal agent, and the sub-recipient with responsibility for administering the project on the Governors' behalf.
Regional economies are typically defined as geographically contiguous areas. However, a proposal that makes an innovative case for a non-contiguous regional economy will be considered. Non-contiguous areas that only share similar circumstances will not be considered.
Each Governor is permitted to submit up to two applications. Governors may not submit applications for any of the 26 first and second generation regions that have already received a WIRED grant, as specified in Attachment A. However, a small overlap between the existing WIRED regions and an applying region will be permitted.
Applicants are not allowed to receive assistance in developing their applications from organizations and individuals under contract or subcontract with ETA for activities related to the WIRED Initiative, including M.H. West & Co., Inc; The Council for Adult & Experiential Learning; The Council on Competitiveness; and New Economy Strategies.
Cost sharing or matching is not required for eligibility. However, aligning resources and leveraging funding is a key component of success in the WIRED Initiative. Therefore, applicants are expected to leverage significant resources at the Federal, state and regional levels to advance their proposed transformational strategies. While the failure to offer leveraged resources as a part of an application will not preclude consideration of the application, it will place the applicant at a significant competitive disadvantage since one of the evaluation criteria, worth 10 points, evaluates the quality of the leveraged resources. Leveraged resources are cash or in-kind contributions devoted to advancing the strategies described in the applicant's proposal. The identification of existing or planned initiatives within the region that can be aligned and integrated into the WIRED efforts to transform the regional economy are also considered to be leveraged resources.
Leveraged resources could come from a variety of sources including: public sector (e.g., Federal, state or local governments); non-profit sector (e.g., community organizations, faith-based organizations, or education and training institutions); private sector (e.g., businesses or industry associations); investor community (e.g., angel networks); philanthropic community; and the economic development community. Leveraged resources should not be included on the Standard Form 424-A budget form. These resources should be discussed in the technical proposal and the budget narrative.
1.
2.
3.
4.
This announcement includes all information and forms needed to apply for this funding opportunity.
The proposal must consist of two separate and distinct parts, Parts I and II. Applications that fail to adhere to the instructions in this section will be considered non-responsive and may not be given further consideration.
Part I of the proposal is the Cost Proposal and must include the following three items:
• The Standard Form (SF) 424, “Application for Federal Assistance” (available at
• Dun and Bradstreet (DUNS) number. All applicants for Federal grant and funding opportunities are required to have a DUNS number. See OMB Notice of Final Policy Issuance, 68 FR 38402 (June 27, 2003). Applicants must supply their DUNS number on the SF-424. The DUNS number is a nine-digit identification number that uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access this Web site:
• The SF-424-A Budget Information Form (available at
Please note that applicants that fail to provide a SF-424, SF-424-A and/or a budget narrative will be removed from consideration prior to the technical review process. Leveraged resources should not be listed on the SF-424 or SF-424-A Budget Information Form, but must be described in the budget narrative and in Part II of the proposal. The amount of Federal funding requested for the entire period of performance must be shown together on the SF-424 and SF-424-A Budget Information Form. Applicants are also encouraged, but not required, to submit OMB control number 1890-0014: Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants, which can be found at
Part II of the application is the technical proposal. The technical proposal must demonstrate the applicant's capabilities to plan and implement a demonstration project under the WIRED Initiative in accordance with the selection criteria. The Technical Proposal is limited to 25 double-spaced, single-sided, 8.5-inch-by-11-inch pages with 12-point font and 1-inch margins. Any pages over the 25-page limit will not be reviewed. In addition, the applicant may provide resumes, a staffing pattern, statistical information, and related materials in attachments which may not exceed 10 pages. Letters of commitment from partners may be submitted as attachments and will not count against the allowable maximum page totals. The applicant must reference any participating entities in the text of the Technical Proposal.
Except for the discussion of leveraged resources in response to the evaluation criteria, no cost data or reference to prices should be included in the technical proposal. The following information is required as part of the technical proposal:
• A table of contents listing the application sections.
• A 2-3 page abstract summarizing the proposed project and applicant profile information including: (1) applicant name; (2) project title; (3) identification of region; (4) overview of strategies; (5) regional partnership members; and (6) requested funding level.
• A timeline outlining project activities.
Please note that the table of contents, the abstract, and the timeline are not included in the 25-page limit. Applications that do not meet these requirements will not be considered.
Applications may be submitted electronically on
The closing date for receipt of electronic and mailed applications under this announcement is April 13, 2007. Mailed applications must be received at the address below no later than 4:30 p.m. (Eastern Time) on that date, except as identified in the “Late Applications” paragraph below. Applications sent by e-mail, telegram, or facsimile (fax) will not be honored. No exceptions to the mailing and delivery requirements set forth in this notice will be granted.
Applicants may apply online at
A Webinar for prospective applicants will be held for this grant competition in February 2007. The date and access information for the Webinar will be posted on ETA's Web site at
Mailed applications must be addressed to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Division of Federal Assistance, Attention: Ms. Laura Patton Watson, Reference SGA/DFA PY 06-09, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-4716, Washington, DC 20210. Applicants are advised that mail delivery in the Washington area may be delayed due to mail decontamination procedures. Hand-delivered proposals will be received at the above address.
Any application received after the exact date and time specified for receipt at the office designated in this notice will not be considered, unless it is received before awards are made, was properly addressed, and: (a) was sent by U.S. Postal Service registered or certified mail not later than the fifth calendar day before the date specified for receipt of applications (e.g., an application required to be received by the 20th of the month must be postmarked by the 15th of that month) or (b) was sent by overnight delivery service or submitted on Grants.gov to the addressee not later than one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of applications. It is highly recommended that online submissions be completed one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of applications to ensure that the applicant still has the option to submit by overnight delivery service in the event of any electronic submission problems. “Postmarked” means a printed, stamped or otherwise placed impression (exclusive of a postage meter machine impression) that is readily identifiable, without further action, as having been supplied or affixed on the date of mailing by an employee of the U.S. Postal Service. Therefore, applicants should request the postal clerk to place a legible hand cancellation “bull's eye” postmark on both the receipt and the package. Evidence of timely submission to an overnight delivery service must be demonstrated by equally reliable evidence created by an overnight delivery service indicating the time and place of receipt by the overnight delivery service. Failure to adhere to the above instructions will be a basis for a determination of non-responsiveness.
This funding opportunity is not subject to Executive Order (EO) 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”
Determinations of allowable costs will be made in accordance with the applicable Federal cost principles as indicated in Part VI(2). Disallowed costs are those charges to a grant that the grantor agency or its representative determines not to be allowed in accordance with the applicable Federal cost principles or other conditions contained in the grant.
Applications may be withdrawn by written notice or telegram (including Mailgram) received at any time before an award is made. Applications may be withdrawn in person by the applicant or by an authorized representative thereof, if the representative signs a receipt for the proposal.
This section identifies and describes the criteria that will be used to evaluate the proposals for the WIRED Initiative:
(1) Identification of Region (15 points)
(2) Regional Labor Market and Economic Landscape (10 points)
(3) Strength of Partnership (30 points)
(4) Strategies for Transformation (35 points)
(5) Leveraged Resources (10 points)
Applicants must define the region of focus in the proposal and demonstrate why the selection comprises a regional economy. Regional economies are typically defined as geographically contiguous areas. However, a proposal that makes an innovative case for a non-contiguous regional economy will be considered. Non-contiguous areas that only share similar circumstances will not be considered.
This discussion should include, but is not limited to, how the following factors contribute to the formation of the region:
• Economic interdependence (e.g., common industry or economic sectors).
• Assets (e.g., human capital, financial capital, research and development institutions, educational institutions, and infrastructure).
• Networks (e.g., leadership and investor networks). Applicants must also include a map of the region and a list of the counties and major cities in the region.
Assessment of this criterion will be based on the quality of the information presented and the extent to which the defined area represents a regional economy, as demonstrated by the applicant.
Through narrative discussion and data displays, the applicant must provide an overview of the labor market and economic landscape of the region that describes the conditions that are driving the need for transformation in the region. Discussion should include, but is not limited to, the following:
• Industries or economic sectors that are declining in the region, as well as those that are emerging or growing.
• Characteristics related to the regional labor force, such as skill and education levels, income levels, and commuting patterns.
• Indicators of impacted economic elements in the region, such as high unemployment rate, low average wages, and low levels of new job creation.
• Worker dislocations stemming from mass layoffs and/or natural disasters.
• The extent to which foreign trade has impacted the regional economy.
• Indicators of innovation such as entrepreneurial activity and small business development, investment capital, and patent data.
Assessment of this criterion will be based on the quality of the information presented and the extent of demonstrated need for regional economic transformation.
The applicant must demonstrate that the strategic partnership is a strong team of regional leaders. The partnership must be representative of the entire region and have the authority to drive a transformation strategy within the region. The partnership must include a senior representative of the workforce investment system within the region as the lead, or co-lead with at least one other regional partner, for the region's WIRED grant activities. Examples of senior workforce system representatives include the chair or the executive director of a local workforce investment
In addition to workforce investment system partners, other mandatory partners of a regional partnership team must include senior leaders from the following entities:
• Education, including K-12, community colleges, and four year institutions within the region;
• Regional business leadership; and
• Economic development at the regional/local level.
Additional recommended partners include: local elected officials; the philanthropic community; other education and training providers; business organizations such as chambers of commerce; seed and venture capital organizations or individuals; investor networks; entrepreneurs; and faith and community-based organizations.
The discussion must:
• Include a comprehensive list of the strategic partners that will be included in the WIRED Initiative and articulate each partner's role.
• Include the positions and/or titles of the individuals from each of the organizations that will be involved in the regional partnership.
• Demonstrate that integration or a high level of coordination already exists between partners. If a high level of integration or coordination does not exist, then the applicant must demonstrate that it has the capacity to quickly establish these links and discuss strategies for strengthening the partnership.
• Demonstrate that the administrative entity has the capacity to lead the regional partnership in implementing the WIRED Initiative. Discussion should include, but is not limited to, the administrative entity's leadership and staff capacity and experience implementing initiatives of this caliber.
Assessment of this criterion will be based on the comprehensiveness of the partnership, the degree to which each partner plays a committed role, and the capacity of the administrative entity to lead the regional partnership.
The applicant must describe the strategies that will be undertaken by the regional partnership and explain how these strategies will transform the regional economy and how they will support the region's overall economic vision and goals. In addition, the applicant must describe how the strategies will transform the workforce development, economic development, and education systems in the region and result in more effective ways of collaboration and networking of assets and resources. Assessment of this criterion will be based on three areas: 1) strength of the strategies; 2) identification of targeted industries and economic sectors; and 3) discussion of goals.
• Address the identified workforce and economic development challenges in the region.
• Increase integration and synergy among the workforce development, economic development and education systems.
• Increase opportunities for entrepreneurship and small business development and the capacity for innovation within both new and existing businesses.
• Create connections between research and business development.
• Build upon and align with current state and local strategic plans currently in place under the Workforce Investment Act, the Department of Commerce's economic development programs, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's community development programs, and other applicable federal programs.
Applicants must clearly describe any funds and resources leveraged in support of the proposed strategies and demonstrate how these funds will be used to contribute to the goals of the WIRED Initiative. Leveraged resources are cash or in-kind contributions devoted to advancing the strategies described in the applicant's proposal. Existing or planned efforts within the region that can be aligned and integrated into the WIRED Initiative to transform the regional economy may also be considered to be leveraged resources. Important elements of the explanation include:
• Which partners have contributed leveraged resources and the amount of each contribution, including an itemized description of each cash or in-kind contribution.
• The quality of the leveraged resources, including the purpose of the funds and the extent to which each contribution will be used to further the goals of the initiative.
• Evidence, such as letters of commitment, that key partners have expressed a clear commitment to provide the contribution.
Leveraged resources could come from a variety of sources including: public sector (e.g., Federal, state or local governments); non-profit sector (e.g., community organizations, faith-based organizations, or education and training institutions); private sector (e.g., businesses or industry associations); investor community (e.g., angel networks); philanthropic community; and the economic development community.
Assessment of this criterion will be based on the extent to which the application fully describes the amount, commitment, nature, and quality of leveraged resources. Applications will be scored based on the degree to which the source and use of funds is clearly explained and the extent to which leveraged resources are fully integrated into the initiative to support grant outcomes.
Applications for the WIRED Initiative will be accepted commencing on the date of publication of this announcement until the closing date and time. A technical review panel will carefully evaluate applications against the rating criteria described in Part V(1), which are based on the policy goals, priorities, and emphases set forth in this SGA. Up to 100 points may be awarded to an application, based on the Rating Criteria described in Part V(1). The panel results are advisory in nature and not binding on the Grant Officer. The Grant Officer may consider any
The ranked scores will serve as the primary basis for selection of applications for funding, in conjunction with other factors such as urban, rural, and geographic balance; uniqueness and innovative aspects of the proposal; the availability of funds; and proposals that are most advantageous to the government. The government reserves the right to award grants with or without discussions or negotiations with applicants. Should a grant be awarded without negotiations, the award will be based on the applicant's signature on the SF-424, which constitutes a binding offer.
All award notifications will be posted on the ETA Web site at
All grantees will be subject to all applicable Federal laws (including provisions in appropriations law), regulations, and the applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars. The applicants selected under the SGA will be subject to the following administrative standards and provisions, if applicable:
• Workforce Investment Act—20 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 667.200 (General Fiscal and Administrative Rules).
• Non-Profit Organizations—2 CFR part 230 (Cost Principles, formerly Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-122) and 29 CFR part 95 (Administrative Requirements).
• Educational Institutions—2 CFR part 220 (Cost Principles, formerly OMB Circular A-21) and 29 CFR part 95 (Administrative Requirements).
• State and Local Governments—2 CFR par 225 (Cost Principles, formerly OMB circular A-87) and 29 CFR part 97 (Administrative Requirements).
• All entities must comply with 29 CFR parts 93 and 98, and where applicable, 29 CFR parts 96 and 99.
• In accordance with Section 18 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, Public Law 104-65 (2 U.S.C. 1611), non-profit entities incorporated under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(4) that engage in lobbying activities will not be eligible for the receipt of Federal funds and grants.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(Note: Except as specifically provided in this notice, ETA's acceptance of a proposal and award of Federal funds to sponsor any program(s) does not provide a waiver of any grant requirements and/or procedures. For example, the OMB Circulars require that an entity's procurement procedures must ensure that all procurement transactions are conducted, as much as practical, to provide open and free competition. If a proposal identifies a specific entity to provide services, then ETA's award does not provide the justification or basis to sole-source the procurement, i.e., avoid competition, unless the activity is regarded as the primary work of an official partner to the application.)
ETA has undertaken a comprehensive evaluation of the WIRED Initiative. The evaluation is intended to: provide a thorough understanding of the implementation of WIRED strategies in the regions; learn about changes that occur in economic indicators such as job growth, average wage, tax base, reliance on public sector subsidies, and the unemployment rate; and ascertain to what extent these changes and other indicators of regional progress were influenced by WIRED activities. ETA will require that selected applicants participate in the evaluation of WIRED. Therefore, in applying for these grants, applicants agree to cooperate in this evaluation.
WIRED grantees are required to report outcomes for the Common Performance Measures, which measure entry into employment, retention in employment, and earnings. Additional information on ETA's Common Measures policy can be found in Training Employment Guidance Letter No. 17-05, Common Measures Policy for the Employment and Training Administration's (ETA) Performance Accountability System and Related Performance Issues (February 17, 2006), located on the ETA Web site at
A Quarterly Financial Status Report (SF 269) is required until such time as all funds have been expended or the grant period has expired. Quarterly financial reports are due 30 days after the end of each calendar year quarter. Grantees must use ETA's Online Electronic Reporting System.
The grantee must submit a quarterly progress report to the designated Federal Project Officer within 30 days after the end of each calendar year quarter that provides a detailed account of activities undertaken during that quarter. The Department may require additional data elements to be collected and reported on either a regular basis or special request basis. Grantees must agree to meet the Department's reporting requirements.
The quarterly progress report must be in narrative form and must include:
(1) In-depth information on accomplishments including success stories, upcoming grant activities, and promising approaches and processes.
(2) Progress toward performance outcomes included in the grantee's statement of work, including updates on product, curricula, and training development.
(3) Challenges, barriers, or concerns regarding progress.
(4) Lessons learned in the areas of administration and management, implementation, partnership relationships, and other related areas.
Any technical questions regarding this SGA should be faxed to Ms. Laura Patton Watson, Chief of the Division of Federal Assistance, Fax number (202) 693-2705 (not a toll-free number). You must specifically address your fax to the attention of Ms. Laura Patton Watson and should include the following information: SGA/DFA PY 06-09, a contact name, fax, and telephone number. Answers to questions will be posted on ETA's Web site at
For further information contact Ms. Laura Patton Watson, Chief of the Division of Federal Assistance, at (202) 693-3961 (not a toll-free number). This announcement is also being made available on
OMB Information Collection No. 1205-0458. Expires September 30, 2009.
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. Department of Labor, the OMB Desk Officer for ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR COMPLETED APPLICATION TO THE OMB. SEND IT TO THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE SPONSORING AGENCY.
This information is being collected for the purpose of awarding a grant. The information collected through this “Solicitation for Grant Applications” will be used by the Department of Labor to ensure that grants are awarded to the applicant best suited to perform the functions of the grant. Submission of this information is required in order for the applicant to be considered for award of this grant. Unless otherwise specifically noted in this announcement, information submitted in the respondent's application is not considered to be confidential.
• Coastal Maine
• Northeast Pennsylvania
• Upstate New York
• Piedmont Triad North Carolina
• Mid-Michigan
• West Michigan
• Florida's Great Northwest
• Western Alabama and Eastern Mississippi
• North Central Indiana
• Greater Kansas City
• Denver Metro Region
• Central and Eastern Montana
• California Innovation Corridor
• Central-Eastern Puerto Rico
• Southwestern Connecticut
• Northern New Jersey
• Delaware Valley
• Appalachian Ohio
• Southeastern Michigan
• Tennessee Valley
• Southwestern Indiana
• Southeastern Wisconsin
• Arkansas Delta
• Rio Grande Valley
• Wasatch Range
• Northern California
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.
The inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing.
February 22, 2007.
Linda B. Blackburn, Patent Counsel, Langley Research Center, Mail Code 141, Hampton, VA 23681-2199; telephone (757) 864-9260; fax (757) 864-9190.
NASA Case No. LAR-17165-1: Resin Infusion of Layered Metal/Composite Hybrid and Resulting Metal/Composite Hybrid Laminate;
NASA Case No. LAR-17235-1: Interferometric Rayleigh Scattering Measurement System;
NASA Case No. LAR-17168-1: Cylindrical Piezoelectric Fiber Composite Actuator Assemblies;
NASA Case No. LAR-17346-1: Flexible Thin Metal Film Thermal Sensing System;
NASA Case No. LAR-17307-1: Open Loop Heat Pipe Radiator Having a Free-Piston for Wiping Condensed Working Fluid;
NASA Case No. LAR-17082-1: Composite Material Having a Thermally-Reactive-Endcapped Imide Oligomer and Carbon Nanofillers;
NASA Case No. LAR-16950-1: Ferroelectric Light Control Device;
NASA Case No. LAR-17257-1: Systems and Methods for Detecting a Failure Event in a Field Programmable Gate Array;
NASA Case No. LAR-16858-1: Photogrammetric System and Method Used in the Characterization of a Structure;
NASA Case No. LAR-17268-1: Reprogrammable Field Programmable Gate Array With Integrated System for Mitigating Effects of Single Event Upsets;
NASA Case No. LAR-16886-1: Method and System for Sensing and Identifying Foreign Particles in a Gaseous Environment;
NASA Case No. LAR-16083-1: Physiological Using Interface for a Multi-User Virtual Environment;
NASA Case No. LAR-16409-1: Wet Active Chevron Nozzle for Controllable Jet Noise Reduction.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.
The inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and
February 22, 2007.
James J. McGroary, Patent Counsel, Marshall Space Flight Center, Mail Code LS01, Huntsville, AL 35812; telephone (256) 544-6580; fax (256) 544-0258.
NASA Case No. MFS-32364-1: Coil System For Plasmoid Thruster;
NASA Case No. MFS-32253-1: Magnetostrictive Valve Assembly;
NASA Case No. MFS-32342-1: Nuclear Fuel Element Using Grooved Fuel Rings;
NASA Case No. MFS-31649-1: Laser Fresnel Distance Measuring System and Method;
NASA Case No. MFS-31813-1: Method of Joining Metallic and Composite Components;
NASA Case No. MFS-32307-1: Portable Runway Intersection Display and Monitoring System;
NASA Case No. MFS-32291-1: An Advanced Technology Lifecycle Analysis System;
NASA Case No. MFS-32031-1: Fiber Optic Liquid Mass Flow Sensor—Improved Prototype Design;
NASA Case No. MFS-32115-1: Gimbling-Shoulder Friction Stir Welding Tool.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.
The invention listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, has been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and is available for licensing.
February 22, 2007.
Randy Heald, Patent Counsel, Kennedy Space Center, Mail Code CC-A, Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899; telephone (321) 867-7214; fax (321) 867-1817.
NASA Case No. KSC-12878: Bimetallic Treatment System and Its Application for Removal and Remediation of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); NASA Case No. KSC-12899: Emission Control System; NASA Case No. KSC-12798: Data Acquisition System.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.
The invention listed below is assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, is the subject of a patent application that has been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and is available for licensing.
February 22, 2007.
Mark W. Homer, Patent Counsel, NASA Management Office—JPL, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Mail Stop 180-200, Pasadena, CA 91109; telephone (818) 354-7770.
NASA Case No. NPO-42563-1-CU: Underwater Vehicle Propulsion and Power Generation; NASA Case No. NPO-42221-1-CU: White-Light Whispering Gallery Mode Optical Resonator System and Method; NASA Case No. NPO-41446-1-CU: Self-Configurable Radio Receiver; NASA Case No. DRC-006-005: Propulsion Controlled Aircraft Computer (PCAC); NASA Case No. DRC-006-006: Sensor-Based Management for Secured Inventories; NASA Case No. DRC 006-024: Method for Real-Time Structure Shape-Sensing.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.
The inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing.
February 22, 2007.
David Walker, Patent Counsel, Goddard Space Flight Center, Mail Code 140.1, Greenbelt, MD 20771-0001; telephone (301) 286-7351; fax (301) 286-9502.
NASA Case No. GSC-15030-1: Optical Source and Apparatus for Remote Sensing;
NASA Case No. GSC-15043-1: Systems, Methods and Apparatus for Procedure Development and Verification;
NASA Case No. GSC-14879-1: Hybrid Diversity Method Utilizing Adaptive Diversity Function;
NASA Case No. GSC-14901-1: Optical System for Inducing Focus Diversity;
NASA Case No. GSC-15056-1: Noise-Assisted Data Analysis Method, System and Program Product Therefor;
NASA Case No. GSC-15079-1: Systems, Methods and Apparatus for Generation and Verification of Policies in Autonomic Computing Systems;
NASA Case No. GSC-15080-1: Systems, Methods and Apparatus for Pattern Matching in Procedure Development and Verification;
NASA Case No. GSC-15176-1: Systems, Methods and Apparatus for Quiescence of Autonomic Systems;
NASA Case No. GSC-15179-1: Systems, Methods and Apparatus for Autonomic Safety Devices;
NASA Case No. GSC-15042-1: Device, System and Method for a Sensing Electrical Circuit;
NASA Case No. GSC-15148-1: Systems, Methods and Apparatus for Automata Learning in Generation of Scenario-Based Requirements in System Development;
NASA Case No. GSC-15177-1: Systems, Methods and Apparatus for Developing and Maintaining Evolving Systems With Software Product Lines;
NASA Case No. GSC-14562-1: Stepping Flexures;
NASA Case No. GSC-15003-1: Solid-State Laser Gain Module;
NASA Case No. GSC-15115-1: Device System and Method for Miniaturized Radiation Spectrometer;
NASA Case No. GSC-15178-1: Systems, Methods and Apparatus for Modeling, Specifying and Deploying Policies in Autonomous and Autonomic Systems Using Agent-Oriented Software Engineering;
NASA Case No. GSC-15186-1: Systems, Methods and Apparatus for Flash Drive.
NASA Case No. GSC-14927-1: Systems and Method for Delivery of Information.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.
The inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing.
February 22, 2007.
Kent N. Stone, Patent Counsel, Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field, Code 500-118, Cleveland, OH 44135; telephone (216) 433-8855; fax (216) 433-6790.
NASA Case No. LEW-17642-4: Energetic Atomic and Ionic Oxygen Textured Optical Surfaces for Blood Glucose Monitoring;
NASA Case No. LEW-17975-1: Protective Coating and Hyperthermal Atomic Oxygen Texturing of Optical Fibers Used for Blood Glucose Monitoring;
NASA Case No. LEW-17877-1: Antenna Near-Field Probe Station Scanner;
NASA Case No. LEW-17825-1: Zero G Condensing Heat Exchanger With Integral Disinfection;
NASA Case No. LEW-17306-2: Thin Film Heat Flux Sensor of Improved Design Utilizing a Resistance Bridge;
NASA Case No. LEW-18042-1: Process for Preparing Polymer Reinforced Silica Aerogels.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.
The inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing.
February 22, 2007.
Edward K. Fein, Patent Counsel, Johnson Space Center, Mail Code AL, Houston, TX 77058-8452; telephone (281) 483-4871; fax (281) 483-6936.
NASA Case No. MSC-23659-2: Microencapsulation System and Method;
NASA Case No. MSC-24201-1: A Description of an Improved Method for Attaching an Inflatable Shell to a Rigid Interface.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.
The inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing.
February 21, 2007.
Robert M. Padilla, Patent Counsel, Ames Research Center, Code 202A-4, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000; telephone (650) 604-5104; fax (650) 604-2767.
NASA Case No. ARC-15566-3: Real Time Oil Reservoir Evaluation Using Nanotechnology;
NASA Case No. ARC-15578-2: Visual Image Sensor Organ Replacement Implementation;
NASA Case No. ARC-15201-1: Toughened Uni-piece Fibrous Reinforced Oxidation-Resistant Composite (TUFROC);
NASA Case No. ARC-15890-1: Contaminated Water Treatment.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when no longer needed for current Government business. They authorize the preservation of records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and the destruction, after a specified period, of records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. Notice is published for records schedules in which agencies propose to destroy records not previously authorized for disposal or reduce the retention period of records already authorized for disposal. NARA invites public comments on such records schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a).
Requests for copies must be received in writing on or before March 26, 2007. Once the appraisal of the records is completed, NARA will send a copy of the schedule. NARA staff usually prepare appraisal
You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting the Life Cycle Management Division (NWML) using one of the following means:
Requesters must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency which submitted the schedule, and must provide a mailing address. Those who desire appraisal reports should so indicate in their request.
Laurence Brewer, Director, Life Cycle Management Division (NWML), National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. Telephone: 301-837-1539. E-mail:
Each year Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval, using the Standard Form (SF) 115, Request for Records Disposition Authority. These schedules provide for the timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.
No Federal records are authorized for destruction without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. This approval is granted only after a thorough consideration of their administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private persons directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not they have historical or other value.
Besides identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this public notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or indicates agency-wide applicability in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency. This notice provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction). It also includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it too includes information about the records. Further information about the disposition process is available on request.
1. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service (N1-462-04-20, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files associated with an electronic information system used as a tracking and notification system for suppliers' samples found to be E. coli O157:H7 positive.
2. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (N1-AU-07-3, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Records relating to flight regulations covering aircrew training, aircraft weight and balance, and mission approval process. Included are individual aviator training records, forms, charts, weight and balance data, worksheets, memoranda and authority designations. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.
3. Department of Defense, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (N1-537-03-12, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Hard copy records containing geomagnetic information used as source material.
4. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration (N1-305-05-5, 8 items, 8 temporary items). Records related to the sale of generated power from Federal system resources. Included are correspondence, contract information, case files, rate information, studies, meeting notes, cost reconciliations, accounts, status reports and similar materials. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.
5. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration (N1-305-05-6, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Records related to metering function and power billing interval data. Included are budget management documents, spreadsheets, timelines, scopes, charters, calculations, and similar materials. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.
6. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (N1-442-06-1, 24 items, 23 temporary items). Records of the Coordinating Office for Terrorism Preparedness and Emergency Response documenting the registration and oversight of individuals or entities possessing, using, or transferring select agents and toxins. Included are applications, reports, assessments, permits, forms, web page documentation, and correspondence. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of memoranda, transcripts of speeches and meetings, and correspondence created by the Office of the Director. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.
7. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service (N1-513-07-1, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Records accumulated by the Office of Environmental Health and Engineering documenting sanitation facilities constructed or provided. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.
8. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary (N1-468-06-1, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Records accumulated by the Program Support Center including forms used to register controlled substance distributors, controlled substance order forms, medical records for incapacitated dependents of Commissioned Corps Officers, and medical records of non-accepted Commissioned Corps applicants. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.
9. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary (N1-468-07-1, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records accumulated by the Office of Preparedness and Emergency Operations including patient care forms and other medical records created by a Federal Medical Station in response to an emergency event. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.
10. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (N1-65-06-1,
11. Department of Justice, Justice Management Division (N1-60-06-6, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Outputs, master files, and documentation relating to a system designed to track, throughout the forfeiture life-cycle, assets seized by Federal law enforcement agencies.
12. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (N1-257-06-1, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Chart books related to speeches made by the New York City Regional Commissioner and the Economic Analysis and Information Staff to regional, professional, and educational groups on topics of interest to BLS.
13. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (N1-257-06-2, 37 items, 35 temporary items). Inputs, master files, outputs, and program documentation associated with miscellaneous electronic systems of the Division of Administrative Services. These systems are used to support the administrative activities of the Division. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of emergency response plans.
14. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (N1-406-06-4, 5 items, 1 temporary item). Correspondence, directives, memoranda, reports, and other records relating to the development of a variety of administrative policies. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of historically significant policy files, Defense Access Roads subject files, reports of operations, and specifications for construction of roads and bridges on Federal highway projects.
15. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt (N1-53-06-4, 46 items, 42 temporary items). Records relating to support functions, including executive board, legal, Web site, budget, personnel, forms, history, public affairs, meeting notes, presentation, organization, consolidation, procedures, and instructions files. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of public affairs releases, reorganization change records, and executive studies.
16. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt (N1-53-06-7, 20 items, 16 temporary items). Records relating to the security auction transaction process. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of regulation development files, legislation development files, and historically important reports, studies, briefings, press releases, and correspondence.
17. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (N1-58-07-1, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Completed IRS Form 6459, Return Preparer's Checklist, which is used to document potentially false income tax returns by preparers.
18. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (N1-58-07-3, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Completed IRS Form 8655, Reporting Agent Authorization, which allows taxpayers to designate reporting agents.
19. Environmental Protection Agency, Agency-wide (N1-412-07-4, 3 items, 3 temporary items). This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the existing disposition instructions to several record series regardless of recordkeeping medium. The records include National Contingency Plan product files, spill prevention control and countermeasure facility plans, and oil removal contingency plans. Paper recordkeeping copies of these files were previously approved for disposal.
20. Environmental Protection Agency, Agency-wide (N1-412-07-6, 2 items, 1 temporary item). This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the existing disposition instructions to record series regardless of recordkeeping medium. The records include Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permit files for hazardous waste generators, transporters and treatment, storage and disposal facilities, as well as facilities that comply with regulations without following the usual permitting process. Paper recordkeeping copies of these files were previously approved for disposal. Also included are Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous waste land disposal permit files, for which paper recordkeeping copies previously were approved as permanent.
21. Environmental Protection Agency, Agency-wide (N1-412-07-35, 3 items, 3 temporary items). This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the existing disposition instructions to a number of records series regardless of the recordkeeping medium. The records series include pesticides facilities files, pesticides imports files and pesticide producing establishment reports. Paper recordkeeping copies of these files were previously approved for disposal.
22. Environmental Protection Agency, Agency-wide (N1-412-07-36, 4 items, 4 temporary items). This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the existing disposition instructions to a number of records series regardless of the recordkeeping medium. The records series include the administrative documents relating to issuing permits including the permit application, draft permit or notice of intent to deny, statement of basis and documentation, the environmental impact statement and comments received, public hearing transcripts and related documentation, and the final permit. Paper recordkeeping copies of these files were previously approved for disposal.
23. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Agency-wide (N1-280-05-1, 5 items, 5 temporary items). Administrative files documenting routine housekeeping activities, including copies of bulletins, training aids and course materials, working papers, general correspondence, and routine reports.
24. National Archives and Records Administration, Government-wide (N1-GRS-06-2, 6 items, 6 temporary items). Records created and maintained by Federal Chief Financial Officers and their program offices. This schedule applies to these records at agency or departmental headquarters as well as those of deputies and subordinates at the bureau or field office level. Included are records documenting agency financial management, auditing, and fiscal performance and accountability.
FR Doc. E7-2866 was originally published at page 7776 in the issue of February 20, 2007. In that publication an incorrect version of this document was published. The corrected document is republished below in its entirety.
Pursuant to Section 1102 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 which extended and modified the Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB) as established by the Public Interest Declassification Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-567, title VII, December 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 2856), announcement is made for the following committee meeting:
This meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space limitations and access procedures, the name and telephone number of individuals planning to attend must be submitted to the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) no later than Monday, February 19, 2007. ISOO will provide additional instructions for gaining access to the location of the meeting.
Lee H. Morrison, PIDB Staff, Information Security Oversight Office, National Archives Building, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20408, telephone number (202) 357-5039.
FR Doc. E7-2866 was originally published at page 7776 in the issue of February 20, 2007. In that publication an incorrect version of this document was published. The corrected document is republished in its entirety.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Board announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process for awards. The review and evaluation may also include assessment of the progress of awarded proposals. The majority of these meetings will take place at NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230.
These meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF will continue to review the agenda and merits of each meeting for overall compliance of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
These closed proposal review meetings will not be announced on an individual basis in the
The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on March 7, 2007, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Sam Duraiswamy (telephone: 301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Future Plant Designs will hold a meeting on March 7, 2007, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review the NRC staff's work on technology neutral licensing framework (
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. David C. Fischer (telephone 301-415-6889) between 7:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 2 p.m.
Commission conference room, 901 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20268-0001.
Closed.
Personnel matters—selection of director of Public Affairs and Congressional Relations.
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, Postal Regulatory Commission, 901 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20268-0001, 202-789-6818.
On December 29, 2006, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”)
On February 13, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.
The Commission has reviewed carefully the proposed rule change, the comment letters, and the NYSE Response to Comments, and finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
As set forth below, the Commission finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 1 prior to the thirtieth day after publishing notice of Amendment No. 1 in the
In Amendment No. 1, NYSE made changes to the Purpose Section of Form 19b-4 to (1) provide an explanation of the purpose of the proposed change from the current independence policy of NYSE Group to no longer provide as a categorical matter that a person fails to be independent if he or she is a director of an affiliate of a member organization; (2) specify that the Exchange has proposed to make a change to the ownership limitation in the NYSE Group Certificate of Incorporation to match the voting limitation, and add that the board of directors must determine that share ownership in excess of the concentration limitation will not impair the ability of NYSE Group to discharge its responsibilities under the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder; (3) clarify the process for nominating directors for the NYSE Euronext (“NYSE Euronext”) board of directors; (4) clarify that it is requesting that the Commission allow NYSE Euronext alone to wholly own and vote all of the outstanding common stock of NYSE Group; and (5) clarify that the organizational documents of the Exchange, NYSE Market, Inc. (“NYSE Market”), and NYSE Regulation, Inc. (“NYSE Regulation”) provide that any person not meeting the board qualifications in the relevant organizational documents will not be qualified to serve, and therefore will not be eligible to serve as a director. The Exchange made a corresponding clarifying change to the proposed Second Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of the Exchange (“proposed NYSE Operating Agreement”) and the proposed Amended and Restated Bylaws of NYSE Market (“proposed NYSE Market Bylaws”). Additionally, the Exchange made a change to the proposed Second Amended and Restated Bylaws of NYSE Regulation (“proposed NYSE Regulation Bylaws”) to add that any person who is not elected or appointed in accordance with the qualifications set forth in Section 1(A) of Article III of the proposed NYSE Regulation Bylaws shall not be qualified to serve as a director and therefore shall not be elected to serve as a director. This proposed change was described in the Notice,
In addition, the Exchange made certain clarifying, conforming, technical, non-material, and non-substantive changes to the Purpose Section of Form 19b-4, the Independence Policy of the NYSE Euronext Board of Directors (“Independence Policy”), the proposed NYSE Group Certificate of Incorporation, the proposed Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of NYSE Market (“proposed NYSE Market Certificate of Incorporation”), the proposed Restated Certificate of Incorporation of NYSE Regulation
The Commission finds that the changes proposed in Amendment No. 1 are consistent with the Exchange Act and therefore finds good cause to accelerate approval of Amendment No. 1, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment No. 1, including whether Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2006-120. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
The Exchange has submitted the proposed rule change in connection with the Combination of NYSE Group with Euronext. As a result of the Combination, the businesses of NYSE Group (including the businesses of the Exchange and NYSE Arca, Inc. (a Delaware corporation, registered national securities exchange and self-regulatory organization (“NYSE Arca”)), and Euronext will be held under a single, publicly traded holding company named NYSE Euronext, a Delaware corporation. Following the Combination, each of NYSE Group and Euronext will be a separate subsidiary of NYSE Euronext, and their respective businesses and assets will continue to be held as they are currently held (subject to any post-closing corporate reorganization of Euronext). The proposed rule change is necessary to effectuate the consummation of the Combination and will not be operative until the consummation of the Combination.
After the Combination, the Exchange will remain a wholly owned subsidiary of NYSE Group. NYSE Market, a Delaware corporation, will remain a wholly owned subsidiary of the Exchange and conduct the Exchange's business. NYSE Regulation, a New York Type A not-for-profit corporation, will remain a wholly owned subsidiary of the Exchange, and continue to perform the regulatory responsibilities for the Exchange pursuant to a delegation agreement with the Exchange and many of the regulatory functions of NYSE Arca pursuant to a services agreement with NYSE Arca.
Archipelago, a Delaware corporation, will remain a wholly owned subsidiary of NYSE Group. NYSE Arca Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“NYSE Arca Holdings”), and NYSE Arca L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company (“NYSE Arca LLC”), will remain wholly owned subsidiaries of Archipelago. NYSE Arca will remain a wholly owned subsidiary of NYSE Arca Holdings, and NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities”), a Delaware corporation formerly known as PCX Equities, Inc., will remain a wholly owned subsidiary of NYSE Arca. NYSE Arca will continue to maintain its status as a registered national securities exchange and self-regulatory organization. Archipelago's businesses and assets will continue to be held by it and its subsidiaries. Pursuant to a regulatory services agreement, NYSE Regulation will continue to perform many of the regulatory functions of NYSE Arca. The governing documents of Archipelago will remain unchanged other than amendments to the Certificate of Incorporation of Archipelago to allow the Trust (as defined below) to exceed the voting limitation and ownership concentration limitation as provided for in the Trust Agreement.
The Exchange represents that the Combination will have no effect on the ability of any party to trade securities on NYSE Market, NYSE Arca, or NYSE Arca Equities. Euronext and its subsidiaries will continue to operate their business and operations in substantially the same manner as they are conducted currently, with any changes subject to the approval of the European Regulators to the extent required.
A core aspect of the structure of the Combination is local regulation of the marketplace, members, and issuers. Therefore, securities exchanges, members, and issuers of NYSE Group and Euronext will continue to be regulated in the same manner as they are currently regulated. The Commission notes that this conclusion (
Following the Combination, NYSE Euronext will be a for-profit, publicly traded stock corporation and will act as a holding company for the businesses of the NYSE Group and Euronext. NYSE Euronext will own all of the equity interests in NYSE Group and its subsidiaries, including the Exchange and NYSE Arca, and a majority (if not all) of the equity interests in Euronext and its respective subsidiaries. Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder require a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) to file proposed rule changes with the Commission. Although NYSE Euronext is not an SRO, certain provisions of its proposed Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (“proposed NYSE Euronext Certificate of Incorporation”) and proposed Amended and Restated Bylaws (“proposed NYSE Euronext Bylaws”) are rules of an exchange
Because directors of NYSE Euronext will also serve on the boards of the Exchange, NYSE Market, and NYSE Regulation, the composition of, and selection process for, the NYSE Euronext's board of directors is described below. It is currently contemplated that immediately after the Combination, the NYSE Euronext board of directors will consist of twenty-two directors. The initial NYSE Euronext board of directors will have an equal number of U.S. Persons
Beginning with the first annual meeting of stockholders,
The proposed NYSE Euronext Bylaws also provide that either the chairman of the board shall be a U.S. Person and the chief executive officer shall be a European Person, or the chairman of the board shall be a European Person and the chief executive officer shall be a U.S. Person.
Each member of the NYSE Euronext board of directors (other than the chief executive officer and deputy chief executive officer of NYSE Euronext if they are members of the board of directors) must satisfy the independence requirements set forth in the Independence Policy, as amended from time to time.
The NYSE Euronext board of directors may create one or more committees. It is expected that upon consummation of the Combination, the NYSE Euronext board of directors will have an audit committee, a human resource and compensation committee, and a nominating and governance committee. Each of the audit committee, human resource and compensation committee, and nominating and governance committee of the NYSE Euronext board of directors will consist solely of directors meeting the independence requirements of NYSE Euronext. These committees also will perform relevant functions for NYSE Group, the Exchange, NYSE Market, NYSE Regulation, Archipelago, NYSE Arca, and NYSE Arca Equities, as well as other subsidiaries of NYSE Euronext, except that the board of directors of NYSE Regulation will continue to have its own compensation committee and nominating and governance committee.
The proposed NYSE Euronext Certificate of Incorporation includes restrictions on the ability to vote and own shares of stock of NYSE Euronext. Under the proposed NYSE Euronext Certificate of Incorporation, no person (either alone or together with its related persons)
In addition, no person (either alone or together with its related persons) may at any time beneficially own shares of stock of NYSE Euronext representing in the aggregate more than 20% of the then outstanding votes entitled to be cast on any matter.
NYSE also has proposed to permit the NYSE Euronext board of directors to require any stockholder that the NYSE Euronext board of directors reasonably believes to be subject to the voting or ownership limitations summarized above, and any person (either alone or together with its related persons) that at any time beneficially owns 5% or more of NYSE Euronext's outstanding capital stock (which ownership has not been reported to NYSE Euronext), to provide to NYSE Euronext information regarding such ownership upon the request of the NYSE Euronext board of directors.
The NYSE Euronext board of directors may waive the provisions regarding voting and ownership limits, subject to a determination by the NYSE Euronext board of directors that the exercise of such voting rights (or the entering into of a voting agreement) or ownership, as applicable:
• Will not impair the ability of any of the Exchange, NYSE Market, NYSE Regulation, NYSE Arca LLC, NYSE Arca, and NYSE Arca Equities (each a “U.S. Regulated Subsidiary” and together, “U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries”), NYSE Euronext or NYSE Group to discharge their respective responsibilities under the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder;
• Will not impair the ability of any of the European Market Subsidiaries or NYSE Euronext or Euronext to discharge their respective responsibilities under the European Exchange Regulations;
• Is otherwise in the best interest of NYSE Euronext, its stockholders, the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries and the European Market Subsidiaries; and
• Will not impair the Commission's ability to enforce the Exchange Act or the European Regulators' ability to enforce the European Exchange Regulations.
Such resolution expressly permitting such voting or ownership must be filed with and approved by the Commission under Section 19 of the Exchange Act
In addition, for so long as NYSE Euronext directly or indirectly controls the Exchange or NYSE Market, the NYSE Euronext board of directors cannot waive the voting and ownership limits above the 20% threshold for any person if such person or its related persons is a “member” or “member organization” of the Exchange (as defined in Exchange Rules). In addition, for so long as NYSE Euronext directly or indirectly controls NYSE Arca, NYSE Arca Equities, or any facility of NYSE Arca, the NYSE Euronext board of directors cannot waive the voting and ownership limits above the 20% threshold if such person or its related persons is an ETP Holder of NYSE Arca Equities, or an OTP Holder or an OTP Firm of NYSE Arca.
Members that trade on an exchange traditionally have ownership interests in such exchange. As the Commission has noted in the past, however, a member's interest in an exchange could become so large as to cast doubt on whether the exchange can fairly and objectively exercise its self-regulatory responsibilities with respect to that member.
The Commission finds the ownership and voting restrictions in the proposed NYSE Euronext Certificate of Incorporation are consistent with the Exchange Act. These requirements should minimize the potential that a person could improperly interfere with or restrict the ability of the Commission, the Exchange, or its subsidiaries to effectively carry out their regulatory oversight responsibilities under the Exchange Act.
Following the Combination, NYSE Group will merge with a wholly owned subsidiary of NYSE Euronext and the surviving corporation will be a wholly owned subsidiary of NYSE Euronext.
The Exchange has proposed to change the voting and ownership limitations of NYSE Group to include a statement that such limitations will not be applicable so long as NYSE Euronext and the Trust collectively own all of the capital stock of NYSE Group. Instead, while NYSE Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of NYSE Euronext, or as provided for in the Trust Agreement, there shall be no transfer of the shares of NYSE Group held by NYSE Euronext without the approval of the Commission.
In addition, pursuant to the proposed NYSE Operating Agreement, except as otherwise provided for in the Trust Agreement, NYSE Group may not transfer or assign its interest in the Exchange, in whole or part, to any person or entity, unless such transfer or assignment is filed with and approved by the Commission under Section 19 of the Exchange Act.
The Commission finds the changes to the ownership and voting restrictions in the proposed NYSE Group Certificate of Incorporation and the change in control provisions in the proposed NYSE Operating Agreement are consistent with the Exchange Act. These requirements should minimize the potential that a person could improperly interfere with or restrict the ability of the Commission, the Exchange, or its subsidiaries to effectively carry out their regulatory oversight responsibilities under the Exchange Act.
In addition, to allow NYSE Euronext to wholly own and vote all of NYSE Group stock upon consummation of the Combination, NYSE Euronext delivered a written notice to the board of directors of NYSE Group pursuant to the procedures set forth in the current NYSE Group Certificate of Incorporation requesting approval of its ownership and voting of NYSE Group stock in excess of the NYSE Group ownership limitation and NYSE Group voting limitation.
The notice from NYSE Euronext included representations of NYSE Euronext that neither it, nor any of its related persons, are: (1) ETP Holders of NYSE Arca Equities, OTP Holders or OTP Firms of NYSE Arca: (2) members or member organizations of the Exchange; or (3) subject to any statutory disqualification (as defined in Section 3(a)(39) of the Exchange Act). The NYSE Group board of directors adopted a resolution approving NYSE Euronext's request that it be permitted, either alone or with its related persons, to exceed the NYSE Group ownership limitation and the NYSE Group voting limitation.
The Commission believes it is consistent with the Exchange Act to allow NYSE Euronext to wholly own and vote all of the outstanding common stock of NYSE Group. The Commission notes that NYSE Euronext and the Exchange represents that neither NYSE Euronext nor any of its related persons is subject to any statutory disqualification (as defined in Section 3(a)(39) of the Exchange Act), or is an ETP Holder of NYSE Arca Equities, OTP Holder or OTP Firm of NYSE Arca or member or member organization of the Exchange. Moreover, NYSE Euronext has comparable voting and ownership limitations to NYSE Group.
Following the Combination, the Exchange, which is registered as a national securities exchange and is an SRO, will remain a wholly owned
Currently, directors of NYSE Group serve on the boards of the Exchange, NYSE Market, and NYSE Regulation, and the organizational documents of these entities refer to the independence requirements of NYSE Group. The Exchange has proposed to amend the organizational documents of the Exchange, NYSE Market, and NYSE Regulation to replace all references to NYSE Group with NYSE Euronext. Thus, a majority of the directors of each of the Exchange and NYSE Market must be U.S. Persons who are directors of NYSE Euronext that satisfy the independence requirements of the board of directors of NYSE Euronext. In addition, the Exchange's non-affiliated directors
Under the Independence Policy, the NYSE Euronext board of directors must make a determination that each director, other than the chief executive officer and deputy chief executive officer of NYSE Euronext, does not have any material relationships with NYSE Euronext and its subsidiaries.
In contrast to the current independence policy of NYSE Group, the Independence Policy will not provide that a person fails to be independent: (1) If he or she is an executive officer of a foreign private issuer of securities listed on the Exchange or NYSE Arca; (2) is a director of an affiliate of a member organization of the Exchange, NYSE Arca, or NYSE Arca Equities;
One commenter
The organizational documents of the Exchange, NYSE Market, and NYSE Regulation will be modified to require that a majority of the directors of the boards of each of the Exchange, NYSE Market, and NYSE Regulation be U.S. Persons and any vacancies on such boards created by the departure of a U.S. Person must be filled with a U.S. Person. Additionally, the organizational documents of the Exchange, NYSE Market and NYSE Regulation
Immediately following the consummation of the Combination, none of the directors of the Exchange, NYSE Market or NYSE Regulation who will serve on such boards will have been elected or appointed by the Nominating and Governance Committee of NYSE Euronext as prescribed in the proposed governing documents of the Exchange, NYSE Market, and NYSE Regulation. However, the Exchange represented that the board members of the Exchange, NYSE Market, and NYSE Regulation immediately preceding the consummation of the Combination—including the directors selected to meet the fair representation requirements of the Exchange Act
The NYSE Market Bylaws will be amended to delete the requirement that the chief executive officer of NYSE Group be the chief executive officer of NYSE Market, and to require instead that the chief executive officer of NYSE Market be a U.S. Person.
The amended organizational documents of the Exchange, NYSE Market, and NYSE Regulation will change the time period for member organizations to vote for “fair representation” candidates to 20 calendar days. Currently, if the number of “fair representation” candidates nominated for election to the boards of directors of each of the Exchange, NYSE Market and NYSE Regulation exceeds the number of available “fair representation” positions on such boards, member organizations of the Exchange have 20 business days to submit their votes for the “fair representation” candidates.
Although NYSE Euronext itself will not carry out regulatory functions, its activities with respect to the operation of any of the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries must be consistent with, and not interfere with, the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries' self-regulatory obligations. The proposed NYSE Euronext corporate documents include certain provisions that are designed to maintain the independence of the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries' self-regulatory functions from NYSE Euronext and NYSE Group, enable the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries to operate in a manner that complies with the U.S. federal securities laws, including the objectives and requirements of Sections 6(b) and 19(g) of the Exchange Act,
For example, under the proposed NYSE Euronext Bylaws, NYSE Euronext shall comply with the U.S. federal securities laws, the European Exchange Regulations, and the respective rules and regulations thereunder; shall cooperate with the Commission, the European Regulators, and the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries.
In addition, NYSE Euronext's books and records shall be subject at all times to inspection and copying by the Commission, the European Regulators, any U.S. Regulated Subsidiary (provided that such books and records are related to the operation or administration of such U.S. Regulated Subsidiary or any other U.S. Regulated Subsidiary over which such U.S. Regulated Subsidiary has regulatory authority or oversight) and any European Market Subsidiary (provided that such books and records are related to the operation or administration of such European Market Subsidiary or any European Regulated Market over which such European Market Subsidiary has regulatory authority or oversight).
In addition, for so long as NYSE Euronext directly or indirectly controls any U.S. Regulated Subsidiary, the books, records, premises, officers, directors, and employees of NYSE Euronext shall be deemed to be the books, records, premises, officers, directors, and employees of the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries for purposes of and subject to oversight pursuant to the Exchange Act, and for so long as NYSE Euronext directly or indirectly controls any European Market Subsidiary, the books, records, premises, officers, directors, and employees of NYSE Euronext shall be deemed to be the books, records, premises, officers, directors, and employees of such European Market Subsidiaries for purposes of and subject to oversight pursuant to the European Exchange Regulations.
NYSE Euronext, its directors and officers, and those of its employees whose principal place of business and residence is outside of the United States irrevocably submit to the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal courts and the Commission with respect to activities relating to the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries, and to the jurisdiction of the European Regulators and European courts with respect to activities relating to the European Market Subsidiaries.
Each of NYSE Euronext, NYSE Group, the Exchange and NYSE Market acknowledges that it is responsible for referring possible rule violations to NYSE Regulation. In addition, there will be an explicit agreement among NYSE Euronext, NYSE Group, the Exchange, NYSE Market and NYSE Regulation to provide adequate funding for NYSE Regulation, as is currently the case among the NYSE Group entities.
Finally, the proposed NYSE Euronext Certificate of Incorporation and proposed NYSE Euronext Bylaws require that, for so long as NYSE Euronext controls, directly or indirectly, any of the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries, any changes to the proposed NYSE Euronext Certificate of Incorporation and proposed NYSE Euronext Bylaws be submitted to the board of directors of the Exchange, NYSE Market, NYSE Regulation, NYSE Arca, and NYSE Arca Equities, and if any such boards of directors determines that such amendment is required to be filed with or filed with and approved by the Commission pursuant to Section 19 of the Exchange Act
The Commission finds that these provisions are consistent with the Exchange Act, and that they are intended to assist the Exchange in fulfilling its self-regulatory obligations and in administering and complying with the requirements of the Exchange Act. With respect to the maintenance of books and records of NYSE Euronext, the Commission notes that while NYSE Euronext has the discretion to maintain Overlapping Records in either the United States or the home jurisdiction of one or more of the European Market Subsidiaries, NYSE Euronext has represented to the Commission that it will maintain in the United States originals or copies of Overlapping Records covered by Rule 17a-1(b) under the Exchange Act
Under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
NYSE Euronext will operate several regulated entities located in the United States and in various jurisdictions in Europe. As described in the Notice, in connection with obtaining regulatory approval of the Combination, NYSE Euronext proposed to implement two standby structures, one involving a Delaware trust and one involving a Dutch foundation (“Dutch Foundation”). Pursuant to the terms of the Trust Agreement,
Upon the occurrence of a material adverse change of law
The Trust will be administered by a board of three trustees.
Pursuant to the Trust Agreement, actions of the Trust will require majority approval of the members of the board of trustees, following reasonable consultation and good-faith cooperation with NYSE Euronext.
Under the Trust Agreement, if a material adverse change in law occurs with respect to a NYSE Group securities exchange (an “affected subsidiary”) and shall continue after the cure periods specified below, the board of trustees of the Trust may exercise several remedies following prior notice to, and, if required under then applicable laws, prior approval by, the Commission.
After a cure period of six months, the board of trustees of the Trust may deliver confidential or public and non-binding or binding advice to NYSE Group and NYSE Euronext with respect to the affected subsidiary relating to decisions regarding: (1) Changes to the rules of an affected subsidiary; (2) decisions to enter into (or not enter into) or alter the terms of listing agreements of an affected subsidiary; (3) decisions
After a cure period of six months, the board of trustees of the Trust may assume management responsibilities of NYSE Group or its affected subsidiary with respect to some or all of the Assumed Matters. The board of trustees of the Trust may exercise a call option over priority shares issued by NYSE Group or its affected subsidiary, which priority shares will carry no or a limited economic right or interest and the right to vote on, make proposals with respect to and impose consent requirements to approve actions in relation to, the Assumed Matters.
After a cure period of nine months, the board of trustees of the Trust may exercise a call option over the common stock or voting securities of NYSE Group or its affected subsidiary, in each case, with such common stock, ordinary shares or voting securities being the minimum number necessary, in the reasonable opinion of the trustees of the Trust, to cause all affected subsidiaries to cease to be subject to a material adverse change of law.
Furthermore, subject to any required approval by the Commission, the Trust shall be entitled to give confidential non-binding advice to NYSE Euronext at any time before the end of the above-mentioned cure period and NYSE Euronext shall be entitled, in its sole discretion, to implement any remedy at any time before the end of such cure period.
Any of the above remedies may be imposed only if and to the extent that such remedy: (1) Causes all affected subsidiaries to cease to be subject to a material adverse change of European law; and (2) is the remedy available that causes the least intrusion on the conduct of the business and operations of NYSE Euronext and NYSE Group, and its subsidiaries, including the affected subsidiaries, by their respective governing bodies.
In addition, prior to the exercise of a call option, the board of trustees of the Trust must determine that no other remedy can cause all of the affected subsidiaries to cease to be subject to a material adverse change of law; consult with the NYSE Euronext board of directors; and, in the case of a material adverse change in law with respect to a NYSE Group securities exchange, consult with the NYSE Group board of directors and the Commission to consider the solutions available to address the situation that has arisen and would trigger the right of the Trust to exercise the remedies described above, taking into account any possible adverse consequences for NYSE Euronext or NYSE Group in terms of taxation or accounting treatment.
If and when any of the conditions of a material adverse change of law cease, any and all remedies shall be immediately unwound. NYSE Euronext shall have the right, at any time and regardless of whether a change of law continues to be a material adverse change of law, to request and cause the unwinding of any remedy for the purpose of and to the extent necessary to effect a divesture or spin-off of all or part of its interest in NYSE Group or NYSE Euronext, as applicable, or any subsidiary of NYSE Euronext operating an exchange that is affected by a material adverse change of law, as the case may be.
Although the Trust itself will not carry out regulatory functions, its activities with respect to the operation of NYSE Group and any of the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries must be consistent with, and not interfere with, the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries' self-regulatory obligations. The Trust Agreement includes certain provisions that are designed to maintain the independence of the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries' self-regulatory functions from the Trust, enable the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries to operate in a manner that complies with the U.S. federal securities laws, including the objectives and requirements of Sections 6(b) and 19(g) of the Exchange Act, and facilitate the ability of the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries and the Commission to fulfill their regulatory and oversight obligations under the Exchange Act.
For example, under the Trust Agreement, the Trust shall comply with the U.S. federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder, and shall cooperate with the Commission and the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries.
In addition, the Trust's books and records shall be subject at all times to inspection and copying by the Commission, NYSE Euronext, NYSE Group, and any U.S. Regulated Subsidiary (provided that such books and records are related to the operation or administration of such U.S. Regulated
In addition, for so long as the Trust directly or indirectly controls any U.S. Regulated Subsidiary, the books, records, premises, officers, trustees, and employees of the Trust shall be deemed to be the books, records, premises, officers, trustees, and employees of the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries for purposes of and subject to oversight pursuant to the Exchange Act.
The Trust Agreement provides that in no event shall the Trust sell, transfer, convey, assign, dispose, pledge (or agree to sell, transfer, convey, assign, dispose or pledge) any property of the Trust, except pursuant to the unwinding of the remedies, or in circumstances permitted by the Trust Agreement and pursuant to written instructions from NYSE Euronext approved by the board of directors of NYSE Euronext. In addition to the foregoing, any transfer, conveyance, assignment, disposition or pledge by the Trust or any trustee of any equity interest in, or all or substantially all of the assets of, the Exchange, NYSE Market, NYSE Regulation, NYSE Arca LLC, NYSE Arca, or NYSE Arca Equities (other than any such transfer or disposition to NYSE Euronext or its subsidiaries pursuant to the unwinding of remedies) shall not be effected until filed with the Commission under Section 19 of the Exchange Act.
The Trust Agreement requires that it may only be amended with prior written approval of the Commission, as and to the extent required under the Exchange Act.
The Commission finds that the Trust Agreement's provisions are designed to enable the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries to operate in a manner that complies with the federal securities laws, including the objectives and requirements of Sections 6(b) and 19(g) of the Exchange Act,
Under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
Under the organizational documents of NYSE Euronext, immediately following the exercise of a call option over a substantial portion of Euronext's business (a “Euronext call option”), whereby the priority shares or ordinary shares of Euronext are transferred from NYSE Euronext to the Dutch Foundation, and for so long as the Dutch Foundation shall continue to hold any priority shares or ordinary shares of Euronext, or the voting securities of one or more of the subsidiaries of Euronext that, taken together, represent a substantial portion of Euronext's business, then certain
In addition, if after a period of six months following the exercise of a Euronext call option, the Dutch Foundation shall continue to hold any ordinary or priority shares of Euronext or any ordinary or priority shares or similar voting securities of one or more subsidiaries of Euronext that, taken together, represent a substantial portion of Euronext's business, or if at any time, NYSE Euronext no longer holds a direct or indirect controlling interest in Euronext or in one or more subsidiaries of Euronext that, taken together, represent a substantial portion of Euronext's business, then certain provisions of the proposed NYSE Euronext Bylaws and the proposed NYSE Euronext Certificate of Incorporation shall be revoked.
The Commission finds the suspension or repeal of the above described provisions of the proposed NYSE Euronext Bylaws and the proposed NYSE Euronext Certificate of Incorporation under circumstances in which the Dutch Foundation controls a substantial portion of Euronext's business, is consistent with the Exchange Act.
NYSE Euronext intends to list its shares of common stock for trading on the Exchange, as well as on Euronext Paris. Pursuant to the proposed amendments to NYSE Rule 497, any security of NYSE Euronext and its affiliates shall not be approved for listing on the Exchange unless NYSE Regulation determines that such securities satisfy the Exchange's rules for listing, and such finding is approved by the NYSE Regulation board of directors.
NYSE Regulation will be responsible for all Exchange listing-compliance decisions with respect to NYSE Euronext as an issuer. As in the case of NYSE Group under current Exchange Rule 497, NYSE Regulation will prepare a quarterly report summarizing its monitoring of NYSE Euronext common stock's compliance with such listing standards and its monitoring of trading in such securities. This report will be provided to the NYSE board of directors and to the Commission. Any notification of lack of compliance with any applicable listing standard from NYSE Regulation to NYSE Euronext or an affiliate, and any corresponding plan of compliance, must be reported to the Commission. Once a year, an independent accounting firm will review NYSE Euronext's or any affiliated issuer's compliance with the Exchange's listing standards and a copy of this report will be forwarded to the Commission. The Commission believes that the procedures for monitoring of the listing of and trading of NYSE Euronext's or an affiliate's securities are consistent with the Act.
The Commission received a comment letter
The issue of the rights of owners of Separated OTRs is not before the Commission in the context of this rule filing. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act,
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act
By the Commission.
On January 12, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (“Exchange Act”)
The Commission has reviewed carefully the proposed rule change and finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposed rule change before the thirtieth day after the publication of notice thereof in the
The Commission also finds good cause for approving Amendment No. 1 prior to the thirtieth day after publishing notice of Amendment No. 1 in the
In addition, the Exchange made certain clarifying, conforming, technical, non-material, and non-substantive changes to the proposed Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Arca Holdings (“Arca Holdings Certificate of Incorporation”), the proposed NYSE Group Certificate of Incorporation, the Independence Policy, and the proposed Trust Agreement, which raise no new or novel issues. These changes are non-substantive and technical in nature and are necessary to reflect the changes from the current rules of the Exchange and clarify the proposal. The Commission finds good cause exists to accelerate approval of these changes prior to the thirtieth day
The Commission finds that the changes proposed in Amendment No. 1 are consistent with the Exchange Act and therefore finds good cause to accelerate approval of Amendment No. 1, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment No. 1, including whether Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The Exchange has submitted the proposed rule change in connection with the Combination of NYSE Group with Euronext. As a result of the Combination, the businesses of NYSE Group (including the businesses of the Exchange and NYSE LLC (a New York limited liability company, registered national securities exchange and self-regulatory organization)), and Euronext will be held under a single, publicly traded holding company named NYSE Euronext, a Delaware corporation (“NYSE Euronext”). Following the Combination, each of NYSE Group and Euronext will be a separate subsidiary of NYSE Euronext, and their respective businesses and assets will continue to be held as they are currently held (subject to any post-closing corporate reorganization of Euronext). The proposed rule change is necessary to effectuate the consummation of the Combination and will not be operative until the consummation of the Combination.
After the Combination, Arca Holdings, a Delaware corporation, will remain a wholly owned subsidiary of NYSE Group. NYSE Arca Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“NYSE Arca Holdings”), and NYSE Arca L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company (“NYSE Arca LLC”), will remain wholly owned subsidiaries of Arca Holdings. NYSE Arca will remain a wholly owned subsidiary of NYSE Arca Holdings, and NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities”), a Delaware corporation formerly known as PCX Equities, Inc., will remain a wholly owned subsidiary of NYSE Arca. NYSE Arca will continue to maintain its status as a registered national securities exchange and self-regulatory organization. Arca Holdings' businesses and assets will continue to be held by it and its subsidiaries. NYSE LLC will remain a wholly owned subsidiary of NYSE Group. NYSE Market, Inc. (“NYSE Market”), a Delaware corporation, and NYSE Regulation, Inc. (“NYSE Regulation”), a New York Type A not-for-profit corporation, will remain wholly owned subsidiaries of NYSE LLC.
The Exchange represents that the Combination will also have no effect on the ability of any party to trade securities on NYSE Arca, NYSE Arca Equities, or NYSE Market. Euronext and its subsidiaries will continue to operate their business and operations in substantially the same manner as they are conducted currently, with any changes subject to the approval of the European Regulators to the extent required.
Following the Combination, NYSE Euronext will be a for-profit, publicly traded stock corporation and will act as a holding company for the businesses of NYSE Group and Euronext. NYSE Euronext will own all of the equity interests in NYSE Group and its subsidiaries, including the Exchange and NYSE Arca, and a majority (if not all) of the equity interests in Euronext and its respective subsidiaries. Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act and rule 19b-4 thereunder require a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) to file proposed rule changes with the Commission. Although NYSE Euronext is not an SRO, certain provisions of the NYSE Euronext Certificate of Incorporation and NYSE Euronext Bylaws are rules of an exchange
It is currently contemplated that immediately after the Combination, the NYSE Euronext board of directors will consist of twenty-two directors.
The NYSE Euronext Certificate of Incorporation includes restrictions on the ability to vote and own shares of stock of NYSE Euronext.
The Commission finds the ownership and voting restrictions in the NYSE Euronext Certificate of Incorporation are consistent with the Exchange Act. These requirements should minimize the potential that a person could improperly interfere with or restrict the ability of the Commission, the Exchange, or its subsidiaries to effectively carry out their regulatory oversight responsibilities under the Exchange Act.
Following the Combination, NYSE Group will merge with a wholly owned subsidiary of NYSE Euronext and the surviving corporation will be a wholly owned subsidiary of NYSE Euronext. Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder require an SRO to file proposed rule changes with the Commission. Although NYSE Group is not an SRO, certain provisions of its Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Amended and Restated Bylaws are rules of an exchange
The Exchange has proposed to change the voting and ownership limitations of NYSE Group to include a statement that such limitations will not be applicable so long as NYSE Euronext and the Trust collectively own all of the capital stock of NYSE Group. Instead, while NYSE Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of NYSE Euronext, or as provided for in the Trust Agreement, there shall be no transfer of the shares of NYSE Group held by NYSE Euronext without the approval of the Commission.
The Commission finds the changes to the ownership and voting restrictions in the proposed NYSE Group Certificate of Incorporation are consistent with the Exchange Act. These requirements should minimize the potential that a person could improperly interfere with or restrict the ability of the Commission or the ability of the Exchange, NYSE Market, NYSE Regulation, NYSE Arca LLC, NYSE Arca, and NYSE Arca Equities (together, the “U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries”) to effectively carry out their regulatory oversight responsibilities under the Exchange Act.
The Exchange requested that the Commission allow NYSE Euronext to wholly own and vote all of the outstanding common stock of NYSE Group.
Following the Combination, NYSE Arca, which is registered as a national securities exchange and is an SRO, will remain a wholly owned subsidiary of NYSE Arca Holdings, and NYSE Arca Equities will remain a wholly owned subsidiary of NYSE Arca. The Combination will have no effect on the ability of any party to trade securities on NYSE Arca or NYSE Arca Equities. Pursuant to a regulatory services agreement, NYSE Regulation will continue to perform many of the regulatory functions of NYSE Arca.
There will be no change to the current manner of election or appointment of the directors and officers of Arca Holdings, NYSE Arca Holdings, NYSE Arca LLC, NYSE Arca, or NYSE Arca Equities as a result of the Combination.
Article Fourth of the proposed Arca Holdings Certificate of Incorporation will be amended to provide for voting or ownership of the shares of stock of Arca Holdings by the Trust pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Trust Agreement by and among NYSE Euronext, Inc., NYSE Group, Inc. and the trustees and Delaware trustee thereto.
Although NYSE Euronext itself will not carry out regulatory functions, its activities with respect to the operation of any of the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries must be consistent with, and not interfere with, the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries' self-regulatory obligations. The NYSE Euronext corporate documents include certain provisions that are designed to maintain the independence of the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries' self-regulatory functions from NYSE Euronext and NYSE Group, enable the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries to operate in a manner that complies with the federal securities laws, including the objectives of Sections 6(b) and 19(g) of the Exchange Act,
The Commission finds that the provisions proposed by the Exchange are consistent with the Exchange Act, and that they will assist the Exchange in fulfilling its self-regulatory obligations and in administering and complying with the requirements of the Exchange Act. With respect to the maintenance of books and records of NYSE Euronext, the Commission notes that while NYSE Euronext has the discretion to maintain books and records that relate to both the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries and the European Market Subsidiaries (each such book and record, an “Overlapping Record”) in either the United States or the home jurisdiction of one or more of the European Market Subsidiaries, NYSE Euronext has represented to the Commission that it will maintain in the United States originals or copies of Overlapping Records covered by Rule 17a-1(b) under the Exchange Act
Under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
NYSE Euronext will operate several regulated entities located in the United States and in various jurisdictions in Europe. In connection with obtaining regulatory approval of the Combination, NYSE Euronext proposed to implement two standby structures, one involving a Delaware trust and one involving a Dutch foundation (“Dutch Foundation”).
Upon the occurrence of a material adverse change of law that continues after the designated cure periods, the Trust may exercise certain remedies that result in a total or partial loss by NYSE Euronext of operating control over some of its securities exchanges. The Trust may require that NYSE Euronext transfer control over a substantial portion of its business and assets to the direction of the Trust. As a result,
The Trust Agreement contains detailed provisions with respect to governance of the Trust; remedies that may be exercised by trustees upon the occurrence of a material adverse change in law; the relationship of the Trust, NYSE Group, and the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries; and jurisdiction over the Trust.
Under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
Under the organizational documents of NYSE Euronext, immediately following the exercise of a call option over a substantial portion of Euronext's business (a “Euronext call option”), whereby the priority shares or ordinary shares of Euronext are transferred from NYSE Euronext to the Dutch Foundation, and for so long as the Dutch Foundation shall continue to hold any priority shares or ordinary shares of Euronext, or the voting securities of one or more of the subsidiaries of Euronext that, taken together, represent a substantial portion of Euronext's business, then certain provisions of the NYSE Euronext Bylaws shall be suspended.
In addition, if after a period of six months following the exercise of a Euronext call option, the Dutch Foundation shall continue to hold any ordinary or priority shares of Euronext or any ordinary or priority shares or similar voting securities of one or more subsidiaries of Euronext that, taken together, represent a substantial portion of Euronext's business, or if at any time, NYSE Euronext no longer holds a direct or indirect controlling interest in Euronext or in one or more subsidiaries of Euronext that, taken together, represent a substantial portion of Euronext's business, then certain provisions of the NYSE Euronext Bylaws and the NYSE Euronext Certificate of Incorporation shall be revoked.
The Commission finds the suspension or repeal of the above described provisions of the NYSE Euronext Bylaws and the NYSE Euronext Certificate of Incorporation under circumstances in which the Dutch Foundation controls a substantial portion of Euronext's business, is consistent with the Exchange Act.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Phlx proposes to decrease its payment for order flow fee from $0.70 per contract to $0.25 per contract for the equity options that trade as part of the Exchange's Penny Pilot Program to quote and trade options in penny increments (as discussed in more detail below). Listed below is each option class included in the Penny Pilot Program and the effective date of the fee change for such option class.
For the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock
Other than the rate changes described above, no other changes to the Exchange's current payment for order flow program are being proposed at this time.
This proposal is to become effective for trades settling on or after the rollout date for each option listed above and would remain in effect until May 27, 2007.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
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. PHLX has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Currently, the Exchange assesses a payment for order flow fee of $0.70 per contract for equity options other than options on QQQQ. Options on QQQQ are assessed $0.75 per contract. Specialists,
Separately, the Exchange intends to implement a six-month pilot period beginning on January 26, 2007 (the “pilot”), during which certain options (the options set forth in this proposal) would be quoted and traded on the Exchange in minimum increments of $0.01 for all series in such options with a price of less than $3.00, and in minimum increments of $0.05 for all series in such options with a price of $3.00 or higher, except that options overlying the QQQQ would be quoted and traded in minimum increments of $0.01 for all series regardless of the price.
The purpose of this proposal is to assess payment for order flow fees in a manner that the Exchange believes is more appropriate in light of the pilot. In connection with the implementation of the pilot, the Exchange proposes to decrease the amount of the payment for order flow fees in the options that are subject to the pilot because the Exchange believes that, with narrower minimum increments and therefore possibly narrower spreads, specialists, Directed ROTs, and ROTs may face tighter profit margins if coupled with the current $0.70 (or $0.75 for QQQQ) payment for order flow fee. By reducing the payment for order flow fees in the options that are subject to the pilot, the Exchange believes that members and member organizations should continue to display strong liquid markets, without being financially burdened with the higher payment for order flow fees that are currently in effect.
The purpose of establishing different effective dates is to implement the proposed payment for order flow fees on the date on which each specified option is rolled out in connection with the pilot. The proposed fees would remain in effect until May 27, 2007.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to amend its schedule of fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change 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”)
Phlx proposes to extend an existing pilot program applicable to Exchange Rule 1001, Position Limits, which increases the standard position and exercise limits for equity option contracts, including options on the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock
In its filing with the Commission, Phlx included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the existing Pilot Program, which is scheduled to expire March 1, 2007,
Position limits impose a ceiling on the number of option contracts in each class on the same side of the market relating to the same underlying security that can be held or written by an investor or group of investors acting in concert. Exchange Rule 1002 (not proposed to be amended herein) establishes corresponding exercise limits. Exercise limits prohibit an investor or group of investors acting in concert from exercising more than a specified number of puts or calls in a particular class within five consecutive business days.
Rule 1001 subjects equity options to one of five different position limits depending on the trading volume and outstanding shares of the underlying security. Rule 1002 establishes exercise limits for the corresponding options at the same levels as the corresponding security's position limits.
The Pilot Program increases the standard position and exercise limits for equity options traded on the Exchange and for options overlying QQQQ to the following levels:
To date, the Exchange believes that there have been no adverse affects on the market as a result of these increases in the limits for equity option contracts and options overlying QQQQ.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly affect the
A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
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 Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the laws of the United States, including Section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act and the Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security—Assignment of Functions Relating to Import Restrictions on Iraqi Antiquities, dated May 5, 2006 (71 FR 28,753), and delegated to the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs pursuant to Delegation of Authority No. 294 (July 6, 2006), I hereby delegate to the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs the functions of the President under section 3002 of the Emergency Protection for Iraqi Cultural Antiquities Act of 2004 (title III of Public Law 108-429).
In performing such functions, the Assistant Secretary of State shall consult the Secretary of Homeland Security and the heads of other departments and agencies or their designees, as appropriate.
Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, the Secretary of State, the Deputy Secretary of State, the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs may at any time exercise any function or authority delegated by this delegation of authority.
Any act, executive order, regulation or procedure subject to, or affected by, this delegation shall be deemed to be such act, executive order, regulation or procedure as amended from time to time.
This delegation of authority shall be published in the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Intent.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is issuing this notice to advise the public that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for a proposed highway project in Carter County, Tennessee.
Ms. Karen M. Brunelle, Planning and Program Management Team Leader, Federal Highway Administration—Tennessee Division Office, 640 Grassmere Park Road, Suite 112, Nashville, TN 37211. 615-781-5772.
An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared for the proposed project and completed on June 7, 2002. Since the June 7, 2002 EA approval, technical studies identified sensitive environmental features which warranted the consideration of additional alternatives beyond the ones studied for the western half of the original preferred alternative presented in the EA. The identified environmental issues could result in potential significant impacts. As a result, the FHWA in cooperation with the Tennessee Department of Transportation will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on a proposal to provide an improved corridor from west of State Route 362 to just west of State Route-37 (U.S. 19E), a distance of approximately four miles.
Alternatives to be considered include: (1) No-build; (2) a Transportation System Management (TSM) alternative; (3) a transit alternative; (4) one or more build alternatives that could include constructing a roadway on a new location, upgrading existing State Route-91, or a combination of both, and (5) other alternatives that may arise from public input. Public scoping meetings will be held for the project corridor. As part of the scoping process, federal, state, and local agencies and officials; private organizations; citizens; and interest groups will have an opportunity to identify issues of concern and provide input on the purpose and need for the project, range of alternatives, methodology, and the development of the Environmental Impact Statement. A Coordination Plan will be developed to include the public in the project development process. This plan will utilize the following outreach efforts to provide information and solicit input: newsletters, an internet Web site, e-mail and direct mail, informational meetings and briefings, public hearings, and other efforts as necessary and appropriate. A public hearing will be held upon completion of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and public notice will be given of the time and place of the hearing. The Draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the public hearings.
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are identified and taken into account, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments and questions concerning the proposed action should be directed to the FHWA contact person identified above at the address provided above.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by FHWA and other Federal agencies.
This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and other Federal agencies that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The actions relate to a proposed highway project, I-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project between Tukwila and Renton in the State of Washington. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on any of the listed highway projects will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before August 21, 2007. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 180 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
Stephen Boch, Major Project Oversight Manager, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson Federal Building, 915 2nd Avenue, Room 3142, Seattle, Washington, 98174; telephone: (206) 220-7536; and e-mail:
Notice is hereby given that the FHWA and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the following highway project in the State of Washington: I-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project. This project extends along I-405 from just east of the I-5/I-405 interchange in Tukwila north to the SR 169 interchange, and south on SR 167 to SW 41st Street. It consists of one new general-purpose lane in each direction along I-405 throughout most of the project limits. On SR 167, the project will extend the existing southbound HOV lane north to I-405 and add a southbound auxiliary lane from I-405 to the SW 41st Street off-ramp. The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the October 2006 Environmental Assessment (EA) and the January 31, 2007 Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and in other documents in the FHWA administrative record. The EA, FONSI and other documents in the FHWA administrative record are available by contacting the FHWA or WSDOT at the addresses provided above. The EA can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions on the listed projects as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing notice of proposed rulemaking (FI-221-83) and temporary regulation (FI-100-83), Indian Tribal Governments Treated as States for Certain Purposes (§§ 305.7701-1 and 305.7871-1).
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at (202) 622-3634, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any Internal Revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 5471 (and related schedules), Information Return of U.S. Persons With Respect To Certain Foreign Corporations.
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Carolyn N. Brown at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-6688, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 1120-C, U.S. Income Tax Return for Cooperative Associations.
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, (202) 622-3634, at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any Internal Revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8282, Donee Information Return (Sale, Exchange or Other Disposition of Donated Property) and Form 8283, Noncash Charitable Contributions.
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the forms and instructions should be directed to Carolyn N. Brown at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-6688, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing final regulation, REG-107186-00 (TD 9114), Electronic Payee Statements (§§ 1.6041-2, 1.6050S-2, 1.6050S-4, and 31.6051-1).
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3634, or through the internet at
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 706-QDT, U.S. Estate Tax Return for Qualified Domestic Trusts.
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3634, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any Internal Revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 2004-19, Probable or Prospective Reserves Safe Harbor.
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the revenue procedure should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3634, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing final regulation, INTL-362-88 (TD 8618), Definition of a Controlled Foreign Corporation, Foreign Base Company Income and Foreign Personal Holding Company Income of a Controlled Foreign Corporation (§§ 1.954-1 and 1.954-2).
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3634, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any Internal Revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 98-20, Certification for No Information Reporting on the Sale of a Principal Residence.
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the revenue procedure should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3634, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing final regulation, LR-7 (TD 6629). Limitation on Reduction in Income Tax Liability Incurred to the Virgin Islands (§ 1.934-1).
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6512, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Larnice Mack at Internal Revenue Service, room 6512, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3179, or through the internet at (
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Notice 89-61, Imported Substances; Rules for Filing a Petition.
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be directed to Carolyn N. Brown, at (202) 622-6688, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8833, Treaty-Based Return Position Disclosure Under Section 6114 or 7701(b).
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland Internal Revenue Service, room 6512, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Larnice Mack at Internal Revenue Service, room 6512, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3179, or through the internet at (
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing final regulations, REG-105170-97 (TD 8930) and REG-112991-01 (TD 9104), Credit for Increasing Research Activities (§ 1.41-8(b)).
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of regulations should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3634, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing final regulation, PS-260-82 (TD 8449), Election, Revocation, Termination, and Tax Effect of Subchapter S Status (§§ 1.1362-1 through 1.1362-7).
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at (202) 622-3634, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8453-EO, Exempt Organization Declaration and Signature for Electronic Filing.
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland Internal Revenue Service, room 6512, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Larnice Mack at Internal Revenue Service, room 6512, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3179, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing final regulation, INTL-955-86 (TD 8350), Requirements for Investments to Qualify Under Section 936(d)(4) As Investments in Qualified Carribean Basin Countries (§ 1.936-10(c)).
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3634, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8873, Extraterritorial Income Exclusion.
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6512, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Larnice Mack at Internal Revenue Service, room 6512, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3179, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 1128, Application to Adopt, Change, or Retain a Tax Year.
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Carolyn N. Brown, at (202) 622-6688, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8038, Information Return for Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bond Issues, Form 8038-G, Information Return for Tax-Exempt Governmental Obligation, and Form 8038-GC, Information Return for Small Tax-Exempt Governmental Bond Issues, Leases, and Installment Sales.
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the forms and instructions should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3634, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8809, Request for Extension of Time To File Information Returns.
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6512, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Larnice Mack at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 4768, Application for Extension of Time To File a Return and/or Pay U.S. Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Taxes.
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3634, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any Internal Revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing final regulation, LR-255-81 (T.D. 8002), Substantiation of Charitable Contributions (§ 1.170A-13).
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at (202) 622-3634, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any Internal Revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 1098-E, Student Loan Interest Statement.
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at (202) 622-3634, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any Internal Revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8879-PE, IRS e-file Signature Authorization for Form 1065.
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, (202) 622-3634, at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any Internal Revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing notice of proposed rulemaking, INTL-870-89, Earnings Stripping (Section 163(j)).
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Larnice Mack at Internal Revenue Service, room 6512, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3179, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 1120-ND, Return for Nuclear Decommissioning Funds and Certain Related Persons.
Written comments should be received on or before April 23, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6512, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Larnice Mack at Internal Revenue Service, room 6512, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622-3179, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any Internal Revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the Small Business/Self Employed—Taxpayer Burden Reduction Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The TAP will be discussing issues pertaining to increasing compliance and lessening the burden for Small Business/Self Employed individuals.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, March 27, 2007.
Marisa Knispel at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3557.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Small Business/Self Employed—Taxpayer Burden Reduction Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, March 27, 2007 from 12:30 pm ET to 1:30 pm ET via a telephone conference call. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3557, or write to Marisa Knispel, TAP Office, 10 Metro Tech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Marisa Knispel. Ms. Knispel can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3557, or post comments to the Web site:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, March 8, 2007 at 2 p.m. ET.
Inez De Jesus at 1-888-912-1227, or 954-423-7977.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Thursday, March 8, 2007 at 2 p.m. ET via a telephone conference call. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7977, or write Inez De Jesus, TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Inez De Jesus. Ms. De Jesus can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7977, or post comments to the Web site:
The agenda will include: Various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, March 20, 2007.
Audrey Y. Jenkins at 1-888-912-1227 (toll-free), or 718-488-2085 (non toll-free).
An open meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, March 20, 2007 from 9 a.m. ET to 10 a.m. ET via a telephone conference call. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-2085, or write Audrey Y. Jenkins, TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Audrey Y. Jenkins. Ms. Jenkins can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-2085, or post comments to the Web site:
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Friday, March 9, 2007.
Dave Coffman at 1-888-912-1227, or 206-220-6096.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Friday, March 9, 2007 from 9 a.m. Pacific Time to 10:30 a.m. Pacific Time via a telephone conference call. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6096, or write to Dave Coffman, TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174 or you can contact us at
The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before April 23, 2007.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-21), this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs, has submitted the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 26, 2007.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Denise McLamb, Records Management Service (005G2), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 565-8374, fax (202) 565-7870 or e-mail
a. Health Care for Certain Children of Vietnam Veterans—Spina Bifida and Covered Birth Defects—Regulation.
b. Claim for Miscellaneous Expenses, VA Form 10-7959e.
a. VA's medical regulations 38 CFR part 17 (17.900 through 17.905) establish regulations regarding provision of health care for women Vietnam veterans' children born with spina bifida and certain other covered birth defects. The information collected will be used to determine whether to approve requests for preauthorization of certain health care services and benefits for children of Vietnam veterans; the appropriateness of billings for such services; and to make decisions during the review and appeal process concerning the child's health care.
b. Beneficiaries complete VA Form 10-7959e to claim payment/reimbursement of expenses related to spina bifida and certain covered birth defects. Health care providers complete standard billing forms such as: Uniform Billing-Forms (UB) 92, and HCFA 1500, Medicare Health Insurance Claims Form. Without the requested information VA will be unable to determine the correct amount to reimburse providers for their services or beneficiaries for covered expenses.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-21), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, has submitted the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 26, 2007.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Denise McLamb, Records Management Service (005G2), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 565-8374, fax (202) 565-7870 or e-mail
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is announcing the availability of funds for applications for assistance under the Technical Assistance Grant component of VA's Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program. This notice contains information concerning the program, application process, and amount of funding available.
An original completed and collated grant application (plus three completed collated copies) for assistance under the VA's Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program must be received in the Grant and Per Diem Field Office, by 4 p.m. Eastern Time on April 4, 2007. Applications submitted through Grants.gov will be the only electronic format accepted. Applications may not be sent by facsimile (FAX) or other electronic means (e-mail). In the interest of fairness to all competing applicants, this deadline is firm as to date and hour, and VA will treat as ineligible for consideration any application that is received after the deadline. This includes applications through Grants.gov. Applicants should take this practice into account and make early submission of their material to avoid any risk of loss of eligibility brought about by electronic transmission problems, unanticipated delays or other delivery-related problems.
Download directly from VA's Grant and Per Diem Program Web page at:
An original completed and collated grant application (plus three copies) must be submitted to the following address: VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Field Office, 10770 N. 46th Street, Suite C-200, Tampa, FL 33617. Applications must be received in the Grant and Per Diem Field office by the application deadline. This includes applications submitted through Grants.gov. Applications must arrive as a complete package. Materials arriving separately will not be included in the application package for consideration and may result in the application being rejected or not funded.
Dr. Guy Liedke, VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program, Department of Veterans Affairs, 10770 North 46th Street, Suite C-200, Tampa FL 33617; (toll-free) 1-877-332-0334.
This notice announces the availability of funds for assistance under VA's Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program for eligible non-profit entities with expertise in preparing grant applications relating to the provision of assistance for homeless veterans to: Provide technical assistance to those non-profit community-based groups with experience in providing assistance to homeless veterans in order to help such groups apply for grants under the Final Rule, published in the
The Veterans Benefit, Health Care and Information Technology Act of 2006, Public Law 109-461, § 703 and § 707 respectively, authorizes this program. Funding applied for under this notice may be used for: (a) Group or individual seminars providing general instructions concerning grant applications; (b) Group or individual seminars providing instructions for applying for a specific grant; or (c) Group or individual instruction for preparing analyses to be included in a grant application. Seminars (course of instruction) may be delivered in electronic, face-to-face and correspondence methodologies (
Entities that are interested in providing technical assistance should be aware that historically the Grant and Per Diem Program office receives over 1,200 nationwide inquiries per Notice of Fund Availability (NOFA) from prospective applicants. It is estimated that an additional 1,000 inquiries are received nationwide at VA Medical Center Homeless Programs. From these inquiries, VA has seen an increase in the number of applicants each year. Approximately 100 to 300 applications per funding round have been received in past responses to (NOFAs under VA's Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program. Additionally, faith-based organizations that are capable of providing supported housing and/or supportive service center services for homeless veterans have figured prominently into the mix of non-profit organizations seeking funding. Those entities applying to provide technical assistance should consider not only the numbers, but the diversity of the service providers seeking assistance when establishing their service plans.
The applicant for this funding will be expected to develop an integrated technical assistance plan, using funds for purposes as specified in this NOFA, the objectives of the program rules and regulations, as well as the intent of Public Law 107-95 to offer technical assistance to agencies in their-specified target area. Applicants should take note that they will be held accountable to provide to VA documentation that demonstrates the objectives of technical training are being met throughout the course of the award cycle, and documentation that clearly demonstrates the completion of technical assistance objectives were met, cumulatively, at the end of the funding period. Also, VA intends to conduct both periodic fiscal and performance reviews of the awarded agency(s).
The technical assistance should not only raise the awareness of providers regarding the availably of funds to assist homeless veterans, but also increase providers' proficiency in applying for and managing funds to assist homeless veterans. Applicants should take the aforementioned into consideration when developing a technical assistance plan. Outcomes measure that are specific and measurable should be an integral part of the technical assistance plan that is submitted in the application.
Grant applicants may not receive assistance to replace funds provided by any State or local government for the same purpose.
The activities are:
(a) 25 national presentations to potential grantees with regard to providing measurable objectives;
(b) 25 one-on-one project planning sessions that are consistent with the ability of the grantee to meet their objectives and deliver the housing and or services as stated in their grant applications;
(c) 12 on-site grant management systems reviews with emphasis on proper grant project outcome documentation; and
(d) 25 national presentations to non-profit grantees and potential grantees regarding Office of Budget and Management (OMB) grant management circulars.
With this criteria, of those eligible entities in the first funding priority that are legally fundable, the highest scoring applicant will be funded first, followed by the second highest scoring applicant until $2 million is funded. Of this group, not more than one (1) Technical assistance grant will be awarded to the same technical assistance recipient (defined by tax identification number). Using the guidance above, should the goal not be met and if funding is still available, remaining funding will go to the second funding priority.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is announcing the availability of funds for applications for assistance under the “Per Diem Only” component of VA's Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program. This Notice contains information concerning the program, funding priorities, application process and amount of funding available.
An original completed and collated grant application (plus three completed collated copies) for assistance under the VA's Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program must be received in the Grant and Per Diem Field Office, by 4 p.m. Eastern Time on
Dr. Guy Liedke, VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program, Department of Veterans Affairs, 10770 N. 46th Street, Suite C-200, Tampa, FL 33617; (toll-free) 1-877-332-0334.
This Notice announces the availability of funds for assistance under VA's Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program for eligible programs that have not previously applied for or received per diem in connection with a grant (
As these “Per Diem Only” projects are currently serving homeless veterans, VA expects that it will take no longer than 90 days from the date of award for projects to be inspected and become operational for receiving per diem. Failure to meet the 90-day milestone may result in the grant being terminated.
Capital grant recipients who received capital grant funding under VA's Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program in years 1994 through 2006 for acquisition, renovation or new construction should not respond to this NOFA. Per diem for those portions of their programs that were created with capital grant funds is requested in the capital grant application and paid at the time of capital grant project completion and inspection.
Previous “Per Diem Only” recipients that renewed their PDO grants in 2005 need not reapply. VA is pleased to issue this Notice of Fund Availability (NOFA) for the Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program as part of the effort to end chronic homelessness among our nation's veterans. The Department expects to create 1000 beds under this NOFA.
Funding available under this NOFA is being offered to help offset the operating expenses of existing state and local governments, Indian Tribal governments, faith-based, and community-based organizations that are capable of providing supported housing and/or supportive service center services for homeless veterans. The District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any territory or possession of the United States, may be considered eligible entities under the definition of “State” in the 38 CFR 61.1 Definitions. It should be noted that VA payment is limited to the applicant's cost of care per eligible veteran, minus other sources of payments to the applicant for furnishing services to homeless veterans up to the per-day rate VA pays for State Home Domiciliary care. Awardees will be required to support their request for per diem payment with adequate fiscal documentation as to program income and expenses.
Interested organizations should know that the vast majority of homeless veterans in this country suffer from mental illness or substance abuse disorders or are dually diagnosed with both mental illness and substance abuse disorders. In addition, many homeless veterans have serious medical problems. Collaboration with VA medical centers, VA community-based outpatient clinics or other health care providers is an important aspect of assuring that homeless veterans have access to appropriate health care services.
It is important to be aware that VA places great emphasis on responsibility and accountability. VA has procedures in place to monitor services provided to homeless veterans and outcomes associated with the services provided in grant and per diem-funded programs. VA is also implementing new procedures to further this effort. Applicants should be aware of the following:
All awardees that are conditionally selected in response to
Each per diem-funded program will have a liaison appointed from a nearby VA medical facility to provide oversight and monitor services provided to homeless veterans in the per diem-funded program.
Monitoring will include at least an annual review of each per diem program's progress toward meeting internal goals and objectives in helping veterans attain housing stability, adequate income support, and self sufficiency as identified in each per diem program's original application.
Each per diem-funded program will participate in VA's national program monitoring and evaluation system administered by VA's Northeast Program Evaluation Center (NEPEC). It is the intention of VA to develop specific performance targets with respect to housing for homeless veterans. NEPEC's monitoring procedures will be used to determine successful accomplishment of these housing outcomes for each per diem-funded program.
VA encourages all eligible and interested entities to review this NOFA and consider applying for funds to provide service for homeless veterans.
VA's Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program is authorized by Pub. L. 109-461, § 703, known as the Veterans Benefit, Health Care and Information Technology Act of 2006,
In this round of “Per Diem Only” funding, VA expects to award funding for approximately 1,000 community-based supported housing beds.
The highest-ranked application for which funding is available, within the highest funding category, will be conditionally selected for eligibility to receive per diem payment in accordance with their ranked order until VA reaches the projected bed totals for each category. If funds are still available after selection of those applications in the highest priority group, VA will continue to conditionally select applicants in lower priority categories in accordance with the selection method set forth in the Interim Final Rule Sec. 61.32.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is announcing the availability of funds for currently operational VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem (GPD) providers to make applications for assistance under the Special Need Grant Component of VA's GPD Program. The focus of this Notice of Fund Availability (NOFA) is to encourage new applicants to create new projects that will deliver services to the homeless Special Need veteran population. This Notice contains information concerning the program, application process, and amount of funding available. Note: Current Special Need providers should not respond to this NOFA. Renewal funding is being offered under a separate NOFA.
An original completed grant application (plus three completed collated copies) for each project seeking assistance under the VA's GPD Program Special Need Grant Component must be received in the Grant and Per Diem Field Office, by 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 4, 2007. Applications submitted through Grants.gov will be the only electronic format accepted. Applications may not be sent by facsimile (FAX) or other electronic means (e-mail). In the interest of fairness to all competing applicants, this deadline is firm as to date and hour, and VA will treat as ineligible for consideration any application that is received after the deadline. This includes applications through Grants.gov. Applicants should take this practice into account and make early submission of their material to avoid any risk of loss of eligibility brought about by electronic transmission problems, unanticipated delays or other delivery-related problems.
Dr. Guy Liedke, VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program, Department of Veterans Affairs, 10770 N. 46th Street, Suite C-200, Tampa, FL 33617; (toll-free) 1-877-332-0334.
This Notice announces the availability of funds for assistance under VA's GPD Program for currently operational Grant and Per Diem providers to obtain grant assistance with additional operational costs that would not otherwise be incurred but for the fact that the recipient is providing supportive housing beds and services for the Special Needs of the following homeless veteran populations:
Definitions of these populations are contained in 38 CFR 61.1 Definitions. Eligible applicants should review these definitions to ensure their proposed populations meet the specific requirements.
VA is pleased to issue this NOFA for the Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program as part of the effort to end chronic homelessness among our Nation's veterans. Funding applied for under this Notice may be used for: The provision of service, operation, or personnel to facilitate the following with regard to the targeted group:
Seriously Mentally Ill:
(1) Help participants join in and engage with the community;
(2) Facilitate reintegration with the community and provide services that may optimize reintegration such as life-skills education, recreational activities, and follow-up case management;
(3) Ensure that participants have opportunities and services for re-establishing relationships with family;
(4) Ensure adequate supervision, including supervision of medication and monitoring of medication compliance; and
(5) Provide opportunities for participants, either directly or through referral, to obtain other services particularly relevant for a seriously mentally ill population, such as vocational development, benefits management, fiduciary or money management services, medication compliance, and medication education.
Women, including women who have care of minor dependents:
(1) Ensure transportation for women and their children, especially for health care and educational needs;
(2) Provide directly or offer referrals for adequate and safe child care;
(3) Ensure children's health care needs are met, especially age-appropriate wellness visits and immunizations; and
(4) Address safety and security issues including segregation procedures from other program participants if deemed appropriate.
Frail Elderly:
(1) Ensure the safety of the residents in the facility to include preventing harm and exploitation;
(2) Ensure opportunities to keep residents mentally and physically agile to the fullest extent through the incorporation of structured activities, physical activity, and plans for social engagement within the program and in the community;
(3) Provide opportunities for participants to address life transitional issues and separation and/or loss issues;
(4) Provide access to assistance devices such as walkers, grippers, or other devices necessary for optimal functioning;
(5) Ensure adequate supervision, including supervision of medication and monitoring of medication compliance; and
(6) Provide opportunities for participants either directly or through referral for other services particularly relevant for the frail elderly, including services or programs addressing emotional, social, spiritual, and generative needs.
Terminally Ill:
(1) Help participants address life-transition and life-end issues;
(2) Ensure that participants are afforded timely access to hospice services;
(3) Provide opportunities for participants to engage in “tasks of dying,” or activities of “getting things in order” or other therapeutic actions that help resolve end-of-life issues and enable transition and closure;
(4) Ensure adequate supervision including supervision of medication and monitoring of medication compliance; and
(5) Provide opportunities for participants either directly or through referral for other services, particularly relevant for terminally ill such as legal counsel and pain management.
VA is seeking, through this NOFA, to provide an opportunity to currently operational Grant and Per Diem providers that are located in areas where Special Need project collaboration with the local VA is not feasible due to geographic distance, in small urban or rural areas, or where the Special Need population is relatively small, yet in need of these services. VA is seeking these new projects to create a unique service niche for these less addressed Special Needs veteran populations.
No part of a Special Need grant may be used for any purpose that would change significantly the scope of the specific grant and per diem project for which a Capital Grant and Per Diem was awarded. As a part of the review process, VA will review the original
A separate Special Need application is required for each previously funded Grant and Per Diem project (identified by unique project number; see Application Requirements in this NOFA).
Special Need funding may not be used for capital improvements or to purchase vans or real property. However, the leasing of vans or real property may be acceptable. Questions regarding acceptability should be directed to VA's Grant and Per Diem Field Office (at the number listed above). Applicants may not receive Special Need assistance to replace funds provided by any Federal, state or local government agency or program to assist homeless persons.
It is important to be aware that VA places great emphasis on responsibility and accountability. VA has procedures in place to monitor services provided to homeless veterans and outcomes associated with the services provided in Grant and Per Diem-funded programs. Applicants should be aware of the following:
VA per diem payment is limited to the applicant's cost of care per eligible veteran minus other sources of payments to the applicant for furnishing services to homeless veterans up to the per day rate VA pays for State Home Domiciliary care. Additionally, potential applicants should take into consideration, “Grant recipients that concurrently receive Per Diem and Special Needs payments shall not be paid more than 100 percent of the cost for the bed per day, product, operation, personnel, or service provided” (38 CFR 61.61(h)). Awardees will be required to support their request for Per Diem and Special Needs payments with adequate fiscal documentation as to program income and expenses.
All awardees that are conditionally selected in response to
Each grant awardee will have the VA liaison that was appointed for its corresponding Grant and Per Diem program monitor services to ensure the Special Need grant is being met and will include at least an annual review of each program's progress toward meeting internal goals and objectives in helping the Special Need homeless veterans as identified in each applicant's original Special Need application. Monitoring for all participants will include a review of the agency's income and expenses as they relate to this project to ensure Per Diem and Special Need payments are accurate.
Monitoring of Homeless Special Need participants and services provided by Grant and Per Diem recipients will be accomplished according to the Northeast Program Evaluation Center (NEPEC) procedure. These monitoring procedures will be used to determine successful accomplishment of outcomes for each collaborative partnership.
Funding for operational Grant and Per Diem applicants that are finally selected will not exceed the period specified in this NOFA. A condition to obtain the Special Need grant is for the applicant to maintain the original (grant or per diem) program for which the Special Need grant is sought.
The package includes the applicant's required forms and certifications. Selections will be made based on criteria described in the application and additional information as specified in this NOFA.
Applicants who are selected will be notified of any further additional information needed to confirm or clarify information provided in the application. Applicants will then be notified of the deadline to submit such information. If an applicant is unable to meet any conditions for grant award within the specified time frame, VA reserves the right to not award funds and to use the funds available for other grant and per diem applicants.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is announcing the availability of funds for currently operational VA Grant and Per Diem Special Need Grant Recipients in conjunction with their collaborative VA Special Need partners to make re-applications for assistance under the Special Need grant component of VA's Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem (GPD) Program. The focus of this Notice of Fund Availability (NOFA) is to encourage applicants to continue to deliver services to the homeless Special Need veteran population. This Notice contains information concerning the program, application process, and amount of funding available.
An original completed grant application (plus three completed
Dr. Guy Liedke, VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program, Department of Veterans Affairs, 10770 N. 46th Street, Suite C-200, Tampa, FL 33617; (toll-free) 1-877-332-0334.
This Notice announces the availability of funds for assistance under VA's Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program for currently operational Grant and Per Diem Special Need recipients and their collaborative VA partners to obtain grant assistance with additional operational costs that would not otherwise be incurred but for the fact that the recipient is providing supportive housing beds and services or at service centers for the Special Needs of the centers for the following homeless veteran populations:
Chronically mentally ill;
Women, including women who have care of minor dependents;
Frail elderly; or
Terminally ill.
Definitions of these populations are contained in 38 CFR 61.1 Definitions. Eligible applicants should review these definitions to ensure their proposed populations meet the specific requirements.
VA is pleased to issue this NOFA for the Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem program as a part of the effort to end chronic homelessness among our Nation's veterans. Funding applied for under this Notice may be used for: the provision of service, operation, or personnel to facilitate the following with regard to the targeted group:
Chronically Mentally Ill:
(1) Help participants join in and engage with the community;
(2) Facilitate reintegration with the community and provide services that may optimize reintegration such as life-skills education, recreational activities, and follow up case management;
(3) Ensure that participants have opportunities and services for re-establishing relationships with family;
(4) Ensure adequate supervision, including supervision of medication and monitoring of medication compliance; and
(5) Provide opportunities for participants, either directly or through referral, to obtain other services particularly relevant for a chronically mentally ill population, such as vocational development, benefits management, fiduciary or money management services, medication compliance, and medication education.
Women, including women who have care of minor dependents:
(1) Ensure transportation for women and their children, especially for health care and educational needs;
(2) Provide directly or offer referrals for adequate and safe child care;
(3) Ensure children's health care needs are met especially age appropriate wellness visits and immunizations; and
(4) Address safety and security issues including segregation procedures from other program participants if deemed appropriate.
Frail Elderly:
(1) Ensure the safety of the residents in the facility to include preventing harm and exploitation;
(2) Ensure opportunities to keep residents mentally and physically agile to the fullest extent through the incorporation of structured activities, physical activity, and plans for social engagement within the program and in the community;
(3) Provide opportunities for participants to address life transitional issues and separation and/or loss issues;
(4) Provide access to assistance devices such as walkers, grippers, or other devices necessary for optimal functioning;
(5) Ensure adequate supervision, including supervision of medication and monitoring of medication compliance; and
(6) Provide opportunities for participants either directly or through referral for other services particularly relevant for the frail elderly, including services or programs addressing emotional, social, spiritual, and generative needs.
Terminally Ill:
(1) Help participants address life-transition and life-end issues;
(2) Ensure that participants are afforded timely access to hospice services;
(3) Provide opportunities for participants to engage in “tasks of dying,” or activities of “getting things in order” or other therapeutic actions that help resolve end of life issues and enable transition and closure;
(4) Ensure adequate supervision including supervision of medication and monitoring of medication compliance; and
(5) Provide opportunities for participants either directly or through referral for other services particularly relevant for terminally ill such as legal counsel and pain management.
VA is seeking, through this NOFA, to renew previous grant and per diem Special Need providers and their VA collaborative partners to continue to serve the Special Need veteran populations.
No part of a Special Need grant may be used for any purpose that would change significantly the scope of the specific Grant and Per Diem project for which a Capital Grant and Per Diem was awarded. As a part of the review process, VA will review the original project listed in the Special Need application to ensure significant scope changes do not occur—displacing other homeless veteran populations. VA may reject for Special Need Funding those applications that significantly alter the original scope (38 CFR 61.62).
A separate Special Need application is required for each previously funded Grant and Per Diem project (identified
Special Need funding may not be used for capital improvements or to purchase vans or real property. However, the leasing of vans or real property may be acceptable. Questions regarding acceptability should be directed to VA's Grant and Per Diem Field Office (at the number listed above). Applicants may not receive Special Need assistance to replace funds provided by any Federal, state or local government agency or program to assist homeless persons.
The goal is to the maximum extent possible is to ensure a continuation of Special Need services to homeless veterans and their VA collaborative partners.
It is important to be aware that VA places great emphasis on responsibility and accountability. VA has procedures in place to monitor services provided to homeless veterans and outcomes associated with the services provided in Grant and Per Diem-funded programs. Applicants should be aware of the following:
VA per diem payment is limited to the applicant's cost of care per eligible veteran, minus other sources of payments to the applicant for furnishing services to homeless veterans up to the per day rate VA pays for State Home Domiciliary care. Additionally, potential applicants should take into consideration, “Grant recipients that concurrently receive per diem and Special Needs payments shall not be paid more than 100 percent of the cost for the bed per day, product, operation, personnel, or service provided” [38 CFR 61.61(h)]. Awardees will be required to support their request for per diem and Special Needs payments with adequate fiscal documentation as to program income and expenses.
All awardees that are conditionally selected in response to
Each Grant awardee will have the VA liaison that was appointed for its corresponding Grant and Per Diem program monitor services to ensure the Special Need grant is being met and will include at least an annual review of each program's progress toward meeting internal goals and objectives in helping the Special Need homeless veterans as identified in each applicant's original Special Need application. Monitoring for all participants will include a review of the agency's income and expenses as they relate to this project to ensure per diem and Special Need payments are accurate.
Monitoring of Homeless Special Need participants and services provided by Grant and Per Diem recipients will be accomplished according to the Northeast Program Evaluation Center (NEPEC) procedure. These monitoring procedures will be used to determine successful accomplishment of outcomes for each collaborative partnership.
Funding for operational Grant and Per Diem applicants that are finally selected will not exceed the period specified in this NOFA. A condition to obtain the Special Need Grant is for the applicant to maintain the original (grant or per diem) program for which the Special Need grant is sought.
The grant application requirements are specified in the application package and the following additional information is required by this NOFA.
a. Applicants should include in their submissions documentation of successful past performance.
b. If the previous Special Needs grant was a collaborative the submission must include the appropriate performance data from the VA collaborative partner that the VA met its objectives or provided its duties as outlined in the original MOA.
c. An updated MOA signed by the VAMC Director and the applicant agency Director specifying the collaborative and specific duties of the non-profit provider and those of the VA Medical Center that will be accomplished under this grant.
d. Complete new budgets for the provider and collaborative partner with costs based on past costs incurred and evidence of the same. Based on the amount of funding available providers should include any projected excess funds still remaining from their previous award when calculating and submitting their budgets for this NOFA. Previously awarded funding will be used first, followed by the funding from this NOFA for the delivery of services.
Applicants having questions with regard to the projected amount of funding from previous Special Need awards should contact the Grant and Per Diem Field Office prior to application for this NOFA.
The package includes the applicant's required forms and certifications. Selections will be made based on criteria described in the application and additional information as specified in this NOFA.
Applicants who are selected will be notified of any further additional information needed to confirm or clarify information provided in the application. Applicants will then be notified of the deadline to submit such information. If an applicant is unable to meet any
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Blue Ribbon Panel on VA-Medical School Affiliations has scheduled a meeting for March 27, 2007, in Room 542 at 1800 G Street NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and will end at 3 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Panel is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, through the Under Secretary for Health, in issues related to a comprehensive philosophical framework to enhance VA's partnerships with medical schools and affiliated institutions.
The panelists will review VA's current affiliations with medical schools and establish the future directions of the Panel. The Panel will receive background presentations and issue papers on various topics that are relevant to the Panel's deliberations.
Interested persons may attend and present oral statements to the Panel. Oral presentations will be limited to five minutes or less, depending on the number of participants. Interested parties may also provide written comments for review by the Panel prior to the meeting or at any time, by e-mail to
By Direction of the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War (FPOW) has scheduled a meeting for April 16-18, 2007, at the Department of Veterans Affairs Central Office, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will be held in room 630 on April 16 and room 830 on April 17-18, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the administration of benefits under title 38, United States Code, for veterans who are former prisoners of war, and to make recommendations on the needs of such veterans for compensation, health care, and rehabilitation.
The agenda for April 16 will begin with an introduction of Committee members, remarks from dignitaries, a review of Committee reports, an update of activities since the last meeting, and a period for FPOW veterans and/or the public to address the Committee. On April 17, the Committee will hear reports from the Veterans Health Administration and Veterans Benefits Administration. The Committee will also hear an update on Robert E. Mitchell Center for Prisoners of War studies. On April 18, the Committee's medical and administrative work groups will meet to discuss their activities and report back to the Committee. Additionally, the Committee will review and analyze comments presented during the meeting to compile a report to be sent to the Secretary.
Members of the public may direct questions or submit written statements for review by the Committee in advance of the meeting to Mr. Bradley G. Mayes, Director, Compensation and Pension Service (21), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. Submitted materials must be received by April 1, 2007.
By Direction of the Secretary.