Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Foreign Agricultural Service
Forest Service
Engineers Corps
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Customs and Border Protection Bureau
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
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.
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Final rule; announcement of approval and compliance date, with technical amendment.
The provisions of the final rule entitled Senior Farmers? Market Nutrition Program Regulations published on December 12, 2006, contained information collection requirements that required approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This document announces the approval date of the provisions contained in the final rule and amends the final rule to include the OMB Control Number assigned to the information collection burden.
Debra Whitford or Donna Hines, Supplemental Food Programs Division, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 528, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, (703) 305-2746, OR
Aging, Community supported agriculture programs, Elderly, Farmers, Farmers' markets, Food assistance programs, Food donations, Grant programs, Nutrition education, Public assistance programs, Seniors, Social programs.
7 U.S.C. 3007.
The information collection requirements for part 249 have been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The OMB approval number is 0584-0541.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim final rule revising the administrative rules and regulations that define production districts, allocate committee membership, and specify nomination procedures for the Nectarine Administrative Committee (NAC) and the Peach Commodity Committee (PCC) (committees). The committees are responsible for local administration of the Federal marketing orders (orders) for fresh nectarines and peaches grown in California, respectively. This rule also continues in effect the revision to the committees' mailing address. These revisions are necessary to bring the orders' administrative rules and regulations into conformance with the recently amended order provisions.
Laurel May, Marketing Specialist, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237;
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237;
This rule is issued under Marketing Order Nos. 916 and 917, both as amended (7 CFR parts 916 and 917), regulating the handling of nectarines and peaches grown in California, respectively, hereinafter referred to as the “orders.” The orders are effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule continues in effect the action that removed or revised obsolete language in the orders' administrative rules and regulations pertaining to the alignment of production districts; the allocation of committee membership; and the nomination processes for NAC, Shipper's Advisory Committee, PCC, and Control Committee members. This rule also continues in effect to change the PCC's business address by removing reference to the Control Committee in order to reflect current committee operations. These changes are needed to bring the orders' administrative rules and regulations into conformity with amendments to the orders' provisions recently approved by nectarine and peach growers. These changes were unanimously recommended by the committees at their meetings on August 31, 2006.
Section 916.12 of the nectarine order establishes the nectarine production districts into which the state of California has been divided. Section 916.20 establishes the size of the NAC and the allocation of NAC membership to the districts defined in § 916.12. In addition, § 916.31 provides authority for the NAC to recommend changes to district boundaries and to reapportion committee representation to reflect shifts in production within the state as necessary. The changes to district boundaries and membership reapportionment recommended by the NAC were reflected in §§ 916.105 and 916.107 of the order's administrative rules and regulations.
A final rule amending §§ 916.12 and 916.20 of the nectarine order was published in the
Section 917.14 of the peach marketing order establishes the peach production districts into which the State of California has been divided. Section 917.20 establishes the size of the PCC and § 917.22 prescribes the allocation of PCC membership to the districts defined in § 917.14. Authority is provided in § 917.35 for the PCC to recommend changes to district boundaries and to reapportion committee representation to reflect shifts in production within the state as necessary. The changes to district boundaries and membership reapportionment recommended by the PCC are reflected in § 917.120 of the order's administrative rules and regulations.
A final rule amending §§ 917.14 and 917.22 of the peach order was published in the
Section 916.22 of the nectarine marketing order specifies nomination procedures for members and alternate members of the NAC. Authority is provided in § 916.30 for the NAC to recommend and adopt rules and regulations regarding the nominations procedures. Furthermore, § 916.37 establishes the nectarine Shippers' Advisory Committee and authorizes the NAC to prescribe nominations procedures for that committee. Section 916.102 was added to the order's administrative rules and regulations to provide specific details regarding the nomination meeting procedures for the NAC and the Shippers' Advisory Committee.
A final rule amending § 916.22 was published in the
After January 1, 2007, § 916.102 was no longer consistent with the amended NAC nomination process, and references to the Shippers' Advisory Committee were obsolete. Therefore, the NAC recommended that the section be removed from the nectarine order's administrative rules and regulations. This rule continues the action that removed § 916.102.
Section 917.24 of the peach marketing order specifies the nomination procedures for members and alternate members of the PCC. Authority is provided in § 917.35 for the PCC to recommend and adopt rules and regulations regarding the nomination procedures. Section 917.119 was added to the order's administrative rules and regulations to provide specific details regarding the nomination meeting procedures for the PCC and the Pear Commodity Committee. Order provisions pertaining to the Pear Commodity Committee have been suspended since 1994, and the Pear Commodity Committee is not currently active.
A final rule published in the
The Control Committee, doing business as the California Tree Fruit Agreement (CTFA), has historically functioned as the joint administrative body for the commodity committees under Part 917. The Control Committee, or CTFA, has been the designated recipient of all the handlers' reports and other business communications. Section 917.110 provided the business address for the Control Committee.
The final rule published in the
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 150 California nectarine and peach handlers subject to regulation under the orders and about 800 growers of these fruits in the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms, which include handlers, are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $6,500,000. Small agricultural growers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000. A majority of these handlers and growers may be classified as small entities.
The committees' staff has estimated that there are fewer than 26 handlers in the industry who could be defined as other than small entities. For the 2005 season, the committees' staff estimated that the average handler price received was $10.00 per container or container equivalent of nectarines or peaches. A handler would have to ship at least 650,000 containers to have annual receipts of $6,500,000. Given data on shipments maintained by the committees' staff and the average handler price received during the 2005 season, the committees' staff estimates that small handlers represent approximately 86 percent of all the handlers within the industry.
The committees' staff has also estimated that fewer than 10 percent of the growers in the industry could be defined as other than small entities. For the 2005 season, the committees' staff estimated the average grower price received was $5.25 per container or container equivalent for nectarines and peaches. A grower would have to produce at least 142,858 containers of nectarines and peaches to have annual receipts of $750,000. Given data maintained by the committees' staff and the average grower price received during the 2005 season, the committees' staff estimates that small growers represent more than 90 percent of the growers within the industry.
With an average grower price of $5.25 per container or container equivalent, and a combined packout of nectarines and peaches of approximately 38,776,500 containers, the value of the 2005 packout is estimated to be $203,576,600. Dividing this total estimated grower revenue figure by the estimated number of growers (800) yields an average revenue per grower of about $254,471 from the sales of peaches and nectarines.
Amendments to the orders were recently approved by nectarine and peach growers. The amendments were implemented in a final rule that was published in the
This rule continues in effect the action that removed or revised certain sections of the orders' administrative rules and regulations to conform to the amended order provisions.
Sections 916.105 and 916.107 of the nectarine order, and 917.120 of the peach order, which specify production district boundaries and committee membership allocations, are no longer applicable because the orders' provisions have been updated to include revised production districts and committee member apportionment. These obsolete sections have been removed. Any subsequent changes to the production districts and reallocation of committee membership among new districts will be accomplished by notice and comment rulemaking as appropriate.
Section 916.102 of the nectarine marketing order, which specifies nomination meeting procedures for the NAC and the Shippers' Advisory Committee, has been removed because the nectarine order has been amended to allow mail balloting for NAC membership, and because the Shippers' Advisory Committee has been eliminated. Section 917.119 of the peach marketing order, which specifies nomination meeting procedures for the PCC and Pear Commodity Committee, has been revised because the order provisions pertaining to the PCC have been amended to allow mail balloting. A new paragraph was added to that section to clarify which procedures pertain to both the Peach and Pear Commodity Committees, and which pertain only to the Pear Commodity Committee.
Finally, § 917.110 of the peach marketing order was revised by removing the Control Committee's name from the address to which industry reports and business correspondence should be addressed to conform with recent amendments to the order.
These changes are necessary to bring the orders' rules and regulations into conformance with the amended order provisions.
This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public
Further, the committees' meetings were widely publicized throughout the nectarine and peach industries and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and participate in committee deliberations. Like all committee meetings, the August 31, 2006, meetings were public meetings and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on these issues.
An interim final rule concerning this action was published in the
The AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at the following Web site:
After consideration of all relevant matters presented, the information and recommendations submitted by the committees, and other information, it is found that finalizing the interim final rule, without change, as published in the
Marketing agreements, Nectarines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Marketing agreements, Peaches, Pears, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule establishes final free and restricted percentages for the 2006-2007 crop year. The percentages are 55 percent free and 45 percent restricted and will establish the proportion of cherries from the 2006 crop which may be handled in commercial outlets. The percentages are intended to stabilize supplies and prices, and strengthen market conditions. The percentages were recommended by the Cherry Industry Administrative Board (Board), the body that locally administers the marketing order. The marketing order regulates the handling of tart cherries grown in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Patricia A. Petrella or Kenneth G. Johnson, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, Unit 155, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD 20737;
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation, or obtain a guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237;
This final rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 930 (7 CFR part 930), regulating the handling of tart cherries produced in the States of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order provisions now in effect, final free and restricted percentages may be established for tart cherries handled by handlers during the crop year. This rule establishes final free and restricted percentages for tart cherries for the 2006-2007 crop year, beginning July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempt therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review the Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
The order prescribes procedures for computing an optimum supply and preliminary and final percentages that establish the amount of tart cherries that can be marketed throughout the season. The regulations apply to all handlers of tart cherries that are in the regulated districts. Tart cherries in the free percentage category may be shipped immediately to any market, while restricted percentage tart cherries must be held by handlers in a primary or secondary reserve, or be diverted in accordance with § 930.59 of the order and § 930.159 of the regulations, or used for exempt purposes (to obtain diversion credit) under § 930.62 of the order and § 930.162 of the regulations. The regulated Districts for this season are: District one—Northern Michigan; District two—Central Michigan; District three—Southwest Michigan; District four—New York; District seven—Utah; and District eight—Washington. Districts five, six and nine (Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, respectively) will not be regulated for the 2006-2007 season.
The order prescribes under § 930.52 that those districts to be regulated shall be those districts in which the average annual production of cherries over the prior three years has exceeded six million pounds. A district not meeting the six million-pound requirement shall not be regulated in such crop year. Because this requirement was not met in the Districts of Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, handlers in those districts will not be subject to volume regulation during the 2006-2007 crop year.
Demand for tart cherries at the farm level is derived from the demand for tart cherry products at retail. Demand for tart cherries and tart cherry products tend to be relatively stable from year to year. The supply of tart cherries, by contrast, varies greatly from crop year to crop year. The magnitude of annual fluctuations in tart cherry supplies is one of the most pronounced for any agricultural commodity in the United States. In addition, because tart cherries are processed either into cans or frozen, they can be stored and carried over from crop year to crop year. This creates substantial coordination and marketing problems. The supply and demand for tart cherries is rarely balanced. The primary purpose of setting free and restricted percentages is to balance supply with demand and reduce large surpluses that may occur.
Section 930.50(a) of the order prescribes procedures for computing an optimum supply for each crop year. The Board must meet on or about July 1 of each crop year, to review sales data, inventory data, current crop forecasts and market conditions. The optimum supply volume shall be calculated as 100 percent of the average sales of the prior three years to which is added a desirable carryout inventory not to exceed 20 million pounds or such other amount as may be established with the approval of the Secretary. The optimum supply represents the desirable volume of tart cherries that should be available for sale in the coming crop year before new crop supplies are available for marketing.
The order also provides that on or about July 1 of each crop year, the Board is required to establish preliminary free and restricted percentages. These percentages are computed by deducting the actual carryin inventory from the optimum supply figure (adjusted to raw product equivalent—the actual weight of cherries handled to process into cherry products) and subtracting that figure from the current year's USDA crop forecast. If the resulting number is positive, this represents the estimated over-production, which would be the restricted percentage tonnage. The restricted percentage tonnage is then divided by the sum of the USDA crop forecast or by an average of such other crop estimates for the regulated districts to obtain percentages for the regulated districts. The Board is required to establish a preliminary restricted percentage equal to the quotient, rounded to the nearest whole number, with the complement being the preliminary free tonnage percentage. If the tonnage requirements for the year are more than the USDA crop forecast, the Board is required to establish a preliminary free tonnage percentage of 100 percent and a preliminary restricted percentage of zero. The Board is required to announce the preliminary percentages in accordance with paragraph (h) of § 930.50.
The Board met on June 22, 2006, and computed, for the 2006-2007 crop year, an optimum supply of 182 million pounds. The Board recommended that the desirable carryout figure be zero pounds. Desirable carryout is the amount of fruit required to be carried into the succeeding crop year and is set by the Board after considering market circumstances and needs. This figure can range from zero to a maximum of 20 million pounds, or such other amount, as the Board with the approval of the Secretary, may establish.
The Board calculated preliminary free and restricted percentages as follows: The USDA estimate of the crop for the entire production area was 256 million pounds; a 25 million pound carryin (based on Board estimates) was subtracted from the optimum supply of 182 million pounds which resulted in 2006-2007 tonnage requirements (adjusted optimum supply) of 157 million pounds. The carryin figure reflects the amount of cherries that handlers actually had in inventory at the beginning of the 2006-2007 crop year. Subtracting the adjusted optimum supply of 157 million pounds from the USDA crop estimate (256 million pounds) results in a surplus of 99 million pounds of tart cherries. The surplus was divided by the production in the regulated districts (249 million pounds) and resulted in a restricted percentage of 40 percent for the 2006-2007 crop year. The free percentage was 60 percent (100 percent minus 40 percent). The Board established these percentages and announced them to the industry as required by the order.
The preliminary percentages were based on the USDA production estimate and the following supply and demand information available at the June meeting for the 2006-2007 year:
Between July 1 and September 15 of each crop year, the Board may modify the preliminary free and restricted percentages by announcing interim free and restricted percentages to adjust to the actual pack occurring in the industry.
USDA establishes final free and restricted percentages through the informal rulemaking process. These percentages would make available the tart cherries necessary to achieve the optimum supply figure calculated by the Board. The difference between any final free percentage designated by USDA and 100 percent is the final restricted percentage. The Board met on September 9, 2006, to recommend final free and restricted percentages.
The actual production reported by the Board was 263 million pounds, which is a 7 million pound increase from the USDA crop estimate of 256 million pounds.
A 31 million pound carryin (based on handler reports) was subtracted from the Board's optimum supply of 182 million pounds, yielding an adjusted optimum supply for the current crop year of 151 million pounds. The adjusted optimum supply of 151 million pounds was subtracted from the actual production of 263 million pounds, which resulted in a 112 million pound surplus. The total surplus of 112 million pounds is divided by the 251 million-pound volume of tart cherries produced in the regulated districts. This results in a 45 percent restricted percentage and a corresponding 55 percent free percentage for the regulated districts.
The final percentages are based on the Board's reported production figures and the following supply and demand information available in September for the 2006-2007 crop year:
USDA's “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders” specify that 110 percent of recent years' sales should be made available to primary markets each season before recommendations for volume regulation are approved. This goal will be met by this action which releases 100 percent of the optimum supply and the additional release of tart cherries provided under § 930.50(g). This release of tonnage, equal to 10 percent of the average sales of the prior three years sales, is made available to handlers each season. The Board recommended that such release should be made available to handlers the first week of December and the first week of May. Handlers can decide how much of the 10 percent release they would like to receive on the December and May release dates. Once released, such cherries are released for free use by such handler. Approximately 18 million pounds would be made available to handlers this season in accordance with USDA Guidelines. This release will be made available to every handler and released to such handler in proportion to the handler's percentage of the total regulated crop handled. If a handler does not take his/her proportionate amount, such amount remains in the inventory reserve.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 40 handlers of tart cherries who are subject to regulation under the tart cherry marketing order and approximately 900 producers of tart cherries in the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms, which include handlers, have been defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $6,500,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000. A majority of the producers and handlers are considered small entities under SBA's standards.
The principal demand for tart cherries is in the form of processed products. Tart cherries are dried, frozen, canned, juiced, and pureed. During the period 2001/2002 through 2005/2006,
Based on National Agricultural Statistics Service data, acreage in the United States devoted to tart cherry production has been trending downward. Bearing acreage has declined from a high of 50,050 acres in 1987/88 to 37,050 acres in 2005/2006. This represents a 26 percent decrease in total bearing acres. Michigan leads the nation in tart cherry acreage with 73 percent of the total and produces about 70 percent of the U.S. tart cherry crop each year.
The 2006/2007 crop is moderate in size at 263 million pounds. The largest crop occurred in 1995 with production in the regulated districts reaching a record 395.6 million pounds. The price per pound received by tart cherry growers ranged from a low of 7.3 cents in 1987 to a high of 46.4 cents in 1991. These problems of wide supply and price fluctuations in the tart cherry industry are national in scope and impact. Growers testified during the order promulgation process that the prices they received often did not come close to covering the costs of production.
The industry demonstrated a need for an order during the promulgation process of the marketing order because large variations in annual tart cherry supplies tend to lead to fluctuations in prices and disorderly marketing. As a result of these fluctuations in supply and price, growers realize less income. The industry chose a volume control marketing order to even out these wide variations in supply and improve returns to growers. During the promulgation process, proponents testified that small growers and processors would have the most to gain from implementation of a marketing order because many such growers and handlers had been going out of business due to low tart cherry prices. They also testified that, since an order would help increase grower returns, this should increase the buffer between business success and failure because small growers and handlers tend to be less capitalized than larger growers and handlers.
Aggregate demand for tart cherries and tart cherry products tends to be relatively stable from year-to-year. Similarly, prices at the retail level show minimal variation. Consumer prices in grocery stores, and particularly in food service markets, largely do not reflect fluctuations in cherry supplies. Retail demand is assumed to be highly inelastic which indicates that price reductions do not result in large increases in the quantity demanded. Most tart cherries are sold to food service outlets and to consumers as pie filling; frozen cherries are sold as an ingredient to manufacturers of pies and cherry desserts. Juice and dried cherries are expanding market outlets for tart cherries.
Demand for tart cherries at the farm level is derived from the demand for tart cherry products at retail. In general, the farm-level demand for a commodity consists of the demand at retail or food service outlets minus per-unit processing and distribution costs incurred in transforming the raw farm commodity into a product available to consumers. These costs comprise what is known as the “marketing margin.”
The supply of tart cherries, by contrast, varies greatly. The magnitude of annual fluctuations in tart cherry supplies is one of the most pronounced for any agricultural commodity in the United States. In addition, because tart cherries are processed either into cans or frozen, they can be stored and carried over from year-to-year. This creates substantial coordination and marketing problems. The supply and demand for tart cherries is rarely in equilibrium. As a result, grower prices fluctuate widely, reflecting the large swings in annual supplies.
In an effort to stabilize prices, the tart cherry industry uses the volume control mechanisms under the authority of the Federal marketing order. This authority allows the industry to set free and restricted percentages. These restricted percentages are only applied to states or districts with a 3-year average of production greater than six million pounds, and to states or districts in which the production is 50 percent or more of the previous 5-year processed production average.
The primary purpose of setting restricted percentages is an attempt to bring supply and demand into balance. If the primary market is over-supplied with cherries, grower prices decline substantially.
The tart cherry sector uses an industry-wide storage program as a supplemental coordinating mechanism under the Federal marketing order. The primary purpose of the storage program is to warehouse supplies in large crop years in order to supplement supplies in short crop years. The storage approach is feasible because the increase in price—when moving from a large crop to a short crop year—more than offsets the costs for storage, interest, and handling of the stored cherries.
The price that growers receive for their crop is largely determined by the total production and carryin inventories. The Federal marketing order permits the industry to exercise supply control provisions, which allow for the establishment of free and restricted percentages for the primary market, and a storage program. The establishment of restricted percentages impacts the production to be marketed in the primary market, while the storage program has an impact on the volume of unsold inventories.
The volume control mechanism used by the cherry industry results in decreased shipments to primary markets. Without volume control the primary markets (domestic) would likely be over-supplied, resulting in lower grower prices.
To assess the impact that volume control has on the prices growers receive for their product, an econometric model has been developed. The econometric model provides a way to see what impacts volume control may have on grower prices. The three districts in Michigan, along with the districts in Utah, New York, and Washington are the restricted areas for this crop year and their combined total production is 251 million pounds. A free percentage of 55 percent means 138 million pounds are available to be shipped to primary markets from these four states. Production levels of 3.4 million pounds for Oregon, 4.5 million pounds for Pennsylvania, and 4.3 million pounds for Wisconsin (the unregulated areas in 2006-2007), result in an additional 12.2 million pounds available for primary market shipments.
In addition, USDA requires a 10 percent release from reserves as a market growth factor. This results in an additional 18 million pounds being available for the primary market. The 138 million pounds from Michigan, Utah, Washington, and New York; the 12.2 million pounds from the other producing states; the 18 million pound release; and the 31 million pound carryin inventory gives a total of 199.2 million pounds being available for the primary markets.
The econometric model is used to estimate the difference between grower prices with and without restrictions. With volume controls, grower prices are estimated to be approximately $0.025 per pound higher than without volume controls.
The use of volume controls is estimated to have a positive impact on grower's total revenues. With restrictions, revenues are estimated to
It is concluded that the 45 percent volume control would not unduly burden producers, particularly smaller growers. The 45 percent restriction would be applied to the growers in Michigan, New York, Utah, and Washington. The growers in the other three States covered under the marketing order will benefit from this restriction.
Recent grower prices have been as high as $0.44 per pound in 2002-03 when there was a crop failure. Prices in the last two crop years have been $0.33 in 2004 and $0.24 per pound in 2005. At current production levels, yield is estimated at approximately 7,112 pounds per acre. At this level of yield, the cost of production is estimated to be $0.31 per pound (Cost of Production Tart Cherries in Northwestern Michigan, Nugent, Kole, Thornton, Bardenhagen). Thus, this year's grower price even with regulation is estimated to be below the cost of production. The use of volume controls is believed to have little or no effect on consumer prices and should not result in fewer retail sales or sales to food service outlets.
Without the use of volume controls, the industry could be expected to start to build large amounts of unwanted inventories. These inventories have a depressing effect on grower prices. The econometric model shows for every 1 million-pound increase in carry-in inventories, a decrease in grower prices of $0.0039 per pound occurs. The use of volume controls allows the industry to supply the primary markets while avoiding the disastrous results of over-supplying these markets. In addition, through volume control, the industry has an additional supply of cherries that can be used to develop secondary markets such as exports and the development of new products. The use of reserve cherries in the production shortened 2002-2003 crop year proved to be very useful and beneficial to growers and packers.
In discussing the possibility of marketing percentages for the 2006-2007 crop year, the Board considered the following factors contained in the marketing policy: (1) The estimated total production of tart cherries; (2) the estimated size of the crop to be handled; (3) the expected general quality of such cherry production; (4) the expected carryover as of July 1 of canned and frozen cherries and other cherry products; (5) the expected demand conditions for cherries in different market segments; (6) supplies of competing commodities; (7) an analysis of economic factors having a bearing on the marketing of cherries; (8) the estimated tonnage held by handlers in primary or secondary inventory reserves; and (9) any estimated release of primary or secondary inventory reserve cherries during the crop year.
The Board's review of the factors resulted in the computation and announcement in September 2006 of the free and restricted percentages established by this rule (55 percent free and 45 percent restricted).
One alternative to this action would be not to have volume regulation this season. Board members stated that no volume regulation would be detrimental to the tart cherry industry due to the size of the 2006-2007 crop. Returns to growers would not cover their costs of production for this season which might cause some to go out of business.
As mentioned earlier, USDA's “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders” specify that 110 percent of recent years' sales should be made available to primary markets each season before recommendations for volume regulation are approved. The quantity available under this rule is 110 percent of the quantity shipped in the prior three years.
The free and restricted percentages established by this rule release the optimum supply and apply uniformly to all regulated handlers in the industry, regardless of size. There are no known additional costs incurred by small handlers that are not incurred by large handlers. The stabilizing effects of the percentages impact all handlers positively by helping them maintain and expand markets, despite seasonal supply fluctuations. Likewise, price stability positively impacts all producers by allowing them to better anticipate the revenues their tart cherries will generate.
While the benefits resulting from this rulemaking are difficult to quantify, the stabilizing effects of the volume regulations impact both small and large handlers positively by helping them maintain markets even though tart cherry supplies fluctuate widely from season to season.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this regulation.
In addition, the Board's meeting was widely publicized throughout the tart cherry industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Board deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the September 9, 2006, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.
In compliance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations (5 CFR part 1320) which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements under the tart cherry marketing order have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB Number 0581-0177.
Reporting and recordkeeping burdens are necessary for compliance purposes and for developing statistical data for maintenance of the program. The forms require information which is readily available from handler records and which can be provided without data processing equipment or trained statistical staff. As with other, similar marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically studied to reduce or eliminate duplicate information collection burdens by industry and public sector agencies. This rule does not change those requirements.
AMS is committed to complying with E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services and for other purposes.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Board and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
It is found that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tart cherries.
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
This section will not appear in the annual Code of Federal Regulations.
The final percentages for tart cherries handled by handlers during the crop year beginning on July 1, 2006, which shall be free and restricted, respectively, are designated as follows: Free percentage, 55 percent and restricted percentage, 45 percent.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
This document publishes in the
Effective April 9, 2007, to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2006-26-51, issued on December 22, 2006, which contained the requirements of this amendment.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 9, 2007.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before May 22, 2007.
Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this AD:
•
•
•
•
•
You may get the service information identified in this AD from American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas 75053-4005, telephone (972) 641-3460, fax (972) 641-3527.
You may examine the docket that contains the AD, any comments, and other information on the Internet at
Charles Harrison, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Safety Management Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0110, telephone (817) 222-5128, fax (817) 222-5961.
On December 22, 2006, the FAA issued Emergency AD 2006-26-51 for the specified model helicopters, which requires, before further flight, marking the position of the tail rotor control lever dynamic weights (weights), removing the split pins and the weights, and by referring to Figure 1 of the manufacturer's service bulletin, visually inspecting the area around the split pin bore for score marks, notches, scratches, or other damage that exceeds the maintenance manual limitations or a crack and replacing any unairworthy tail rotor control lever before further flight. The AD also requires, within 10 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, repeating the visual inspection of the tail rotor control lever and replacing any unairworthy tail rotor control lever with an airworthy tail rotor control lever before further flight. Also required is reassembling the tail rotor control lever by following the appropriate maintenance instruction. That action was prompted by an in-flight incident in which a dynamic weight broke off the tail rotor control lever subsequently leading to considerable vibrations. A visual inspection revealed that the threaded portion of the control lever containing the dynamic weight had broken off. This condition, if not corrected, could result in separation of the weights in flight, severe vibration, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA) has issued an Emergency AD in accordance with Article 10.1 of European Union Regulation 1592/2002. The LBA, the airworthiness authority for the Federal Republic of Germany, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on these helicopter models. The LBA advises of an in-flight incident in which a dynamic weight broke off the tail rotor control lever resulting in considerable vibrations. The LBA advises that this can lead to reduced controllability of the helicopter.
The FAA has reviewed Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. MBB BK 117 C-2-64A-002, dated December 21, 2006 (ASB), which describes procedures for initial and recurrent visual inspections of the tail rotor control lever. The ASB specifies inspecting the area around the split pin bore for damage, and if score marks, notching, scratching, a crack, or something similar are detected to contact ECD customer support. In addition, the manufacturer states in that ASB that it is effective for Model MBB BK117 C-2 helicopters, Serial Number (S/N) 9075 and higher, and those helicopters from S/N 9004 up to and including S/N 9074 on which Alert Service Bulletin MBB BK 117 C-2-67-006, dated July 25, 2006, (SB MBB BK 117-C-2-67-006) has been accomplished. The referenced SB MBB BK 117-C-2-67-006, states that it offers improvements with regard to a reduction of the operational pedal control forces. These improvements involved two modifications (1) Installing modified pedal control levers, and (2) installing an optimized tail rotor control lever assembly “consisting of modified weights and modified control lever pre-assys.” Installing the optimized tail rotor control lever assembly involved replacing the 2 control levers, Part Number (P/N) B642M1009102, with 2 control levers, P/N B642M1009103, and replacing the 4 weights, P/N B642M1011201 with 4 weights, P/N B642M1011202. The LBA classified this ASB as mandatory and issued LBA AD D-2006-428, effective December 22, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters in Germany.
This helicopter model is manufactured in the Federal Republic of Germany and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral agreement. The FAA has examined the findings of the LBA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Since the unsafe condition described is likely to exist or develop on other ECD Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters of the same type design, the FAA issued Emergency AD 2006-26-51 to prevent separation of the weights in flight, severe vibration, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. The AD requires the following:
• Before further flight, marking the position of the weights, removing the split pins, removing the weights, and visually inspecting the tail rotor control lever in the area around the split pin bore for score marks, notching, scratching, or a crack.
• If you find score marks, notching, or scratches, that exceed the maintenance manual limits, or find a crack, replacing the tail rotor control lever with an airworthy tail rotor control lever before further flight.
• If you do not find score marks, notching, scratches, or a crack, within 10 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, repeating the visual inspection of the tail rotor control lever.
• After any repetitive inspection, if you find score marks, notching, or scratches, that exceed the maintenance manual limits or find a crack, replacing the tail rotor control lever with an airworthy tail rotor control lever before further flight.
• Reassembling the tail rotor control lever by following the appropriate maintenance instruction.
The actions must be accomplished in accordance with the specified portions of the ASB described previously. The short compliance time involved is required because the previously described critical unsafe condition can adversely affect the structural integrity and controllability of the helicopter. Therefore, the actions previously described are required at the specified short time intervals, and this AD must be issued immediately.
Since it was found that immediate corrective action was required, notice and opportunity for prior public comment thereon were impracticable and contrary to the public interest, and good cause existed to make the AD effective immediately by individual letters issued on December 22, 2006 to all known U.S. owners and operators of ECD Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters. These conditions still exist, and the AD is hereby published in the
The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 26 helicopters on the U.S. registry. The before-flight inspection, the 10-hour TIS inspection, and each of the repetitive 25-hour TIS inspections (assuming 24 repetitive inspections per year per helicopter) including marking the position of the weights, removing the split pins, removing the weights, and visually inspecting the tail rotor control lever and reassemblying an airworthy tail rotor control lever will take about 1 work hour per inspection per helicopter. Replacing 1 tail rotor control lever and 1 weight will take about 3 work hours. The average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Required parts, if necessary, will cost about $4,166 for each tail rotor control lever (2 per helicopter); $496 for each weight (4 per helicopter); and $.21 for each cotter pin (4 per helicopter). Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators for the first year will be $181,532 ($6,982 per helicopter, assuming 1 tail rotor control lever and 1 weight are replaced on each helicopter in the fleet during the first year).
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any written data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States,
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the 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 an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the DMS to examine the economic evaluation.
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.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, serial number (S/N) 9075 and higher, and those helicopters from S/N 9004 up to and including 9074, on which Service Bulletin MBB BK117 C-2-67-006 has been accomplished, with a tail rotor control lever B642M1009103, installed, certificated in any category.
The referenced Eurocopter Alert Service bulletin MBB BK 117 C-2-67-006, dated July 25, 2006, pertains to the subject of this AD. That ASB states that it offers improvements with regard to a reduction of the operational pedal control forces and involves two modifications. One of the modifications involves installing an optimized tail rotor control lever assembly “consisting of modified weights and modified control lever pre-assys.” Installing the optimized tail rotor control lever assembly, in part, involved replacing the 2 control levers, part number (P/N) B642M1009102, with 2 control levers, P/N B642M1009103, and replacing the 4 weights, P/N B642M1011201, with 4 weights, P/N B642M1011202.
Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously.
To prevent separation of the tail rotor control lever dynamic weights (weights) in flight, severe vibration, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, accomplish the following:
(a) Before further flight, mark the position of the weights, remove the split pins, remove the weights, and visually inspect the tail rotor control lever in the area around the split pin bore for score marks, notching, scratching, or a crack. Conduct the inspection by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3A(1) and Figure 1 of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. MBB BK117 C-2-64A-002, dated December 21, 2006 (ASB).
(1) If you find score marks, notching, or scratches, that exceed the maintenance manual limits, or find a crack, replace the tail rotor control lever with an airworthy tail rotor control lever before further flight.
(2) If you do not find score marks, notching, scratches, or a crack, within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS), and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, repeat the visual inspection of the tail rotor control lever as described in paragraph (a) of this AD.
(3) After any repetitive inspection, if you find score marks, notching, or scratches, that exceed the maintenance manual limits or find a crack, replace the tail rotor control lever with an airworthy tail rotor control lever before further flight.
(4) Reassemble the tail rotor control lever by following the appropriate maintenance instructions and the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3A(4) and Figure 1 of the ASB.
(b) To request an alternative method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Contact the Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, ATTN: Charles Harrison, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0110, telephone (817) 222-5128, fax (817) 222-5961, for information about previously approved alternative methods of compliance.
(c) Special flight permits will not be issued.
(d) The inspections and reassembly shall be done in accordance with the specified portions of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. MBB BK117 C-2-64A-002, dated December 21, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approved this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas 75053-4005, telephone (972) 641-3460, fax (972) 641-3527. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
(e) This amendment becomes effective on April 9, 2007, to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2006-26-51, issued December 22, 2006, which contained the requirements of this amendment.
The subject of this AD is addressed in Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (Federal Republic of Germany) AD D-2006-428, dated December 22, 2006.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
This AD becomes effective April 27, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 27, 2007.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this 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.
You may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the Internet at
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
Since we issued the NPRM, we have reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1309, Revision 01, dated June 19, 2006. Revision 01 specifies that no additional work is necessary for airplanes modified by any previous issue. We referred to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1309, dated March 7, 2006, in the NPRM for accomplishing the specified actions. We have changed this AD to refer to Revision 01 of the service bulletin for accomplishing the specified actions, and to give credit for accomplishing the specified actions in accordance with the original issue before the effective date of this AD.
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. This change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
We consider this AD interim action. If final action is later identified, we may consider further rulemaking then.
This AD affects about 700 airplanes of U.S. registry. The inspection takes about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $56,000, or $80 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective April 27, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 airplanes, certificated in any category.
(d) This AD results from reports of slow operation of the main landing gear (MLG) door opening/closing sequence due to a defective actuator. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct defective actuators of the MLG door, which could result in slow operation of the MLG door and consequent non-extension of the MLG during an emergency freefall operation.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) At the time specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, as applicable: Do a general visual inspection of the operation of the MLG door opening sequence to determine if a defective actuator is installed by doing all the applicable actions, including replacing the door actuator, as applicable, specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1309, Revision 01, dated June 19, 2006. Do all applicable replacements before further flight. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 900 flight cycles. Accomplishing the actions before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1309, dated March 7, 2006, is acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements in this paragraph.
(1) For airplanes on which a record of the total number of flight cycles on the MLG door actuator is available: Before the accumulation of 3,000 total flight cycles on the MLG door actuator, or within 800 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later.
(2) For airplanes on which a record of the total number of flight cycles on the MLG door actuator is not available: Within 800 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to enhance visual access to all exposed surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.”
(g) Although the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1309, Revision 01, dated June 19, 2006, specify submitting certain information to the manufacturer and sending defective actuators back to the component manufacturer for investigation, this AD does not include those requirements.
(h)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(i) European Aviation Safety Agency airworthiness directive 2006-0112, dated May 15, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD.
(j) You must use Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1309, Revision 01, dated June 19, 2006, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes and Model DHC-8-200 and DHC-8-300 series airplanes. This AD requires modifying the main landing gear (MLG) and nose landing gear (NLG) handle assemblies for alternate release and the MLG retaining plate. This AD also requires doing a related investigative action and corrective action if necessary. This AD results from reports of broken or damaged MLG and NLG alternate release cables caused by rubbing and fraying at the cable-to-handle interface. We are issuing this AD to prevent breakage of the MLG and NLG alternate release cables, which, if the normal gear extension fails, could result in the inability to extend the MLG or NLG and consequent collapse of the landing gear during ground maneuvers or upon landing.
This AD becomes effective April 27, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 27, 2007.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Contact Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada, for service information identified in this AD.
Ezra Sasson, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-7320; fax (516) 794-5531.
You may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the Internet at
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.
The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective April 27, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, DHC-8-103, and DHC-8-106 airplanes and Model DHC-8-200 and DHC-8-300 series airplanes; certificated in any category; serial numbers 003 through 579 inclusive.
(d) This AD results from reports of broken or damaged main landing gear (MLG) and nose landing gear (NLG) alternate release cables caused by rubbing and fraying at the cable-to-handle interface. We are issuing this AD to prevent breakage of the MLG and NLG alternate release cables, which, if the normal gear extension fails, could result in the inability to extend the MLG or NLG and consequent collapse of the landing gear during ground maneuvers or upon landing.
(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 3,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, modify the MLG and NLG handle assemblies for alternate release and the MLG retaining plate, do the related investigative action, and the corrective action as applicable, by accomplishing all the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-146, Revision ‘D,’ dated February 7, 2003. Do the corrective action, as applicable, before further flight.
(g) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-146, dated September 10, 1999; Revision ‘A,’ dated January 17, 2001; Revision ‘B,’ dated June 25, 2001; or Revision ‘C,’ dated January 24, 2003; are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action specified in this AD.
(h) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install any part specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, on any airplane.
(1) MLG handle assembly, part number (P/N) 83260042.
(2) NLG handle assembly, P/N 83260020.
(3) MLG retaining plate, P/N 83260043.
(i)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
(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) Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2006-09, issued May 8, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD.
(k) You must use Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-146, Revision ‘D,’ dated February 7, 2003, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A320 series airplanes. This AD requires replacing the carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) actuator fittings of the rudder with aluminum actuator fittings and doing related investigative and corrective actions. This AD results from rupture of a CFRP actuator fitting during maintenance. We are issuing this AD to prevent rupture of a rudder actuator fitting, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective April 27, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 27, 2007.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this AD.
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149.
You may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the Internet at
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A320 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.
Airbus supports the NPRM.
In the Discussion section of the NPRM, we stated that investigation revealed that the CFRP actuator fittings cannot sustain limit loads resulting from ground gust conditions due to design of the fitting. Airbus requests that we revise that statement to clarify that the CFRP actuator fittings “on the rudder side” cannot sustain limit “compression” loads resulting from ground gust conditions due to design of the fitting. We agree with Airbus' statement. However, we have not changed the AD in this regard, since the Discussion section is not retained in the final rule.
We have revised this action to clarify the appropriate procedure for notifying the principal inspector before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies.
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
This AD affects about 38 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required action takes about 100 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts cost about $6,310 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $543,780, or $14,310 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
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective April 27, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A320 series airplanes, certificated in any category; except those on which Airbus Modification 21733 or 21999 has been incorporated in production.
(d) This AD results from rupture of a carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) actuator fitting during maintenance. We are issuing this AD to prevent rupture of a rudder actuator fitting, which could result in reduced controllability 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 9,000 flight cycles or 12,000 flight hours, or 60 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Replace all of the CFRP actuator fittings of the rudder with aluminum actuator fittings and do all the related investigative actions, by accomplishing all of the actions specified in Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1030, dated March 6, 2006. Do any applicable corrective actions before further flight in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
(g)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(h) European Aviation Safety Agency airworthiness directive 2006-0262, dated August 25, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD.
(i) You must use Airbus Service Bulletin A320-55-1030, dated March 6, 2006, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective March 23, 2007. The compliance date for each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 23, 2007.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located;
3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located.
Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This amendment to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums is contained in official FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5 and 8260-15A. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.
The large number of SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums amendments may have been previously issued by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP, and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs and/or Weather Takeoff Minimums effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
In Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 60 to 139, revised as of January 1, 2007, in Appendix I to Part 121, on page 938, section VI is corrected by removing and reserving paragraph D.2.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Correcting amendments.
The Commission is amending the standard for the flammability of children's sleepwear sizes 0 through 6X to correct a measurement in a table in final regulations which were published in the
The corrections become effective on March 23, 2007.
Marilyn Borsari, Office of Compliance, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207; telephone (301) 504-7619; e-mail,
This document corrects a measurement in a table designated as diagram 1 in the children's sleepwear standard for sizes 0 through 6X that was stated incorrectly when the Commission published final amendments to the children's sleepwear standard in 1998. The measurement in the diagram for size 5 should read 3
Clothing, Consumer protection, Flammable materials, Infants and children, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sleepwear, Textiles, Warranties.
Sec. 4, 67 Stat. 112, as amended, 81 Stat. 569-570; 15 U.S.C. 1193.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Final rule.
The U.S. International Trade Commission is adopting as a final rule the proposed rulemaking that revised certain provisions of the agency's rules for investigations and related proceedings under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) to provide for services of certain Commission documents by overnight delivery and provide one additional day to respond to Commission documents served by overnight delivery. These rules will ensure effective service of Commission documents on private parties in section 337 investigations and related proceedings.
Clint A. Gerdine, Esq., telephone 202-708-2310, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. General information concerning the Commission may be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
On December 8, 2006 (71 FR 71113), the Commission published a proposed rulemaking that would revise the text of § 210.6 by dividing the current text and designating the portions as paragraphs (a) and (b), adding a new paragraph (c), which provides that a party shall be given one additional day to respond to a Commission document when served by overnight delivery, and adding another new paragraph (d), which defines “overnight delivery”; and amending the text of § 210.7 by revising and redesignating paragraph 210.7(a) as paragraph (a)(1) and adding new paragraph (a)(2).
The sixty day public comment period for the proposed rulemaking closed on February 6, 2007. The Commission received one set of comments, from the ITC Trial Lawyers Association (ITCTLA), in response to the proposed rulemaking. The Commission has considered the ITCTLA comments to expand the scope of documents to be served by overnight delivery to include additional categories of documents. The Commission's response to these comments is that the Commission will consider whether to expand its procedures to include other types of documents after it has gained experience with the new service procedures. Thus, the Commission is adopting the proposed rule as a final rule without any changes.
The Commission has determined that the final rules do not meet the criteria described in Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993) and thus do not constitute a significant regulatory action for purposes of the Executive Order.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
These final rules do not contain federalism implications warranting the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 4, 1999).
No actions are necessary under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501
The final rules are not major rules as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801
The amendments are not subject to section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Administration practice and procedure, Business and industry, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, and Investigations.
19 U.S.C. 1333, 1335, and 1337.
(a) Unless the Commission, the administrative law judge, or this or another section of this part specifically
(b) Whenever a party has the right or is required to perform some act or to take some action within a prescribed period after service of a document upon it, and the document was served by mail, the deadline shall be computed by adding to the end of the prescribed period the additional time allotted under § 210.16(d), unless the Commission, the administrative law judge, or another section of this part specifically provides otherwise.
(c) Whenever a party has the right or is required to perform some act or to take some action within a prescribed period after service of a Commission document upon it, and the document was served by overnight delivery, the deadline shall be computed by adding one day to the end of the prescribed period, unless the Commission, the administrative law judge, or another section of this part specifically provides otherwise.
(d) “Overnight delivery” is defined as delivery by the next business day.
(a)
(2) The service of all initial determinations as defined in § 210.42 and all documents containing confidential business information—issued by or on behalf of the Commission or the administrative law judge—on a private party shall be effected by serving a copy of the document by overnight delivery—as defined in § 210.6(d)—on the person to be served, on a member of the partnership to be served, on the president, secretary, other executive officer, or member of the board of directors of the corporation, association, or other organization to be served, or, if an attorney represents any of the above before the Commission, by serving a copy by overnight delivery on such attorney.
By Order of the Commission.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Final rule; Treasury decision.
This Treasury decision renames the “Sonoma County Green Valley” viticultural area in northern California as the “Green Valley of Russian River Valley” viticultural area. This decision does not affect the location, size, or boundary of the viticultural area. We designate viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase.
N. A. Sutton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., No. 158, Petaluma, California 94952; telephone 415-271-1254.
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (the FAA Act, 27 U.S.C. 201
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the list of approved viticultural areas.
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographical origin. The establishment of viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. Petitioners may use the same procedure to request changes involving existing viticultural areas. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations requires the petition to include—
• Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition;
• Historical or current evidence that supports setting the boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies;
• Evidence relating to the geographical features, such as climate, soils, elevation, and physical features, that distinguish the proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas;
• A description of the specific boundary of the proposed viticultural area, based on features found on United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps; and
• A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed viticultural area's boundary prominently marked.
A petition requesting a change to an established viticultural area must include the appropriate evidence described above to support the requested change.
TTB's predecessor agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), established the Sonoma County Green Valley viticultural area (27 CFR 9.57) in a Treasury Decision (T.D. ATF-161), published in the
(T.D. ATF-161 mistakenly stated the size of the Sonoma County Green Valley viticultural area as 32,000 acres. When this viticultural area was originally established in 1983, its total acreage was miscalculated since its boundaries did not coincide with the 640-acre sections marked on the USGS quadrangle maps, which made determining its size difficult. Since 1983, new digital technology has been developed that allows for more accurate calculations even when boundaries do not align with the section lines on USGS maps. Such technology was used to map this viticultural area and to determine its correct size—19,010 acres.)
In 1982, the original petitioner sought to use the name “Green Valley” for this viticultural area. However, while ATF determined that the Green Valley name was appropriate for the area, ATF required the addition of “Sonoma County” to the name, and thus approved the name “Sonoma County Green Valley” as the viticultural area name. ATF took this action to avoid consumer confusion since “Green Valley” is a commonly used geographic place name in the United States.
In approving the Sonoma County Green Valley viticultural area, ATF specifically noted its 1982 approval of the “Solano County Green Valley” viticultural area (27 CFR 9.44) with the same condition—that the county name appear in conjunction with the name proposed for the viticultural area to prevent consumer confusion with other “Green” valleys located elsewhere in the United States. The subsequent T.D. ATF-161, establishing the Sonoma County Green Valley viticultural area, stated that since both “Green Valley” viticultural areas are located in northern California, the inclusion of the county name modifier in each viticultural area name helped to avoid consumer confusion by distinguishing between the two viticultural areas.
The Winegrowers and Vintners of Sonoma County's Green Valley, an association of local winegrowers and vintners based in Sebastopol, California, petitioned TTB to change the name of the “Sonoma County Green Valley” viticultural area to “Green Valley of Russian River Valley.” The group explained in its petition that the name change is warranted because the viticultural area is commonly referred to as “Green Valley,” without the Sonoma County modifier. Also, the Green Valley area is considered by many to be a sub-appellation of the Russian River Valley viticultural area by virtue of its location and similar climate.
TTB notes that the recently expanded 126,600-acre Russian River Valley viticultural area now encompasses the entire Sonoma County Green Valley viticultural area. (See T.D. TTB-32, published in the
Three wineries located within the Sonoma County Green Valley viticultural area boundary line, according to the petition, consistently claim the “Sonoma County Green Valley” appellation on their wine labels. Other regional wineries use the Russian River Valley viticultural area name as an appellation of origin on their labels, the petition continues, but include references to the Sonoma County Green Valley viticultural area on their wines' back labels and in their promotional materials.
Changing the viticultural area name to “Green Valley of Russian River Valley,” the petition explains, would provide greater clarity regarding the viticultural area's location and its association with the cool climate of the Russian River Valley. Thus, the petition continues, consumers would have more accurate and descriptive geographical and climatic information for the wines of the viticultural area.
The petition provides evidence, summarized below, to document that the Sonoma County Green Valley viticultural area is known, and referred to, simply as “Green Valley.” Also, the same evidence describes “Green Valley” as being a part of the larger Russian River Valley viticultural area.
The Savor Wine Country magazine (winter 2003, page 78), published by the Press Democrat newspaper of Sonoma County, California, included a feature article on “Green Valley.” A map of the “Green Valley” area and the Russian River Valley area, provided with the article, is generally consistent with the boundaries of both viticultural areas, including the (at that time) proposed boundary expansion of the Russian River Valley viticultural area. The article states that “Green Valley” is a sub-appellation of the sprawling Russian River Valley viticultural area. It also describes the abundant sparkling wine production, pinot noir grapes, and other agricultural products produced in the “Green Valley” area. The article characterizes the viticultural area as a diverse farming region with cool coastal breezes, coinciding with the climatic conditions found in the Russian River Valley viticultural area.
A Los Angeles Times article of January 14, 2004, titled “Out of the Mist, Pinots,” describes the Russian River Valley viticultural area and its “sub-regions” as having distinct wine personalities. The article states: “Russian River Valley AVA and the Green Valley AVA are primarily climate-based appellations.” While expounding on the exceptional soils of the Russian River Valley viticultural area, the article also states: “The Green Valley AVA (a part of the Russian River AVA) yields bright, bold Pinots with crystalline fruit and piercing acidity.”
A recent “Sonoma County Wine Country Guide,” published by the Sonoma County Wineries Association and included with the petition, describes the “Green Valley” area on page 24 as a small sub-appellation of the Russian River Valley viticultural area. The article also describes Green Valley's marine-influenced climate and the Goldridge series soils, which are conducive to growing fruit. Also, the publication on page 18 contains an untitled map of Sonoma County's rural western expanse that identifies the Sonoma County Green Valley viticultural area simply as “Green Valley.”
By linking the name of the Green Valley viticultural area to the larger Russian River Valley viticultural area that surrounds it, the petitioners seek to prevent consumer confusion between the two established “Green Valley” viticultural areas of northern California, as well as between the Green Valley in Sonoma County and other “Green” valleys in the United States. TTB believes that adoption of the proposed
In addition, we note that we have previously approved a viticultural area name that includes the name of a surrounding viticultural area within it in order to prevent consumer confusion. In that case, a petitioner proposed to establish the Oak Knoll District viticultural area within the larger Napa Valley viticultural area (27 CFR 9.23) in Napa County, California. In order to distinguish the proposed Oak Knoll District viticultural area from the established Oak Knoll Winery located in Oregon, TTB approved the addition of the “Napa Valley” name to the area's name, resulting in the establishment of the “Oak Knoll District of Napa Valley” viticultural area (27 CFR 9.161). (See T.D. TTB-9, published in the
On May 2, 2006, TTB published in the
After careful review of the petition, TTB finds that the evidence submitted supports changing the name of the “Sonoma County Green Valley” viticultural area to “Green Valley of Russian River Valley,” as requested in the petition. Therefore, under the authority of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and part 4 of our regulations, we amend our regulations to re-name the Sonoma County Green Valley viticultural area as the Green Valley of Russian River Valley viticultural area effective 30 days from the publication date of this document.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. With approval of this viticultural area name change, the new name, “Green Valley of Russian River Valley,” will be recognized under 27 CFR 4.39(i)(3) as a name of viticultural significance. The text of the new regulation clarifies this point. This name change will affect vintners who currently and properly use the “Sonoma County Green Valley” viticultural area name, as explained in the
We also remain of the view that it would not be appropriate to treat “Green Valley” standing alone as a term of viticultural significance due to its widespread use across the United States as a geographic place name. For example, a recent search of the USGS Geographic Names Information System (
Therefore, the part 9 regulatory text as amended in this document specifies that only the full “Green Valley of Russian River Valley” name is a term of viticultural significance for purposes of part 4 of the TTB regulations. Consequently, wine bottlers using the entire name, “Green Valley of Russian River Valley,” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the viticultural area's name as an appellation of origin.
For a wine to be labeled with a viticultural area name or with a brand name that includes a viticultural area name or other term identified as viticulturally significant in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name or other term, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible to use the viticultural area name or other viticulturally significant term and that name or other term appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the viticultural area name or other term appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label.
Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a viticultural area name or other viticulturally significant term that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
Holders of labels approved before the effective date of this final rule that use the “Sonoma County Green Valley” name to designate a viticultural area will be permitted to continue using those approved labels during the two year transition period. At the end of that two-year period, holders of “Sonoma County Green Valley” wine labels must discontinue use of those labels and will need to secure approval of new labels reflecting the correct use of the new viticultural area name as an appellation of origin. We believe the two year period will provide such label holders with adequate time to use up their old labels. In addition, “Sonoma County Green Valley” will remain a term of viticultural significance for two years from the effective date of this final rule.
We certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name is the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment.
N. A. Sutton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice.
Wine.
27 U.S.C. 205.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d) From December 21, 1983, until April 23, 2007, the name of this viticultural area was “Sonoma County Green Valley”. Effective April 23, 2007, this viticulture area is named “Green Valley of Russian River Valley”. Existing certificates of label approval showing “Sonoma County Green Valley” as the appellation of origin will be revoked by operation of this regulation on April 23, 2009.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Hamilton Avenue Bridge across Gowanus Canal, mile 1.2, at Brooklyn, New York. Under this temporary deviation the draw may remain in the closed position from April 3, 2007 through April 5, 2007 and from April 6, 2007 through September 29, 2007, a four-hour advance notice shall be required for all bridge openings. This deviation is necessary to facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance.
This deviation is effective from April 3, 2007 through September 29, 2007.
Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, One South Street, New York, New York, 10004, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (212) 668-7165. The First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch Office maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation.
Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at (212) 668-7165.
The Hamilton Avenue Bridge across Gowanus Canal, mile 1.2, at Brooklyn, New York, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 19 feet at mean high water and 23 feet at mean low water. The existing operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.5.
The bridge owner, New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT), requested a temporary deviation to allow the bridge to remain in the closed position to facilitate scheduled electrical and mechanical bridge maintenance.
Under this temporary deviation the Hamilton Avenue Bridge may remain in the closed position from April 3, 2007 through April 5, 2007, and from April 6, 2007 through September 29, 2007, the draw shall open after at least a four-hour advance notice is given by calling the contractor at (201) 400-5243.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible.
This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Brightman Street Bridge across the Taunton River at mile 1.8, between Fall River and Somerset, Massachusetts. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge may remain in the closed position from 9 p.m. on April 13, 2007 through 5 p.m. on April 28, 2007. This deviation is necessary to facilitate un-scheduled bridge maintenance.
This deviation is effective from 9 p.m. on April 13, 2007 through 5 p.m. on April 28, 2007.
Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, 02110, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (617) 223-8364. The First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch Office maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation.
John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at (617) 223-8364.
The Brightman Street Bridge, across the Taunton River at mile 1.8, between Fall River and Somerset, Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 27 feet at mean high water and 31 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.619.
The owner of the bridge, Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD), requested a temporary deviation to facilitate un-scheduled emergency bridge maintenance, replacement of deteriorated floor beams. The bridge will not be able to open while the bridge maintenance is underway.
Under this temporary deviation, the Brightman Street Bridge need not open for the passage of vessel traffic from 9 p.m. on April 13, 2007 through 5 p.m. on April 28, 2007.
An 18′ × 43′ construction work barge may be located in the channel during the prosecution of this bridge maintenance. The work barge will move upon request by calling the bridge tender either on the land line (508) 672-5111 or on VHF channel 13 and 16.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible.
Should the bridge maintenance authorized by this temporary deviation be completed before the end of the effective period published in this notice, the Coast Guard will rescind the remainder of this temporary deviation, and the bridge shall be returned to its normal operating schedule. Notice of the above action shall be provided to the public in the Local Notice to Mariners and the
This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
National Park Service, Interior.
Final rule.
The National Park Service (NPS) is revising rules that regulate boating and water use activities in areas administered by the NPS. The rule is intended to address changing visitor use patterns, changing technologies, compelling boating and water safety issues, and the evolution of related statutory authorities. The goal is to provide for greater consistency with United States Coast Guard (USCG) regulations and state laws and regulations and to establish rules which will be more clearly understood by the visiting public, and which can be more effectively communicated and enforced by NPS personnel. Promulgation of the final rule will eliminate many requirements which are ineffective or out of date and will provide flexibility in managing safety, resource preservation, and public use needs throughout the National Park System.
This regulation becomes effective April 23, 2007.
Jerry Case, Regulations Program Manger, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW., Room 7241, Washington, DC 20240. Phone: (202) 208-4206. E-mail:
The regulations contained in Parts 1 through 7 of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) are the basic mechanisms used by the National Park Service (NPS) to protect the natural and cultural resources of the parks and to protect visitors and property within the parks. Parts 1 through 6 are general regulations applicable to all areas of the National Park System, with some exceptions, while Part 7 contains special regulations, which have been found necessary for individual parks as supplements to the general regulations. Part 3 is specific to boating and water activities. The Part 3 regulations were last revised in 1983. Although amendments and additions have been made from time to time since 1983, this was usually in response to new situations for which the existing regulations were not sufficient. For example, personal watercraft (PWC) were addressed in 36 CFR 3.24, promulgated in April, 2000. Between 1983 and the present, the evolution of statutory authorities, changing visitor use patterns, new technologies, and continued boating and water safety issues coupled with evolving national trends to address such issues, all revealed that a comprehensive review of Part 3 regulations was needed.
A work group of experienced employees from a wide variety of parks with water-based recreation and resources management responsibilities was established to work on Part 3. The work group included an experienced State Boating Law Administrator, representing the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA). Park superintendents were asked to provide comments regarding boating and water safety issues apart from those addressed in the existing Part 3, and comments were received from sixteen parks and from the staff at the NPS Washington Office. All comments were evaluated by the workgroup. Some of the comments were incorporated into the proposed rule. Other comments were more appropriately addressed in section(s) of 36 CFR other than Part 3. Some comments, specific to an individual park's circumstances, are more appropriately addressed as special regulations in Part 7.
The NPS faced several situations where parks were unclear about enforcing USCG regulations and/or state laws and regulations. Specifically, an issue arose about the applicability of USCG regulations on a tour boat being operated on Crater Lake which is a non-navigable body of water. Lake Mead was also presented with a requirement to provide lifeguards on beaches because of Nevada state water use regulations. In addition to these specific questions, there has been some general confusion about the order of applicability or hierarchy of adopting USCG regulations and state boating safety laws and regulations in relation to NPS specific regulations contained in Part 3. The required order of applicability, or hierarchy, of laws and regulations on park waters is as follows:
1. Regulations in Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) will apply over any comparable law or regulation.
2. Laws and regulations of the USCG adopted pursuant to § 3.2 (a) will apply over any comparable state law or regulation.
3. Non-conflicting state boating safety laws and regulations that are not addressed by either 36 CFR or by the USCG are adopted pursuant to 3.2(b). The NPS is not adopting state water use laws or regulations unless specifically indicated in Part 3.
Where the NPS, USCG, and State have a comparable but different rule, the NPS rule applies first, except where we have specifically adopted the more stringent rule in our regulation (See 3.10(a)(2)). The USCG rule will apply when no NPS rule exists and if the NPS and USCG do not have a rule then the State boating safety rule applies.
The work group took several factors into consideration while discussing regulations to be changed, deleted, or written anew. Those factors include compliance with the NPS mission, safety issues, resource protection issues, clarity of existing regulations, reducing NPS regulations where possible and the consistency of regulations with the USCG, the states, and among units of the National Park System to the extent possible. As a result of the review, the proposed changes to Part 3 are expected to be more clearly understood by the public and be more effectively communicated and enforced by NPS employees. In addition the changes will enhance the NPS focus on safety and resource preservation issues, provide flexibility to address changing technologies, maintain minimum regulation necessary to address safety and resource preservation and provide for greater consistency in enforcement
The National Park Service (NPS) has prepared the following organizational summary to assist in the location and analysis of the final revisions.
On August 26, 2003, the NPS issued a proposed rule requesting comments for 120 days (68 FR 51207). A total of 278 comments were received. We received ten comments from organizations, eight comments from government agencies, six comments from businesses and 254 comments from individuals. The following is a summary of the comments received and the NPS response to each comment.
16 U.S.C. 1a-2(h) authorizes the NPS to promulgate and enforce boating and water related regulations that are complementary to, and not in derogation of, the authority of the USCG to regulate waters of the United States. For this reason the NPS has worked closely with USCG Boating Safety Regulations division throughout the rulemaking process. The USCG was provided a draft copy of the final rule for review and on July 25, 2005, the NPS met with the USCG to discuss their comments which have been included throughout the following section.
1. One commenter suggested the NPS should include the definition of the International Code Flag “A” as its use pertains to diving activities within NPS areas.
Navigation Rules (NAVRULES) require the display of the International Code Flag “A” when a vessel's maneuverability is limited when engaged in support of diving activities on navigable waters. These requirements are codified in 33 U.S.C. 2027(e) and are applicable to navigable and non-navigable waters subject to the jurisdiction of the NPS as adopted through § 3.2. The dive flag, however must be displayed when there is a diver in the water, whether or not the vessel's maneuverability is restricted. The dive flag relates to the diver and the code flag “A” relates to the vessel with restricted maneuverability. The NPS recognizes that there may be occasions when the International Code Flag “A” must be displayed on NPS waters in addition to complying with the requirement to display a dive flag.
2. One commenter indicated the term “Flat Wake Speed” will cause confusion because a wake by definition is not flat. They further recommended the NPS use the term “No Wake or Idle Speed NTE 5 mph”.
3. One commenter recommended that the NPS adopt the EPA definition of sewage.
4. There were numerous comments concerning the definition of a vessel and the need for the NPS to define “non-traditional watercraft”. It is apparent that commenters have concerns about the inclusion of non-traditional watercraft within the scope of the definition of a vessel, specifically float tubes, and the thought that users would be required to carry PFDs on these non-traditional watercraft. There was also considerable comment about the economic impact to tube rental businesses that would occur if the NPS implemented this definition.
The definition of vessel does not include float tubes, inner tubes, water play toys, or homemade devices that float unless they are modified in such a way with the addition of paddles, motors, or some other type of propulsion device. The statement of applicability in the USCG regulations for PFDs at 33 CFR 175.11 provides that the regulations only apply to vessels
5. The NPS should define a recreational boat accident.
6. Some commenters suggested that the NPS would “preempt any other comparable laws including USCG regulations”. The numerous cites “may confuse the reader”. Some indicated that the regulations should be changed to reflect exemptions under 33 CFR 175.17. Some commenters suggested that the NPS adopt regulations for the state where the park area is located.
7. One commenter was opposed to an increase in the use of permits on NPS waterways, and was concerned about the potential expansion of permit use to include private non-powered boaters.
8. A commenter suggested the NPS should clearly identify the superintendent's authority to establish permits related to boating.
9. One commenter suggested that the NPS should require all boating activity restrictions be based on an equitable balance of the needs of all park users and any outright prohibitions should only be approved by a part 7 regulation.
10. Some comments were received surrounding the definition of “authorized person” and what authority does the NPS have to board a vessel “at any time” similar to USCG authority.
11. There were several comments related to accidents, reporting of accidents and the threshold value of when to report an accident. The comments indicated that the NPS should defer to the state in which the park was located.
12. One commenter stated that the language in paragraph § 3.6 was confusing and could preclude young people that have completed a boater education program from operating a motorboat. Another commenter stated that the NPS should require that all recreational boaters on NPS waters complete any and all mandatory state boater safety education requirements.
13. Many of the commenters commended the NPS for establishing minimum age requirements for boat operation.
14. Several commenters requested that Type V PFDs be included as appropriate flotation devices when used in accordance with the label.
15. Several commenters were concerned that the NPS was mandating the wearing of PFDs while floating on riverways.
16. One commenter felt that all children under 13 should be required to wear PFDs on all park waters.
17. One commenter supported the Superintendent's authority to require wearing of PFDs under certain conditions or during certain activities and one commenter disagreed with this authority.
18. One commenter asked the NPS to clarify what a designated launch site was under paragraph 3.8 and how it affects the launching of non-traditional watercraft.
19. One commenter indicated that in paragraph 3.8(b)(3)(ii)(B) the NPS was inconsistent in its use of terminology for non-traditional watercraft.
20. One commenter stated that in paragraph 3.8(b)(3)(ii)(D) (now renumbered as 3.8(b)(4)(iv)) we replace the phrase “manually propelled, anchored, or drifting” with the word “any” so that the flat wake distance requirement applies to all vessels.
21. One commenter stated that the regulations should require the marking of swimming beaches with buoys to increase boater awareness. They also suggested that no swimming beaches be designated in narrow channels to avoid conflicts between boaters and swimmers.
22. One commenter asked that the NPS add language to prohibit being on, or holding onto, a swim platform or ladder while the boat engine is running in order to reduce exposure to carbon monoxide.
23. One commenter said that the prohibitions in § 3.8 seemed redundant with existing laws governing malicious and dangerous behaviors.
24. Many commenters requested the NPS maintain a system-wide prohibition on PWC operations.
25. One commenter said that PWC use should be authorized except where prohibited by special regulation.
26. One individual commented that the use of inflatable PFDs should not be allowed on PWCs.
27. One commenter said that the attaching of lanyards to the operator should apply to all motorboats and not just PWCs.
28. One commenter said that § 3.9(b)(4) is not needed because it is redundant with regulations found in § 3.8(b).
29. One commenter supported the new boating under the influence requirement.
30. A couple of commenters said that the NPS should adopt USCG operating under the influence regulations and/or state blood alcohol content (BAC) levels.
31. One commenter said that NPS boating under the influence regulations may be redundant to existing laws, while using inner tubes in public while under the influence is already prohibited, along with its accompanying behavior.
32. One commenter said that in this section, the NPS does not provide the same option for adopting state regulations as found in other sections. They said that setting a minimum age for observers could be in conflict with state regulations and confuse the public.
33. One commenter recommended that the NPS have a requirement that tow ropes be 20' or longer to reduce exposure to carbon monoxide.
34. Many comments asked that we continue the prohibition on black water dumping while one other commenter said that we should take into account alternative treatment processes and adequate pump out facilities when regulating the disposal of black water.
35. Many people commented that gray water be banned. Another commenter said that gray water discharge should not be regulated.
36. One commenter recommended that the NPS adopt USCG, EPA or state sewage or MSD requirements.
In salt water areas surrounded by protected marine waters the park superintendent has the ability to promulgate a special regulation to modify this section.
37. Several commenters said the paragraph on vessel noise levels is incomplete and not enforceable.
38. Several commenters recommend that the NPS update noise standards and reduce noise levels equivalent to that of four-stroke engines.
39. One commenter stated that the NPS must not adopt any boating regulations that deviate from the authority of the USCG.
40. A number of commenters say that where USCG regulations are not applicable, NPS should adopt state regulations because this would be less confusing to boaters and increases compliance.
41. Several commenters stated that USCG laws and regulations should be at the top of the NPS boating and water use hierarchy with state law as second and NPS regulations last.
42. One commenter stated that we should standardize regulations with other agencies to the extent that the regulations remain compliant with mandates of the NPS Organic Act.
43. One commenter stated that where state regulations are applied in NPS areas with overlapping jurisdictions of more than one state, the stricter state requirement should apply.
44. One commenter stated that superintendents should not have compendium authority to ban or restrict boating usage.
45. Several comments concern the use of two stroke engines on park waters.
46. One commenter stated that we failed to address permeation losses to the atmosphere through emissions of hydrocarbons.
47. A comment was received suggesting NPS should prohibit service-wide certain water-based activities, such as parasailing, use of hovercraft and the use of submersibles, as not being appropriate in NPS areas.
48. Two commenters raised concerns that NPS has not completed PWC special regulations.
49. One commenter expressed concerns about not having adequate staffing to enforce boating regulations.
50. One commenter stated that we should address the dangers of carbon monoxide from boats and houseboats in final rulemaking.
51. One commenter stated it supported NPS changes in its method for noise enforcement.
52. One commenter stated that the NPS needed to address amplified noise with a “plainly audible” standard.
53. One commenter stated that the current standard of 82 dBA @ 82 feet is very weak.
54. A commenter stated that a dive flag should not be displayed unless diving activity is in progress.
55. A commenter stated the proposed rule does not address the use of dive flag for night-time diving.
56. A commenter expressed concerns about the use of dive flags in narrow channels where boating activity would be unduly restricted.
57. Two commenters stated the proposed rule does not address the need for displaying the international code flag A.
In response to public comments, the NPS has made the following changes to the final regulation:
Section 1.4—There were numerous comments concerning the proposed definition of a vessel and the need for the NPS to define “non-traditional watercraft”. It is apparent that commenters have concerns about the inclusion of non-traditional watercraft within the scope of the definition of a vessel, specifically float tubes (innertubes), and the thought that users would be required to carry PFDs on these non-traditional watercraft. The proposed definition deviated too much from the widely accepted USCG definition for vessel and had the potential to create controversial situations and confusion. Therefore the NPS will be using the USCG statutory definition found in 1 U.S.C. 3, modified with an exception for seaplanes on the water. In the USCG definition for vessels all types of artificial contrivance are included if they can be used as a means of transportation, moved from place to place and/or exposed to perils of navigation. If the (watercraft) artificial contrivance is equipped with a means of propulsion such as oars, paddles, paddlewheel, motor, sail, etc. it would then be held to the various regulations required of a vessel of that size. Superintendents will still have the authority in § 3.7(b) to regulate the use of non-traditional watercraft not meeting the vessel definition. This means that the Superintendent can require that a PFD be worn or carried on any type of watercraft, on designated waters and/or during designated water based activities. That decision is made on a park-by-park basis.
Section 3.2—The language in paragraph (a) was changed slightly to further clarify the intent of the paragraph and the adoption of USCG laws and regulations.
Section 3.3—Commenters raised concerns about the ambiguity of the term “or other factors” when referring to the issues the superintendent might take into consideration when requiring a permit for use of a vessel. Commenters asked that the factors considered by the superintendent be specific when requiring a permit and in NPS response the term was removed. The remaining factors were considered specific enough by the commenters.
Section 3.5—The language was changed in paragraph (c) to require the superintendent to forward all boating accident reports to the appropriate reporting authority, usually the State. These reports should be submitted within the timeframes required by 33 CFR 173.55. All States are required to forward boating reports to the USCG. This way accident reporting requirements can be met with a single report.
Section 3.6—The title was changed to be broader since proposed paragraph (b) is a more general discussion of State law adoption and not just age requirements. Paragraph (c) was added to adopt State mandatory boater education requirements.
Section 3.7—Paragraph (a) now defers to the USCG for adoption of their requirements for the wearing or carriage of PFDs. However, the regulations also allow a superintendent to require the
Section 3.8—The term hovercraft was removed from paragraph (a) since a commenter did not think it was appropriate to classify a hovercraft as a “vessel” by addressing its use in part 3. The NPS will pursue a clarification to part 2 that clearly states the prohibition on hovercraft while not attempting to classify it as an aircraft (where it is currently addressed) or as a vessel.
Paragraph (a)(5) is also removed because the regulations in 33 CFR 70.05 already address this issue sufficiently.
Paragraph (b)(4)(ii) (formerly (b)(3)(ii)(B)) was changed to state “fishing from shore” rather than just “fishing” to be clear that even though the person fishing may not be in the water, slow speeds in the proximity of the person fishing is still warranted.
Paragraph (b)(6) (formerly (b)(5)) was changed to expand the list of locations on the vessels where persons may not ride or hold on to when the vessel is moving or idling in place. These changes are in response to concerns that certain unsafe activities be prohibited at any speed, not just speeds above flat wake. The regulation continues to allow for exceptions during certain maneuvering activities.
Paragraph (b)(7) (formerly (b)(6)) was added to prohibit activities that put boaters in close proximity to vessel exhaust. This addition is in response to comments received about possible carbon monoxide exposure and poisoning from unsafe proximity to vessel exhaust when the vessel engine is operating, not just when the vessel is moving.
Paragraphs (b)(6) and (7) were renumbered (b)(8) and (9).
Section 3.12—paragraph (b)(6) was added to define the minimum length of a tow rope in response to comments regarding concerns over carbon monoxide exposure from being towed too close to the engine of a vessel.
Section 3.13—paragraph (a) and (b) were changed to apply to bodies of fresh water only. USCG regulations still apply in salt water areas. The language in paragraph (b) discussing the locking of MSD was changed to be consistent with USCG regulations at 33 CFR 159.7(b)(1-4) to reduce confusion to the public. Paragraph (c) was removed as being overly restrictive and expensive for boaters and paragraph (d) was renumbered as the new paragraph (c).
Section 3.15—this section was revised to update testing with the most recent standards adopted by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) for noise level enforcement. This rule is modeled after the NASBLA model act and has also been adopted whole or in part by many states.
Section 3.18—language was added in paragraph (b) to be clear that “a dive flag must not be displayed unless dive ops are ongoing” in order to reduce confusion and safety risks of improperly identified underwater operations.
Paragraph (c) was added to require that dive flags be illuminated in reduced light conditions to provide additional diver safety.
The previous paragraph (c) was renumbered to paragraph (d) and terminology added to clarify the proximity to flag requirement.
The previous paragraph (d) was renumbered to (e) and language was changed to adopt all state laws or regulations pertaining to snorkeling, not just dive flag requirements.
This document is a significant rule and the Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866.
I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This rule affects vessel operation and imposes requirements that are generally already required by most states. There are no regulations proposed that would likely change the amount of users to an NPS unit nor are there regulations that impose any restrictions on concessions or other vessel or water related businesses.
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This rule is not expected to have any economic affect on local communities or businesses because the scope of the regulations focuses on the way in which vessels are operated, not the amount of vessels to an area.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. This rule has no association with costs for consumers nor does it impose any restrictions on businesses or governments of any kind.
c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This rule has no association with businesses or uses outside NPS areas.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501,
a. This rule will not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. This rule has no affect on government entities, only the visiting public.
b. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, i.e., it is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required. This rule is generally focused on safety regarding water use and vessel activity and does not impose any regulations on lands or waters outside the NPS or on any private property.
NPS has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the rule does not have federalism implications because the rule does not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect of today's rule. Rules of the U.S. Coast Guard can have preemptive effect in at least two ways. First, applicable statutes may contain express preemption provisions. In that circumstance, consultation would be inappropriate because the statutory command would preempt State law, not this rulemaking. Second, in addition to express preemption the Supreme Court has also recognized that
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and does not meet the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. This rule is focused on providing clearer interpretation of existing regulations and consistency with USCG regulations and state laws and regulations in order to make it easier for the visiting public to comply with regulations.
This regulation does not require an information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act and have determined that this rule is covered by a categorical exclusion adopted by this federal agency in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508. The DOI Manual contains the categorical exclusions applicable to the National Park Service and the exceptions of the use of a categorical exclusion. The effect of the categorical exclusion is to identify a category of activities that individually or cumulatively do not have significant effects on the human environment and therefore are exempt from the requirements to prepare an environmental impact statement. The federal action proposed in this rule is described in the categorical exclusion listed in the Departmental Manual at 516 DM 6, Appendix 7, Section 7.4.A(10) and none of the exceptions to the use of the categorical exclusions listed at 516 DM 2, Appendix 2 are applicable.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Tribal Governments”, and 512 DM 2:
We have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects. This rule only pertains to water use and vessel operations on waters inside NPS boundaries and does not propose to change use patterns or amounts so is not likely to affect any tribes near an NPS unit with water use.
National parks, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Signs and symbols.
Marine safety, National parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
District of Columbia, National parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460 1-6a(e), 462(k); D.C. Code 8-137, 40-721 (1981).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1, 1a-2(h), 3.
The applicability of the regulations in this part is described in § 1 .2 of this chapter.
(a) In addition to the regulations contained in this part, the NPS adopts applicable laws and regulations of the United States Coast Guard. The USCG laws and regulations are found in Title 14 United States Code, Title 33 United States Code, Title 46 United States Code, and 33 CFR chapter I, 46 CFR chapter I and III and 49 CFR chapter IV. NPS applies the adopted laws and regulations to vessels and their operation on all waters (navigable and non-navigable) subject to NPS jurisdiction. Therefore, Federal regulations authorizing an action by the “captain of the port” or another officer or employee of the United States Coast Guard, authorize a like action by the superintendent.
(b) Except to the extent that directives of the United States Coast Guard have expressly or implicitly preempted inconsistent state laws and regulations or as otherwise provided by subsection (a), vessels and their operation on all waters subject to NPS jurisdiction are governed by non-conflicting boating safety laws and regulations of the State within whose interior boundaries a park area or portion thereof is located.
Generally, you are not required to obtain a permit to operate a vessel in a park area. However, in certain circumstances, taking into consideration public safety, protection of park resources, and weather and park management objectives, the superintendent may require a permit for use of a vessel within a park area, under §§ 1.5 and 1.7, and will issue permits consistent with § 1.6 of this chapter.
(a) An authorized person may at any time stop and/or board a vessel to examine documents, licenses or permits relating to operation of the vessel, and to inspect the vessel to determine compliance with regulations pertaining to safety equipment, vessel capacity, marine sanitation devices, and other pollution and noise abatement requirements.
(b) An authorized person who identifies a vessel being operated without sufficient life saving or firefighting devices, in an overloaded or other unsafe condition, as defined in United States Coast Guard regulations, or in violation of a noise level specified in § 3.15(a) of this part, may direct the operator to suspend further use of the vessel until the condition is corrected.
(a) The operator of a vessel involved in an accident must report the accident to the superintendent as soon as practical, but in any event within 24 hours of the accident, if the accident involves:
(1) Total property damage of $2000 or more; or
(2) Injury, or death or disappearance of a person
(b) If the operator is physically incapable of making the report, the owner or an occupant of the vessel must report the accident to the superintendent.
(c) Filing a report with the superintendent may satisfy applicable United States Coast Guard, State, and local accident reporting requirements. Superintendents will forward the accident report to the appropriate reporting authority in a timely manner that complies with the requirements of 33 CFR 173.55.
(a) To operate a power-driven vessel on park waters, a person must be either:
(1) At least 16 years old; or
(2) Between 12 and 15 years old and accompanied on the vessel by a person at least 18 years old.
(b) If a park area is located within a State having different age requirements, then the applicable State law is adopted in lieu of paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) If a park area is located within a State having a mandatory boater education requirement, then that State requirement is adopted.
(a) All requirements in Title 33 CFR part 175 related to PFDs are adopted.
(b) The Superintendent may require that a PFD be worn or carried on designated waters, at designated times and/or during designated water based activities in accordance with §§ 1.5 and 1.7 of this chapter.
(a) The following operations are prohibited:
(1) Launching or operating an airboat.
(2) Launching or recovering a vessel, except at a launch site designated by the superintendent.
(3) Operating a power-driven vessel on waters not accessible by road.
(4) Operating a vessel in excess of a length, width, or horsepower restriction established by the superintendent in accordance with §§ 1.5 and 1.7 of this chapter. For the purposes of this paragraph, vessel length is measured according to criteria established in 46 CFR chapter I or 33 CFR chapter I.
(b) The following operations are inherently unsafe and therefore prohibited:
(1) Operating a power-driven or sailing vessel within 100 feet of a diver's flag except a vessel in support of dive operations, which may not be operated in excess of flat wake speed.
(2) Failing to observe restriction(s) established by a regulatory marker.
(3) Operating a vessel in excess of flat wake speed in designated areas.
(4) Operating a vessel in excess of flat wake speed within 100 feet of:
(i) A downed water skier;
(ii) A person swimming, wading, fishing from shore or floating with the aid of a flotation device;
(iii) A designated launch site; or
(iv) A manually propelled, anchored or drifting vessel. If the park is located within a State specifying different conditions, then that State law is adopted in lieu of this paragraph.
(5) Unless a designated area is marked otherwise, operating a power-driven or sailing vessel within 500 feet of a shoreline designated as a swimming beach. This prohibition does not apply in locations such as a river, channel, or narrow cove where passage is restricted to less than 500 feet. In such restrictive locations where swim beaches are designated, the operation of a vessel in excess of a flat wake speed is prohibited.
(6) Operating a power-driven vessel while a person is riding on the decking over the bow, gunwales, top edge of the transom, motor cover, or in any other unsafe position when the vessel is being operated. This provision does not apply when that portion of the vessel is designed and constructed for the purpose of carrying passengers safely at all speeds or when the vessel is maneuvering for anchoring, docking or mooring.
(7) Operating a power driven vessel engine/s or generator with a person sitting, riding or hanging on to a swim platform or swim ladder.
(8) Operating a vessel, or knowingly allowing another person to operate a vessel in a negligent manner, by failing to exercise that degree of care which a reasonable person, under like circumstances, would demonstrate in order to prevent the endangering of the life, limb, or property of a person(s) through the operator's lack of knowledge, inattention, or general carelessness.
(9) Operating a vessel or knowingly allowing another person to operate a vessel in a grossly negligent manner, by willfully and wantonly creating an unreasonable risk of harm to person(s) or property, regardless of whether the operator intended to cause harm.
(a) A person may operate a PWC only in park areas where authorized by special regulation. Special regulations may only be promulgated in the 21 parks listed in the following table:
(b) Where authorized, operation of a PWC on park waters is subject to the following conditions:
(1) No person may operate a PWC unless each person aboard is wearing a Type I, II, III, or V PFD approved by the United States Coast Guard.
(2) A person operating a PWC equipped by the manufacturer with a lanyard-type engine cut-off switch must attach such lanyard to his person, clothing, or PFD, as appropriate for the specific vessel.
(3) No person may operate a PWC anytime between sunset and sunrise.
(4) No person may operate a PWC by jumping the wake, becoming partially airborne or completely leaving the water while crossing the wake of another vessel within 100 feet of the vessel creating the wake.
(5) If a park area is located within a State that has more restrictive regulations for the operation of PWC, then applicable State law applies in lieu of paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section.
(a) Operating or being in actual physical control of a vessel is prohibited while:
(1) Under the influence of alcohol, a drug or drugs, or any combination thereof, to a degree that renders the operator incapable of safe operation; or
(2) The alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath is 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
(b) If State law that applies to operating a vessel while under the influence of alcohol establishes more restrictive limits of alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath, those limits apply rather than the limits specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) The provisions of this section also apply to an operator who is or has been legally entitled to use alcohol or drugs.
(a) At the request or direction of an authorized person who has probable cause to believe that an operator of a vessel has violated provisions of § 13.10, the operator must submit to one or more testing procedures of the blood, breath, saliva or urine for the purpose of determining blood alcohol and/or drug content.
(1) Refusal by an operator to submit to a test is prohibited and proof of refusal may be admissible in any related judicial proceeding.
(2) Any test or tests for the presence of alcohol and drugs must be determined by and administered at the direction of an authorized person.
(3) Any test must be conducted by using accepted scientific methods and equipment of proven accuracy and
(b) The results of chemical or other quantitative tests are intended to supplement the elements of probable cause used as the basis for the arrest of an operator charged with a violation of § 13.10. If the alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath at the time of testing is less than alcohol concentrations specified in § 13.10(a)(2), this fact does not give rise to any presumption that the operator is or is not under the influence of alcohol.
(c) The provisions of paragraph (b) of this section are not intended to limit the introduction of any other competent evidence bearing upon the question of whether the operator, at the time of the alleged violation, was under the influence of alcohol, or a drug, or drugs, or any combination thereof.
(a) The towing of a person by a vessel is allowed only in designated waters, and in accordance with conditions established by the superintendent under §§ 1.5 and 1.7 of this chapter.
(b) Towing a person using a parasail, hang-glider or other airborne device may be allowed only in accordance with a permit issued by the superintendent under § 1.6 of this chapter.
(c) Where towing is designated, the following conditions apply:
(1) Towing is allowed only between the hours of sunrise and sunset.
(2) In addition to the boat operator, a person at least 12 years of age must be present to observe the action of the person being towed.
(3) A person being towed must wear a United States Coast Guard approved Type I, II, III, or V PFD.
(4) A person being towed may not commit any act in a manner that endangers, or is likely to endanger, any person or damage property.
(5) Operating a vessel that does not have the capacity to carry the person(s) being towed in addition to the operator and observer is prohibited.
(6) No person shall operate a power driven vessel using a tow rope 20 feet or less in length when towing a person.
(a) Discharging sewage from any vessel, whether treated or not, in any body of fresh water is prohibited.
(b) The owner or operator of any vessel on park fresh water that is equipped with toilet facilities and/or a MSD that is capable of discharge, must lock or otherwise secure the valves or mechanism of the device. Acceptable methods of securing the device include:
(1) Closing the seacock and removing the handle;
(2) Padlocking the seacock in the closed position;
(3) Using a non-releasable wire-tie to hold the seacock in the closed position; or
(4) Locking the door to the space enclosing the toilets with a padlock or door handle key lock.
(c) The superintendent may modify the requirements of this section through a special regulation.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the owners or authorized salvager of a sunken, grounded, or disabled vessel must remove the vessel, all component parts and equipment, and all associated cargo thereof in accordance with procedures established by the superintendent. In establishing removal procedures, the superintendent is authorized to:
(1) Establish a reasonable date by which vessel removal operations must be complete;
(2) Determine times and means of access to and from the vessel; and
(3) Specify the manner or method of removal.
(b) The superintendent may waive the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section or prohibit removal of the vessel, equipment, or cargo upon a written determination that:
(1) The removal would constitute an unacceptable risk to human life;
(2) The removal would result in extensive resource damage; or
(3) The removal is impracticable or impossible.
(a) A person may not operate a vessel at a noise level exceeding:
(1) 75dB(A) measured utilizing test procedures applicable to vessels underway (Society of Automotive Engineers SAE—J1970); or
(2) 88dB(A) measured utilizing test procedures applicable to stationary vessels (Society of Automotive Engineers SAE—J2005).
(b) An authorized person who has reason to believe that a vessel is being operated in excess of the noise levels established in paragraph (a) of this section may direct the operator of the vessel to submit the vessel to an on-site test to measure the noise level.
Swimming or wading is allowed in waters, subject to closures or restrictions designated by the superintendent in accordance with §§ 1.5 and 1.7 of this chapter.
(a) The superintendent may designate areas as swimming areas or swimming beaches in accordance with §§ 1.5 and 1.7 of this chapter.
(b) Within designated swimming areas, the use of a surfboard or similar rigid device is prohibited.
(c) The superintendent may prohibit the use or possession of flotation devices, glass containers, kites, or incompatible activities in swimming areas or swimming beaches in accordance with §§ 1.5 and 1.7 of this chapter.
(a) Snorkeling and underwater diving is allowed in park waters, subject to closures or restrictions designated by the superintendent in accordance with §§ 1.5 and 1.7 of this chapter.
(b) In waters open to the use of vessels, a diver must prominently display a dive flag during dive operations. A dive flag must not be displayed unless dive operations are ongoing.
(c) The dive flag must be illuminated when dive operations take place between sunset and sunrise. The dive flag illumination may not consist of lights that may be confused with navigation lights or aids to navigation lights.
(d) While on the surface, submerging or surfacing the diver must remain within a 100 feet horizontal radius of the diver flag.
(e) If State laws or regulations exist concerning snorkeling activities, those provisions of State law or regulation are adopted.
The use of manned or unmanned submersibles may only occur in accordance with a permit issued by the superintendent under § 1.6 of this chapter.
16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q), 462(k); Sec. 7.96 also issued under D.C. Code 8-137 (1981) and D.C. Code 40-721 (1981).
This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC, on March 15, 2007.
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
Final rule; supplementary material.
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) revised its accessibility guidelines for the construction and alteration of buildings and facilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Architectural Barriers Act in 2004. The Department of Transportation, General Services Administration, and United States Postal Service have adopted by reference the revised guidelines as regulatory standards. The Department of Transportation has modified four sections of the revised guidelines that affect entities required to comply with the Department of Transportation's regulatory standards. This document adds notes to provide supplementary material on the agencies that have adopted the revised guidelines as regulatory standards. This document also adds a new appendix that reprints the modified sections of the revised guidelines adopted by the Department of Transportation for entities required to comply with the Department of Transportation's regulatory standards.
Effective March 23, 2007.
James Raggio, Office of General Counsel, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone numbers: (202) 272-0040 (voice); 202 272-0082 (TTY). E-mail address:
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) is responsible for establishing and maintaining guidelines to ensure that the construction and alteration of buildings and facilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Architectural Barriers Act are accessible to individuals with disabilities. Other agencies are responsible for adopting the guidelines as regulatory standards. The agencies may modify the guidelines when adopting them as regulatory standards, provided the modifications are consistent with the guidelines.
The Access Board revised its accessibility guidelines for the construction and alteration of buildings and facilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Architectural Barriers Act in 2004. 69 FR 44084, July 23, 2004. The Access Board published correcting amendments to the revised guidelines in 2005. 70 FR 45308, August 5, 2005. The revised guidelines and correcting amendments are codified in the July 1, 2006 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR part 1191) and consist of five appendices:
As discussed below, three agencies have adopted by reference the revised guidelines as regulatory standards. The Access Board is adding notes to paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 1191.1 to provide readers supplementary material on the agencies that have adopted the revised guidelines as regulatory standards.
The Department of Transportation has amended its regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act, and has adopted by reference Appendices B and D to this part as the regulatory standards for the construction and alteration of transportation facilities subject to its regulations, effective November 29, 2006. 49 CFR 37.9 and Appendix A to 49 CFR part 37, as amended at 71 FR 63263, October 30, 2006; and corrected at 72 FR 11089, March 12, 2007. The Department of Transportation has modified section 206.3 in Appendix B to this part; and sections 406, 810.2.2, and 810.5.3 in Appendix D to this part. The Access Board is adding a new Appendix F to this part that reprints the modified sections adopted by the Department of Transportation as a convenience for readers. Entities that are required to comply with the Department of Transportation's regulatory standards, must comply with the modified sections adopted by the Department of Transportation. The Department of Transportation has provided supplemental material on the modified sections in Appendix D to 49 CFR part 37.
The General Services Administration has published regulations implementing the Architectural Barriers Act, and has adopted by reference Appendices C and D to this part as the regulatory standards for buildings and facilities subject to its regulations. 41 CFR 102-76.65, as added at 70 FR 67786, November 8, 2005; amended at 71 FR 52498, September 6, 2006; and further amended at 72 FR 5942, February 8, 2007. The General Services Administration refers to its regulatory standards as the Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Standard (ABAAS). ABAAS applies to the construction and alteration of facilities commenced after May 8, 2006; to leases awarded for lease construction buildings on or after June 30, 2006; and to all other leases awarded pursuant to solicitations issued after February 6, 2007. The General Services Administration has also revised its Facilities Standards for the Public Building Service PBS—P100 (March 2005), and has adopted ABAAS as a mandatory standard for the construction and alteration of General Services Administration owned buildings and
The United States Postal Service has published regulations implementing the Architectural Barriers Act, and has adopted by reference Appendices C and D to this part, with the exception of the advisory notes, as the regulatory standards for its postal facilities, effective October 1, 2005. 39 CFR 254.1, as added at 70 FR 28213, May 17, 2005.
Buildings and facilities, Civil rights, Incorporation by reference, Individuals with disabilities, Transportation.
29 U.S.C. 792(b)(3); 42 U.S.C. 12204.
1. The Department of Transportation has adopted by reference Appendices B and D to this part with modifications as the regulatory standards for the construction and alteration of transportation facilities subject to its regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, effective November 29, 2006. 49 CFR 37.9 and Appendix A to 49 CFR part 37, as amended at 71 FR 63263, October 30, 2006; and corrected at 72 FR 11089, March 12, 2007. The Department of Transportation has modified section 206.3 in Appendix B to this part; and sections 406, 810.2.2, and 810.5.3 in Appendix D to this part. The modified sections adopted by the Department of Transportation are reprinted in Appendix F to this part. Entities that are required to comply with the Department of Transportation's regulatory standards, must comply with the modified sections adopted by the Department of Transportation that are reprinted in Appendix F to this part.
1. The General Services Administration has adopted by reference Appendices C and D to this part as the regulatory standards for buildings and facilities subject to its regulations under the Architectural Barriers Act. 41 CFR 102-76.65, as added at 70 FR 67786, November 8, 2005; amended at 71 FR 52498, September 6, 2006; and further amended at 72 FR 5942, February 8, 2007. The General Services Administration refers to its regulatory standards as the Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Standard (ABAAS). ABAAS applies to the construction and alteration of facilities commenced after May 8, 2006; to leases awarded for lease construction buildings on or after June 30, 2006; and to all other leases awarded pursuant to solicitations issued after February 6, 2007. Section 3.5 of the Facilities Standards for the Public Building Service PBS—P100 (March 2005) [available on the Internet at:
2. The United States Postal Service has adopted by reference Appendices C and D to this part, with the exception of the advisory notes, as the regulatory standards for its postal facilities subject to the Architectural Barriers Act, effective October 1, 2005. 39 CFR 254.1, as added at 70 FR 28213, May 17, 2005.
The Department of Transportation has adopted by reference Appendices B and D to this part with modifications as the regulatory standards for the construction and alteration of transportation facilities subject to its regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, effective November 29, 2006. 49 CFR 37.9 and Appendix A to 49 CFR part 37, as amended at 71 FR 63263, October 30, 2006; and corrected at 72 FR 11089, March 12, 2007. The Department of Transportation has modified section 206.3 in Appendix B to this part; and sections 406, 810.2.2, and 810.5.3 in Appendix D to this part. The modified sections adopted by the Department of Transportation are reprinted in this appendix. Entities that are required to comply with the Department of Transportation's regulatory standards, must comply with modified sections adopted by the Department of Transportation that are reprinted in this appendix. The Department of Transportation has provided supplemental information on the modified sections in Appendix D to 49 CFR part 37.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The EPA is approving volatile organic compound (VOC) rules for Formel Industries, Inc. (Formel) as a revision to the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ground level ozone. On December 12, 2001 EPA approved an adjusted standard for Formel. At that time Formel, a flexographic printer in Cook County, Illinois, was given an adjusted standard because Illinois determined it was not technically feasible or economically reasonable for Formel to meet the VOC control requirements for flexographic printers. Illinois is now withdrawing the adjusted standard because Formel has installed a catalytic oxidizer that allows it to meet the VOC control requirements. This control device will reduce VOC emissions from Formel. VOC is an ozone precursor, so the VOC emissions reduction from Formel should help reduce ozone levels in Cook County, Illinois.
This direct final rule will be effective May 22, 2007, unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 23, 2007. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2005-IL-0001, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR 18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
EPA is approving a revision of the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP). This SIP revision removes an adjusted standard for Formel from 35 Illinois Administrative Code (IAC) Section 218.401(a), (b), and (c), VOC control requirements for Chicago area printers. Formel has installed a catalytic oxidizer. Now that Formel has a control device installed, it can comply with the VOC control requirements. As a result, Illinois withdrew the adjusted standard for Formel and EPA is approving the withdrawal of the adjusted standard. Formel is required to operate a capture system and a control device that provides an overall VOC reduction of at least 60 percent. The control device must reduce captured VOC emissions by 90 percent or more.
Formel is a flexographic printer in Cook County, Illinois. Formel has potential VOC emissions of 80 tons per year making it subject 35 IAC 218.401(a), (b), and (c). The VOC rules, 35 IAC 218.401, require printers to either use water-based compliant inks or to use a capture system and a control device. Formel prints food packaging on high slip plastic which precluded the use of compliant inks. In 2000, adding a control device was determined to not be economically reasonable. Formel requested and was granted an adjusted standard because it could not practically comply with the flexographic printing rule. Conditions in the adjusted standard require that the adjusted standard must be revised or withdrawn if Formel determines that it is feasible to use compliant inks or a control device. Formel has installed a catalytic oxidizer and is now complying with the flexographic printing rules. Formel must
Illinois provided the adjusted standard withdrawal notice. The state also provided background documents on the adjusted standard. Formel will comply with 35 IAC 218.401 with the adjusted standard being removed. This rule applies to flexographic printers in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area. The catalytic oxidizer Formel is now using should control the VOC emissions at least as much as the reductions from other sources that produced the allotments Formel purchased.
The Formel facility is located in Cook County, Illinois, which is part of the Chicago Moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area.
Formel will now comply with the flexographic printing rule with its installed control device. Formel is reducing its VOC emissions, a precursor to ozone formation, with the control device.
Ozone decreases lung function, causing chest pain and coughing. It can aggravate asthma, reduce lung capacity, and increase risk of respiratory diseases like pneumonia and bronchitis. Children playing outside and healthy adults who work or exercise outside also may be harmed by elevated ozone levels. Ozone also reduces vegetation growth in economically important agricultural crops and wild plants. VOC emissions will not increase, so ozone formation should not increase due to the Formel revision.
EPA is approving revisions to the Illinois SIP that remove the adjusted standard for Formel. Formel has installed a control device and is complying with the flexographic printing rule.
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant energy action,” this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal Standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 22, 2007. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(176) On June 14, 2004, Illinois submitted revisions to volatile organic compound rules for Formel Industries, Incorporated in Cook County, Illinois. The revisions consist of withdrawing an adjusted standard to the Flexographic Printing Rule. Formel Industries has installed a control device and is complying with the Flexographic Printing Rule.
An April 15, 2004, Supplemental Opinion and Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board AS 00-13, terminating Formel's previously issued (January 18, 2001) adjusted standard from the Flexographic Printing Rule, effective April 15, 2004.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Interim final rule; continuation of effectiveness and extension of timeline for publication of final rule.
This notice announces the continuation of effectiveness of a Medicare interim final rule and the extension of the timeline for publication of the final rule. This notice is issued in accordance with section 1871(a)(3)(C) of the Social Security Act (the Act), which allows an interim final rule to remain in effect after the expiration of the timeline specified in section 1871(a)(3)(B) of the Act if the Secretary publishes a notice of continuation prior to the expiration of the timeline.
Lisa Ohrin, (410) 786-4565.
Section 1871(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act (Act) requires the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to establish a regular timeline for the publication of a final rule based on the previous publication of a proposed rule or an interim final rule. In accordance with section 1871(a)(3)(B) of the Act, such regular timeline may vary among different final rules, based on the complexity of the rule, the number and scope of the comments received, and other relevant factors. The timeline for publishing the final regulation; however, cannot exceed 3 years from the date of publication of the proposed or interim final rule, unless there are exceptional circumstances. After consultation with the Director of OMB, we published a notice in the
Section 1871(a)(3)(C) of the Act states that a Medicare interim final rule shall not continue in effect if the final rule is not published before the expiration of the regular timeline, unless the Secretary publishes at the end of the regular timeline a notice of continuation that includes an explanation of why the regular timeline was not met. Upon publication of such a notice, the timeline for publishing the final rule is extended for 1 year.
On March 26, 2004, we published an interim final rule with comment period (the “Phase II” rule), which set forth the physician self-referral prohibition and applicable definitions, interpreted various statutory exceptions to the prohibition, and created additional regulatory exceptions for arrangements that do not pose a risk of program or patient abuse (69 FR 16054). Phase II also responded to comments received from an earlier interim final rule (the “Phase I” rule) regarding the physician self-referral prohibition, which was published on January 4, 2001 (66 FR 856). Under the previously established regular timeline for the publication of a final rule, we must respond to public comments on the Phase II rule in a final rule (the “Phase III” rule) published no later than March 26, 2007.
This notice announces an extension of the timeline for publication of the Phase III physician self-referral final rule and the continuation of effectiveness of the Phase II interim final rule. We are not able to meet the 3-year timeline for publication because we received extensive public comments requesting clarification of and revisions to the
This notice extends the timeline for publication of the Phase III final rule through March 26, 2008. In accordance with section 1871(a)(3)(C) of the Act, the March 26, 2004 interim final rule shall remain in effect through March 26, 2008 (unless Phase III is published and becomes effective before March 26, 2008).
Section 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395hh).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; modification of a closure.
NMFS is opening directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) for 48 hours. This action is necessary to fully use the B season allowance of the 2007 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock specified for Statistical Area 610 of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 21, 2007, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., March 23, 2007. Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t., April 4, 2007.
Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Comments may be submitted by:
• Mail to: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802;
• Hand delivery to the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, Alaska;
• FAX to 907-586-7557;
• E-mail to
• Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Jennifer Hogan, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (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.
NMFS closed the directed fishery for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on March 13, 2007 (72 FR 11288, March 13, 2007), and reopened the fishery on March 16, 2007 and closed it on March 18, 2007 and will publish in the
NMFS has determined that approximately 2,000 mt of pollock remain in the directed fishing allowance. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the B season allowance of the 2007 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 610, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is reopening directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance will be reached after 48 hours. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA, effective 1200 hrs, A.l.t., March 23, 2007.
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 opening of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 19, 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.
Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the fishery for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until April 4, 2007.
This action is required by § 679.25 and § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
* * * the discovery of cracks on aileron spades of an in-service CAP 10B aircraft.
The consequence on the aircraft of these cracks might be the loss of the airplane rolling control.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 23, 2007.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4145; fax: (816) 329-4090.
The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and
This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The Direction ge
* * * the discovery of cracks on aileron spades of an in-service CAP 10B aircraft.
The consequence on the aircraft of these cracks might be the loss of the airplane rolling control.
The MCAI requires:
APEX AIRCRAFT has designed new models of inboard and mid-aileron spades supports which shall be installed in place of the previous supports models if cracks are found.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
APEX Aircraft has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 040401, dated October 29, 2004. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 31 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,480, or $80 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 6 work-hours and require parts costing $2,500, for a cost of $2,980 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
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 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 this 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.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
(a) We must receive comments by April 23, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Model CAP 10 B airplanes; serial numbers 001 through 299, fitted with major change 000302 (fiber carbon spar), and serial numbers 300 and up; that are certificated in any category.
(d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 57: Wings.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
* * * the discovery of cracks on aileron spades of an in-service CAP 10B aircraft.
The consequence on the aircraft of these cracks might be the loss of the airplane rolling control.
(f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1) Within the next 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS, inspect the spades supports for cracks following the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS of APEX Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 040401, dated October 29, 2004. Replacement of the spades supports with ones with a letter “A” marking per APEX Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 040401, dated October 29, 2004, terminates the inspection requirements of this AD.
(2) Before further flight, if cracks are found during any inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, replace the spades supports following the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS of APEX Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 040401, dated October 29, 2004.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: The MCAI and service bulletin require the initial inspection action within 10 hours TIS. We consider 10 hours TIS an urgent safety of flight compliance time, and we do not consider this unsafe condition to be an urgent safety of flight condition. Because we do not consider this unsafe condition to be an urgent safety of flight condition, we are issuing this proposed action through the normal notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) AD process. The initial inspection time of 50 hours TIS is an adequate compliance for this proposed AD action and meets the FAA requirements for an NPRM followed by a final rule.
(g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(h) Refer to MCAI Direction générale de l'aviation civile AD No. F-2005-049, dated March 30, 2005; and APEX Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 040401, dated October 29, 2004.
Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document proposes to amend title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations to set forth provisions implementing Remote Location Filing (RLF). The proposed changes implement the terms of section 414 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as added by section 631 within the Customs Modernization provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, and would allow a RLF filer to electronically file with CBP those entries and related information that CBP can process in a completely electronic data interchange system from a location other than where the goods will arrive.
Comments must be received on or before May 22, 2007.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the proposed rule. The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this proposed rule. If appropriate to a specific comment, the commenter should reference the specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change.
This document proposes changes to the CBP regulations to provide for Remote Location Filing. Remote Location Filing (RLF) is currently allowed through National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) testing.
Title VI of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (the Act), Public Law 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057 (December 8, 1993), contains provisions pertaining to Customs Modernization (107 Stat. 2170). Subpart B of title VI of the Act concerns the National Customs Automation Program (NCAP), an electronic system for the processing of commercial importations. Within subpart B, section 631 of the Act added sections 411 through 414 to the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1411-1414).
RLF is intended to permit electronic filing of an entry of merchandise with CBP from a location other than where the goods will arrive or the district designated in the entry for examination (a “remote location”).
As a key part of the NCAP entry filing component, RLF is intended to conform CBP practices to trade business processes. By using electronic filing, RLF is intended to reduce paperwork that is costly to create, review and store. RLF is also intended to enable a customs broker with a national permit to serve several port locations without the cost of maintaining multiple offices.
Section 413(b) of the Act provides for the implementation, testing and evaluation of the NCAP and requires that the Secretary of the Treasury consult with the trade community, including importers, customs brokers, shippers, and other affected parties, in the development, implementation and evaluation of the NCAP program and its components. In accordance with this section, CBP has held public meetings on RLF since June, 1994, and has tested the RLF concept via prototypes since 1995. CBP continues to provide RLF information and updates on the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) Administrative Message System and on the CBP Internet Web site located at
RLF prototypes have been tested in accordance with § 101.9(b) of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR
• On April 6, 1995, CBP announced in the
• On February 27, 1996, CBP announced in the
• RLF Prototype Two commenced on January 1, 1997.
• CBP announced in the
• On December 7, 1998, CBP announced in the
• On July 6, 2001, CBP announced in the
• On November 16, 2001, CBP announced in the
• On February 25, 2003, CBP announced in the
• On March 31, 2005, CBP announced in the
In accordance with section 413(b), CBP has evaluated the RLF prototype and determined it to be successful in meeting the NCAP objectives stated above. For this reason, CBP is proposing to implement on a permanent basis the RLF regulatory provisions described in this document. These provisions were developed on the basis of section 414, the operational experiences garnered by RLF prototype tests, and other CBP initiatives such as the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) and Trade Compliance Redesign.
CBP intends to terminate the existing RLF prototype at such time as a final rule adopting these proposals is in effect. Until such time, RLF prototype participants may continue to participate in the test program. All current RLF prototype participants meet the requirements for RLF filing proposed in this document. No formal application process is proposed.
An RLF filer may electronically transmit an entry filing from a remote location, other than where the goods will arrive, to an RLF-operational CBP location.
If the proposed RLF regulations set forth in this document are adopted as a final rule, the CBP locations that have been identified as operational for RLF purposes under Prototype Two will continue to serve in this capacity. In addition, CBP intends to have all service ports, as defined in § 101.1 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 101.1) and listed in § 101.3(b)(2) (19 CFR 101.3(b)(2)), RLF-operational prior to the effective date of any final action on these regulatory proposals. It is also anticipated that if sufficient trade interest exists, and CBP deems it appropriate, other ports of entry will become RLF-operational once final regulations are in place. Announcements of new locations will be placed on the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) Administrative Message System and a list of all RLF-operational locations is available for viewing on the CBP Internet Web site located at
This document proposes a regulatory framework for RLF in a new subpart E to part 143 and proposes to amend, where necessary, those aspects of the existing CBP regulations that are impacted by RLF. The proposed changes, other than those involving minor wording or other editorial changes, are discussed below in more detail.
CBP proposes to set the regulatory framework for RLF in a new subpart E to Part 143 as follows:
Proposed new § 143.41 provides that subpart E sets forth the general requirements and procedures for RLF, and that RLF entries remain subject to the documentation, document retention, and document retrieval requirements of this chapter as well as the general entry requirements of parts 141, 142 and 143. Proposed § 143.41 further provides that use of the RLF system is voluntary.
Proposed new § 143.42 sets forth definitions for purposes of subpart E to part 143, as well as providing that the definitions set forth in § 143.32 also apply to subpart E.
Proposed new § 143.43 sets forth the eligibility criteria for participation in RLF.
Proposed new § 143.44 sets forth the procedures for RLF.
Proposed new § 143.45 prescribes the filing of additional entry information in a RLF context.
Section 111.2 prescribes when a license and district permit are required. Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(C) sets forth an exception to the district permit rule and states, in pertinent part, that a national permit issued to a broker under 19 CFR 111.19(f) will constitute sufficient permit authority for the broker to act as a NCAP participant who may electronically file entries for merchandise from a remote location.
In this document, it is proposed to amend § 111.2(b)(2)(i)(C) to clarify that a broker holding a national permit may electronically file entries for merchandise from a remote location so long as the terms set forth in the RLF regulations (19 CFR subpart E to part 143) have been met.
Section 113.62(j)(1) covers the agreement of a principal to comply with electronic entry filing requirements and in this regard refers specifically to subpart D of part 143.
As a consequence of the proposal to add a new subpart E to part 143 to cover RLF, it is proposed to amend paragraph (j)(1) by removing the limiting reference to “subpart D” so that the bond conditions will apply equally to the RLF provisions of proposed subpart E.
Section 141.18 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 141.18) concerns entry by nonresident corporations. Section 141.18(a) provides that the corporation
In order to accommodate the proposed RLF regulations, this document proposes to amend § 141.18(a) to provide that, for RLF purposes, a nonresident corporation must have a resident agent authorized to accept service of process against that corporation either in the State where the port of entry is located or in the State from which the remote location filing originates.
Section 141.61 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 141.61) concerns the completion of entry and entry summary documentation. Paragraph (a)(1) provides that entry and entry summary documentation must “be prepared on a typewriter, or with ink, indelible pencil, or other permanent medium,” that an entry summary shall be signed by the importer (
This document proposes to amend paragraph (a)(1) by exempting electronic entry from these requirements and including language, currently set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, which pertains to “signing of the entry” as this is also only relevant to non-electronic filings. It is also proposed to remove obsolete language set forth in § 141.61(b) which provides that the signing of the consignee's declaration, in certain instances, is regarded as satisfying 19 U.S.C. 1484(d).
Insofar as the regulations set forth in subpart D of part 143 provide for the entry of merchandise processed electronically, and the RLF regulations proposed in this document as new subpart E to part 143 also involve electronic filing of entry and entry summary documentation, it is proposed to create a new paragraph (a)(2) which sets forth the manner by which electronic entry and entry summary documentation are to be prepared. To this end, it is proposed to set forth language stating that electronic entry and entry summary documentation must contain the information required by this section, and must be certified by the importer of record or his duly authorized agent, one of whom must be resident in the United States for purposes of receiving service of process, as being true and correct to the best of his knowledge. If certified, the electronic documentation is binding in the same manner and to the same extent as signed documents.
It is further proposed to redesignate existing paragraph (a)(2), which pertains to marks and numbers, as new paragraph (b).
Section 141.63 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 141.63) concerns the submission of entry summary documentation for preliminary review. Paragraph (c) covers merchandise entered other than at the port of arrival. Specifically, paragraph (c) provides that if merchandise is to arrive or has arrived at one port and the importer wishes to file his entry documentation at another port to which the merchandise is destined, he may do so upon approval of the port director at the port of destination. The director of the destination port may then authorize release of the merchandise, after its importation at the port of arrival, or postpone its release if he believes it is necessary for examination or other purposes.
Paragraph (c) was added to the CBP regulations in 1987 to cover “PAIRED” (“Port of Arrival Immediate Release and Enforcement Determination”) entries.
Section 141.86 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 141.86) covers the contents of invoices and other general invoice requirements. Paragraph (h) sets forth standards for the numbering of invoices and pages. Specifically, paragraph (h)(1) requires that when more than one invoice is included in the same entry, each invoice with its attachments must be numbered consecutively by the importer on the bottom of the face of each page, beginning with No. 1. Paragraph (h)(2) requires that if the invoice or invoices filed with one entry consist of more than two pages, each page must be numbered consecutively by the importer on the bottom of the face of each page. The page numbering must begin with No. 1 for the first page of the first invoice and continue in a single series of numbers through all the invoices and attachments included in one entry. Paragraph (h)(3) covers both the numbering of invoices and multiple-page invoices and requires that, when applicable, both the invoice number and the page number must be shown at the bottom of each page.
The proposed RLF regulations set forth in this document, as well as the existing provisions for electronic entry filing set forth in subpart D of part 143, provide for the electronic transmission and processing of entries. In consideration of the fact that these electronic procedures may not allow a RLF filer to number the invoices and pages in conformity with § 141.86(h), it is proposed to revise § 141.86(h) to exclude electronic transmissions of invoice data made pursuant to the terms set forth in part 143 from these invoice numbering requirements.
Section 141.90 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 141.90) concerns the notation of tariff classification, rate of duty and value on invoices. Paragraph (b) requires that the appropriate tariff subheading number and rate of duty be noted by the importer in the left-hand portion of the invoice next to the articles to which they apply. Paragraph (d) provides that all notations made on an invoice by the importer or broker must be in blue or black ink.
It is proposed to revise § 141.90(b) and (d) to except from these requirements those invoices that are submitted electronically pursuant to the terms set forth in part 143.
Section 142.3 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 142.3) sets forth the entry documentation required to secure the release of merchandise. Paragraph (a) identifies different types of entry documentation. Paragraph (b) identifies the entry documentation that is required when entry summary is filed at the time of entry. Paragraph (c) states that the port director may require additional copies of the documentation.
As the regulations set forth in existing subpart D and proposed subpart E to part 143 provide for the electronic transmission of entry documentation, it is proposed to amend § 142.3 by adding a new paragraph (d) which sets forth that the entry documentation identified in this section may be submitted to CBP in either a paper or an electronic format.
Section 143.0 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 143.0) identifies the scope of part 143 as setting forth the requirements and procedures for participation in ABI and for the
It is proposed that § 143.0 be amended to include reference to the fact that RLF requirements and procedures are included within part 143.
Section 143.32 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 143.32) sets forth definitions for purposes of subpart D of this chapter.
This document proposes to amend § 143.32 by stating that the definitions also apply, where applicable, for purposes of subpart E of this chapter. It is also proposed to add a definition for “Electronic Invoice Program” (EIP), which refers to modules of the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) that allow entry filers to transmit detailed invoice data and includes Automated Invoice Interface (AII), as well as any other electronic invoice authorized by CBP.
Before adopting this proposal as a final rule, consideration will be given to any written comments timely submitted to CBP, or transmitted via e-mail to
Because these proposed amendments implement a voluntary program provided for by statute, and will have the effect of streamlining the entry process and reducing the overall regulatory burden on the general public, pursuant to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
As there are no new collections of information proposed in this document, the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) are inapplicable.
This document is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1).
Administrative practice and procedure, Brokers, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Licensing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Customs duties and inspection, Entry of merchandise, Invoices, Release of merchandise, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Customs duties and inspection, Forms, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Automated Broker Interface (ABI), Computer technology (Electronic entry filing), Customs duties and inspection, Entry of merchandise, Invoice requirements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated above, it is proposed to amend title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR parts 111, 113, 141, 142 and 143) as set forth below.
1. The general authority citation for part 111 continues to read as follows:
19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1624, 1641.
2. Section 111.2(b)(2)(i)(C) is revised to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(C)
3. The general authority citation for part 113 continues to read as follows:
19 U.S.C. 66, 1623, 1624.
4. In § 113.62, paragraph (j)(1) is amended by removing the reference “, subpart D,” and by removing the words “that subpart” and adding in their place the words, “part 143”.
5. The general authority citation for part 141 is revised, and the specific authority citations for subparts F and G and §§ 141.68 and 141.90 continue to read as follows:
19 U.S.C. 66, 1414, 1448, 1484, 1624.
Subpart F also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1481; Subpart G also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1505;
Section 141.68 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1315;
Section 141.90 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1487;
6. In § 141.18:
a. The introductory sentence is amended by removing the word “Customs” and adding in its place the word “customs”, and by removing the word “shall” and adding in its place the word “may”;
b. Paragraph (a) is revised; and
c. Paragraph (b) is amended by removing the word “Customs” and adding in its place the term “CBP”.
The revision reads as follows:
(a) Has a resident agent in the State where the port of entry is located who is authorized to accept service of process against that corporation or, in the case of an entry filed from a remote location pursuant to subpart E of part 143 of this chapter, has a resident agent authorized to accept service of process
7. In § 141.61:
a. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised;
b. Paragraph (c) is amended, in the first sentence, by removing the word “shall” and adding in its place the word “must”, and; in the second sentence, by removing the word “shall” and adding in its place the word “will”;
c. Paragraph (d) is amended by removing the word “shall” each place that it appears and adding the word “must”, and by removing the words “Customs Form” each place they appear and adding the words “CBP Form”;
d. Paragraph (e) is amended: in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3), by removing the word “shall” each place that it appears and adding the word “must”, and by removing the words “Customs Form” each place they appear and adding the words “CBP Form”; in paragraph (e)(4), by removing the word “shall” and adding in its place the word “will” and by removing the word “Customs” and adding in its place the term “CBP”; and, in paragraph (e)(5), by removing the word “shall” and adding in its place the word “will”; and
e. Paragraph (f) is amended: in paragraph (f)(1), by removing the word “shall” and adding in its place the word “must”; in paragraph (f)(1)(iv), by removing, in the second sentence, the words “shall represent” and adding in their place the words “must represent”; and, in the third sentence, by removing the word “shall” and adding in its place the word “must” and by removing the word “Customs” each place that it appears and adding the term “CBP”; in paragraph (f)(2)(i), by removing the word “shall” each place that it appears and adding the word “must” and by removing the word “Customs” and adding in its place the term “CBP”; in paragraph (f)(2)(ii), by removing, in the first sentence, the word “shall” and adding in its place the word “must”, by removing in the second sentence the words “shall represent” and adding in their place the words “must represent”; and, in the third sentence, by removing the word “shall” and adding in its place the word “must”; and, in paragraphs (f)(2)(iii) and (f)(2)(iv), by removing the word “shall” each place that it appears and adding the word “must”.
The revision reads as follows:
(a)
(i) Such documentation must be prepared on a typewriter (keyboard), or with ink, indelible pencil, or other permanent medium, and all copies must be legible;
(ii) The entry summary must be signed by the importer (
(iii) Entries, entry summaries, and accompanying documentation must be on the appropriate forms specified by the regulations and must clearly set forth all required information.
(2)
(b)
8. In § 141.63:
a. Paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) are amended by removing the word “shall” each place that it appears and adding the word “will”; and
b. Paragraph (c) is removed.
9. In § 141.68, paragraphs (a) through (h) are amended by removing the word “shall” each place that it appears and adding the word “will”, and by removing the word “Customs” each place that it appears and adding the term “CBP”.
10. In § 141.86:
a. Paragraphs (a) through (e) are amended by removing the word “shall” each place that it appears and adding the word “must”;
b. Paragraph (f) is amended by removing the word “shall” and adding in its place the word “must”, and by removing the word “Customs” and adding in its place the term “CBP”;
c. Paragraph (g) is amended by removing the word “shall” and adding in its place the word “must”;
d. Paragraph (h) is revised; and
e. Paragraph (j) is amended by removing the word “shall” and adding in its place the word “must”.
The revisions read as follows:
(h)
(2)
(3)
Inv. 1, p. 1.
Inv. 2, p. 2.
Inv. 2, p. 3
11. In § 141.90:
a. Paragraph (b) is revised;
b. Paragraph (c) is amended by removing the word “shall” each place that it appears and adding the word “must” in its place and
c. Paragraph (d) is revised.
The revisions read as follows:
(b)
(d)
12. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as follows:
19 U.S.C. 66, 1448, 1484, 1624.
13. In § 142.3:
a. Paragraph (a) is amended by removing in the introductory sentence the word “shall” and adding in its place the word “must”; by removing in paragraph (a)(1) the word “Customs” each place that it appears and adding the term “CBP” and by removing the word “shall” and adding in its place the word “must”; by removing in paragraph (a)(5) the word “Customs” and adding in its place the term “CBP”; by removing in paragraph (a)(6) the word “shall” and adding in its place the word “must” and by removing the term “CF” and adding in its place the words “CBP Form”;
b. Paragraph (b) is revised; and
c. A new paragraph (d) is added.
The revision and addition read as follows:
(b)
(1) CBP Form 3461 or 7533 will not be required; and
(2) CBP Form 7501 or CBP Form 3311 (as appropriate,
(d)
14. The authority citation for part 143 is revised to read as follows:
19 U.S.C. 66, 1414, 1481, 1484, 1498, 1624, 1641.
15. Section 143.0 is revised to read as follows:
This part sets forth the requirements and procedures for participation in the Automated Broker Interface (ABI), for the clearance of imported merchandise under appraisement and informal entries, and under electronic entry filing and under Remote Location Filing (RLF). All requirements and procedures set forth in this part are in addition to the general requirements and procedures for all entries set forth in part 141 of this chapter. More specific requirements and procedures are set forth elsewhere in this chapter; for example, part 145 concerns importations by mail and part 10 concerns merchandise conditionally free of duty or subject to a reduced rate.
16. In § 143.32, the introductory text and existing paragraphs (a), (b), (d) through (k), and (o) are revised to read as follows:
The following are definitions for purposes of subparts D and E of this part:
(a)
(b)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(1) Entry information required for the entry of merchandise; and
(2) Entry summary information required for the classification and appraisement of the merchandise, the verification of statistical information, and the determination of compliance with applicable law.
(j)
(k)
(o)
17. Part 143 is amended by adding a new subpart E, consisting of §§ 143.41 through 143.45, to read as follows:
This subpart sets forth the general requirements and procedures for Remote Location Filing (RLF). RLF entries are subject to the documentation, document retention and document retrieval requirements of this chapter as
The following definitions, in addition to the definitions set forth in § 143.32 of this part, apply for purposes of this subpart E:
(a)
(b)
(a)
(1) Operational on the ABI (
(2) Operational on the EIP prior to applying for RLF; and
(3) Operational on the ACH (or any other CBP-approved method of electronic payment), for purposes of directing the electronic payment of duties, taxes and fees (
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
When filing from a remote location, a RLF filer must electronically file all additional information required by CBP to be presented with the entry and entry summary information (including facsimile transmissions) that CBP can accept electronically. If CBP cannot accept additional information electronically, the RLF filer must file the additional information in a paper format at the CBP port of entry where the goods arrived.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
In response to a request from a viticulture industry group, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau extends the comment period for Notice No. 71, Proposed Establishment of the Paso Robles Westside Viticultural Area, a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the
Written comments on Notice No. 71 must now be received on or before April 24, 2007.
You may send comments to any of the following addresses:
• Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Attn: Notice No. 71, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044-4412.
• 202-927-8525 (facsimile).
•
•
•
You may view copies of this notice, the petition, the appropriate maps, and any comments we receive about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. To make an appointment, call 202-927-2400. You may also access copies of the notice and comments online at
See the Public Participation section of this notice for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing.
N. A. Sutton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
TTB received a petition, filed on behalf of 21 grape growers and vintners, proposing the establishment of the “Paso Robles Westside” American viticultural area in northern San Luis Obispo County, California. The proposed 179,622-acre Paso Robles Westside viticultural area is entirely within the existing Paso Robles viticultural area (27 CFR 9.84), which, in turn, is entirely within the existing Central Coast viticultural area (27 CFR 9.75). The proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area consists of that portion of the existing Paso Robles viticultural area west of the Salinas River.
In Notice No. 71, published in the
On February 16, 2007, we received a request from the Paso Robles AVA Committee, representing 59 growers and vintners within the existing Paso Robles viticultural area, requesting a 30-day extension of the comment period for Notice No. 71. The request explained that the committee will be unable to meet before its next scheduled meeting on March 9, 2007, and that several of its experts will be out of the country until that time. The committee stated that it will have insufficient time after its next meeting to assemble and review its own evidence regarding the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area, and to submit detailed comments on Notice No. 71.
In response to this request, we extend the comment period for Notice No. 71 an additional 30 days. Therefore, comments on Notice No. 71 are now due on or before April 24, 2007.
Michael Hoover of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice.
Wine.
This notice is issued under the authority of 27 U.S.C. 205.
Office of the Secretary, DoD.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule will implement section 702 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (NDAA for FY 2007), Pubic Law 109-364. Specifically, that legislation amends the coverage of contracted medical care with respect to dental care beyond that care required as a necessary adjunct to medical or surgical treatment. The entitlement of institutional and anesthesia services is authorized in conjunction with non-covered dental treatment for patients with developmental, mental, or physical disabilities or for pediatric patients age 5 or under. This proposed rule will not eliminate any contracted medical care that is currently covered for spouses and children. The entitlement of anesthesia services will include general anesthesia services only. Institutional services will include institutional benefits associated with both hospital and in-out surgery settings. Patients with developmental, mental, or physical disabilities are those patients with conditions that prohibit dental treatment in a safe and effective manner. Therefore, it is medically or psychologically necessary for these patients to require general anesthesia for dental treatment.
Written comments received at the address indicated below by May 22, 2007 will be accepted.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or RIN number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Col. Gary C. Martin, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), TRICARE Management Activity, telephone (703) 681-0039.
This proposed rule will amend the coverage of contracted medical care with respect to dental care beyond that care required as necessary adjunct to medical or surgical treatment. The entitlement of institutional and anesthesia services will be authorized in conjunction with non-covered dental treatment for patients with developmental, mental, or physical disabilities or for pediatric patients age 5 or under. This proposed rule will not eliminate any contracted medical care that is currently covered for spouses and children. The entitlement of anesthesia services will include general anesthesia services only. Institutional services will include institutional benefits associated with both hospital and in-out surgery settings. Patients with developmental, mental, or physical disabilities are those patients with conditions that prohibit dental treatment in a safe and effective manner. Therefore, it is medically or psychologically necessary for these patients to require general anesthesia for dental treatment.
Currently, general anesthesia and institutional services are not covered in conjunction with dental treatment for patients with developmental, mental, or physical disabilities or for pediatric patients of any age through TRICARE medical plan contracts. For military families who have children that require extensive dental treatment under general anesthesia, the two options available are to have the care provided locally at a Department of Defense (DoD) facility or a civilian facility. If the care is provided in a DoD facility, the total costs to the family are minimal. There are locations where this care is not available from a DoD facility due to facility constraints (no operating room) and/or lack of dental specialists. For dental care provided in a civilian facility, families currently enrolled in the TRICARE Dental Program (TDP) or TRICARE Retiree Dental Program (TRDP) are provided with coverage for dental care with applicable cost-shares. These include a 40% cost-share for
Executive Order 12866 requires that a comprehensive regulatory impact analysis be performed on any economically significant regulatory action, defined as one that would result in an annual effect of $100 million or more on the national economy or which would have other substantial impacts. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that each Federal agency prepare, and make available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis when the agency issues a regulation which would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is not an economically significant regulatory action and will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities for purposes of the RFA, thus this proposed rule is not subject to any of these requirements.
This rule will not impose additional information collection requirements on the public under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3511).
We have examined the impact(s) of the proposed rule under Executive Order 13132 and it does not have policies that have federalism implications that would have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, therefore, consultation with State and local officials is not required.
Claims, Dental health, Health care, Health insurance, Individuals with disabilities, Military personnel.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 199 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 199 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. chapter 55.
2. Section 199.4 is amended by removing the first sentence of paragraph (e)(10) introductory text and adding two sentences in its place; revising the first sentence of paragraph (e)(10)(iii); and adding paragraph (e)(10)(vi) to read as follows:
(e) * * *
(10)
(iii)
(vi)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing approval of revisions to volatile organic compound (VOC) rules for Formel Industries, Inc. (Formel) as a revision to the Illinois State Implementation Plan. On December 12, 2001, EPA approved an adjusted standard for Formel. Formel, a flexographic printer in Cook County, Illinois, was given an adjusted standard because Illinois determined it was not technically feasible or economically reasonable for Formel to meet the VOC control requirements for flexographic printers. Illinois withdrew the adjusted standard because Formel has installed a catalytic oxidizer that allows it to meet the VOC control requirements. This control device will reduce VOC emissions from Formel, which is a precursor to ozone formation.
Comments must be received on or before April 23, 2007.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2005-IL-0001, by one of the following methods:
1.
2. E-mail:
3. Fax: (312)886-5824.
4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.
Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this
Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524,
In the Final Rules section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to find that the Phoenix Planning Area (Phoenix nonattainment area) and the Owens Valley Planning Area (Owens Valley nonattainment area) did not attain the 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter of 10 microns or less (PM-10) by the deadline mandated in the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), December 31, 2006. These proposed findings are based on monitored air quality data for the PM-10 NAAQS from 2004 through September 2006.
Several Indian tribes have reservations located within the boundaries of the Phoenix and Owens Valley nonattainment areas. EPA implements CAA provisions for determining whether such areas have attained the NAAQS by the applicable attainment deadline in these reservations. EPA is also proposing that these areas have failed to attain the PM-10 NAAQS. Thus, this proposed rule could potentially affect these tribes. Accordingly, EPA has notified the affected tribal leaders of this proposed rule and is inviting consultation with interested tribes.
If EPA finalizes, after public notice and comment, these failure to attain findings, Arizona and California must submit by December 31, 2007, plan provisions that provide for attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS and that achieve 5 percent annual reductions in PM-10 or PM-10 precursor emissions as required by CAA section 189(d).
Written comments must be received on or before April 23, 2007.
Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0091, by one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For Phoenix issues contact Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3959,
Throughout this document, wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” are used, we mean EPA.
The NAAQS are levels for certain ambient air pollutants set by EPA to protect public health and welfare. PM-10 is among the ambient air pollutants for which EPA has established health-based standards. PM-10 causes adverse health effects by penetrating deep in the
On July 1, 1987 EPA revised the health-based national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) (52 FR 24672), replacing standards for suspended particulates with new standards applying only to particulate matter up to ten microns in diameter (PM-10). At that time, EPA established two PM-10 standards, the annual standard and a 24-hour standard. On December 18, 2006, EPA revoked the annual PM-10 standard but retained the 24-hour PM-10 standard. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). The 24-hour PM-10 standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m
On the date of enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA or the Act), PM-10 areas, including the Phoenix and Owens Valley nonattainment areas, meeting the qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) of the amended Act were designated nonattainment by operation of law. 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991). EPA codified the boundaries of the Phoenix nonattainment area at 40 CFR 81.303 and the Owens Valley nonattainment area at 40 CFR 81.305.
Once an area is designated nonattainment for PM-10, section 188 of the CAA outlines the process for classifying the area and establishes the area's attainment deadline. In accordance with section 188(a), at the time of designation, all PM-10 nonattainment areas, including the Phoenix and Owens Valley nonattainment areas, were initially classified as moderate.
Section 188(b)(1) of the Act provides that moderate areas can subsequently be reclassified as serious before the applicable moderate area attainment date if at any time EPA determines that the area cannot “practicably” attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the moderate area attainment deadline, December 31, 1994. On January 8, 1993, EPA made such a determination and reclassified the Owens Valley nonattainment area as serious. 58 FR 3334.
Moreover, a moderate area must be reclassified by operation of law if EPA determines after the applicable attainment date that, based on air quality, the area was not in attainment after that date. CAA sections 179(c) and 188(b)(2). On May 10, 1996, EPA published such a reclassification of the Phoenix nonattainment area as serious. 61 FR 21372.
As serious PM-10 nonattainment areas, the Phoenix and Owens Valley nonattainment areas acquired a new attainment deadline of no later than December 31, 2001. CAA section 188(c)(2). However, CAA section 188(e) allows states to apply for up to a 5-year extension of the serious area attainment deadline of December 31, 2001. In order to obtain the extension, there must be a showing that: (1) Attainment by 2001 would be impracticable, (2) the state complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the implementation plan for the area, and (3) the state demonstrates that the plan for the area includes the most stringent measures that are included in the implementation plan of any state or are achieved in practice in any state, and can feasibly be implemented in the area. Both Arizona and California requested extensions under CAA section 188(e) to December 31, 2006. On July 24, 2002, EPA granted Arizona's request to extend the attainment date for the Phoenix nonattainment area to December 31, 2006. 67 FR 48718. On September 3, 1999 EPA granted the request to extend the attainment date for the Owens Valley nonattainment area to December 31, 2006. 64 FR 48305.
For a more detailed discussion of the history of PM-10 planning for the Phoenix and Owens Valley nonattainment areas, please refer to EPA actions on the PM-10 state implementation plans (SIPs) for these areas. 67 FR 48718 (July 25, 2002); 64 FR 48305 (September 3, 1999).
EPA has the responsibility, pursuant to sections 179(c) and 189(b)(2) of the Act, to determine within 6 months of the applicable attainment date (
As stated above, pursuant to appendix K, attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS is achieved when the expected number of exceedances per year at each monitoring site is less than or equal to one. A total of three consecutive years of clean air quality data is generally necessary to show attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 standard. A complete year of air quality data as referred to in 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, comprises all four calendar quarters with each quarter containing data from at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days.
There are two basic types of PM-10 monitors, manual samplers and automated continuous analyzers. Manual samplers use a filter to collect PM-10 that must be weighed in a laboratory before a PM-10 concentration can be determined. Automated continuous analyzers run continuously and can produce hourly average concentrations of PM-10 in close to real-time. Most PM-10 monitors do not record a sample every day of the year, either by design or because of operational or maintenance issues. Manual PM-10 samplers generally run on a one-in-every-six day schedule. Automated analyzers generally produce a PM-10 24-hour average concentration every day, but as noted above, operational or maintenance issues may effect an automated analyzer's ability to produce a PM-10 concentration every day of the year.
Because attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS is based on the number of expected exceedances per year, it is necessary to adjust the number of observed exceedances per year to account for any days for which a 24-hour PM-10 concentration is not available. This adjustment results in an estimated number of expected exceedances per year and is made in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 3.1. In two simple examples, if a PM-10 instrument operates every day of the year, then no adjustment is necessary and the observed number of exceedances will be equal to the estimated number of exceedances. If a sampler operates on a one-in-every-six day schedule, then the number of observed exceedances will be adjusted to account for the five days with no samples. In this example, one observed exceedance would be the equivalent of six estimated exceedances.
Most PM-10 samplers in the Phoenix nonattainment area originally operated on a one-in-six day schedule. A number of monitoring sites in the Phoenix
As summarized in Tables 1 and 2 in section II.B. below, there are a number of PM-10 monitoring sites in the Phoenix and Owens Valley nonattainment areas that continue to violate the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS. If a site averages more than one estimated exceedance per year during the three-year attainment period, it is in violation of the NAAQS (see far right columns of Tables 1 and 2).
In the Phoenix nonattainment area, five sites are in violation of the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS: West Phoenix, Greenwood, Higley, West 43rd Avenue, and Bethune School. In the Owens Valley nonattainment area, seven sites continue to violate the PM-10 NAAQS: Lone Pine, Olancha-Walker Creek Road, Olancha-Dirty Sox, Olancha-Flat Rock, Olancha-Shell Cut, Olancha-Bill Stanley Site, and Keeler.
EPA intends to take final action to determine whether the Phoenix and Owens Valley nonattainment areas have attained the PM-10 NAAQS following notice and comment. We believe that the plain language of sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) mandates that we make such findings with respect to these areas. We also believe that, as a matter of EPA's federal implementation of relevant provisions of the CAA over Indian country within the Phoenix and Owens Valley nonattainment areas, the findings of failure to attain should apply to these areas of Indian country. PM-10 continues to be a pervasive pollution problem in the Phoenix and Owens Valley nonattainment areas. PM-10 can be transported into an area from pollution sources found many miles away from its source. Therefore, EPA recommends that boundaries for nonattainment areas be drawn to encompass both areas with direct sources of the pollution problem as well as nearby areas in the same airshed. EPA believes that this approach best ensures public health protection from the adverse effects of PM-10 pollution. Therefore, it is generally counterproductive from an air quality and planning perspective to segregate
EPA is proposing to find that the Phoenix and Owens Valley nonattainment areas did not attain the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS by the December 31, 2006 attainment deadline as discussed above in section II.
Under section 189(d) of the Act, serious PM-10 nonattainment areas that fail to attain are required to submit within 12 months of the applicable attainment date, “plan revisions which provide for attainment of the PM-10 air quality standard and, from the date of such submission until attainment, for an annual reduction in PM-10 or PM-10 precursor emissions within the area of not less than 5 percent of the amount of such emissions as reported in the most recent inventory prepared for such area.”
In accordance with CAA section 179(d)(3), the attainment deadline applicable to an area that misses the serious area attainment date is as soon as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the publication date of the nonattainment finding notice. EPA may, however, extend the attainment deadline to the extent it deems appropriate for a period no greater than 10 years from the publication date, “considering the severity of nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures.” In addition to the attainment demonstration and 5 percent requirements, the plans under section 189(d) for the Phoenix and Owens Valley nonattainment areas must address all applicable requirements of the CAA, including sections 110(a), 172(c), 176(c) and 189(c)(1).
Because the applicable attainment date for both nonattainment areas was December 31, 2006, under section 189(d), the submittal deadline for the plans will be December 31, 2007 if EPA's proposed findings of failure to attain are finalized.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action in and of itself establishes no new requirements, it merely notes that the air quality in the Phoenix nonattainment area and the Owens Valley nonattainment area did not meet the federal health standard for PM-10 by the CAA deadline. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Several Indian tribes have reservations located within the boundaries of the Phoenix and Owens Valley nonattainment areas. EPA is responsible for the implementation of federal Clean Air Act programs in Indian country, including findings of failure to attain. EPA has notified the affected tribal officials and will be consulting with all interested tribes, as provided for by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). EPA will ensure that each tribe is contacted and given the opportunity to enter into consultation on a government-to-government basis. This proposed action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This proposed action does not in and of itself create any new requirements and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. Because these proposed findings of failure to attain are factual determinations based on air quality considerations, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would revise the threshold under the indirect guarantee hold harmless arrangement test to reflect the provisions of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Public Law 109-432, by providing that, when determining whether there is an indirect guarantee under the 2-prong test for any part of a fiscal year on or after January 1, 2008 through September 30, 2011, the allowable amount that can be collected from a health care-related tax is reduced from 6 to 5.5 percent of net patient revenues received by the taxpayers. This proposed rule would also clarify the standard for determining the existence of a hold harmless arrangement under the positive correlation test, Medicaid payment test, and the guarantee test (with conforming changes to parallel provisions concerning hold harmless arrangements with respect to provider-related donations); codify descriptions for two classes of health care services permissible under Federal statute for purposes of taxes on health care providers; and, remove obsolete transition period regulatory language.
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on May 22, 2007.
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-2275-P. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. You may submit comments in one of three ways (no duplicates, please):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
(Because access to the interior of the HHH Building is not readily available to persons without Federal Government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
Charles Hines, (410) 786-0252 or Stuart Goldstein, (410) 786-0694.
Submitting Comments: We welcome comments from the public on all issues set forth in this rule to assist us in fully considering issues and developing policies. You can assist us by referencing the file code CMS-2275-P and the specific “issue identifier” that precedes the section on which you choose to comment.
Title XIX of the Social Security Act (the Act) authorizes Federal grants to the States for Medicaid programs to provide medical assistance to persons with limited income and resources. While Medicaid programs are administered by the States, they are jointly financed by the Federal and State governments. The Federal government pays its share of medical assistance expenditures to the State on a quarterly basis according to a formula described in sections 1903 and 1905(b) of the Act. The amount of the Federal share of medical assistance expenditures is called Federal financial participation (FFP). The State pays its share of medical expenditures in accordance with section 1902(a)(2) of the Act.
The Medicaid Voluntary Contribution and Provider Specific Tax Amendments of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-234), enacted December 12, 1991, amended section 1903 of the Act to specify limitations on the amount of FFP available for medical assistance expenditures in a fiscal year when States receive certain funds donated from providers and revenues generated by certain health care-related taxes. We issued regulations to implement the statutory provisions concerning provider donations and health care-related taxes in an interim final rule (with comment period) published on November 24, 1992 (57 FR 55118). A final rule was issued on August 13, 1993 (58 FR 43156). The Federal statute and implementing regulations were designed to protect Medicaid providers from being unduly burdened by tax programs. Health care related tax programs that are compliant with the requirements set forth by the Congress create a significant tax burden for health care providers that do not participate in the Medicaid program or that provide limited services to Medicaid individuals.
Section 1903(w) of the Act requires that State health care-related taxes must be imposed on a permissible class of health care services; be broad based or apply to all providers within a class; be uniform, such that all providers within a class must be taxed at the same rate; and avoid hold harmless arrangements in which collected taxes are returned directly or indirectly to taxpayers. Section 1903(w)(3)(E) of the Act specifies that the Secretary shall approve broad based (and uniformity) waiver applications if the net impact of the health care-related tax is generally redistributive and that the amount of the tax is not directly correlated to Medicaid payments. The broad based and uniformity provisions are waivable through a statistical test that measures the degree to which the Medicaid program incurs a greater tax burden when a State tax program is otherwise not compliant with the broad based and/or uniformity requirement. The permissible class of health care services and hold harmless requirements cannot be waived. The statute and Federal regulation identify 19 permissible classes of health care items or services
The regulatory language at 42 CFR 433.68(f) sets forth tests for determining the presence of a hold harmless arrangement that were directly based on the language contained in section 1903(w)(4) of the Act. The preamble to that regulation provided guidance and some illustrative examples of the types of health care-related tax programs that we believed would violate the hold harmless prohibitions. In a June 29, 2005 decision, however, the HHS Departmental Appeals Board (DAB), DAB No. 1981, found that these regulations did not clearly preclude certain types of arrangements that we believe to be within the scope of the statutory hold harmless prohibition and implementing regulations. The DAB consequently reversed disallowances issued by CMS to five States. In each of these reversed disallowances, the States had created programs that imposed a tax on nursing homes and simultaneously created programs that awarded grants or tax credits to private pay residents of those nursing homes. These grants and/or tax credits were designed by the States to compensate private pay residents of nursing homes for the costs of the tax passed on to them by their nursing homes through increased charges. We concluded that the grants and tax credits amounted to hold harmless arrangements prohibited from FFP under the Medicaid statute and regulations.
One of the hold harmless tests, set forth in current rules at § 433.68(f)(3)(i), defines arrangements that are considered to be prohibited indirect guarantees. Taxes imposed on health care-related providers may not exceed 6 percent of total revenues received by the taxpayers unless the State makes a showing that, in the aggregate, 75 percent of taxpayers do not receive 75 percent or more of their total tax costs back in enhanced Medicaid payments or other State payments. States can tax individual classes of health care services and providers, including inpatient hospital services, outpatient hospital services, and nursing facility services up to 6 percent of the net revenues received by the taxpayers within the class of health care services without violating prohibitions on the indirect hold harmless arrangements. The 6 percent limit was established to maintain consistency with the average level of taxes applied to other goods and services in the State, as discussed in the November 24, 1992 preamble to the interim final rule implementing the statute.
On December 20, 2006 the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 was signed into law as Public Law 109-432. Section 403 of that law incorporated the existing regulatory test for an indirect guarantee into the Medicaid statute but provided for a temporary reduction in the allowable tax rate under the first prong of the test. Specifically, the indirect hold harmless threshold has been reduced from 6 percent to 5.5 percent effective in any portion of fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2008 and through September 30, 2011.
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the caption “PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED RULE” at the beginning of your comments.]
Section 6051 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) (Pub. L. 109-171), enacted on February 8, 2006, amends section 1903(w)(7)(viii) of the Act to expand the previous Medicaid managed care organization (MCO) provider class to include all MCOs. The effective date of section 6051 of the DRA is the date of enactment, that is, February 8, 2006. Therefore to qualify for Federal reimbursement, a State's health care-related tax would need to apply to both Medicaid participating and non-Medicaid participating MCOs. Previously, the statute recognized services of a Medicaid MCO with a contract under section 1903(m) of the Act as a permissible class of health care services. This particular class of health care services was unlike any other permissible class of health care services identified in statute and regulation, as it was the only listed class of health care services that permitted taxation of solely Medicaid providers of the service. In addition, MCOs that participated in Medicaid were beginning to use the statutory language to reorganize their corporate structure to protect their commercial lines of business from tax liability. The result of this corporate restructuring was that the tax was imposed on only the Medicaid subsidiary of the MCO. With this reorganization, States were able to impose a tax on only the Medicaid revenues of the MCO, effectively shifting the entire burden of the tax to the Medicaid program.
We are proposing to implement the statutory amendment made in the section 6051 of the DRA with conforming changes to the regulatory provision in § 433.56(a)(8). We are proposing to revise the regulatory language to specify that all services of MCOs (including health maintenance organizations and preferred provider organizations) regardless of payer source will be considered a permissible class of health care items or services for purposes of health care-related taxes.
We note that the DRA provides a transition period for those States with existing Medicaid MCO taxes. For those States with a Medicaid MCO only tax enacted as of December 8, 2005, this provision becomes effective October 1, 2009.
Currently, the regulations at § 433.68(f) set forth three broad tests to determine if there is a hold harmless arrangement with respect to a health care-related tax. If States enact a tax program that violates any of these tests, FFP will be reduced by the amount collected through that tax program. As mentioned above, the recent DAB decision has drawn into question how the current hold harmless provisions will be interpreted and applied. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify these provisions and ensure proper implementation of section 1903(w)(4) of the Act. We propose to continue using the same regulatory structure of § 433.68(f), while clarifying certain terms in each of these hold harmless tests.
We propose to modify and clarify the test set forth at § 433.68(f)(1), also known as the positive correlation test. A State or other unit of government will violate this test if they impose a health care-related tax and also provide for a direct or indirect non-Medicaid payment and the payment amount is positively correlated to the tax amount or to the difference between the Medicaid payment and tax amount.
This proposed rule explains that both direct and indirect payments to providers, or others paying a health care-related tax, will be analyzed in determining compliance with this test. We propose to interpret the phrase “direct and indirect non-Medicaid payment” broadly. These payments may take many forms, such as grants or tax credits, although there will undoubtedly be other types of payments that we have not yet anticipated. The provision of non-Medicaid payments may violate both the positive correlation test and the guarantee test, discussed further below. Our discussion of direct and indirect non-Medicaid payments is applicable to both tests.
Determining if a direct payment exists should be readily apparent. When a non-Medicaid payment is made directly to a provider, and it is positively correlated to the tax amount, then FFP will be denied for the health care related tax.
Unlike a direct payment, an indirect payment to a provider may be more difficult to detect. Yet, even though an indirect payment may not be as obvious, indirect payments that are positively correlated to a tax will also violate this test. An indirect payment can take many forms. For example, if the State imposes a health care-related tax, such as a tax on nursing home beds, and a provider is allowed under State statutes or regulations (either expressly or implicitly) to pass the costs of its tax onto patients through rate increases, payments by the State to those non-Medicaid patients that demonstrate a linkage to the rate increase would be an indirect payment to that provider. Under this example, the revenue source for the payment is not relevant in determining that the payment is an indirect payment. Money is fungible, and, as long as the payment is from a source controlled or influenced by the State, it will be considered in determining whether it has been made available as compensation for the tax. In reviewing this issue, we would look at whether the payment would be made by the entity for documented charitable or business reasons even if the State were not involved. We endeavored to prohibit these indirect payments in the 1993 rules, but the recent DAB decision evidences that the original rule may have been unclear. This proposed rule is intended to further clarify the Secretary's policy. However, the purpose of this example is only to provide illustration of the broad scope of indirect payments. Due to the difficulty in predicting all possible types of indirect payments, this example does not limit our ability to detect other indirect payments in the future.
We recognize that this test interjects some degree of subjectivity into this analysis. However, the Congress intended to prohibit hold harmless arrangements that directly or indirectly paid a taxpayer for the costs of a tax. Some degree of subjective analysis is inevitable in determining whether an indirect payment exists. We will look at all relevant circumstances surrounding a tax and payment program to determine whether a linkage exists to establish an indirect payment.
The phrase “positively correlated” was defined in the 1993 final rule as having the “same meaning as the statistical term.” As is evidenced in the DAB decision, this definition has led to much confusion as to how “positively correlated” should be defined. Therefore, we would clarify that tax and payment amounts are positively correlated when they have a positive relationship with each other even when that relationship is not evidenced through a strict correlation in a mathematical sense. Two variables can be positively correlated even though the correlation may vary over time. For example, the rate of a tax and payment may be closely related, but, the next year, the tax rate might be increased while the payment might stay the same. Although the correlation between the two variables may have changed, it would still be positive since providers incurring the tax receive increased payments to offset the tax. For example, a State might impose a $4 a day occupied bed tax on nursing homes, which the homes are permitted to pass onto their residents in the form of rate increases. At or about the same time they impose the tax, the State issues a $3.75 grant (or tax credit) for non-Medicaid nursing home residents. A year later, the tax might be increased to $4.10, but the grant or tax credit might remain level. In such a case, a positive correlation would be found to exist between the grant and the tax because, in each year, there would be a positive correlation between the tax and grant amounts paid in relation to each individual service unit (bed-days) to non-Medicaid residents. The correlation would not be destroyed through the variation of one of the two variables (in tax or grant amounts). Moreover, as discussed above with respect to identifying indirect payments, we may look to extrinsic evidence, such as legislative history and circumstances surrounding the tax and grant programs, to establish the positive correlation.
We want to make clear that a positive correlation can be discovered in various ways. First, a positive correlation can be found through a statistical, numerical test where a series of tax and payment amounts are analyzed to determine if there is a statistical relationship between both amounts. Second, a positive correlation could be found where the rate of a tax and the rate of a non-Medicaid payment are based on the same numeric factors (such as the amount of revenues, or bed days). Third, a positive correlation could be found based on a finding that the non-Medicaid payment is conditional on payment (direct or indirect) of the tax. In addition to these numerical tests, evidence of the intended effect of linked tax and payment programs may demonstrate that a positive correlation exists, especially when a State enacts the tax and/or payment programs in the same legislative session. Tax and payment amounts, as articulated in either statute or regulation, can be compared and if there is a positive relationship between those amounts, then the arrangement will be considered a hold harmless arrangement. Further, if the calculation of the payment amount is determined in whole or in part by the tax amount, we would also find that those amounts are positively correlated. The same would hold true if the tax amount was calculated based in whole or in part on the payment amount. There may be other ways that this positive relationship could be found, and we only provide these examples as a demonstration of the broad interpretation of the positive correlation test. It is simply impossible to anticipate all hold harmless plans that could be created.
We propose to clarify the definition of tax amounts and payment amounts for purposes of hold harmless analyses. We propose to unify these definitions so that they will have identical meanings in all three hold harmless tests. In the current rule, we use terms such as “amount of the payment,” “amount of such tax,” “total tax cost,” and “amount of total tax payment.” These slightly differing phrases have apparently lead to confusion as to what amounts should be examined in determining whether a hold harmless exists. We propose that in the positive correlation test, as well as the other two tests, to use the terms “tax amount” and “payment amount.”
Although we are using standardized terminology, we intend for these terms to encompass all of the meanings that could previously have been attributed to each of the prior terms, to permit maximum flexibility in analyzing the relationships between tax and payment programs, depending on the particular circumstances presented by State tax programs. A relationship between a tax program and Medicaid or non-Medicaid payments, or a direct or indirect guarantee, could be found based either on the aggregate tax amount that the provider pays over a period of time, or on the unit tax rate that is applied for a particular service. Therefore, if a State statute articulates a tax rate applicable to each nursing home bed within a nursing home, then that tax rate could be used in this analysis as the tax amount. Likewise, an analysis could be based on aggregate payments to providers, on payments made on a per-
We also believe that standardization of the term “tax amount” and “payment amount” in all three tests will demonstrate that money does not have to be expended before a hold harmless situation can be discovered. Therefore, we will look at the State legislation creating a tax and hold harmless payment program (for example, grant or tax credit program). If a hold harmless situation exists on the face of the legislation, FFP will be denied for the tax amount. It is not necessary for us to determine, for example, the amount of grant funds actually expended by a State in an effort to hold taxpayers harmless for the tax. It would be extremely costly and administratively burdensome for us to track individual monies actually paid by States in these payment programs. If the tax and pay back programs exist to allow for a hold harmless situation, such a hold harmless violation will be found.
Under the current second hold harmless test, a hold harmless arrangement exists if all or any portion of the Medicaid payment varies based only on the amount of the total tax payment. For the reasons discussed above, we are proposing to revise this rule to use the standardized terminology “tax amount.” We are also adding a clarification that a Medicaid payment will be considered to vary based on the tax amount when the payment is conditional on the tax payment. In that circumstance, the variation between a payment of zero and a positive payment would be based only on the payment of the tax amount.
We do not believe this clarification is inconsistent with the provision in section 1903(w)(4) of the Act that indicates that the restrictions on hold harmless arrangements does not prevent States from using taxes “to reimburse health care providers in a class for expenditures under this title.” Nor do we believe that this clarification would preclude States that use cost-based payment mechanisms from including provider tax costs as one of many provider costs that are considered in setting individualized provider rates. But this clarification would affect States that seek to use rates that are based solely on the receipt of provider taxes, rather than on overall provider costs (such as supplemental payments conditioned on receipt of taxes). Where Medicaid payment is conditioned on receipt of taxes, we would view the payment to be, in part or in full, to repay the taxes in a hold harmless arrangement rather than as a protected reimbursement for costs of Medicaid services.
This clarification is thus necessary to ensure that Medicaid payments are not made simply to repay providers for the tax, but also to ensure the integrity of the development of sound payment rates in compliance with the requirements of section 1902(a)(30) of the Act. If Medicaid payments are conditional on receipt of particular tax amounts, it is an indication that the Medicaid payment rate would not otherwise be consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care, and is based solely on the return of funding received through the tax program. The proposed language would, however, limit the ability of States to expressly condition payment rates on tax receipts rather than on a process that determines rates that are consistent with efficiency, economy and quality of care in compliance with section 1902(a)(30)(A) of the Act.
Under the current third hold harmless test, a hold harmless arrangement exists if there is a direct or indirect guarantee that holds taxpayers harmless for any portion of their tax cost. We propose to clarify this test to specify that a State can provide a direct or indirect guarantee through a direct or indirect payment. An indirect guarantee can be found based on the test as explained and modified below. A direct guarantee will be found when a State payment is made available to a taxpayer or a party related to the taxpayer (for example, as a nursing home resident is related to a nursing home), in the reasonable expectation that the payment would result in the taxpayer being held harmless for any part of the tax. A direct guarantee does not need to be an explicit promise or assurance of payment. Instead, the element necessary to constitute a direct guarantee is the provision for payment by State statute, regulation, or policy.
An indirect payment to the taxpayer would also constitute a direct guarantee. One such example of this indirect payment providing a direct guarantee would be found where a State imposing a tax on nursing facilities provided grants or tax credits to private pay residents of those facilities that could be used to compensate those residents for any portion of the tax amount that the State has allowed to be passed down to them by their nursing homes. This represents a direct guarantee of an indirect payment to taxpayers. Additionally, we interpret the phrase “all or any portion of the tax amount” to mean that a guarantee exists when a taxpayer is assured that money will be made available for repayment for any identifiable portion of the tax liability.
An indirect guarantee is distinct from a direct guarantee in that the payment to the provider is through regular or enhanced payments for pre-existing Medicaid obligations. We discuss indirect guarantees separately below.
Currently, under § 433.68(f)(3)(i) an indirect hold harmless violation is determined using a two pronged test. If a health care-related tax or taxes are applied at a rate that produces revenues less than 6 percent of the revenues received by the taxpayers, the tax or taxes will not be in violation of the indirect hold harmless provision. If a health care-related tax or taxes exceed a 6 percent rate, we would consider a hold harmless to exist if 75 percent or more of the taxpayers in the class receive 75 percent or more of their total tax back in enhanced Medicaid payments or other State payments. The second prong of this test applies the test in the aggregate to all health care-related taxes applicable to each class. Moreover, in applying this test, we may consider as “enhanced Medicaid payments” any amount that any branch of the State, including legislative and executive branches, has indicated could be subject to reduction in the absence of provider tax revenues.
The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 has lowered the maximum threshold under the indirect hold harmless provision from 6 percent of net patient service revenue to 5.5 percent effective in fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2008 through September 30, 2011, prior to a State being required to demonstrate the second prong of the indirect hold harmless provision.
In the interim final rule with comment that implemented Medicaid Voluntary Contribution and Provider Specific Tax Amendments of 1991, the statutory class of health care items and services at section 1903(w)(7)(iv) of the Act for services of intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded (ICF/MR) was expanded to include similar services furnished by community-based
We no longer believe that it is appropriate to include community residences in the ICF/MR class even to the extent of this narrow exception. We are no longer concerned that States will convert group homes back to ICF/MRs because of the general success of the home and community based services program. As important, it is not equitable to accord different treatment to States that converted ICF/MRs before December 24, 1992 than to other States. Therefore, we are clarifying at § 433.56(a)(4) the permissible class for purposes of health care-related taxes to those services of ICF/MRs.
At § 433.54(c), the regulations contain tests for hold harmless arrangements with respect to provider-related donations that are similar to those with respect to provider taxes. For the reasons discussed above with respect to provider taxes, we are proposing parallel revisions to this section. We note that, similar to the provisions concerning provider taxes, we intend that a hold harmless arrangement would be found without regard to whether the transfers of funds that are the basis for the donation or the repayment are collected or distributed through third parties (such as patients, provider associations, or other entities).
Section 1903(w) of the Act, as added by the Medicaid Voluntary Contribution and Provider Specific Tax Amendments of 1991, became effective January 1, 1992. However, section 1903(w)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act provided for transition periods during which, under certain circumstances, States could receive, without a reduction in FFP, revenues from provider-related donations and impermissible health care-related tax programs in effect before the enactment of the Medicaid Voluntary Contribution and Provider Specific Tax Amendments of 1991. The requirements related to these transition periods are currently located in various sections of the current regulation from § 433.58 through § 433.68. The last transition period expired in 1993.
We are proposing to remove from within the regulatory text all references to collection of provider-related donations and health care-related taxes during the transition periods since all transition periods have expired. We believe this would create a more streamlined regulation that is easier to read.
This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35).
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the caption “Regulatory Impact Analysis” at the beginning of your comments.]
We have examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132.
Executive Order 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 13258, which merely reassigns responsibility of duties) directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). This rule would surpass the economic threshold and is considered a major rule. This rule is estimated to reduce Federal Medicaid outlays by $85 million in FY 2008 and by $115 million per year in FY 2009 through FY 2011.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of $6 million to $29 million in any 1 year. Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. We are not preparing an analysis for the RFA because the regulation will not have a direct impact on small entities. In this case the regulation directly affects payments the States receive from the Federal government and the impact on health care facilities is a secondary impact.
While the impact on health care facilities is secondary, we nevertheless discuss the potential impact on small entities. First, the reduced tax limit proposed under this rule would help alleviate tax burdens on small health care facilities, to the extent they were subject to a health care-related tax. If States choose to maintain reimbursement rates, small health care facilities may receive higher net Medicaid reimbursement in light of the reduced tax burden. However, States may be unwilling to maintain reimbursement rates without the full revenue from the health care-related tax to contribute to the non-Federal share. If States choose to reduce Medicaid reimbursement rates to small health care facilities, this could result in lower net Medicaid reimbursement even after accounting for a reduction in the tax burden.
Since we are uncertain how States will alter their Medicaid reimbursements in response to the reduced tax limit, we cannot provide an exact and quantifiable impact on such small entities. For this reason, we would like to specifically solicit public comment on the impact this rule would have on small health care facilities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a direct impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 603 of the
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold level is currently approximately $120 million. This rule would not result in expenditure in any 1 year by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $120 million.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. While this regulation would reduce the threshold rate for allowable provider taxes from 6 percent to 5.5 percent, this change is required by section 403 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. This section of the statute was self-implementing on December 20, 2006; however, this rulemaking is necessary to include the reduction in the regulatory text, therefore ensuring consistency with applicable law and thus minimizing any confusion. Furthermore, we do not believe the discretionary requirements put in place by this rulemaking would impose substantial direct requirements or costs on State and local governments.
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at
Estimates of the impact of lowering the maximum allowable provider taxes, fees, and assessments were derived from Medicaid financial management reports on State receipts from these programs (form CMS-64.11). Since we do not believe that all States report completely their tax receipts from health care-related taxes on the form CMS-64.11, we bolstered our estimates by also analyzing information reported by some States as part of their request for waiver of the broad-based and/or uniformity requirements. These requests include estimated total tax collections and total net revenues received by taxpayers applicable to a permissible class of health care services. From this available information, we identified 15 whose receipts as of the date of the reports were believed to equal the maximum threshold of 6 percent of net patient service revenue. In accordance with the new statutory language to reduce the maximum threshold from 6 to 5.5 percent, FFP corresponding to these receipts would be reduced by 8.33 percent [(1-0.55/6.0) × 100]. As described below, there are a number of avenues available for States to address these reductions. Accordingly, in estimating the potential Federal savings, we applied a behavioral offset of 50 percent to the savings calculated from reported data as described above. In accordance with the statute, savings were estimated only for portions of fiscal years beginning January 1, 2008 and ending September 30, 2011.
States have a number of options open to them for addressing the reduction in FFP. In order to maintain existing reimbursement rates funded by a health care related tax in excess of the 5.5 percent threshold, they can restructure State spending and shift funds between programs. This could result in loss of State funding for other programs. States may also be able to raise funds through increases in other forms of generally applicable tax revenue increases. This could raise tax costs for other taxpaying entities within States. Finally, States, as a last resort, can reduce reimbursement to the taxpaying health care providers.
We are uncertain which options States may employ to address this change.
The reduced tax limit proposed under this rule would help alleviate tax burdens on health care providers for obligations to the Medicaid program that are otherwise the responsibility of the States. However, if States choose to reduce reimbursement rates to health care providers, this could result in lower net Medicaid reimbursement for the provider even after accounting for reduction in the tax burden. On the other hand, if States choose to maintain reimbursement rates by finding other non-Federal share sources to support the Medicaid reimbursement rates, providers may receive higher net
In developing this regulation the following alternatives were considered. First, the existing regulatory threshold percentage of 6 percent could be maintained. Second, we considered reducing the regulatory threshold to 3 percent because we have noticed a recent trend in States' efforts to maximize non-Federal share funding opportunities under current Medicaid law through taxation of health care providers.
The result has been that the Federal government is providing matching funds on Medicaid rate increases that are funded without additional State dollars but instead, with revenues collected from taxes on health-care providers. This shift in fiscal responsibilities is typically accompanied by creative payment mechanisms that effectively place a disproportionate burden on the Medicaid program relative to other payers. In this way, States are avoiding their payment responsibilities to the Medicaid program by shifting their share of the increased Medicaid payment rate obligations to the same health care providers serving Medicaid beneficiaries.
The current trend in States' approach to taxing health care providers appears to start with a determination of the maximum amount of tax revenue that can be collected from health care providers. We have seen this particularly in State health care-related tax programs targeting high Medicaid utilized services solely as the basis for increasing Medicaid rates to those same providers.
States appear to be exercising their ability under the law to request waivers of the broad based and/or uniformity requirements of the provider tax law in an effort to minimize the tax burden on facilities that furnish little to no services to Medicaid patients. Although we would only approve such a waiver request within the allowable regulatory standards, States requesting the waivers continue to propose taxes that collect the maximum 6 percent limit and vary the rate of tax to minimize the tax burden on non-Medicaid facilities within the slightest margin allowable under current regulations. Most waiver requests are initially submitted applicable to a tax structure that is inconsistent with the Federal statute and regulations. This requires CMS to provide ongoing feedback and assistance to States. States ultimately deviate from their initial tax structure until they are able to reach an optimal tax structure that enables them to gain approval while maximizing the non-Medicaid tax burden.
Through our review of these practices, we have also noticed that many States are applying the current statutory and regulatory authority that permits the exclusion of Medicare revenue from a health care-related tax, which effectively raises the rate of tax on only the Medicaid revenues and commercial/private pay revenues above the aggregate 6 percent limit (measured on all payers' revenues). We have also seen an increase in the tax revenues collected through our examination of the revenues reported by States on the CMS 64.11A. Based on a review of recent quarterly expenditures, States reported the collection of over $2.2 billion in tax revenues from health care providers.
However, since the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 reduced the regulatory threshold to 5.5 percent, none of the above mentioned alternatives were taken.
For these reasons, we are not preparing analysis for either the RFA or section 1102 (b) of the Act because we have determined that this rule would not have a direct significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or a direct significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Administrative practice and procedure, Child support, Claims, Grant programs-health, Medicaid, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to amend 42 CFR chapter IV as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 433 continues to read as follows:
Sections 1902(a)(2), 1903(a) and 1903(w) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302).
2. Section 433.54 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
(c) A hold harmless practice exists if any of the following applies:
(1) The State (or other unit of government) provides for a direct or indirect non-Medicaid payment to those providers or others making, or responsible for, the donation, and the payment amount is positively correlated to the donation. A positive correlation includes any positive relationship between these variables, even if not consistent over time.
(2) All or any portion of the Medicaid payment to the donor, provider class, or related entity, varies based only on the amount of the donation, including where Medicaid payment is conditional on receipt of the donation.
(3) The State (or other unit of government) receiving the donation provides for any direct or indirect payment, offset, or waiver such that the provision of that payment, offset, or waiver directly or indirectly guarantees to return any portion of the donation to the provider (or other parties responsible for the donation).
3. Section 433.56 is amended by—
A. Republishing the introductory text to paragraph (a).
B. Revising paragraph (a)(4).
C. Revising paragraph (a)(8).
The revisions read as follow:
(a) For purposes of this subpart, each of the following will be considered as a separate class of health care items or services:
(4) Intermediate care facility services for the mentally retarded;
(8) Services of managed care organizations (including health maintenance organizations, preferred provider organizations);
4. Section § 433.57 is amended by—
A. Removing paragraph (a).
B. Redesignating existing paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively.
5. Section 433.58 is removed and reserved.
6. Section 433.60 is removed and reserved.
7. Section 433.66 is amended by—
A. Revising the section heading.
B. Revising paragraph (a).
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(2) The provisions of this section relating to provider-related donations for outstationed eligibility workers are effective on October 1, 1992.
8. Section 433.67 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
(a)(1) * * *
(2)
9. Section 433.68 is amended by—
A. Revising the section heading.
B. Revising paragraph (a).
C. Republishing paragraph (f) introductory text.
D. Revising paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3) introductory text, and (f)(3)(i).
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(f)
(1) The State (or other unit of government) imposing the tax provides for a direct or indirect non-Medicaid payment to those providers or others paying the tax and the payment amount is positively correlated to either the tax amount or to the difference between the Medicaid payment and the tax amount. A positive correlation includes any positive relationship between these variables, even if not consistent over time.
(2) All or any portion of the Medicaid payment to the taxpayer varies based only on the tax amount, including where Medicaid payment is conditional on receipt of the tax amount.
(3) The State (or other unit of government) imposing the tax provides for any direct or indirect payment, offset, or waiver such that the provision of that payment, offset, or waiver directly or indirectly guarantees to hold taxpayers harmless for all or any portion of the tax amount.
(i) An indirect guarantee will be determined to exist under a two prong “guarantee” test. If the health care-related tax or taxes on each health care class are applied at a rate that produces revenues less than or equal to 6 percent of the revenues received by the taxpayer, the tax or taxes are permissible under this test, except that, for any portion of a fiscal year beginning on or after January 1, 2008 through September 30, 2011, the applicable percentage of net operating revenues is 5.5 percent. When the tax or taxes produce revenues in excess of the applicable percentage of the revenue received by the taxpayer, CMS will consider an indirect hold harmless provision to exist if 75 percent or more of the taxpayers in the class receive 75 percent or more of their total tax costs back in enhanced Medicaid payments or other State payments. The second prong of the indirect hold harmless test is applied in the aggregate to all health care taxes applied to each class. If this standard is violated, the amount of tax revenue to be offset from medical assistance expenditures is the total amount of the taxpayers' revenues received by the State.
10. Section 433.70 is amended by—
A. Revising the section heading.
B. Removing paragraph (a)(1).
C. Removing the paragraph designation for existing paragraph (a)(2).
The revised heading reads as follows:
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has vacated the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS') June 2005 determination of nonregulated status with respect to the Monsanto Company and Forage Genetics International alfalfa lines designated as events J101 and J163, which have been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. The effect of this action is that those alfalfa events, known as Roundup Ready alfalfa, are once again considered regulated articles under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340 and the requirements pertaining to regulated articles under those regulations will once again apply to the subject alfalfa and its progeny. This notice also advises Roundup Ready alfalfa sellers and growers that no Roundup Ready alfalfa seed may be planted after March 30, 2007; that only seed purchased by growers before March 12, 2007, may be planted by March 30, 2007; and that all sales of Roundup Ready alfalfa seed are prohibited pending the Court's issuance of permanent injunctive relief.
Thomas Sim, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-7324.
The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.” The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340.
On April 16, 2004, APHIS received a petition (APHIS petition number 04-110-01p) from Monsanto Company of St. Louis, MO, and Forage Genetics International of West Salem, WI (Monsanto/FGI), requesting a determination of nonregulated status under 7 CFR part 340 for alfalfa (
On February 13, 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a ruling in a lawsuit filed by the Center for Food Safety—along with several other nonprofit organizations and alfalfa growers—challenging APHIS' decision to deregulate alfalfa events J101 and J163 (referred to in the lawsuit as Roundup Ready alfalfa). The lawsuit alleged violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, and the Plant Protection Act. The court ruled that the deregulation may have significant environmental impacts that require the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS), and that APHIS violated NEPA by not preparing an EIS.
Subsequently, on March 12, 2007, the court issued a preliminary injunction order in the case. As of March 12, 2007, all sales of Roundup Ready alfalfa seed are prohibited pending the Court's issuance of permanent injunctive relief. The court decided that growers who have already planted Roundup Ready alfalfa will not be required to remove the plants. Additionally, they will be permitted to harvest, use, and sell such Roundup Ready alfalfa. The court also prohibited all future planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa beginning March 30, 2007. Growers who intended to plant Roundup Ready alfalfa before that date and who had already purchased the seed prior to the March 12, 2007, preliminary injunction order may plant the seed. Growers who intended to plant alfalfa after March 30, 2007, or who did not purchase Roundup Ready alfalfa seed prior to March 12, 2007, must plant non-genetically engineered alfalfa.
In addition, the court vacated APHIS' June 2005 decision deregulating Roundup Ready alfalfa, and the plant line is once again a regulated article. In accordance with the court's order, APHIS is issuing the appropriate notices informing Roundup Ready alfalfa sellers and growers of the terms of the court's preliminary injunction order. The court has scheduled a hearing on a permanent injunction for April 27, 2007.
By the terms of the court's order, the Monsanto/FGI alfalfa lines that were the subject of APHIS' June 2005 determination of nonregulated status cited above are once again regulated articles under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340 and the requirements pertaining to regulated articles under those regulations will once again apply to the subject alfalfa and its progeny.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are advising the public of our determination that a corn line developed by Syngenta, designated as transformation event MIR604, which has been genetically engineered for resistance to corn rootworm, is no longer considered a regulated article under our regulations governing the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms. Our determination is based on our evaluation of data submitted by Syngenta Seeds, Inc., in their petition for a determination of nonregulated status, our analysis of other scientific data, and comments received from the public in response to a previous notice announcing the availability of the petition for nonregulated status and an environmental assessment. This notice also announces the availability of our written determination and our finding of no significant impact.
You may read the petition, the environmental assessment, the determination, the finding of no significant impact, the comments we received on our previous notice, and our responses to those comments in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming. To view those documents on the Internet, go to
Dr. Catherine Preston, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-5874. To obtain copies of the petition or the environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI), contact Ms. Cynthia Eck at (301) 734-0667, e-mail:
The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.”
The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the petition.
On December 24, 2004, APHIS received a petition (APHIS No. 04-362-01p) from Syngenta Seeds, Inc. (Syngenta) of Research Triangle Park, NC, requesting a determination of nonregulated status under 7 CFR part 340 for corn (
As described in the petition, corn transformation event MIR604 has been genetically engineered to express two transgenes: (1) The modified
In a notice published in the
Based on APHIS' analysis of field, greenhouse, and laboratory data submitted by Syngenta, references provided in the petition, other relevant information described in the EA, and comments provided by the public, APHIS has determined that MIR604 will not pose a plant pest risk for the following reasons: (1) Gene introgression from MIR604 corn into wild relatives in the United States and its territories is extremely unlikely and is not likely to increase the weediness potential of any resulting progeny nor adversely affect genetic diversity of related plants any more than would introgression from traditional corn hybrids; (2) it exhibits no characteristics that would cause it to be weedier than the non-genetically engineered parent corn line or other cultivated corn; (3) it does not pose a risk to non-target organisms, including beneficial organisms and threatened or endangered species, because the insecticidal activity of the mCry3A protein is limited to target pest species, namely corn rootworm; (4) it does not pose a threat to biodiversity as it does not exhibit traits that increase its weediness and its unconfined cultivation should not lead to increased weediness of other cultivated corn, it exhibits no changes in disease susceptibility, and it is unlikely to harm non-target organisms common to the agricultural ecosystem or threatened or endangered species recognized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; (5) compared to current corn pest and weed management practices, cultivation of MIR604 corn should not impact standard agricultural practices in corn cultivation and controlling volunteer corn, including those for organic farmers; and (6) disease susceptibility and compositional profiles of MIR604 corn are similar to those of its parent variety and other corn cultivars grown in the United States, therefore no direct or indirect plant pest effects on raw or processed plant commodities are expected.
To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the determination of nonregulated status for MIR604, an EA was prepared. The EA was prepared in accordance with (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on the proposed information collection for Food Stamp Program Regulations, Part 275—Quality Control. Specifically, this is the burden associated with the collection of information for the sampling plan, the arbitration process, and the good cause process. This proposed collection is a revision of a collection currently approved under OMB No. 0584-0303.
Written comments must be submitted on or before May 22, 2007.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Send comments and requests for copies of this information collection to: Daniel Wilusz, Chief, Quality Control Branch, Program Accountability Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 822, Alexandria, VA 22302. You may FAX comments on this notice to (703) 305-0928. You may also download an electronic version of this notice at
All responses to this notice will be included in the request for OMB approval.
All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be directed to Daniel Wilusz at (703) 305-2460.
The QC system contains procedures for resolving differences in review findings between State agencies and FNS. This is referred to as the arbitration process. The QC system also
The approved burden for the QC system includes the burden for the QC sampling plan, the arbitration process, and the good cause process. The annual reporting burden associated with the QC sampling plan remains at 265 hours. We estimate the annual reporting burdens associated with arbitration and good cause processes to total 350 hours and 160 hours respectively. The decrease in the proposed burden from the currently approved 1643 to 350 hours for the arbitration process is due to a re-determination in the number of State agencies estimated to respond from 53 to 14 and to the estimated number of responses per State agency from 3.1 to 2.5. These decreases are a result of State agencies more frequently agreeing with FNS' findings. The proposed annual reporting burden for the good cause process is unchanged from the currently approved burden of 160 hours.
The proposed annual recordkeeping burden associated with the QC sampling plan is 1.25 hours per year. The proposed annual recordkeeping burdens associated with arbitration and good cause processes are estimated to total .83 and .0236 hours respectively. The recordkeeping burden for the arbitration process decreased from 3.89 hours to .83 hours due to a re-determination in the estimated number of affected State agencies from 53 to 14 and the estimated number of responses per State decreased from 3.1 to 2.5. The recordkeeping burden for the good cause process decreased from 1.25 to .0236 hours due to a re-determination in the estimated number of affected State agencies from 53 to 1 per year. The total annual burden for the QC system, as proposed by this notice, decreased from 2074 to 777 hours.
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Notice of product coverage and trigger levels for safeguard measures provides for in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture.
This notice lists the updated quantity trigger levels for products, which may be subject to additional import duties under the safeguard provisions of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. This notice also includes the relevant period applicable for the trigger levels on each of the listed products.
Lana Bennett, Import and Trade Support Programs Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 1047, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1047, telephone at (202) 720-0638, or e-mail
Article 5 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture provides that additional import duties may be imposed on imports of products subject to tariffication as a result of the Uruguay Round if certain conditions are met. The agreement permits additional duties to be charged if the price of an individual shipment of imported products falls below the average price for similar goods imported during the years 1986-88 by a specified percentage. It also permits additional duties to be imposed if the volume of imports of an article exceeds the average of the most recent 3 years for which data are available by 5, 10, or 25 percent, depending on the article. These additional duties may not be imposed on quantities for which minimum or current access commitments were made during the Uruguay Round negotiations, and only one type of safeguard, price or quantity, may be applied at any given time to an article. Section 405 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires that the President cause to be published in the
Additional information on the products subject to safeguards and the additional duties which may apply can be found in subchapter IV of Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2007) and in the Secretary of Agriculture's Notice of Uruguay Round Agricultural Safeguard Trigger Levels, published in the
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of Establishment.
Pursuant to section 606(b) of the International Forestry Cooperation Act of 1990, as amended, the following lands in the State of Hawaii are designated as units of the Hawaii Experimental Tropical Forest:
1. Laupāhoehoe Experimental Forest Unit comprising approximately 12,343 acres on the Island of Hawaii, and
2. Pu'u Wa'awa'a Experimental Forest Unit comprising approximately 38,885 acres on the Island of Hawaii.
Research on these experimental forest units shall be administered in accordance with applicable laws and the Cooperative Agreement between the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and the State of Hawaii, Board of Land and Natural Resources, entered into on December 12, 2006.
This establishment is effective on the date of this notice.
J. Boone Kauffman, Director, Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 60 Nowelo Street, Hilo, Hawaii 96720. Phone: (808) 933-8121. E-mail:
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
In 1992, Congress enacted the Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery Act (Pub. L. 102-574). That enactment added section 606(b) to the International Forestry Cooperation Act of 1990 providing that, at the request of the Governor of Hawaii, the Secretary of Agriculture shall establish and administer in the State of Hawaii a Hawaii Experimental Tropical Forest to be managed for the purposes outlined in the Hawaii Tropical Forest Recovery Act. The Governor of Hawaii has requested the establishment of two units of an experimental tropical forest on State managed lands on the island of Hawaii. The Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and the State of Hawaii, Board of Land and Natural Resources, have agreed on the conduct of cooperative research activities on the two units.
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests, Rocky Mountain Region, Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of Availability of the proposed Land Management Plan for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests and Commencement of the 90-Day Comment Period (per 36 CFR 219.9(b)(3)(ii).
The comment period will run 90 days from publication of this notice in the
The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG) has made its proposed Land Management Plan and associated documents available for review. Interested parties are invited to review and comment on the proposed Plan and supporting documents, which include:
1. The proposed Land Management Plan, including maps and appendices (approximately 300 pages).
2. The proposed Land Management Plan Newsletter including Key Changes from current plan (16 pages).
3. The Comprehensive Evaluation Report summary of social, economic, and ecological conditions, trends, and management implications (approximately 280 pages).
The Comprehensive Assessments of conditions and trends which include volumes on terrestrial resources, watershed and aquatic resources, geologic and mineral resources, and human uses of the forest (4 volumes totaling approximately 2,500 pages).
The proposed Forest Plan, and Comprehensive Evaluation Report can be accessed, viewed, and downloaded from our planning Web site at
Physical location: GMUG Forest Planning, 2250 Highway 50, Delta CO, 81416; or by e-mail
Gary Shellhorn, Analysis Team Leader, GMUG National Forest, (970) 874-6666 or e-mail
Charles S. Richmond, Forest Supervisor, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests, 2250 Highway 50, Delta, CO 81416.
The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG) are managed as a single administrative unit. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires that all forest land management plans (Plans) be revised every 10-15 years. The current GMUG Plan was completed in 1983, and subsequently amended numerous times. The Plan needs to be updated to address changes that have occurred in and around the GMUG during the past two decades. There have been substantial changes in social, economic, and ecological conditions. Some of these include major population growth, dramatic increases in OHV use, the spread of invasive species, and the encroachment of development into the wildland interface. In addition, there are new laws, policies, and regulations and scientific research and technical developments that need to be incorporated into the Plan. Once finalized, the Plan will guide future programs and projects on the Forest.
This has been an open planning process with numerous opportunities for the public to obtain information, provide comment, or participate in collaborative stakeholder activities. We have been using public comments to develop the proposed Plan through an iterative process of public participation, review, and adjustment. Review and comment on the proposed Plan during the 90-day comment period is the next step in an ongoing public process. Options for the public include: (1) Reviewing and commenting on the proposed Plan or supporting documents, (2) attending open house meetings, or (3) requesting planning team presentations to specific groups. We have scheduled five open house meetings (Montrose, Gunnison, Grand Junction, Hotchkiss and Norwood) where the public can obtain documents and discuss the proposed Plan with the District and planning team personnel.
1. April 12, 2007 (Thursday), 5:30-8:30 pm, Hotchkiss, Hotchkiss Public Library, First and Main.
2. April 17, 2007 (Tuesday), 5:30-8:30 pm, Norwood, Community Center, 1670 Naturita.
3. April 19, 2007 (Thursday), 5:30-8:30 p.m., Montrose, Montrose Pavilion, Pavilion Way.
4. April 25, 2007 (Wednesday), 5:30-8:30 p.m., Grand Junction, Country Inn of America—718 Horizon Drive.
5. April 26, 2007 (Thursday), 5:30-8:30 p.m., Gunnison, Gunnison County Fairgrounds-Multi-Purpose Room, 275 South Spruce.
The GMUG transition its forest planning process to the 2005 Planning Rule in May 2005 (36 CFR 219, FR Vol. 70, No. 3./January 5, 2005, 1023). This rule provides for a formal 90-day comment period on proposed Plans. If you have not already submitted written comments during the GMUG Plan revision process, commenting during this 90-day period will be your last opportunity to do so in a manner that will provide standing for the 30-day pre-decisional objection period. Comments will be most helpful if they:
1. State that the comment is filed in response to the comment period of the GMUG Proposed Forest Plan.
2. Identify the title of the document that your comment is addressing (Proposed Plan, Comprehensive Evaluation Report, Comprehensive Assessments).
3. Address specific Plan components (desired conditions, objectives, suitability for uses, guidelines, and special areas) and Forest locations where the concern applies.
Please note that all comments, names, and addresses become part of the public record and are subject to FOIA, except for propriety documents and information.
Consider the following questions in developing your comments:
1. Where specifically do you disagree with desired conditions, or suitability for specific uses or activities? What specifically would you change and why?
2. Do you recommend changes to desired conditions for a resource or program, or to boundaries for management areas or suitable uses? Why?
3. Do you have additional recommendations for objectives that could help maintain or achieve desired conditions for an area?
4. Which desired conditions will be most important to monitor and what monitoring measures do you recommend?
5. Do you have suggestions for changes in or additions to guidelines for specific management activities or resource programs?
Comments must be postmarked no later than 90 days after publication of this notice in the
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Kimberly M. Zeich, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or e-mail
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in the notice for each product or service will be required to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.
2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.
The following services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to Procurement List.
This action adds to the Procurement List services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-3259.
Kimberly M. Zeich, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or e-mail
On January 19, 2007 and January 26, 2007, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (72 FR 2491; 3780 ) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following services are added to the Procurement List.
This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts.
In the document appearing on page 10640, FR Doc E7-4255, Procurement List Additions and Deletions, in the issue of Friday, March 9, 2007, in the second column, the Committee published addition of a product NSN: 8950-01-E61-0103—Cayenne Pepper. This notice corrects that addition of the product to read as follows NSN: 8950-01-E61-0103—Spice Blend Canadian Style for Beef. The other additions announced in the Notice remain the same. The effective date of April 8, 2007 remains the same.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a briefing and planning meeting of the Florida Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will convene at 1 p.m. and adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 17, 2007, at the Hyatt Regency Tampa, Two Tampa City Center, Tampa, Florida, 33602. The purpose of these meetings is for the Committee to receive two briefings and to plan its activities regarding its project on the restoration of voting rights for ex-felons. The first briefing will be on religious freedom for prisoners, and the second briefing will be on voting rights for ex-felons.
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office by May 17, 2007. The address is 61 Forsyth St., SW., Suite 1840T, Atlanta, GA 30303. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or to present their comments verbally at the meeting, or who are seeking additional information should contact Peter Minarik, Regional Director, Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights at 404-562-7000, (or for the hearing impaired TDD 202-376-8116), or by e-mail:
Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
Records generated from these meetings may be inspected and reproduced at the Southern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site,
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the City of West Memphis, Arkansas Public Facilities Board, an Arkansas public board, to establish a general-purpose foreign-trade zone at a site in West Memphis, Arkansas, adjacent to the Memphis CBP port of entry. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the FTZ Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR Part 400). It was formally filed on March 14, 2007. The applicant is authorized to make the proposal under Arkansas Statute 14-143-109, part 18.
The proposed zone would be the fourth general-purpose zone in the Memphis CBP port of entry area. The existing zones are as follows: FTZ 77, Memphis, Tennessee (Grantee: City of Memphis and Shelby County, Board Order 189, 04/02/82); FTZ 223, Memphis, Tennessee (Grantee: Memphis International Trade Development Corporation, Board Order 904, 7/02/97); and, FTZ 262, Southaven, Mississippi (Grantee: Northern Mississippi FTZ, Inc., Board Order 1353, 10/01/04).
The proposed zone would consist of one site (341 acres) at the Interstate Commerce Center, located west of Mound City Road and just north of the Union Pacific Railroad in West Memphis, Arkansas. The site is comprised of parcels owned by a number of private corporations.
The application indicates a need for zone services in the West Memphis, Arkansas, area. Several firms have indicated an interest in using zone procedures for warehousing/distribution activities for a variety of products. Specific manufacturing approvals are not being sought at this time. Requests would be made to the Board on a case-by-case basis.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.
As part of the investigation, the Commerce examiner will hold a public hearing on April 17th, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in the Media Room of Mid South Community College, 2000 West Broadway, West Memphis, Arkansas.
Public comment on the application is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the following location: Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 2814B, Washington, DC 20230.
The closing period for their receipt is May 22, 2007. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to June 6, 2007).
A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at the Office of Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at the address listed above, and at the City of West Memphis, Arkansas Public Facilities Board, 205 South Redding St., West Memphis, Arkansas 72301.
For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
March 23, 2007.
Yang Jin Chun or Richard Rimlinger, AD/CVD Operations Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5760 and (202) 482-4477, respectively.
At the request of interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom for the period May 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006. See
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and a final determination within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary determination is published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary determination to a maximum of 365 days after the last day of the anniversary month.
We determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of these reviews within the current time limit because of the number of respondents in these reviews and the complexity of the issues under analysis such as further-manufacturing operations in the United States, the “collapsing” of companies, and the use of constructed value for reseller respondents. Therefore, we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of these reviews by 16 additional days until April 2, 2007.
This notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3), four requesting parties have agreed to waive the time limits for their new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). Therefore, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) will conduct these new shipper reviews concurrently with the administrative review covering the same order and period.
March 23, 2007.
Jeff Pedersen or Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2769 or (202) 482-5193, respectively.
On October 30, 2006, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(d), the Department initiated new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC for Anhui Tongxin Aquatic Product & Food Co., Ltd. (“Anhui Tongxin”), Huoshan New Three-Gold Food Trade Co. Ltd. (“Huoshan NTGF”), Jingdezhen Garay Foods Co., Ltd. (“Jingdezhen Garay”), and Shanghai Now Again International Trading Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Now Again”). These new shipper reviews cover the period September 1, 2005 through August 31, 2006.
On October 31, 2006, the Department initiated the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC covering the period September 1, 2005 through August 31, 2006.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3), Anhui Tongxin, Huoshan NTGF, Jingdezhen Garay, and Shanghai Now Again agreed to waive the time limits, as set forth in 19 CFR 351.214(i), to allow the new shipper reviews to be conducted concurrently with the administrative review covering the same period.
This notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the time limit for the final results of the 2004-2005 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands. This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States and the period November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005.
March 23, 2007.
David Cordell or Robert James Antidumping and CVD Operations, Office 7 Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0408 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
On December 11, 2006, we published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands for the period November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(i), the Department shall issue final results in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results is published in the
In this case, the Department has determined that it is not practicable to complete this review within the statutory time limit because of significant issues which require additional time to evaluate. These include issues related to the cost of production (e.g., cost of manufacture and general and administrative expenses) as well as questions concerning simplified reporting and CEP and EP classification of sales. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the final results by 35 days until May 15, 2007 in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Christopher Hargett at (202) 482-4161, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
At the request of interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy for the period July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006.
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and a final determination within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary determination is published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary determination to a maximum of 365 days after the last day of the anniversary month.
The Petitioners
This notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
March 23, 2007.
Jun Jack Zhao or Jacqueline Arrowsmith, Office of AD/CVD Operations 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1396 or (202) 482-5255, respectively.
On August 30, 2006, in response to timely requests from Jindal Poly Films Limited of India and MTZ Polyfilms, Ltd., the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film from India.
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and section 351.213(h)(1) of the Department's regulations require the Department to issue the preliminary results of a review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the order or suspension agreement for which the administrative review was requested, and final results of the review within 120 days after the date on which the notice of the preliminary results is published in the
We determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review within the original time limit due to the complex issues related to terms of sale, and the fact that the Department will need to issue additional supplemental questionnaires. Therefore, the Department is extending the deadline for completion of the preliminary results of this administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PET film from India by 120 days from April 2, 2007 until no later than July 31, 2007.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
March 23, 2007.
Ann Fornaro or Fran Veith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3927 and (202) 482-4295, respectively.
On July 3, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on saccharin from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).
On August 30, 2006, the Department published a notice of the initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on saccharin from the PRC for the period July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”), the Department shall make a preliminary determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend that 245-day period to 365 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period.
The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of the administrative review of saccharin from the PRC within this time limit due to the complexity of certain issues and the need to issue supplemental questionnaires requesting additional information from Shanghai Fortune. Specifically, the Department needs additional time to research and analyze the request for by-product offsets and the valuation of those by-products for which an offset was requested. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for completion of the preliminary results of this review by 30 days until May 2, 2007.
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
March 23, 2007.
Fred Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2924 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
On February 9, 1994, the Department published the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (the Act), the Department shall issue preliminary results in a new shipper review of an antidumping duty order within 180 days after the date on which the new shipper review was initiated. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend the deadline for completion of the preliminary results of a new shipper review from 180 days to 300 days if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated.
Section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section 351.214(i)(2) of the Department's regulations allow the Department to extend the deadline for the preliminary results to a maximum of 300 days from the date on which the new shipper review was initiated. For the reasons noted above, we are extending the time for the completion of the preliminary results until no later than July 26, 2007, which is 300 days from the date on which the new shipper review was initiated. The deadline for the final results of this new shipper review continues to be 90 days after the
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and section 351.211(I) of the Department's regulations.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
March 23, 2007.
Irina Itkin or Alice Gibbons, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14
On October 6, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received a timely request from Ege Celik Endustrisi Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., a producer of subject merchandise, and its affiliated export trading company, Ege Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively “Ege Celik”) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey. On November 7, 2006, the Department found that the request for review with respect to Ege Celik met all of the regulatory requirements set forth in 19 CFR 351.214(b) and initiated an antidumping duty new shipper review covering the period April 1, 2006, through September 30, 2006.
Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) require the Department to issue the preliminary results of a new shipper review within 180 days after the date on which the new shipper review was initiated and the final results of a review within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued. The Department may, however, extend the time period for completion of the preliminary results of a new shipper review to 300 days if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated.
The Department has determined that the review is extraordinarily complicated because it involves a number of issues including certain allegations raised by the domestic interested parties regarding Ege Celik's affiliation with other producers in the Turkish steel industry. Analysis of these issues requires additional time. Accordingly, the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of the preliminary results of the new shipper review of Ege Celik to 300 days. The preliminary results will now be due no later than September 4, 2007, the first business day after September 3, 2007, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). The final results will, in turn, be due 90 days after the date of issuance of the preliminary results, unless extended.
This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Governments of the United States and Brazil have agreed to establish a U.S.-Brazil CEO Forum. This notice announces membership opportunities for appointment as American representatives to the U.S. Section of the Forum.
Applications should be received no later than April 20, 2007.
Please send requests for consideration to Lorrie Lopes, International Trade Specialist, Office of Latin America and Caribbean, U.S. Department of Commerce, either by fax at (202) 482-4726 or by mail to U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 3203, Washington, DC 20230.
Lorrie Lopes, Office of Latin America and Caribbean, U.S. Department of Commerce, telephone: (202) 482-4157. Additional information, including the Terms of Reference, can be found at
The U.S. Secretary of Commerce and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of the National Economic Council, together with the Planalto Casa Civil Minister (Presidential Chief of Staff) and the Brazilian Minister of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade, will co-chair the U.S.-Brazil CEO Forum, pursuant to Terms of Reference signed on March 16, 2007, by the U.S. and Brazilian governments, which set forth the objectives and structure of the Forum. The Terms of Reference may be viewed at:
Candidates are currently being sought for membership on the U.S. Section of the Forum. Each candidate must be a Chief Executive Officer or President (or comparable level of responsibility) of a U.S.-owned or controlled company that is incorporated in and has its main headquarters located in the United States and is currently doing business in Brazil and the United States. Each candidate also must be a U.S. citizen residing in the United States and able to travel to Brazil or locations in the United States to attend official Forum meetings as well as independent U.S. Section and Committee meetings. In addition, the candidate may not be a registered foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.
Evaluation of applications for membership in the U.S. Section by eligible individuals will be based on the following criteria:
Members will be selected on the basis of who will best carry out the objectives of the Forum as stated in the Terms of Reference establishing the U.S.—Brazil CEO Forum. The U.S. Section of the Forum should also include members that represent a diversity of business sectors and geographic locations. To the extent possible, Section members also should represent a cross-section of small, medium and large firms.
U.S. members will receive no compensation for their participation in Forum-related activities. Individual members will be responsible for all travel and related expenses associated with their participation in the Forum, including attendance at Committee and Section meetings. Only appointed members may participate in official Forum meetings; substitutes and alternates will not be designated. U.S. members will normally serve for two-year terms, but may be reappointed.
To be considered for membership, please submit the following information as instructed in the
National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice and request for applications.
The Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary (TBNMS or sanctuary) is seeking applicants for the following vacant seats on its Sanctuary Advisory Council (council): Business/Economic Development, Citizen-at-Large alternate, and Education alternate. Applicants are chosen based upon their particular expertise and experience in relation to the seat for which they are applying; community and professional affiliations; philosophy regarding the protection and management of marine resources; and possibly the length of residence in the area affected by the sanctuary. Applicants who are chosen as members should expect to serve 3-year terms, pursuant to the council's Charter.
Applications are due by May 7, 2007.
Application kits may be obtained from Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, 500 W. Fletcher Street, Alpena, Michigan 49707. Completed applications should be sent to the same address.
Jean Prevo, Advisory Council Coordinator, Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, 500 W. Fletcher Street, Alpena, Michigan 49707, (989) 356-8805 ext. 13,
The Thunder Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council (council) was established in 1997. The council has fifteen members and fifteen alternates; five seats represent local community governments, and the other ten represent facets of the sanctuary community, including education, research, fishing, diving, tourism, economic development, and the community at large. The council meets bi-monthly, with informal coffees and lunches scheduled for non-meeting months. Working groups meet as needed. The fifteen alternates also take an active role in council meetings as well as assist in carrying out many volunteer assignments throughout the year.
16 U.S.C. Sections 1431,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Multispecies (Skate) Committee, in April, 2007, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Friday, April 6, 2007, at 9:30 a.m.
This meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn, 31 Hampshire Street, Mansfield, MA 02048; telephone: (508) 339-2200; fax: (508) 256-2550.
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Committee will receive management advice from the Skate Plan Development Team (PDT) based on the status of skate stocks in the recent SAW assessment. In addition, the committee will discuss strawman management alternatives and review a draft scoping document. The Regional Administrator, Patricia Kurkul, notified the Council on February 21, 2007 that winter skate is overfished according to 2006 data. The letter stated that the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Council to prepare a fishery management plan amendment or proposed regulation within one year to address the condition. In addition to winter skate, thorny skate is an overfished condition, smooth skate is very close to the biomass threshold, and little skate is very close to the overfishing threshold. Under other business, the Multispecies (Skate) Committee may discuss groundfish management issues at this meeting but will not take action at this time.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a three-day Council meeting on April 10-12, 2007, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 10 beginning at 9 a.m., and Wednesday and Thursday, April 11-12, beginning at 8:30 a.m. each day.
The meeting will be held at the Mystic Hilton Hotel, 20 Coogan Boulevard, Mystic, CT 06355; telephone: (860) 572-0731.
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
Following introductions, the Council will hear a series of brief reports from the Council Chairman and Executive Director, the NOAA Northeast Regional Administrator, Northeast Fisheries Science Center and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council liaisons, NOAA General Counsel and representatives of the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA Enforcement, and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Following these reports, the Council will host a briefing on NOAA's Aquaculture Program with a focus on the major provisions of the 2007 National Offshore Aquaculture Act. During the morning session, the Council also will receive an update from the Standard Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM) Committee concerning an amendment that would modify all Council fishery management plans (FMPs) to include SBRM provisions. This agenda item will be followed by a summary of the ongoing discussions concerning changes to regional Council processes and procedures as a result of reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The afternoon agenda will include a NOAA scoping hearing on ending overfishing and alternatives that would address annual catch limits and accountability measures, provisions that are now part of the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act. The day will conclude with a discussion of a strawman process that could address other new requirements of Magnuson-Stevens Act, specifically, a streamlined process to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Council intends to both approve a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and select preferred alternatives for Amendment 11 to the Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan. It also will consider initiation of Framework Adjustment 20 the the FMP, an action to extend measures implemented by emergency action to prevent overfishing through the end of fishing year 2007. The emergency reduced the number of scallop trips in the Elephant trunk Area in 2007. The framework would continue the measures through March 1, 2008. The Scallop Survey Advisory Committee will provide an update on progress to develop and test a prototype scallop dredge for survey use. The Council will then hold a public hearing on Phase I of its Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Omnibus Amendment 2 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. The public is invited to comment on the EFH designation alternatives, Habitat Area of Particular Concern alternatives, an evaluation of prey species for NEFMC-managed species and an evaluation of the potential impacts of non-fishing activities on EFH.
The Council's Research Steering Committee Chairman will report on the committee's recommendations concerning the use of information provided in several cooperative research final reports. This will be followed by a discussion of other issues related to cooperative research, including research priorities for 2007. The Omnibus Sector Committee will provide an update on the development of an amendment that will provide an overall framework for the development of sectors. The Groundfish Committee will report on its efforts to develop Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP. The Council also will consider developing comments on proposed sector operations plans for the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Gear Sector and the Fixed Gear Sector that operates under
Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public committee meetings.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Steller Sea Lion Mitigation Committee (SSLMC) will meet in Juneau, AK.
The meeting will be held on April 16-17, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. The Proposal Scoring Subcommittee will meet on April 16 and the full Committee will meet April 17-19, 2007.
The meetings will be held at the National Marine Fisheries Service, 709 W 9th Avenue, Regional Administrator's Conference Room, Juneau, AK.
Bill Wilson, North Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
The Committee will review proposals and proposal scoring process with the Subcommittee; receive proposal presentations from proposers; discuss proposals with proposers and request additional information as needed.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen, (907) 271-2809, at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permit.
Notice is hereby given that Dorian S. Houser, Ph.D., Biomimetica, 7951 Shantung Drive, Santee, CA 92071 has been issued a permit to conduct research on marine mammals.
The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and
Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562)980-4001; fax (562)980-4018.
Kate Swails or Amy Sloan, (301)713-2289.
On July 5, 2006, notice was published in the
The applicant will use auditory evoked potential recordings with non-invasive suction cup sensors on up to 15 individuals of any species of cetaceans in the U.S. The research will be conducted on stranded or accidentally entrapped animals in the field or at a rehabilitation center.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit: (1) was applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
Department of the Army, DOD.
Notice.
The Department of the Army announces the availability of a Final Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) identifying the potential environmental effects of changing land and airspace use at Fort Bliss to support evolving changes in missions and units and support Army Transformation, Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS), Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC), the Army Campaign Plan, and other Army initiatives.
The Final SEIS supplements the Fort Bliss, Texas and New Mexico, Mission Master Plan Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), for which a Record of Decision was signed in 2001.
The waiting period for the Final SEIS will end 30 days after publication of this NOA in the
Ms. Jean Offutt, Public Affairs Officer, IMSW-BLS-PA; Fort Bliss, TX 79916-6812;
The Proposed Action would change land use in the Main Cantonment Area to support units assigned to Fort Bliss under BRAC, and in the Fort Bliss Training Complex to support construction of live-fire ranges and designation of off-road maneuver space needed to train soldiers to doctrinal standards. In addition to the Proposed Action, the Final SEIS analyses the environmental affects of three other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative.
The action alternatives differ in the amount (216,000-352,000 acres) and location of additional land in the Tularosa Basin portion of McGregor Range proposed for off road maneuver, resulting in varied abilities to meet the defined need for maneuver training, accommodate units and missions in addition to the BRAC package, and flexibility to meet future requirements. Those portions of McGregor Range outside the Tularosa Basin, specifically Otero Mesa and the Sacramento Mountain foothills, would not experience changes in land use.
Issues associated with land use changes in the Training Complex include potential impacts to natural resources and cultural resources, potential land use conflicts with grazing portions of the proposed off-road maneuver space on McGregor Range, access to roads to the Forest Service grazing allotments on McGregor Range, recreational use of McGregor Range, and closures on NM Highway 506. Noise issues are part of the upgrade and/or construction of firing ranges.
Issues associated with land use changes and construction in the Main Cantonment Area include potential increases in air pollutant emissions, transportation issues, and socioeconomic issues including population growth and development public services and utilities, education, and quality of life.
Alternative 4, the Proposed Action, is anticipated to generate substantial economic benefits and the significantly affect population growth and development, traffic, utility demands, and demand for public and medical services in the region. Expansion of off-road vehicle maneuver training into the Tularosa Basin portion of McGregor Range, along with increased maneuvers in the North and South training Areas, is expected to increase wind and water erosion significantly, and would likely result in long-term changes in vegetation communities in the ore intensely used training areas. Training related noise is also expected to increase in areas adjacent to Dońa Ana Range and portions of McGregor Range.
Comments received on the Draft SEIS at public meetings and in writing are incorporated and addressed in the Final SEIS.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of meeting.
The duties of the Task Force are to prepare and approve a plan for the use of the funds made available under Title VII to promote conservation practices in the Missouri River watershed, control and remove the sediment from the Missouri River, protect recreation on the Missouri River from sedimentation, and protect Indian and non-Indian historical and cultural sites along the Missouri River from erosion.
North Dakota Missouri River Task Force established by the Missouri River Protection and Improvement Act of 2000 will hold a meeting on April 24, 2007, from 12 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Best Western Doublewood Inn located at 1400 East Interchange Avenue in Bismarck, ND.
Laura Bentley at (402) 221-4627.
The objectives of the Task Force are to prepare and approve a plan for the use of the funds made available under Title VII, develop and recommend to the Secretary of the Army ways to implement critical restoration projects meeting the goals of the plan, and determine if these projects primarily benefit the Federal Government.
This meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with the task force; however, statements and questions should be submitted in advance. For additional information, contact Laura Bentley, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 106 South 15th Street, Omaha, NE 68102-1618, 402-221-4627.
Department of Education.
The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 22, 2007.
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,
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
Department of Education.
The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 22, 2007.
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, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice announcing application deadline.
Under the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) awards grants on a formula basis to eligible local educational agencies (LEAs) to address the unique needs of rural school districts. In this notice, we establish the deadline for submission of fiscal year (FY) 2007 SRSA grant applications.
If an eligible LEA submitted an application for SRSA grant funds in a prior year, it is considered to have met the application requirement based on its previously submitted application and does not have to submit a new application to the Department to receive its FY 2007 SRSA grant award.
An eligible LEA that is required to submit an application (in other words, an LEA that did not submit an application in a prior year) must do so by the deadline in this notice in order to receive its grant award by September 30, 2007. An eligible LEA that is required to submit an application and does not do so by the deadline in this notice might not receive its grant award until after September 30, 2007.
An LEA is eligible for an award under the SRSA program if—
(a) The total number of students in average daily attendance at all of the schools served by the LEA is fewer than 600,
(b) All of the schools served by the LEA are designated with a school locale code of 7 or 8 by the Department's National Center for Education Statistics,
Under the regulations in 34 CFR 75.104(a), the Secretary makes grants only to an eligible party that submits an application. Given the limited purpose served by an application under this program, the Secretary considers this requirement to be met if the LEA submitted an SRSA application for a prior year. In this circumstance, unless the LEA advises the Secretary by the application deadline that it is withdrawing its application, the Secretary deems the application that the LEA previously submitted to remain in effect for FY 2007 funding, and the LEA does not have to submit an additional application. All other eligible LEAs must submit a new application to receive a FY 2007 grant award.
We intend to provide, by May 1, 2007, a list of LEAs eligible for FY 2007 funds on the Department's Web site at
Eligible LEAs that must submit a new application in order to receive FY 2007 SRSA funding must do so electronically by the deadline established in this notice in order to receive their grant by September 30, 2007.
You can access the electronic application for the SRSA Program at:
Once you access this site, you will receive specific instructions regarding the information to include in your application.
The regular hours of operation of the e-Grants Web site are 6 a.m. Monday until 7 p.m. Wednesday; and 6 a.m. Thursday until midnight, Saturday (Washington, DC time). Please note that the system is unavailable on Sundays, Federal holidays, and after 7 p.m. on Wednesdays for maintenance (Washington, DC time).
Mr. Robert Hitchcock, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E243, Washington, DC 20202.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this notice in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free
The official version of this document is the document published in the
20 U.S.C. 7345-7345b.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
The Secretary will give a competitive preference to applicants proposing projects that are designed to address one or more of the following:
(a) Beginning reading and literacy among students in kindergarten through third grade;
(b) The needs of at-risk children and youth;
(c) The needs in fields or disciplines in which Native Hawaiians are underemployed;
(d) The use of the Hawaiian language in instruction; and
(e) Projects that support activities and interventions aimed at improving the academic achievement of secondary school students who are at greatest risk of not meeting challenging State academic standards and not completing high school.
In order to receive additional points under a competitive preference priority, an application should provide adequate and sufficient information that clearly substantiates its claim that it meets each priority addressed.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
Individuals may also obtain a copy of the application package by contacting the program contact persons listed in this section.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, except titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, captions, and all text in charts, tables, and graphs.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
• Use size 12-point font.
• Begin numbering at the right bottom of the first page in Arabic numerals (“1”) and number the pages consecutively throughout the document.
• Include all critical information in the program narrative.
The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the budget narrative justification; the assurances and certifications; the project abstract; the resumes; and the appendices.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, 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 under
4.
5.
6.
a.
Applications for grants under the Native Hawaiian Education Program, CFDA Number 84.362A must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the Native Hawaiian Education Program at
Please note the following:
• 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 qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• 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).
• 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 the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
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.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Francisco Ramirez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW., room 3W237, Washington, DC 20202-6200.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. 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:
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 qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You 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,
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.
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. 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.
a. Significance and Need for Project (10 points).
b. Quality of the Project Design and Services (40 points).
c. Quality of Project Personnel (10 points).
d. Quality of the Management Plan (20 points).
e. Quality of the Project Evaluation (20 points).
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.
All grantees will be expected to submit an annual performance report addressing these performance measures, to the extent that they apply to the grantee's project.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact persons listed in this section.
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
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
The applicant must be a novice applicant. Novice applicant means any applicant for a grant from the Department that:
1. Has never received a grant or subgrant under the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers program;
2. Has never been a member of a group application, submitted in accordance with §§ 75.127-75.129, that received a grant under the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers program; and
3. Has not had an active discretionary grant from the Federal Government in the five years before the deadline date for applications under the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers program.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
You may also contact ED Pubs at its Web site:
Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5075, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2550.
2.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically or by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, 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 under
4.
5.
6.
a.
Applications for grants under the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Program-CFDA Number 84.128G must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Program at
Please note the following:
• 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 application 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 qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• 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 form 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 form SF 424—have replaced the ED 424 (Application for Federal Education Assistance).
• 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 the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically, or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions as described elsewhere in this notice.
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.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Sonja T. Turner, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5019, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2740.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. 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:
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 qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You 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,
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. 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.
• Percentage of individuals served who were placed in employment.
Each grantee must annually report on this measure in its annual performance report. In addition, the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Program is part of the Administration's job training and employment common measures initiative. The common measures for job training and employment programs targeting adults are: entered employment (percentage employed in the first quarter after program exit); retention in employment (percentage of those employed in the first quarter after exit that were still employed in the second and third quarter after program exit); earnings increase (percentage change in earnings pre-registration to post-program and first quarter after exit to third quarter after exit); and efficiency (annual cost per participant). The Department is currently working toward the implementation of these common measures. Each grantee will be required to collect and report data for the common measures when they are implemented.
In addition, the Department will modify the annual performance reporting form that grantees use for progress reporting to ensure that grantees separately report information for individuals served exclusively by their project. Grantees will report—(1) The number of individuals served exclusively by the project who achieved successful employment outcomes; (2) the number of individuals served by the project who did not achieve employment outcomes; and (3) the number of individuals served by both the State designated agency and the project. We anticipate that this modified performance reporting form will be published for public comment in March 2007.
For Further Information Contact: Sonja T. Turner, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5019, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2649. Telephone: (202) 245-7557 or by e-mail:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact person listed in this section.
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
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, the Secretary may make additional awards in FY 2008 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
All applicants seeking funding under this competition must—
(a) Describe the manner in which the applicant will address the needs of individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds (section 21(c) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (the Act));
(b) Describe the manner in which the findings and results of the project to be funded under the grant, particularly information that facilitates the replication of the results of that project, will be made generally available (section 305(a)(4)(A) of the Act);
(c) Demonstrate ways in which recreational activities assist in maximizing the independence and integration of individuals with disabilities into community-based recreational programs (section 305(a)(1)(C) of the Act);
(d) Assure that the project will maintain, at a minimum, the same level of services over the three-year project period (section 305(a)(5) of the Act);
(e) Assure that the service program funded under the grant will be continued after Federal assistance ends (section 305(a)(4)(B) of the Act); and
(f) Provide non-Federal resources (in cash or in-kind) to pay the non-Federal share cost of the project in year two at 25 percent of the year one Federal grant and in year three at 50 percent of the year one Federal grant (section 305(a)(3)(B) of the Act).
This priority is:
Projects must provide recreational services to individuals with disabilities. Recreational services include, but are not limited to, vocational skills development, leisure education, leisure
Projects must provide recreational services to individuals with disabilities in settings with peers who are not individuals with disabilities.
This priority is:
The applicant must be a novice applicant. Novice applicant means any applicant for a grant from the Department that—
(a) Has never received a grant or subgrant under the Recreational Programs;
(b) Has never been a member of a group application, submitted in accordance with section 75.127 through 75.129, that received a grant under the Recreational Programs; and
(c) Has not had an active discretionary grant from the Federal Government in the five years before the deadline date for applications under the Recreational Programs.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, the Secretary may make additional awards in FY 2008 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
You may also contact ED Pubs at its Web site:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.128J.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (
2.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including date and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, 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 under
4.
5.
6.
a.
Applications for grants under the Recreational Programs, CFDA Number 84.128J must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for Recreational Programs at
• 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
• 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 qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• 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).
• 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 the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
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.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Ed Hofler, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5065, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. FAX: (202) 245-7592.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. 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:
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 qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You 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 84.128J), 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. 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.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
This priority is:
The early years in a child's life set the foundation for everything that follows. The social-emotional development of the young child is grounded in the interaction of early experiences and feelings with emerging intellectual, linguistic, sensory, and physical abilities. The formation of healthy personalities, appropriate emotions, mutually reinforcing relationships, and constructive behaviors establishes the framework for all other areas of growth, learning, and expression.
Young children with or at risk of disabilities, along with their families, have special needs for additional or different supports and guidance. These supports are necessary to ensure the healthy development of the child in affective, physical, and cognitive domains. Service providers, policymakers, and other early childhood experts are becoming increasingly aware of the need for early intervention to support healthy social-emotional development in young children. Children from birth through two years old have the highest rates of abuse and neglect, in comparison to children in older age groups, and the highest rates of death from victimization (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2004).
In the spring of 2005, a national study conducted at Yale University (Gilliam, 2005) reported that preschool children, aged three through five years old, had the highest expulsion rates in the United States, three times that of school-aged children. These removals from services were primarily associated with “behavioral” issues. National survey data have documented that 10 to 25 percent of children in low-income families present problem behaviors in preschool settings, and their teachers have indicated that these disruptive behavior problems are the most challenging issues they face (Webster-Stratton & Hammond, 1998; Joseph & Strain, 2003).
Research has documented both short- and long-term benefits from early childhood interventions that promote positive social-emotional skills and address challenging behaviors. Specifically, evidence-based early interventions have been shown to decrease withdrawal, aggression, non-compliance, and disruption (Strain & Timm, 2001). Early interventions also foster positive peer relationships, understanding, friendship, cooperation, and sharing (Denham & Burton, 1998), as well as improvement in self-control, self-awareness, and self-satisfaction (Webster-Stratton, 1990). Research also has shown that children's social-emotional competence is associated with later academic success or failure in elementary and secondary schools (Walker, et al., 1998; Reynolds, et al., 2001; Strain & Timm, 2001). In addition, early interventions that promote healthy social-emotional behavior are tied to long-term achievement in the post-secondary education and employment arenas (Barnett, 1993; Karoly, et al., 1998).
In response to findings that abused and neglected children under the age of three may be eligible for, and benefit from, early intervention services under Part C of IDEA, Congress amended the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) in June, 2003, to require State CAPTA agencies to have policies for the referral to the Part C program of children under the age of three who are involved in a substantiated case of abuse or neglect (CAPTA children). In December, 2004, section 637(a)(6) of IDEA was amended to require the Part C program lead agencies to have policies and procedures regarding the referral to the Part C program of children under the age of three who are CAPTA children, as well as those who are identified as affected by illegal substance abuse, or withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure.
To further encourage a focus on the social-emotional development of infants, toddlers, and other young children receiving services under IDEA, and as part of the State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) reporting requirements, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) requires States to report the percent of young children, birth through five years old, receiving services under Parts B and C of IDEA, who show improvement in positive social-emotional skills (including positive social relationships). Specialized technical assistance is needed to ensure that early intervention and early childhood service providers have the knowledge needed to support positive social-emotional development in infants, toddlers, and other young children (birth through five) receiving services under IDEA.
This priority supports the establishment and operation of a Technical Assistance Center for Evidence-Based Practices to Improve the Social-Emotional Development of Young Children With or At Risk of Disabilities (Center). This Center must identify, disseminate, and assist in the implementation of the most successful, evidence-based practices available to improve the social, emotional, and behavioral functioning of young children with disabilities. For purposes of this priority, “young children with disabilities” means infants and toddlers from birth through age two with or at risk for developmental delays or disabilities, and young children ages three through five with or at risk for developmental delays or disabilities.
In carrying out its knowledge development activities, the Center must develop the conceptual framework and research base for intervention practices and a cohesive decision-making model related to implementing those practices. The Center's knowledge development activities must include, but are not limited to—
(a) Developing a conceptual framework for the work of the Center that includes evidence-based practices that have been shown to improve early social-emotional outcomes in the context of general learning and development, and a cohesive decision-making model related to implementing those practices. The model must incorporate and distinguish, where appropriate, specific practices targeted toward infants, toddlers, and preschool-aged children with disabilities; and
(b) In year one of the project period, identifying or conducting syntheses of research on evidence-based interventions or practices that have been shown to improve social-emotional outcomes for young children with disabilities, thereby increasing the likelihood that these children will enter school ready to succeed and participate in classrooms with their typically developing peers. To the extent possible, the Center must use the standards established by the What Works Clearinghouse (
(1) Developmentally appropriate practices for providers of early intervention and other services to young children with disabilities that target the critical components of social-emotional development, such as social skills and peer interactions, relationships with adults, recognizing and communicating emotions and desires, problem solving, and adaptive skills including self-regulation (controlling anger and impulse);
(2) Evidence-based intervention methods, materials, and curricula designed for young children that include a focus on social-emotional development and how these methods and materials can be successfully modified, adapted, or individualized for young children with disabilities;
(3) The delivery of evidence-based interventions targeting social-emotional development in a variety of inclusive settings and natural environments;
(4) The delivery of family-centered early intervention services that promote the social-emotional development of infants, toddlers, and other young children with disabilities eligible for services under Part C of IDEA;
(5) Empirically-based assessments, including valid and reliable instruments, for measuring social-emotional development, monitoring individual growth and progress, supporting data-based decision making, aggregating individual child data to evaluate program efforts, and aligning assessments with State early learning, early child development, or school readiness standards and State reporting requirements. Assessments also should cover such areas as self-regulation, response to directions, communication/language, adaptive functioning, autonomy, affect, and social interaction; and
(6) Effective technical assistance (TA) strategies that lead to knowledge utilization, sustainable changes in practice, and improved outcomes.
The Center's TA and dissemination activities must include, but are not limited to—
(a) Developing and coordinating a national TA network comprised of a cadre of experts that the Center will use to provide TA to States in early social-emotional development for young children with disabilities. In their applications, applicants must describe their proposal for this network and identify the cadre of experts;
(b) Providing general TA and information on evidence-based practices that promote the development of social-emotional skills for young children with disabilities to SEAs, lead agencies and other public agencies, service providers, and other stakeholders in all States. This TA and information must reflect the on-going work of the Center to provide up-to-date information on practices that enhance early social-emotional development of young children with disabilities. TA and information must be provided through a variety of vehicles (e.g., Web site; listserv; presentations at national, regional, or State conferences; and conducting national training institutes). The Center's TA and information must be designed to develop the capacity of service providers to use high quality, evidence-based practices in the various inclusive settings and natural environments in which young children with disabilities are served, including the home, community-based settings and programs for typically developing children, other early intervention settings (if identified as appropriate for infants and toddlers), and, for preschool children aged three through five, inclusive or other appropriately-identified preschool, early childhood special education, and related service settings. With respect to children receiving services under Part C of IDEA, the TA and information must include identification of family-centered early intervention services that promote children's social and emotional development. The application must describe the approaches being proposed to provide general TA and information;
(c) In years one and two of the project period, identifying or developing and evaluating models that are based on evidence-based or promising practices and interventions, and that include assessments that promote the development of social-emotional competence in young children with disabilities in a minimum of five local communities of different types (rural, urban, suburban, etc.) serving children from diverse backgrounds in a variety of settings (such as Head Start Programs, early childhood special education programs, home-based programs, State-funded pre-kindergarten programs, etc). While the critical elements of the models should be consistent across the five settings, the models may contain modifications or adaptations that are based on the setting context. Models must be identified or developed for providers and programs serving young children with disabilities under Part C and Part B of IDEA. Models must include the creation and implementation of professional development plans that enhance early childhood professionals' implementation of evidence-based and high quality interventions and practices. Professional development plans must include early intervention and early childhood special education providers and may include other early care and education providers serving young children with disabilities, such as providers in Head Start/Early Head Start, child care, school-based preschools funded under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), and State-funded pre-kindergarten programs. The Center must document factors that facilitate fidelity of implementation and are necessary to sustain the model;
(d) In years three, four, and five of the project period, facilitating the development of State-wide or regional TA networks specifically focused on increasing the use of evidence-based practices that improve social-emotional outcomes of young children with disabilities by scaling-up models identified and/or developed and evaluated in years one and two in accordance with paragraph (c). These TA networks must include systems for
(e) Developing and implementing a plan for involving and communicating with families on the work of the Center. This plan must be developed in collaboration with OSEP-funded parent programs, including representatives from both the Parent Training and Information Centers and the Community Parent Resource Centers funded by the Department, and must include strategies to ensure involvement and communication with diverse and hard-to-reach families;
(f) Coordinating the Center's and the TA networks' activities with other IDEA-funded early intervention and early childhood special education TA centers. For example, the Center must build on the work of other federally funded early childhood projects where applicable, such as the Research and Training Center in Early Childhood Development and the Center for Evidence-Based Practice: Young Children with Challenging Behavior. The Center must coordinate activities with the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (NECTAC), the Regional Resource Centers (RRCs), and the Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center;
(g) Coordinating the Center's and the TA networks' activities with other national, regional, State, and local early childhood training and TA efforts, including but not limited to efforts that target Head Start/Early Head Start, child care, school-based preschool programs under Title I of the ESEA, and State-funded pre-kindergarten programs. The Center should coordinate with the Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning (CSEFEL), a joint project of the Office of Head Start and the Child Care Bureau in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services;
(h) Evaluating the Center's and TA networks' activities by measuring the impact of TA activities on early childhood program and service professionals and families of young children with disabilities. Specifically, the Center must document what these practitioners and families learned and how TA affected their use of evidence-based practices that promote positive social-emotional development in young children with disabilities; and
(i) Maintaining a Web site that is available to early childhood professionals and families and includes all TA materials prepared by the Center in a format that meets a government or industry-recognized standard for accessibility.
The Center also must—
(a) Establish, maintain, and meet at least annually with a national advisory group that includes families of young children with disabilities, early intervention service providers and early childhood special education providers, experts in early childhood psychology and development, national early childhood organizations, and community members involved with young children with disabilities. The national advisory group will be responsible for providing annual feedback on the plans, activities, and accomplishments of the Center;
(b) Maintain ongoing communication with the OSEP Project Officer, including monthly conference calls. Budget for a three-day Project Directors' meeting in Washington, DC during each year of the project, plus one additional two-day trip annually to Washington, DC to attend additional national meetings and to meet and collaborate with the OSEP Project Officer and other funded projects for purposes of cross-project collaboration and information exchange; and
(c) Budget five percent of the grant amount annually to support emerging needs as identified jointly through consultation with the OSEP project officer.
In deciding whether to continue funding the Center for the fourth and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), and in addition—
(a) The recommendation of a review team consisting of experts selected by the Secretary, which review will be conducted during the last half of the project's second year in Washington, DC. Projects must budget for travel expenses associated with this one-day intensive review;
(b) The timeliness and effectiveness with which all requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the Center; and
(c) The degree to which the project promotes best practices in the area of IDEA and other services to young children with disabilities.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
3.
(b) Applicants and grant recipients funded under this competition must involve individuals with disabilities or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26 in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).
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 84.326B.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the Grants and Contracts Services Team listed under
2.
Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit Part III to the equivalent of no more than 70 pages, using the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12-point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the coversheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, references, or the letters of support. However, you must include all of the application narrative in Part III.
We will reject your application if—
• You apply these standards and exceed the page limit; or
• You apply other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit.
3.
Applications Available: March 23, 2007.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: May 7, 2007.
Applications for grants under this competition 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 under
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: July 6, 2007.
4.
5.
6.
a.
We have been accepting applications electronically through the Department's e-Application system since FY 2000. In order to expand on those efforts and comply with the President's Management Agenda, we are continuing to participate as a partner in the new
If you choose to submit your application electronically, you must use the Grants.gov Apply site at
You may access the electronic grant application for the Technical Assistance Center for Evidence-Based Practices to Improve the Social-Emotional Development of Young Children With or At Risk of Disabilities 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 time and date stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted, and must be date/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/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/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 application 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 of the 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.
• You may submit all documents electronically, including all information typically included on the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. If you choose to 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 above 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 an automatic acknowledgment from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you a second confirmation by e-mail that will include 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 the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically, or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions as described elsewhere in this notice. If you submit an application after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the deadline date, please contact the person listed elsewhere in this notice under
Extensions referred to 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 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:
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, or
(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, or
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
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 84.326B), 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 Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424) the CFDA number—and suffix letter, if any—of the competition under which you are submitting your application.
(2) The Application Control Center will mail a grant application receipt acknowledgment to you. If you do not receive the grant application receipt acknowledgment 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.
Grantees will be required to provide information related to these measures.
Grantees also will be required to report information on their projects' performance in annual reports to the Department (34 CFR 75.590).
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
(i) A federally recognized Indian tribe.
(ii) A tribal organization.
(iii) An Alaska Native entity.
(iv) A Bureau-funded school, except for a Bureau-funded school proposing to use its award to support secondary school career and technical education programs.
(b) Any tribe, tribal organization, Alaska Native entity, or eligible Bureau-funded school may apply individually or as part of a consortium with one or more eligible tribes, tribal organizations, Alaska Native entities, or eligible Bureau-funded schools. (Eligible applicants seeking to apply for funds as a consortium must meet the requirements in 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, which apply to group applications.)
An applicant must include documentation in its application showing that it and, if appropriate, consortium members are eligible according to the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the
In accordance with the definition of the term “tribal organization” in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEA) (25 U.S.C. 450b(l)), any tribal organization proposing to provide NACTEP services for the benefit of more than one Indian tribe must first obtain the approval of each Indian tribe it proposes to serve and must submit documentation of such approval with its application. Documentation of tribal approval is a prerequisite to the awarding of a NACTEP grant to any tribal organization proposing to serve more than one Indian tribe.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
This notice invites applications for a NACTEP competition that implements section 116 of the Act, enacted August 12, 2006. As was previously the case with NAVTEP, section 116 of the Act continues to authorize the Secretary to award grants, cooperative agreements, or enter into contracts with Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and Alaska Native entities to operate career and technical education projects that improve career and technical education for Native American and Alaska Native students.
Under section 116 of the Act, Bureau-funded schools proposing to fund secondary programs are not eligible to receive an award directly from the Secretary. However, an Indian tribe, tribal organization, Alaska Native entity, or Bureau-funded school may use its award to assist a secondary school operated or supported by the U.S. Department of the Interior to carry out career and technical education programs. A Bureau-funded school that is not proposing a secondary program is eligible for assistance under NACTEP.
For the convenience of applicants, we describe in this notice the major statutory changes made to the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 (Perkins III), which was amended by the Act, that affect NACTEP.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Refer to the
(a)
Under this competition the Secretary awards grants to carry out projects that—
(i) Propose organized educational activities offering a sequence of courses that (1) provides individuals with coherent and rigorous content aligned with challenging academic standards and relevant technical knowledge and skills needed to prepare for further education and careers in current or emerging professions; (2) provides technical skill proficiency, an industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or an associate degree; and (3) includes competency-based applied learning that contributes to the academic knowledge, higher-order reasoning and problem-solving skills, work attitudes, general employability skills, technical skills, and occupation-specific skills, and knowledge of all aspects of an industry,
(ii) Develop new programs, services, or activities or improve or expand existing programs, services, or activities that are consistent with the purposes of the Act. In other words, the Department will support “expansions” or “improvements” that include, but are not limited to, the expansion of effective programs or practices; upgrading of activities, equipment, or materials; increasing staff capacity; adoption of new technology; modification of curriculum; or implementation of new policies to improve program effectiveness and outcomes.
(iii) Fund a career and technical education program, service, or activity that—
(1) Is a new program, service, or activity that was not provided by the applicant during the instructional term (a defined period, such as a semester, trimester, or quarter, within the academic year) that preceded the request for funding under NACTEP;
(2) Will improve or expand an existing career and technical education program; or
(3) Inherently improves career and technical education.
(i) Develops new career and technical education programs of study that will be approved by the appropriate accreditation agency;
(ii) Strengthens the rigor of the academic and career and technical components of funded programs;
(iii) Uses curriculum that is aligned with industry-recognized standards and will result in students attaining industry-recognized credentials, certificates, or degrees;
(iv) Integrates academics (other than remedial courses) with career and technical education programs through a coherent sequence of courses to ensure learning in the core academic and career and technical subjects;
(v) Links career and technical education at the secondary level with career and technical education at the postsecondary level and facilitates students' pursuit of a baccalaureate degree;
(vi) Expands the scope, depth, and relevance of curriculum, especially content that provides students with a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of an industry and a variety of hands-on, job-specific experiences; and
(vii) Offers—
(1) Work-related experience, internships, cooperative education, school-based enterprises, entrepreneurship, community service learning, and job shadowing that are related to career and technical education programs;
(2) Coaching/mentoring, support services, and extra help for students after school, on the weekends, and/or during the summers so they can meet higher standards;
(3) Career guidance and academic counseling for students participating in career and technical education programs;
(4) Placement services for students who have successfully completed career and technical education programs and attained a technical skill proficiency that is aligned with industry-recognized standards;
(5) Professional development programs for teachers, counselors, and administrators; and
(6) Strong partnerships among grantees and local educational agencies, postsecondary institutions, community leaders, adult education providers, and, as appropriate, other entities, such as employers, labor organizations, parents, and local partnerships, to enable students to achieve State academic standards and career and technical skills;
(7) The use of student assessment and evaluation data to improve continually instruction and staff development with the goal of increasing student achievement in career and technical education programs; or
(8) Research, development, demonstration, dissemination, evaluation and assessment, capacity building, and technical assistance, related to career and technical education programs.
(b)
(c)
(i) To be eligible for a stipend a student must—
(1) Be enrolled in a career and technical education project funded under this program;
(2) Be in regular attendance in a NACTEP project and meet the training institution's attendance requirement;
(3) Maintain satisfactory progress in his or her program of study according to the training institution's published standards for satisfactory progress; and
(4) Have an acute economic need that—
(A) Prevents participation in a project funded under this program without a stipend; and
(B) Cannot be met through a work-study program.
(ii) The amount of a stipend is the greater of either the minimum hourly wage prescribed by State or local law or the minimum hourly wage established under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
(iii) A grantee may only award a stipend if the stipend combined with other resources the student receives does not exceed the student's financial need. A student's financial need is the difference between the student's cost of attendance and the financial aid or other resources available to defray the student's cost of participating in a NACTEP project.
(iv) To calculate the amount of a student's stipend, a grantee would multiply the number of hours a student actually attends career and technical education instruction by the amount of the minimum hourly wage that is prescribed by State or local law, or by the minimum hourly wage that is established under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Grantees must maintain records that fully support their decisions to award stipends and the amounts that are paid, such as proof of a student's enrollment in a NACTEP project, stipend applications, timesheets showing the number of attendance hours confirmed in writing by an instructor, student financial status information, and evidence that a student would not be able to participate in the NACTEP project without a stipend. (20 U.S.C. 1232f; 34 CFR 75.700-75.702; 75.730; and 75.731)
(v) An eligible student may receive a stipend when taking a course for the first time. However, generally a stipend may not be provided to a student who has already taken, completed, and had the opportunity to benefit from a course and is merely repeating the course.
(vi) An applicant must include in its application the procedure it intends to use to determine student eligibility for stipends and stipend amounts, and its oversight procedures for the awarding and payment of stipends.
(d)
(i) The recipient of the direct assistance is an individual who is a member of a special population and who is participating in a NACTEP project.
(ii) The direct assistance is needed to address barriers to the individual's successful participation in a NACTEP project.
(iii) The direct assistance is part of a broader, more generally focused program or activity to address the needs of an individual who is a member of a special population.
Direct assistance to individuals who are members of special populations is not, by itself, a “program or activity for special populations.”
(iv) The grant funds used for direct assistance must be expended to supplement, and not supplant, assistance that is otherwise available from non-Federal sources. For example, generally, a postsecondary educational institution could not use NACTEP funds to provide child care for single parents if non-Federal funds previously were made available for this purpose, or if non-Federal funds are used to provide child care services for single parents participating in non-career and technical education programs and these services otherwise would have been available to career and technical education students in the absence of NACTEP funds.
(v) In determining how much of the NACTEP grant funds it will use for direct assistance to an eligible student, a grantee must consider whether the specific services to be provided are a reasonable and necessary cost of providing career and technical education programs for special populations. However, the Secretary does not envision a circumstance in which it would be a reasonable and necessary expenditure of NACTEP project funds for a grantee to utilize a majority of a project's budget to pay direct assistance to students, in lieu of providing the students served by the project with career and technical education.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
The Secretary cautions applicants not to plan to use funds under NACTEP to replace otherwise available non-Federal funding for “direct assistance to students” and family assistance programs. For example, NACTEP funds must not be used to supplant tribal and other non-Federal funds with Federal funds in order to pay the costs of students' tuition, dependent care, transportation, books, supplies, and other costs associated with participation in a career and technical education program.
Further, the Secretary is concerned that funds under NACTEP may be used to replace Federal student financial aid. The Secretary wishes to highlight that the Act does not authorize the Secretary to fund projects that serve primarily as entities through which students may apply for and receive tuition and other financial assistance.
To ensure the high quality of NACTEP projects and the achievement of the goals and purposes of section 116(e) of the Act, each grantee must budget for and conduct an ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of its program. An independent evaluator must conduct the evaluation. The evaluation must—
(a) Be appropriate for the project and be both formative and summative in nature;
(b) Include—
(i) The performance measures for NACTEP that are identified in the
(ii) Qualitative and quantitative data with respect to—
(1) Academic and career and technical competencies demonstrated by the participants and the number and kinds of academic and work credentials acquired by individuals, including participation in programs providing skill proficiency assessments, industry certifications, or training at the associate degree level that is articulated with an advanced degree option;
(2) Enrollment, completion, and placement of participants by gender for each occupation for which training was provided;
(3) Job or work skill attainment or enhancement, including participation in apprenticeship and work-based learning programs, and student progress in achieving technical skill proficiencies necessary to obtain employment in the field for which the student has been prepared, including attainment or enhancement of technical skills in the industry the student is preparing to enter;
(4) Activities during the formative stages of the project to help guide and improve the project, as well as a summative evaluation that includes recommendations for disseminating information on project activities and results;
(5) The number and percentage of students that obtained industry-recognized credentials, certificates, or degrees;
(6) The outcomes of students' technical assessments, by type and scores, if available; and
(7) The rates of attainment of a proficiency credential or certificate, in conjunction with a secondary school diploma;
(c) Measure the effectiveness of the project, including a comparison between the intended and observed results, and a demonstration of a clear link between the observed results and the specific treatment given to project participants;
(d) Measure the extent to which information about or resulting from the project was disseminated at other sites, such as through the grantee's
(e) Measure the long-term impact of the project, e.g., follow-up data on students' employment, sustained employment, promotions, and further/continuing education or training, or the impact the project had on tribal economic development or career and technical education activities offered by tribes.
(a) A tribe, tribal organization, or Alaska Native entity receiving financial assistance under this program may integrate those funds with assistance received from related programs in accordance with the provisions of Public Law 102-477, the Indian Employment, Training and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992 (25 U.S.C. 3401
(b) A tribe, tribal organization, or Alaska Native entity wishing to integrate funds must have a plan that meets the requirements of the Indian Employment, Training and Related Services Demonstration Act and is acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Education.
For further information on the integration of grant funds under this and related programs contact Lynn Forcia, Chief, Division of Workforce Development, Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Mailstop 20 SIB, Washington, DC 20245. Telephone: (202) 219-5270. E-mail address:
Section 116(b)(2) of the Act provides that grants or contracts awarded under section 116 of the Act are subject to the terms and conditions of section 102 of the ISDEA (25 U.S.C. 450f) and must be conducted in accordance with the provisions of sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Act of April 16, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 455-457), that are relevant to the programs administered under section 116(b) of the Act. Section 102 of the ISDEA authorizes Indian tribes to request self-determination contracts. Accordingly, an Indian tribe or tribal organization that has applied to the Secretary for financial assistance under NACTEP and has been notified of its selection to be a recipient of financial assistance may submit a request to operate its NACTEP project through a section 102 Indian self-determination contract.
In accordance with section 102(a) of the ISDEA, any Indian tribe or tribal organization requesting to operate its project under an Indian self-determination contract must do so by tribal resolution. After successful applicants are selected under this NACTEP competition, the Secretary will review any requests to operate a project under an Indian self-determination contract pursuant to the ISDEA. If a request for an Indian self-determination contract is approved, the Indian tribe or tribal organization submitting the request will be required, to the extent possible, to operate its project in accordance with the ISDEA, the Act, and the non-statutory program requirements established in this notice.
As with grants under NACTEP, self-determination contracts under NACTEP are limited to a 60-month project period and are subject to the availability of funds. The career and technical education programs, services, and activities provided through an Indian self-determination contract would have to be essentially the same as were proposed in the initial application and approved by the Department. Any Indian tribe or tribal organization that is selected to receive funding under this competition, but whose request for an Indian self-determination contract is denied, may appeal the denial to the Secretary. If you have questions about ISDEA self-determination contracts, please contact the persons listed in the
(a) Any Native, as so defined, either or both of whose adoptive parents are not Natives; and
(b) In the absence of proof of a minimum blood quantum, any citizen of the United States who is regarded as an Alaska Native by the Native village or Native group of which he or she claims to be a member and whose father or mother is (or, if deceased, was) regarded as Native by any village or group. Any decision of the Secretary of the Interior regarding eligibility for enrollment will be final. (20 U.S.C. 2326(a)(1); 43 U.S.C. 1602(b))
(a) Listed in sections 1610 and 1615 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; or
(b) That meets the requirements of chapter 33 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; and
(c) That the Secretary of the Interior determines was, on the 1970 census enumeration date (as shown by the census or other evidence satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior, who shall make findings of fact in each instance), composed of twenty-five or more Natives. (43 U.S.C. 1602(c))
(a) A Bureau-operated elementary or secondary day or boarding school or Bureau-operated dormitory for students attending a school other than a Bureau school. (25 U.S.C. 2021(3) and (4));
(b) An elementary school, secondary school, or dormitory, that receives financial assistance for its operation under a contract, grant, or agreement with the Bureau under section 102, 103(a), or 208 of ISDEA (25 U.S.C. 450f, 450h(a), or 458d) or under the Tribally
(c) A school for which assistance is provided under the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501
(a) Offer a sequence of courses that—
(1) Provides individuals with coherent and rigorous content aligned with challenging academic standards and relevant technical knowledge and skills needed to prepare for further education and careers in current or emerging professions;
(2) Provides technical skills proficiency, an industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or an associate degree; and
(3) May include prerequisite courses (other than remedial courses) that meet the requirements of this definition; and
(b) Include competency-based applied learning that contributes to the academic knowledge, higher-order reasoning and problem-solving skills, work attitudes, general employability skills, technical skills, and occupation-specific skills, and knowledge of all aspects of an industry, including entrepreneurship, of the individual. (20 U.S.C. 2302(5))
(a) An educational institution in any State that—
(1) Admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the recognized equivalent of such a certificate;
(2) Is legally authorized within such State to provide a program of education beyond secondary education;
(3) Provides an educational program for which the institution awards a bachelor's degree or provides not less than a 2-year program that is acceptable for full credit toward such a degree;
(4) Is a public or other nonprofit institution; and
(5) Is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association or, if not so accredited, is an institution that has been granted preaccreditation status by such an agency or association that has been recognized by the Secretary of the Education for the granting of preaccreditation status, and the Secretary of Education has determined that there is satisfactory assurance that the institution will meet the accreditation standards of such an agency or association within a reasonable time.
(b) The term also includes—
(1) Any school that provides not less than a 1-year program of training to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation and that meets the provisions of paragraphs (a)(1), (2), (4) and (5) of this definition.
(2) A public or nonprofit private educational institution in any State that, in lieu of the requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this definition, admits as regular students persons who are beyond the age of compulsory school attendance in the State in which the institution is located. (20 U.S.C. 1001 and 2302(18))
(a) Individuals with disabilities;
(b) Individuals from economically disadvantaged families, including foster children;
(c) Individuals preparing for nontraditional training fields;
(d) Single parents, including single pregnant women;
(e) Displaced homemakers; and
(f) Individuals with limited English proficiency. (20 U.S.C. 2302(29))
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this Notice.
1.
(i) A federally recognized Indian tribe.
(ii) A tribal organization.
(iii) An Alaska Native entity.
(iv) A Bureau-funded school, except for a Bureau-funded school proposing to use its award to support secondary school career and technical education programs.
(b) Any tribe, tribal organization, Alaska Native entity, or eligible Bureau-funded school may apply individually or as part of a consortium with one or more eligible tribes, tribal organizations, Alaska Native entities, or eligible Bureau-funded schools. (Eligible applicants seeking to apply for funds as a consortium must meet the requirements in 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, which apply to group applications.)
An applicant must include documentation in its application showing that it and, if appropriate, consortium members are eligible according to the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the
In accordance with the definition of the term “tribal organization” in ISDEA (25 U.S.C. 450b(l)), any tribal organization proposing to provide NACTEP services for the benefit of more than one Indian tribe must first obtain the approval of each Indian tribe it proposes to serve and must submit documentation of such approval with its application. Documentation of tribal approval is a prerequisite to the awarding of a NACTEP grant to any tribal organization proposing to serve more than one Indian tribe.
2.
1.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this notice in an alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the program contact persons listed in this section.
2.
Requirements concerning the content of the application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package and notice for this competition.
3.
Applications Available: March 23, 2007.
Applications for grants under this 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 under
4.
5.
6.
Applications for grants under this competition may be submitted electronically or in paper format by mail or hand delivery.
a.
To comply with the President's Management Agenda, we are participating as a partner in the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site. NACTEP, CFDA Number 84.101, is included in this project. We request your participation in Grants.gov.
If you choose to submit your application electronically, you must use the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
You may access the electronic grant application for the NACTEP at
Please note the following:
• 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, certifications, and approvals from tribal entities. 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 the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
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:
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 84.101), 550 12th Street,
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 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. 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)
(a)
(b)
(i) The potential contribution of the proposed project toward increasing the understanding of educational needs, issues, or strategies for providing career and technical education to American Indians and Alaska Natives. (5 points)
(ii) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in system change or improvement in the applicant's educational program as evidenced by the types of training and activities identified in the project application. (5 points)
(iii) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the career and technical needs of the target population. (5 points)
(c)
(i) The extent to which goals, objectives, and outcomes are clearly specified and measurable (
(ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs, as evidenced by the applicant's description of programs and activities that align with the target population's needs. (5 points)
(iii) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating the proposed project plans for and is likely to result in the development of information to guide possible dissemination of information on project practices, activities or strategies, including information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the project, planned dissemination activities, the kind of practices, activities, or strategies to be disseminated, the target audience for the dissemination of such practices, activities, or strategies, and the proposed uses for such disseminated practices, activities, or strategies. (5 points)
(iv) The extent to which the proposed project will establish linkages with or will be coordinated with similar or related efforts, and with community, State, or Federal resources, as appropriate. (5 points)
(d)
(i) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the project staff and instructors, including the extent to which the proposed training and professional development plans address ways in which learning gaps will be addressed and how continuous review of performance will be conducted to identify training needs. (5 points)
(ii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project will create opportunities for students to receive an industry-recognized credential; become employed in high-skill, high-wage, and high-demand occupations; or both. (5 points)
(iii) The extent to which the services proposed in the project will create opportunities to acquire technical skill proficiencies, industry certifications, or the skills identified by State or industry-recognized career and technical education programs or professions. In describing the services, there must be a clear link between the services and the skill proficiencies, industry certifications, credentials, certificates, or degrees that students may earn. (10 points)
(e)
(i) The extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. (5 points)
(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training, expertise, and experience, of the project director, key personnel, and project consultants. (5 points)
(iii) The extent to which the project will use instructors who are certified to teach in the field in which they will provide instruction. (5 points)
(f)
(i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization(s) and the tribal entity or entities to be served. (5 points)
(ii) The extent to which the budget is adequate and costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives of the proposed project. (5 points)
(iii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment (e.g., through written career and technical education agreements, memoranda of understanding, letters of support and commitment, or commitments to employ project participants, as appropriate) of the applicant, members of the consortium, local employers, or tribal entities to be served by the project. (5 points)
(iv) The potential for continued support of the project after Federal funding ends. (5 points)
(g)
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and the milestones and performance standards for accomplishing project tasks. (5 points)
(ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project. (5 points)
(iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project. (5 points)
(h)
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation proposed by the grantee are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project. (5 points)
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) performance measures discussed elsewhere in this notice, and will produce quantitative and qualitative data, to the extent possible. (5 points)
(iii) The extent to which the methods of the evaluation include processes that consider the validity and integrity of data collection and analysis; accessibility of appropriate and timely data; accurate descriptions of performance; collection processes that yield unbiased, unprejudiced, and impartial data results; and the extent to which representation of the data clearly communicates an accurate picture of performance. (5 points)
(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and continuous improvement toward achieving intended outcomes. (5 points)
(v) The quality of the evaluation to be conducted by an external evaluator with the necessary background and technical expertise to carry out the evaluation. (5 points)
2.
(a) Up to 10 points to applications that propose exemplary approaches that involve, coordinate with, or encourage tribal economic development plans; and
(b) Five points to applications from tribally controlled colleges or universities that—
(i) Are accredited or are candidates for accreditation by a nationally recognized accreditation organization as an institution of postsecondary career and technical education; or
(ii) Operate career and technical education programs that are accredited or are candidates for accreditation by a nationally recognized accreditation organization and issue certificates for completion of career and technical education programs. (20 U.S.C. 2326(e))
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.
(a) At the secondary level: An increase in the percentage of career and technical education students who—
(i) Attain academic proficiency, as demonstrated by meeting academic content standards and student academic achievement standards that meet challenging State defined academic standards for reading/language arts and mathematics;
(ii) Attain career and technical skill proficiencies, including student achievement on technical assessments that are aligned with industry-recognized standards;
(iii) Attain a secondary school diploma;
(iv) If a credential, certificate, or degree is offered by the State in which the project operates, in conjunction with a secondary school diploma, attain a proficiency credential, certificate, or degree in conjunction with a secondary school diploma; and
(v) Are placed in—
(1) Postsecondary education or advanced training;
(2) Military service; or
(3) Employment.
(b) At the postsecondary level: An increase in the percentage of career and technical education students who—
(i) Attain challenging career and technical skill proficiencies, including student achievement on technical assessments that are aligned with industry-recognized standards;
(ii) Attain an industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or a degree;
(iii) Are retained in postsecondary education or transfer to a baccalaureate degree program;
(iv) Are placed in—
(1) Military service; or
(2) Apprenticeship programs; and
(v) Are placed or have been retained in employment, including in high-skill, high-wage, or high-demand occupations or professions.
(c) At the adult education level: An increase in the percentage of participating adult career and technical education students who—
(i) Enroll in a postsecondary education or training program;
(ii) Attain career and technical education skill proficiencies aligned with industry-recognized standards;
(iii) Receive industry-recognized credentials or certificates; and
(iv) Are placed in a job, upgraded in a job, or retain employment.
All grantees will be expected to submit an annual performance report addressing these performance measures, to the extent feasible and to the extent that they apply to each grantee's NACTEP project.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this notice in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact persons listed in this section.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Take notice that on March 14, 2007, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Sixteenth Revised Sheet No. 500B, to be effective April 2, 2007.
Columbia also tendered for filing the following non-conforming Service Agreement for consideration and approval:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on March 14, 2007 Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Seventeenth Revised Sheet No. 500B, with an effective date of April 2, 2007.
Columbia also tendered for filing the following non-conforming Service Agreement for consideration and approval:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on March 14, 2007 Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, with a proposed effective date of April 13, 2007.
Columbia states that it is making this filing to incorporate the policies stated in the Commission's June 16, 2005, Policy Statement on Creditworthiness Issues for Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines and Order Withdrawing Rulemaking Proceeding in Docket Nos. PL05-8-000 and RM04-4-000.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on March 14, 2007, Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (Columbia Gulf) filed the following revised tariff sheets to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 171A, to be effective April 13, 2007.
Columbia Gulf states that it is making this filing to specify the amount of credit assurance applicable to non-firm Shippers.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on March 14, 2007 Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company (Eastern Shore) tendered for filing revised tariff sheets, proposed to be effective April 1, 2007:
Eastern Shore states that the purpose of this instant filing is to track rate changes attributable to storage services purchased from Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) under their Rate Schedules GSS and LSS. The costs of the above referenced storage services comprise the rates and charges payable under ESNG's Rate Schedules GSS and LSS. This tracking filing is being made pursuant to section 3 of ESNG's Rate Schedules GSS and LSS.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
Take notice that on March 14, 2007 Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company (Eastern Shore) tendered for filing revised tariff sheets, proposed to be effective March 1, 2007:
Eastern Shore states that the purpose of this instant filing is to track rate changes attributable to storage services purchased from Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) under their Rate Schedules GSS and LSS. The costs of the above referenced storage services comprise the rates and charges payable under ESNG's Rate Schedules GSS and LSS. This tracking filing is being made pursuant to section 3 of ESNG's Rate Schedules GSS and LSS.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on March 7, 2007, Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline, L.P. filed a petition for rate approval for NGPA section 311 maximum transportation rates for firm and interruptible transportation services, pursuant to section 284.123(b)(1)(i)(A) of the Commission's regulations.
Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
Take notice that on March 8, 2007, Fred G. Powell filed an application for authority to hold interlocking positions pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 825d(b)), 18 CFR 45.8 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, and Order No. 664.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on March 8, 2007, William Harold Smith filed an application for authority to hold interlocking positions pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 825d(b)), 18 CFR 45.8 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, and Order No. 664.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on line at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
The Commission will hold a series of meetings with the Indian Tribes potentially affected by the relicensing of the Hells Canyon Project, to discuss issues addressed in the draft environmental impact statement (EIS). The meetings will be held as follows:
Burns Paiute Tribe, Boise, Idaho (location and time to be announced).
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes, 10 a.m., Tribal Headquarters, Duck Valley Indian Reservation, Owyhee, Nevada.
Interested parties may attend as observers. The meetings will be transcribed by a court reporter, so that the transcript can be placed in the record of this proceeding.
Individuals interested in attending the meetings can contact Alan Mitchnick at (202) 502-6074 or
Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at 202-564-7167.
An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 7, 2006 (97 FR 27647).
Rating EC2.
Rating EC2.
Revision FR Notice Published 3/23/2007: Extending Comment Period from 5/15/2007 to 5/21/2007.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In accordance with section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of a request by the registrant to amend their registrations to terminate uses of certain products containing the pesticide DDVP. The request would terminate DDVP use in dry bait formulations and in impregnated resin cat and dog flea collars. The request would not terminate the last DDVP products registered for use in the U.S. EPA intends to grant this request at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that would merit its further review of the request, or unless the registrant withdraws their request within this period. Upon acceptance of this request, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed in this notice will be permitted only if such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms as described in the final order.
Comments must be received on or before April 23, 2007.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0302, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Dayton Eckerson, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8038; fax number: (703) 308-8005; e-mail address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
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.
This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from registrant Amvac Chemical Corporation to amend to terminate uses of DDVP product registrations. DDVP is an organophosphate insecticide and fumigant registered for use in controlling flies, mosquitoes, gnats, cockroaches, fleas, and other insect pests. Formulations of DDVP include pressurized liquid, granular, emulsifiable concentrate, total release aerosol, and impregnated material. DDVP is applied with aerosols and fogging equipment, with ground spray equipment, and through slow release from impregnated materials, such as resin strips. DDVP is registered to control insect pests on agricultural sites; commercial, institutional and industrial sites; and for domestic use in and around homes (i.e., resin strips). DDVP is used preplant in mushroom houses, and postharvest in storage areas for bulk, packaged and bagged raw and processed agricultural commodities, food manufacturing/processing plants, animal premises, and non-food areas of food-handling establishments. It is also registered for direct dermal pour-on treatment of cattle and poultry, and swine. DDVP is not registered for direct use on any field grown commodities. In letters dated March 2, 2007 and March 8, 2007, Amvac Chemical Corporation requested EPA to amend to terminate uses of pesticide product registrations
This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from a registrant to amend to terminate uses of DDVP product registrations. The affected products and the registrants making the requests are identified in Tables 1 and 2 of this unit.
Under section 6(f)(1)(A) of FIFRA, registrants may request, at any time, that their pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more pesticide uses. Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, section 6(f)(1)(C) of FIFRA requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless:
1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or
2. The Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
The DDVP registrant has requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. EPA will provide a 30-day comment period on the proposed requests.
Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant within 30 days of publication of this notice, or if the Agency determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further review of this request, an order will be issued amending the affected registrations.
Table 2 of this unit includes the name and address of record for the registrant of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation must submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. Amvac has indicated that there are no existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1; therefore, the Agency proposes to include the following provisions for the treatment of existing stocks of the products identified or referenced in Table 1: The prohibition on sales, distribution and use, except for proper disposal or export consistent with the requirements of section 17 of FIFRA, is effective immediately.
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of External Review Draft for Public Review and Comment.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is announcing a 30-day public review and comment period for the external review draft of Part 2 of the 2007 release of the EPA Web site titled, “Causal Analysis/Diagnosis Decision Information System (CADDIS).” The CADDIS Web site was developed and prepared by EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) in the Office of Research and Development (ORD). NCEA will consider public comments received in accordance with this notice when revising the CADDIS Web site.
EPA is releasing the draft CADDIS 2007 Web site solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality guidelines. The draft CADDIS 2007 Web site has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy or determination. EPA will consider any public comments submitted in accordance with this notice when revising the document.
The 30-day public comment period begins March 23, 2007, and ends April 23, 2007. Technical comments should be in writing and must be submitted electronically or postmarked by April 23, 2007.
The draft CADDIS 2007 Web site can be accessed via the Internet at
For information on the public comment period, contact the Office of Environmental Information Docket; telephone: 202-566-1752; facsimile: 202-566-1753; or e-mail:
Over 2800 water bodies in the United States are listed by states as biologically impaired. For many of these sites, the cause of impairment is reported as “unknown.” To formulate appropriate management actions for impaired water bodies, it is important to identify the causes of biological impairment (
Two sets of modules are being added to the CADDIS Web site in preparation for release of a major revision in September 2007 (CADDIS 2007). On January 17, 2007, the draft of the first of the two sets of modules was released for external peer review and public comment. This first set of draft modules included information on six candidate causes: metals, sediments, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, thermal alteration, and ionic strength.
This notice invites comment on the second set of draft modules being developed for CADDIS 2007. Specifically, comment is invited on two additional candidate cause models, altered flow rates and toxic substances; an interactive conceptual model for phosphorus; and added analytical methods, tools, and databases. Descriptive information on ten analytical methods have been added to CADDIS 2007 including scatter plots, linear regression, predicting environmental conditions from biological observations, and species sensitivity distributions. The principal analytical tool added to CADDIS is CADStat; a downloadable software package for analyzing data using a variety of exploratory and statistical approaches. New analytical databases include a stressor-response gallery for metals and a tolerance value database. These additions improve the capability of CADDIS to diagnose the causes of biological impairments in streams.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2005-0001 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies.
The open meeting of the Board of Directors is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, March 27, 2007. The closed portion of the meeting will follow immediately the open portion of the meeting.
Board Room, First Floor, Federal Housing Finance Board, 1625 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006.
The first portion of the meeting will be open to the public. The final portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.
Shelia Willis, Paralegal Specialist, Office of General Counsel, at 202-408-2876 or
By the Federal Housing Finance Board.
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 April 19, 2007.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, e-mail your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and OS document identifier, to
Community and Tribal Subcommittee (CTS) of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH)/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR): Teleconference.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NCEH/ATSDR announces the following teleconference meeting of the aforementioned subcommittee:
Items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the Agency's function; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS Web site address at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be mailed or faxed within 30 days of this notice directly to the OMB desk officer: OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, Attention: Katherine Astrich, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503,
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
In order to allow a provider or supplier to delegate the Medicare credentialing process to another individual or organization, it is necessary to establish a Security Consent Form for those providers and suppliers who choose to have another individual or organization access their enrollment information and complete enrollments on their behalf. These users could consist of administrative staff, independent contractors, or credentialing departments and are represented as a User group. User groups and its members must request access to enrollment data through a Security Consent Form. The security consent form replicates business service agreements between Medicare applicants and organizations providing enrollment services.
We are proposing four different versions of the Security Consent Form. The form, once signed, mailed and approved, grants a user group or its member access to specific Medicare enrollment records. The system administrator, within the user group, assigns to each member of the group, a security role that will define their levels of functionality within PECOS web for an individual or organization.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS' Web Site address at
To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be received at the address below, no later than 5 p.m. on May 22, 2007.
CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development—B,
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the Agency's function; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS Web site address at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be mailed or faxed within 30 days of this notice directly to the OMB desk officer: OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, Attention: Carolyn Lovett, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Fax Number: (202) 395-6974.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
2.
3.
4.
The information will be collected under the solicitation of proposals from PDP, MA-PD, Cost Plan, and Employer Group Waiver Plans applicants. The collected information will be used by CMS to: (1) Insure that applicants meet CMS requirements, and (2) support the determination of contract awards.
The major program change that has occurred in Part D applications was that CMS removed several attestations related to Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), bids and privacy;
5.
6.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS' Web Site address at
To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be received at the address below, no later than 5 p.m. on May 22, 2007.
CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development—A, Attention: Melissa Musotto, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
Notice.
This notice invites nominations of members to the Advisory Panel on Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) Groups (the Panel). There will be two vacancies on the Panel as of October 1, 2007. Consequently, this solicitation is for two new members.
The purpose of the Panel is to review the APC groups and their associated weights and to advise the Secretary, DHHS, (the Secretary) and the Administrator, CMS, (the Administrator) concerning the clinical integrity of the APC groups and their associated weights. We consider the Panel's advice as CMS prepares its annual updates of the hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS).
The Secretary rechartered the Panel in 2006 for a 2-year period effective through November 21, 2008.
The Secretary is required by section 1833(t)(9)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act), [as amended by section 201(h) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (BBRA) (Pub. L. 106-113), and redesignated by section 202(a)(2) of the BBRA] to consult with an expert outside advisory panel regarding the clinical integrity of the APC groups and weights that are components of the hospital OPPS.
The Charter requires that the Panel meet up to three times annually. We consider the technical advice provided by the Panel as we prepare the proposed and final rules to update the OPPS for the next calendar year.
The Panel shall consist of a chair and up to 15 members who are full-time employees of hospitals, hospital systems, or other Medicare providers that are subject to the OPPS. (For purposes of the Panel, consultants or independent contractors are not considered to be full-time employees in these organizations.)
The Secretary or Administrator selects the Panel membership based upon either self-nominations or nominations submitted by providers or interested organizations.
The current Panel members are as follows: (The asterisk [*] indicates Panel members whose terms begin on March 1, 2007, and the double asterisks [**] indicate Panel members whose terms begin on April 1, 2007. Panel members with three asterisks [***] are those members whose terms expire on or before September 30, 2007.)
• E.L. Hambrick, M.D., J.D., Chair, a CMS Medical Officer.
• Gloryanne Bryant, B.S., RHIA, RHIT, CCS.
• Hazel Kimmel, R.N., CCS, CPC.
• Sandra J. Metzler, M.B.A., RHIA.***
• Thomas M. Munger, M.D.
• Beverly Khnie Philip, M.D.**
• Louis Potters, M.D.
• Russ Ranallo, M.S., B.S.*
• James V. Rawson, M.D.
• Michael A. Ross, M.D.**
• Lou Ann Schraffenberger, M.B.A., RHIA.
• Judie S. Snipes, R.N., M.B.A., CHE.
• Patricia Spencer-Cisek, M.S., APRN-BC, AOCN®.*
• Timothy Gene Tyler, Pharm.D.***
• Kim Allen Williams, M.D.
• Robert M. Zwolak, M.D.
Panel members serve without compensation, according to an advance written agreement; however, CMS reimburses travel, meals, lodging, and related expenses for the meeting in accordance with standard Government travel regulations.
CMS has a special interest in attempting to ensure—while taking into account the nominee pool—that the Panel is diverse in all respects to the following: geography; rural or urban practice; race, ethnicity, sex, and disability; medical or technical specialty; and type of hospital, hospital health system, or other Medicare provider.
The Secretary, or his designee, appoints new members to the Panel from among those candidates determined to have the required expertise. New appointments are made in a manner that ensures a balanced membership.
All members must have technical expertise to enable them to participate fully in the work of the Panel. This expertise encompasses hospital payment systems; hospital medical-care delivery systems; provider billing systems; APC groups; Physicians' Current Procedural Terminology and alpha-numeric Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes; and the use and payment of drugs and medical devices in the outpatient setting, as well as other forms of relevant expertise.
It is not necessary for a nominee to possess expertise in all of the areas listed, but each must have a minimum of 5 years experience and currently have full-time employment in his or her area of expertise. Members of the Panel serve terms up to 4 years, based on the needs of the Panel and contingent upon the rechartering of the Panel.
Any interested person or organization may nominate one or more qualified individuals. Self-nominations will also be accepted. Each nomination must include the following:
• Letter of Nomination,
• Curriculum Vita of the nominee, and
• Written statement from the nominee that the nominee is willing to serve on the Panel under the conditions described in this notice and further specified in the Charter.
To obtain a copy of the Panel's Charter, submit a written request to the DFO at the address provided or by e-mail at
Section 1833(t)(9)(A) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(9)(A)). The Panel is governed by the provisions of Pub. L. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2).
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces the renewal of the charter of the Advisory Panel on Medicare Education (the Panel). The Panel advises and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of consumer education strategies concerning the Medicare program. In addition, this notice announces a meeting of the Panel on April 17, 2007. This meeting is open to the public.
Lynne Johnson, (410) 786-0090. Please refer to the CMS Advisory Committees' Information Line (1-877-449-5659 toll free)/(410-786-9379 local) or the Internet (
Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a), as amended, grants to the Secretary the authority to establish an advisory panel if the Secretary finds the panel necessary and in the public interest. The Secretary signed the charter establishing this Panel on January 21, 1999 as announced in the
The Panel advises and makes recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of consumer education strategies concerning the Medicare program. The goals of the Panel are as follows:
• To develop and implement a national Medicare education program that describes the options for selecting a health plan under Medicare.
• To enhance the Federal government's effectiveness in informing the Medicare consumer, including the appropriate use of public-private partnerships.
• To expand outreach to vulnerable and underserved communities, including racial and ethnic minorities, in the context of a national Medicare education program.
• To assemble an information base of best practices for helping consumers evaluate health plan options and build a community infrastructure for information, counseling, and assistance.
The current members of the Panel are: Anita B. Boles, Independent Consultant, Health Communications; Gwendolyn T. Bronson, SHINE/SHIP Counselor, Massachusetts SHINE Program; Dr. Yanira Cruz, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Hispanic Council on Aging; Clayton Fong, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Asian Pacific Center on Aging; Nan Kirsten-Forte, Executive Vice President, Consumer Services, WebMD; Dr. Jessie C. Gruman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Center for the Advancement of Health; Betty L. Kennard, Vice President, Government Programs and Compliance, Health First Health Plans; Dr. David Lansky, Director, Health Program, Markle Foundation; Dr. Daniel Lyons, Senior Vice President, Government Programs, Independence Blue Cross; Dr. Frank B. McArdle, Manager, Hewitt Research Office, Hewitt Associates; Traci McClellan, J.D., Executive Director, National Indian Council on Aging; Dr. Keith Mueller, Professor and Section Head, Health Services Research and Rural Health Policy, University of Nebraska; Lee Partridge, Senior Health Policy Advisor, National Partnership for Women and Families; Myisha M. Patterson, National Health Coordinator, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; Rebecca Snead, Executive Vice President/Chief Executive Officer, National Alliance of State Pharmacy Associations; William A. Steel, President, The National Grange; Marvin Tuttle, Jr., CAE, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer, Financial Planning Association; Catherine Valenti, Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer, Caring Voice Coalition; and Grant Wedner, Web Education, Daily Strength, Inc.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2, section 10(a) (Pub. L. 92-463), this notice announces a meeting of the Panel on April 17, 2007. The agenda for the April 17, 2007 meeting will include the following:
• Recap of the previous (January 24, 2007) meeting.
• Report on Subcommittee Meetings and Activities.
• Partnering Activities Update.
• Public Comment.
• Listening Session with CMS Leadership.
• Next Steps.
Individuals or organizations that wish to make a 5-minute oral presentation on an agenda topic should submit a written copy of the oral presentation to Lynne Johnson at the address listed in the
Individuals requiring sign language interpretation or other special accommodations should contact Ms. Johnson at the address listed in the
Sec. 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a) and sec. 10(a) of Pub. L. 92-463 (5 U.S.C. App. 2, sec. 10(a) and 41 CFR 102-3).
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice with comment period.
This notice announces a hospital's request for a waiver from entering into an agreement with its designated organ procurement organization (OPO), in accordance with section 1138(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (the Act). This notice requests comments from OPOs and the general public for our consideration in determining whether we should grant the requested waiver.
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-1398-NC. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (no duplicates, please):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
4.
(Because access to the interior of the HHH Building is not readily available to persons without Federal Government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
Mark A. Horney, (410) 786-4554.
Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the caption BACKGROUND at the beginning of your comments.]
Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) are not-for-profit organizations that are responsible for the procurement, preservation, and transport of transplantable organs to transplant centers throughout the country. Qualified OPOs are designated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to recover or procure organs in CMS-defined exclusive geographic service areas, according to section 371(b)(1)(F) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 273(b)(1)(F)) and our regulations at 42 CFR 486.306. Once an OPO has been designated for an area, hospitals in that area that participate in Medicare and Medicaid are required to work with that OPO in providing organs for transplant, according to section 1138(a)(1)(C) of the Social Security Act (the Act), and our regulations at 42 CFR 482.45.
Section 1138(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Act provides that a hospital must notify the designated OPO (for the service area in which it is located) of potential organ donors. Under section 1138(a)(1)(C) of the Act, every participating hospital must have an agreement to identify potential donors only with its designated OPO.
However, section 1138(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that a hospital may obtain
Section 1138(a)(2)(A) of the Act states that in granting a waiver, the Secretary must determine that the waiver—(1) is expected to increase organ donations; and (2) will ensure equitable treatment of patients referred for transplants within the service area served by the designated OPO and within the service area served by the OPO with which the hospital seeks to enter into an agreement under the waiver. In making a waiver determination, section 1138(a)(2)(B) of the Act provides that the Secretary may consider, among other factors: (1) Cost-effectiveness; (2) improvements in quality; (3) whether there has been any change in a hospital's designated OPO due to the changes made in definitions for metropolitan statistical areas; and (4) the length and continuity of a hospital's relationship with an OPO other than the hospital's designated OPO. Under section 1138(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the Secretary is required to publish a notice of any waiver application received from a hospital within 30 days of receiving the application, and to offer interested parties an opportunity to comment in writing during the 60-day period beginning on the publication date in the
The criteria that the Secretary uses to evaluate the waiver in these cases are the same as those described above under sections 1138(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act and have been incorporated into the regulations at 42 CFR 486.308(e) and (f).
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the caption “Waiver Request Procedures” at the beginning of your comments.]
In October 1995, we issued a Program Memorandum (Transmittal No. A-95-11) detailing the waiver process and discussing the information that hospitals must provide in requesting a waiver. We indicated that upon receipt of a waiver request, we would publish a
According to these requirements, we will review the request and comments received. During the review process, we may consult on an as-needed basis with the Public Health Service's Division of Transplantation, the United Network for Organ Sharing, and our regional offices. If necessary, we may request additional clarifying information from the applying hospital or others. We will then make a final determination on the waiver request and notify the hospital and the designated and requested OPOs.
[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the caption “Hospital Waiver Request” at the beginning of your comments.]
As permitted by 42 CFR 486.308(e), Select Specialty Hospital-Quad Cities, of Davenport, Iowa has requested a waiver in order to enter into an agreement with a designated OPO other than the OPO designated for the service area in which the hospital is located. Select Specialty Hospital-Quad Cities is requesting a waiver to work with:
Iowa Donor Network, 550 Madison Avenue, North Liberty, Iowa 52317.
Select Specialty Hospital's Designated OPO is:
Gift of Hope Organ and Tissue Donor Network, 660 North Industrial Drive, Elmhurst, IL 60126-1520.
Section 1138 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-8).
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Correction of notice.
This document corrects wage index values and a relative weighting factor error that appeared in the correction notice published in the
Brian Slater, (410) 786-5229.
In the October 11, 2006
In sections II. and III. of this correction notice, we summarize, identify, and correct the errors in the January 5, 2007 correction notice. We note that the corrections to items 1a, 1b and 2 of section III. of this notice are effective November 3, 2006; the correction to item 1c of section III of this notice is effective November 21, 2006, and the correction to item 3 of section III of this notice is effective October 1, 2006.
We made corrections to several of the wage index values that were published in Table 2 in order to ensure that the published tables accurately reflect the rates actually being used by fiscal intermediaries. We also added a sentence to the note that appears at the end of Table 2. In addition, we are making a technical correction in Table 5 to the relative weighting factor listed for DRG 525.
In FR Doc. 06-9976 of January 5, 2007 (72 FR 569), make the following corrections:
1. On pages 570 through 571, in Table 2.—Hospital Case-Mix Indexes for Discharges Occurring in Federal Fiscal Year 2005; Hospital Wage Indexes for Federal Fiscal Year 2007; Hospital Average Hourly Wages for Federal Fiscal Years 2005 (2001 Wage Data), 2006 (2002 Wage Data), and 2007 (2003 Wage Data); Wage Indexes and 3-Year Average of Hospital Average Hourly Wages, is corrected by—
a. Correcting the following entries effective November 3, 2006:
b. Deleting the following entries effective November 3, 2006:
c. Correcting the following entries effective November 21, 2006:
2. On page 571, third column, second full paragraph, that ends with the parenthetical phrase “(April 1-September 30, 2007),” the paragraph is corrected by adding a sentence to read as follows:
The separate wage index values for the first and second halves of FY 2007 can be viewed in Supplemental Table 2 on the CMS Web site at:
3. On page 573 in Table 5.—List of Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRGs), Relative Weighting Factors, and Geometric and Arithmetic Mean Length of Stay (LOS), first line (DRG 525), seventh column (weights), the figure “2.2268” is corrected to read “12.2268”.
We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the extension of the expiration date for certain geographic reclassifications as implemented by Division B, Title I, section 106 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. These geographic classifications, which affected hospitals' wage indices, were previously set to expire on March 31, 2007 and are now extended to September 30, 2007.
Brian Slater, for hospital inpatient prospective payment systems questions, (410) 786-5229. Chris Smith-Ritter, for hospital outpatient prospective payment systems questions, (410) 786-4636.
Section 508 of Pub. L. 108-173 (hereinafter referred to as “section 508”) permitted a qualifying hospital to appeal the wage index classification otherwise applicable to the hospital and apply for reclassification to another area of the State in which the hospital was located (or, at the discretion of the Secretary, to an area within a contiguous State). Hospitals were required to submit their applications by February 15, 2004. In the February 13, 2004
Generally, geographic reclassifications are in effect for at least one entire Federal fiscal year (October 1 to September 30). However, in the FY 2006 IPPS final rule, to coincide with the end of section 508 reclassifications on March 31, 2007, we established special procedural rules under which individual and group reclassifications could take effect for only the second half of the fiscal year, from April 1 through September 30, 2007 (70 FR 47382, August 12, 2005). Consistent with those procedural rules, for FY 2007, some hospitals or geographic areas were assigned different geographic reclassifications and wage indices for the 1st half of FY 2007 than were assigned for the 2nd half of FY 2007 (71 FR 59886). Further, in accordance to section 1886(d)(8)(D) of the Act, we apply an adjustment to the IPPS standardized amounts to ensure that the effects of geographic reclassification are budget neutral. For FY 2008, we calculated one budget neutrality adjustment that reflects the average of the adjustments required for 1st and 2nd half fiscal year reclassifications, respectively. We received only favorable comments on our policy of providing for half-year reclassifications in FY 2007.
Division B, Title I, section 106 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-432) extends any geographic reclassification that was set to expire on March 31, 2007 by 6 months until September 30, 2007. Consistent with the mid-year manner in which we originally implemented section 508 (Pub. L. 108-173) in FY 2005, we will not alter previously announced wage indices or geographic reclassifications for hospitals whose reclassifications are not extended by section 106. Such hospitals will continue to receive the wage indices and reclassifications previously announced in the October 11, 2006 IPPS
Also, as with the section 508 reclassifications, the 6-month extension applies to both hospital inpatient and outpatient department services. However, because the Congress limited the extensions available under section 106 to a 6-month period, for hospital outpatient department services and payment under OPPS, a hospital that has a geographic reclassification extended from March 31, 2007 to September 30, 2007 will revert to its previously scheduled April 1st reclassification or its home area wage index from October 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007. As discussed in the previous paragraph, the OPPS wage index received for October 1 through December 31, 2007 will not be affected by the section 106 extension.
We have instructed the Medicare Administrative Contractors (MAC) for the affected providers to continue any geographic reclassifications that were set to expire on March 31, 2007 through September 30, 2007.
As described in section I of this Notice, for FY 2007, we allowed some reclassifications to take effect for only half of the fiscal year, and we calculated separate wage indices for the first and second halves of the year for the areas affected by such reclassifications. Hospitals receiving a section 508 reclassification receive the wage index for reclassified hospitals, when such a wage index applies. Because there may be two separate wage indices for hospitals for the first and second halves of the year, a small number of hospitals whose reclassifications are being extended under section 106 will receive the April 1-September 30, 2007 wage index (that is, the wage index value for the second half of the year). Thus, even if these hospitals are reclassified to the same area as in the first half of the year, the hospitals may see a change in their wage indices (see Tables 4A-2, 4B-2, and 4C-2 further corrected on January 5, 2007 (72 FR 569) and March xx, 2007 (72 FR XXX) for a listing of areas where the wage index is changing between the 1st and 2nd half of the fiscal year). We believe such a change is appropriate given section 106's focus on extending the actual geographic reclassification, and not the specific wage index assignment, for the additional 6 months.
When applying section 508, we required each hospital to submit a request in writing by February 15, 2004, to the Medicare Geographic Classification Review Board (MGCRB), with a copy to CMS. CMS will neither require nor accept written requests for the extension required by section 106, since that section simply provides a 6-month continuation for any reclassification set to expire March 31, 2007. Thus, for example, hospitals that were not reclassified under section 508 should not send written requests to the MGCRB requesting section 106 extensions.
Providers affected by section 106 are listed below:
We have examined the impact of this notice using the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review), and Executive Order 13132.
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). This notice implements a statutory provision that would increase payments to hospitals by less than $100 million and is therefore not a major rule.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Again, although we do not consider this notice to be a rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking, we note that this notice does not impose any costs on State or local governments. Therefore, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 would not be applicable.
Section 106 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 extends any geographic reclassification that was set to expire on March 31, 2007 by six months until September 30, 2007. We estimate the impact of this provision will be to increase payments to hospitals by $80 million.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this notice was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Section 106 of Public Law 109-432.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice of CMS Ruling.
This notice announces a CMS Ruling that establishes a process for own motion review of Medicare Prescription Drug Program (Part D) cases by the Medicare Appeals Council.
Arrah Tabe-Bedward, (410) 786-7129 or Kathryn McCann Smith, (410) 786-7623.
The CMS Acting Administrator signed Ruling CMS-4083-NR on March 15, 2007. The text of the CMS Ruling is as follows:
Sections 1860D-4(g) and (h) of the Social Security Act (the Act) and the implementing regulations at 42 CFR part 423, subpart M, establish a Part D enrollee's right to appeal an adverse coverage determination made by a Part D plan sponsor (“plan sponsor”), as defined at 42 CFR 423.4, that results in the denial of prescription drug coverage the enrollee believes he or she is entitled to receive under the Part D program. This includes a plan sponsor's decision not to provide or pay for a Part D drug, failure to provide a coverage determination in a timely manner when a delay would adversely affect the enrollee's health, a decision concerning a tiering or non-formulary exceptions request, and a decision on the amount
Section 1860D-4(h) of the Act provides that plan sponsors follow appeals procedures in § 1852(g)(5) of the Act that are similar to those applicable to Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations for Part C appeals. Section 1860D-4(h) is silent with respect to own motion review by the MAC. Section 1852(g)(5) provides that enrollees in MA plans who are dissatisfied with determinations regarding their Part C benefits are entitled, if they meet the amount in controversy requirement, to a hearing before the Secretary to the same extent as is provided in § 205(b) of the Act and judicial review of the Secretary's final decision as provided in § 205(g) of the Act. Section 1869(b)(1)(A) of the Act, which sets forth the requirements for FFS appeals, contains similar language to that set forth in § 1852(g)(5) and also refers to § 205(b) and (g). Again, these sections of the Act do not discuss own motion review by the MAC.
These statutory concepts are reflected in the Part D regulations at 42 CFR part 423, subpart M and the Part C regulations at 42 CFR part 422, subpart M. The Part D regulations state that, unless otherwise provided, the Part C regulations regarding appeals will apply to Part D appeals “to the extent they are appropriate.” 42 CFR 423.562(c). The Part D regulations regarding MAC review do not provide any guidance on own motion review and, instead, at § 423.620, explicitly state that the regulations in part 422, subpart M, regarding MAC review apply to Part D appeals “to the extent applicable.” The Part C regulations governing appeals at the ALJ and MAC levels provide that adjudicators apply the FFS appeals procedures in 42 CFR part 405 “to the extent that they are appropriate.” 42 CFR 422.562(d). Like the Part D regulations, the Part C regulations governing MAC review are silent on own motion review and state that the FFS regulations “regarding MAC review apply to matters addressed by this subpart to the extent that they are appropriate.” 42 CFR 422.608.
Therefore, because there is no guidance on own motion review by the MAC in the existing Part C and Part D statutory and regulatory frameworks, we look to the FFS regulations. This Ruling is intended to establish the process for own motion review of Part D cases by the MAC using the process established under the FFS regulations, as appropriate. This Ruling does not limit the authority of the Secretary to issue future rulemaking or guidance documents addressing Part D appeals issues, including the MAC's own motion review authority.
We believe that it is appropriate to provide a process for making own motion referrals to the MAC for Part D appeals so that there is a means for seeking MAC review of ALJ decisions that may warrant review. Based on the existing statutory and regulatory frameworks, and for the limited purpose of this Ruling, we look to the FFS appeals process for MAC own motion review set out in 42 CFR part 405, subpart I to assist in developing this process and determining (1) who may refer cases to the MAC, (2) the standards of referral and review, and (3) other procedural requirements.
Under 42 CFR 405.1110(a), the MAC may decide on its own motion to review a decision or dismissal by an ALJ. In addition, CMS or its contractors may refer a case to the MAC for consideration under this own motion authority if the referral is made anytime within 60 days after the date of an ALJ's decision or dismissal.
Section 1860D-4(h)(1) of the Act establishes that only a “Part D eligible individual shall be entitled to bring such an appeal.” Moreover, existing regulations do not provide plan sponsors with the ability to bring an appeal or afford plan sponsors party status to an appeal. Thus, plan sponsors do not have a direct right of appeal to the MAC. Similarly, the existing Part D statute and regulations do not explicitly allow either CMS or its contractors to participate in or be parties to ALJ hearings.
For purposes of this Ruling, we believe it is appropriate for the MAC to decide on its own motion to review a decision or dismissal by an ALJ. In addition, we believe that it is appropriate that only CMS or the Part D IRE make referrals to the MAC for own motion review. As a procedural matter and for efficiency, we expect that most of the referrals will be made through the Part D IRE, because it is the entity responsible for monitoring plan effectuation of favorable decisions and serves as a repository for all completed Part D ALJ cases and associated files. The Part D IRE has neither a business nor a financial interest in the outcome of a case. As such, the Part D IRE is generally in the best position to objectively examine whether a particular case meets the standard for referral. While the process established by this Ruling does not permit a plan sponsor to refer a Part D case to the MAC for own motion review, plan sponsors will continue to have the opportunity to communicate with the Part D IRE about cases that may warrant such a referral. Thus, we consider it appropriate, and consistent with part 405, subpart I, to allow the MAC to review an ALJ decision or dismissal on its own motion, and to allow only CMS or the Part D IRE to refer cases to the MAC to consider review under its own motion authority.
With respect to the standards for referral of cases, the regulations at § 405.1110 distinguish between cases in which CMS or its contractor participated or appeared as a party in the appeal at the ALJ level and cases in which CMS or its contractor did not participate. Where CMS or its contractor did not participate or appear as a party, § 405.1110(b)(1) and (c)(2) establish that CMS or any of its contractors may refer a case to the MAC if the ALJ decision or dismissal contains an error of law material to the outcome of the claim or presents a broad policy or procedural issue that may affect the public interest. In addition to the referral standards that apply when CMS or its contractor did not participate or appear as a party, for cases in which CMS or its contractor participated or was a party at the ALJ level, § 405.1110(b)(1)(ii) and (c)(1) provide that CMS or its contractor may also refer cases for own motion review by the MAC if, in CMS’ view, the ALJ
Similar to how § 405.1110 sets forth different referral standards depending on whether or not CMS or its contractor participate in the ALJ hearing, the regulations provide differing standards for review. Section 405.1110(c)(1) provides that when a referral is made in instances where CMS or its contractor participated or appeared as a party, the MAC exercises its own motion authority if there is an error of law material to the outcome of the case, an abuse of discretion by the ALJ, the decision is not consistent with the preponderance of the evidence of record, or there is a broad policy or procedural issue that may affect the public interest. In deciding whether to accept review under this standard, the MAC will limit its consideration of the ALJ's action to those exceptions raised by CMS.
Section 405.1110(c)(2) provides that when referral is made in instances where CMS or its contractor did not participate or appear as a party, the MAC will accept review if the decision or dismissal contains an error of law material to the outcome of the case, or presents a broad policy or procedural issue that may affect the public interest. In deciding whether to accept review, the MAC will limit its consideration of the ALJ's action to those exceptions raised by CMS.
As previously noted, since neither the Part D statute nor the current Part D regulations explicitly allow a Part D plan sponsor, CMS, or a CMS contractor to participate in or be parties to appeals at the ALJ level, we consider it appropriate to implement the standard of referral and review in § 405.1110 that applies when CMS and its contractor do not participate in or are not parties to the ALJ hearing. Accordingly, under this Ruling, CMS or the Part D IRE may refer a Part D case to the MAC and the MAC will accept review of a Part D case if the ALJ's decision or dismissal contains an error of law material to the outcome of the case or presents a broad policy or procedural issue that may affect the general public interest. In deciding whether to accept review, the MAC will limit its consideration of the ALJ's action to those exceptions raised by CMS or the Part D IRE.
For the most part, the other provisions set forth under § 405.1110 apply appropriately to Part D cases. The requirements related to the 60-day time frame for filing the written referral and for providing notice to other interested parties set forth in § 405.1110(b)(2) are processes that are appropriate to apply to Part D cases. See also 42 CFR 405.1110(a). Written referrals must state the reasons why CMS or its contractors believe the MAC must review the case on its own motion. CMS or its contractors will send a copy of its referral to all parties to the ALJ's action and to the ALJ. Similarly, the requirements in § 405.1110(b)(2) regarding the filing of exceptions to the referral by submitting written comments to the MAC within 20 days of the referral notice, and sending such comments to CMS, appropriately apply to Part D cases.
We also believe it is appropriate to apply to Part D cases those requirements in § 405.1110(d) regarding the MAC's action. This provision states that if the MAC decides to review a decision or dismissal on its own motion, it will mail the results of its action to all the parties to the hearing and to CMS if it is not already a party to the hearing. The notice of the referral in § 405.1110(b)(2) requires that the enrollee will be notified that the ALJ's decision may not be the final action in the case. If the MAC accepts review, it may adopt, modify, or reverse the decision or dismissal, may remand the case to an ALJ for further proceedings or may dismiss a hearing request. The MAC must issue its action no later than 90 days after receipt of the CMS referral, unless the 90-day period has been extended as provided in 405 CFR subpart I. The MAC may not, however, issue its action before the 20-day comment period has expired, unless it determines that the agency's referral does not provide a basis for reviewing the case. If the MAC does not act within the applicable adjudication deadline, the ALJ's decision or dismissal remains the final action in the case. We believe it is appropriate to apply these procedures to Part D cases that the MAC reviews on its own motion.
As described in this section, the provisions in § 405.1110 are procedural rules that apply appropriately to Part D appeals. Further, applying these regulatory processes to Part D appeals does not conflict with existing Part D requirements.
Sections 1852, 1860D-4(g)-(h), and 1869 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-22, 1395w-104 and 1395ff).
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces the sixth meeting of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) Technical Advisory Group (TAG). The purpose of the EMTALA TAG is to review regulations affecting hospital and physician responsibilities under EMTALA to individuals who come to a hospital seeking examination or treatment for medical conditions. The primary purpose of the sixth meeting is to enable the EMTALA TAG to hear additional testimony and further consider written responses from medical societies and other organizations on specific issues considered by the EMTALA TAG at previous meetings. The public is permitted to attend this meeting and, to the extent that time permits and at the discretion of the Chairperson, the EMTALA TAG may hear comments from the floor.
Eric Ruiz, (410) 786-0247. George Morey, (410) 786-4653.
Sections 1866(a)(1)(I), 1866(a)(1)(N), and 1867 of the Social Security Act (the Act) impose specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services. These obligations concern individuals who come to a hospital emergency department and request or have a request made on their behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) applies to all these individuals, regardless of whether or not they are beneficiaries of any program under the Act. Section 1867 of the Act sets forth requirements for medical screening examinations for medical conditions, as well as necessary stabilizing treatment or appropriate transfer.
Regulations implementing the EMTALA legislation are set forth at 42 CFR 489.20(l), (m), (q), and (r) and § 489.24. Section 945 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173), mandates that the Secretary establish a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for advice concerning issues related to EMTALA regulations and implementation.
Section 945 of the MMA specifies that the EMTALA TAG—
• Shall review the EMTALA regulations;
• May provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary concerning these regulations and their application to hospitals and physicians;
• Shall solicit comments and recommendations from hospitals, physicians, and the public regarding implementation of such regulations; and
• May disseminate information concerning the application of these regulations to hospitals, physicians, and the public.
The EMTALA TAG, as chartered under section 945 of the MMA, is also governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2) for the selection of members and the conduct of all meetings.
In the May 28, 2004
•
•
•
The initial portion of the meeting, which will convene at 9 a.m. on May 3, will involve opening remarks and a limited period of public testimony on issues related to EMTALA and its implementation. TAG members will have the opportunity to ask questions, prioritize the topics presented, and to conduct other necessary business. At the conclusion of each day's meeting, to the extent that time is available and at the discretion of the Chairperson, the public will be permitted a reasonable time to comment on issues being considered by the TAG.
The tentative agenda for the EMTALA TAG meetings is as follows:
Only individuals who register and submit written testimony as specified in the Registration section of this notice will be considered registered presenters. The time allotted for each presentation will be approximately 5 minutes and will be based on the number of registered presenters. Presenters will
If there are individuals who cannot attend the meeting but wish to submit comments/statements regarding issues related to the EMTALA TAG, we will accept and present their written comments/statements at the meeting if their comments/statements are received by postal mail or e-mail at the address listed in the
The Center for Medicare Management of CMS is coordinating meeting registration. While there is no registration fee, all individuals must register to attend due to limited seating. As specified in the
You may register by e-mail to Marianne Myers at
Since this meeting will be held in a Federal government building, Federal security measures are applicable. As noted above, in planning your arrival time, we recommend allowing additional time to clear security. In order to gain access to the building, participants must bring a government-issued photo identification such as a driver's license or a passport and a copy of your registration information for the meeting. Access may be denied to persons without proper identification.
All persons entering the building must pass through a metal detector. In addition, all items brought to CMS, whether personal or for the purpose of demonstration or to support a presentation, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for demonstration or to support a presentation.
Section 945 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft document for the public, FDA advisory committee members, and FDA staff entitled “Guidance for the Public, FDA Advisory Committee Members, and FDA Staff: Procedures for Determining Conflict of Interest and Eligibility for Participation in FDA Advisory Committees” dated March 2007. This draft guidance describes the factors and analyses that should be used in considering whether an advisory committee member has a potential conflict of interest and whether participation in a meeting is appropriate. This guidance is intended to help the public, FDA advisory committee members, and FDA staff to understand and implement FDA policy in applying the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. This draft guidance, when finalized, will replace the guidance document entitled “FDA Waiver Criteria 2000.”
Submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance by May 21, 2007. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Policy (HF-11), Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. Submit phone requests to 800-835-4709 or 301-827-1800. Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
Jill Hartzler Warner, Office of Policy and Planning (HF-11), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-3370.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft document, entitled “Guidance for the Public, FDA Advisory Committee Members, and FDA Staff; Procedures for Determining Conflict of Interest and Eligibility for Participation in FDA Advisory Committees,” dated March 2007. FDA's advisory committees provide independent and expert advice on scientific, technical, and policy matters related to the development and evaluation of products regulated by FDA.
FDA is committed to strictly adhering to the laws and regulations governing the process for selecting advisory committee members. FDA for many years has screened, prior to each meeting, all advisory committee members who are special government employees or regular government employees, to determine whether the potential for a financial conflict of interest exists. The agency may grant a waiver to allow an individual to
We welcome comments on the draft guidance and specifically seek comment on (1) whether the draft approach, due to its stringency, could unduly restrict eligibility of needed experts for advisory committee meetings, (2) whether the $50,000 figure generally employed as the maximum amount for disqualifying financial interests, after applying certain exemptions, is appropriate or, alternatively, whether a different figure (higher or lower) should be used, and (3) whether and what additional examples should be provided for the steps described in this draft guidance for determining conflicts of interest and eligibility for participating in an advisory committee meeting.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance represents the agency's current thinking on procedures for considering conflict of interest and eligibility for participation in FDA advisory committees. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at:
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (section 3506(c)(2)(A) of Title 44, United States Code, as amended by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) publishes periodic summaries of proposed projects being developed for submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, call the HRSA Reports Clearance Officer on (301) 443-1129.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The National Health Service Corps (NHSC) Scholarship program provides scholarships to students in health professions in return for service in a federally-designated Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA). If awarded an NHSC scholarship, the program requires the schools and the awardees to review and complete data collection worksheets for each year that the student is an NHSC Scholar. The forms provide information on the following: Verification of enrollment status; current curriculum; current contact information; and verification of accuracy of student data. The worksheets require minimal burden and provide the program with information that is required to determine if scholars are maintaining their status of eligibility as required by Federal statute.
The annual estimate of burden is as follows:
Send comments to Susan G. Queen, Ph.D., HRSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 10-33, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
Proposed agenda items are subject to change.
Time will be provided each day for public comment. Individuals who wish to provide public comment or who plan to attend the meeting and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the ACHDGDNC Staff, Jill F. Shuger, M.S. (contact information provided below).
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), HHS.
Final Agency Guidance and Response to Public Comments.
HRSA is publishing a final Agency Guidance (“Policy Information Notice” (PIN) 2007-09) to describe and clarify HRSA's current policy and process for resolving issues and conflicts related to health center service area overlap. The PIN, “Service Area Overlap: Policy and Process,” and the Agency's “Response to Public Comments” are available on the Internet at
The effective date of this final Agency guidance is March 12, 2007.
On June 22, 2006, HRSA made the draft PIN, “Service Area Overlap: Policy and Process,” available for public comment on HRSA's Web site. The purpose of the PIN is to describe and clarify HRSA's current policy and process for resolving issues and conflicts related to health center service area overlap. Comments were due to HRSA by August 18, 2006.
Comments were received from 28 organizations and/or individuals. After review and careful consideration of all comments received, HRSA amended the PIN to incorporate certain recommendations from the public. The final PIN reflects these changes.
In addition to making the final PIN available on HRSA's Web site, HRSA is also posting the Agency's “Response to Public Comments.” The purpose of that document is to summarize the major comments received and describe the Agency's response, including any corresponding changes made to the PIN. Where comments did not result in a revision to the PIN, explanations are provided.
Please contact Shannon Dunne Faltens at 301-594-4060 for any questions regarding this PIN.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Office on (240) 276-1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
This
Sections 1921 through 1935 of the Public Health Services Act (U.S.C. 300x-21 to 300x-35) provide for annual allotments to assist States to plan, carry out and evaluate activities to prevent and treat substance abuse and for related activities. Under the provisions of the law, States may receive allotments only after an application is submitted and approved by the Secretary, DHHS. For the Federal fiscal year 2008-2010 SAPT block Grant application cycles, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will provide States with revised application guidance and instructions to implement changes made in accordance with the recommendations of the Office of Management and Budget's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) analysis. In addition, SAMHSA has incorporated recommendations from the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors and their member States in the revisions and clarification of data reporting requirements and instructions.
During negotiations with the States resulting in agreement on the National Outcome Measures for substance abuse treatment and prevention, SAMHSA pledged to the States to:
1. Reduce respondent burden;
2. Work with the States to improve performance management of the SAPT Block Grant;
3. Improve the availability, timeliness, and quality of data available to Federal, State, and provider administrators of block grant funded programs.
This revision of the Uniform Application and Regulation for the SAPT Block Grant takes initial steps toward implementing these commitments. Individual States may reduce their respondent burden by selecting the option of using SAMHSA pre-populated tables for Section IVa and b. The data for these tables would be drawn from SAMHSA data sets known as DASIS and NSDUH by SAMHSA and provided to the States. SAMHSA is providing the States with the option of reporting on prevention expenditures utilizing the six prevention strategies or utilizing the IOM classification of Universal, Selective or Indicated and is seeking comment regarding the most useful manner to convey and collect the primary prevention expenditure data. SAMHSA has designed the State Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) competitive program and funded contracts in States without a SPF SIG to support data driven prevention planning by Substance Abuse State Agencies. This application has been modified to encourage the States to use the State level data collected with support from these programs in the planning in section III of this SAPT Block grant application. The addition of on-going provider performance monitoring (page 90-7) and the narratives describing State Performance Management and Leadership (p. 93) begin the process of aligning the application with the performance management criteria embodied in the OMB PART program.
In the coming twelve months, SAMHSA will continue to work with the States to assess the feasibility and usefulness of pre-populating the following sections of the application with data extracted from SAMHSA data sets to further reduce respondent burden:
In addition, NSDUH estimates of persons (1) needed, (2) needing and seeking, and (3) needing, seeking and not receiving treatment will be examined for application to the planning requirements of PART requirements.
SAMHSA will also code all application content against PART requirements to insure that all requirements are appropriately addressed by applicants and Federal staff.
In December 2004, SAMHSA and the States agreed on the goal of having all States reporting the NOMs measures as defined at the meeting by the end of a 3-year implementation period starting in FFY 2005 and concluding at the end of FFY 2007. By January 2006, supportive technical assistance on information technology design and payment for data submitted became available by the SAMHSA State Outcomes Monitoring and Management System Programs. States who have participated in the State Outcomes Monitoring and Management System NOMs subcontract may choose to have their data pre-populated which would significantly reduce their reporting burden for this application. During the next twelve months SAMHSA in partnership with the States and all other SAPT Block Grant stakeholders, will develop standards for analyzing and responding to the results of NOMs data appropriate to each level of block grant fund administration including Federal, State, and Provider roles and responsibilities.
Revisions to the previously-approved application resulting from such stakeholder input reflect the following changes: (1) In Section I, Form 2, “Table of Contents,” was revised to appropriately enumerate the specific items within each section; (2) In Section II, the Narrative description of certain maintenance of effort and expenditure base calculations was simplified to require submission of such information only if it represented a revision from previous years' submissions. This section was also moved to its more appropriate place in the application immediately preceding reporting on maintenance of efforts; (3) In Section II, Form 4, “Substance Abuse State Agency Spending Report,” was amended to use consistent language for services expenditure reporting and planning across Form 4, 6, and 11. On Form 4 and Form 11, Row 1, the activity to be reported on is entitled: SAPT Block Grant funds for Substance Abuse Prevention (other than primary prevention) and Treatment Services to be consistent with the terminology used in Form 6, Column 5; (4) In Section II, Form 6, Entity Inventory, instructions were clarified to communicate that information on all substances abuse prevention and treatment service providers funded through the SSA was sought; (5) In section II, Form 7A, “Treatment Utilization Matrix” instructions were clarified to communicate that information on persons admitted and served within the specific reporting period wa sought to enable the SAPTBG Program to address the recommendations of the FY 2003 OMB Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) analysis; (6) In Section II, Form 7B, “Number Of Persons Served (Unduplicated Count) For Alcohol And Other Drug Use In State Funded Services,” instructions were clarified in a similar manner as Form 7a and a separate data cell was added to accommodate States' desires to report on clients admitted in a prior reporting period but also continuing to be served with the current reporting period; (7) In Section II, Table I (Maintenance), “Single State Agency (SSA) Expenditures for Substances Abuse” was amended to reflect the appropriate State fiscal year and the corresponding instructions were amended; (8) In Section II, Table II (Maintenance), “Statewide Non-Federal Expenditures for Tuberculosis Services to Substance Abusers in Treatment,” was amended to reflect the appropriate State fiscal year and the corresponding instructions were amended; (9) In Section II, Table III (Maintenance), “Statewide Non-Federal Expenditures for HIV Early Intervention Services to Substance Abusers in Treatment,” was amended to allow States to enter the appropriate State fiscal year and the corresponding instruction were amended; (10) In Section II, Table IV (Maintenance), “SSA Expenditures for Women's Services,” was amended to reflect the appropriate fiscal year and the corresponding instructions were amended; (11) In Section III, Form 11, “Intended Use Plan,” was amended to use consistent language for services expenditure reporting and planning; (12) In Section IV, subparts IV-A and IV-B, “Voluntary Treatment Performance Measures” and “Voluntary Prevention Performance Measures” all references to the term Voluntary are deleted as reporting on these measures will no longer be voluntary; (13) In Section IV-A, “Treatment Performance Measures,” the general instructions were amended to implement mandatory reporting on performance measures forms T1-T7 and a narrative requirement is proposed to collect information on States internal practices to use performance measure data to manage their systems; (14) In Section IV-A, “Treatment Performance Measures” Forms T1-T7 data specifications replaced State detail sheet narrative requirements for forms T1-T7 to reduce the burden of reporting and improve the uniformity of data quality information being collected; (15) The Section IV-A, “Treatment Performance Measures,” T6 on infectious disease control efforts was deleted because it was determined to be duplicative of information requirements in Section II of the application; (16) In Section IV, subpart IV-B, “Prevention Performance Measures,” Forms P5 and P6 were removed, P1-P15 were substituted for the previous Form P1-P4 and the instructions were amended to address pre-population of prevention performance data.
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 7-1044, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this request for comments announces that the Coast Guard is forwarding four Information Collection Requests (ICRs), abstracted below, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to request an extension of their approval for the following collections of information. The ICRs are: (1) 1625-0007, Characteristics of Liquid Chemicals Proposed for Bulk Water Movement; (2) 1625-0049, Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG); (3) 1625-0064, Plan Approval and Records for Subdivision and Stability Regulations—Title 46 CFR Subchapter S; and (4) 1625-0074, Direct User Fees for Inspection or Examination of U.S. and Foreign Commercial Vessels. Our ICRs describe the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comment by OIRA ensures that we impose only paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Please submit comments on or before April 23, 2007.
To make sure that your comments and related material do not reach the docket [USCG-2006-26741] or OIRA more than once, please submit them by only one of the following means:
(1)(a) By mail to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. (b) By mail to OIRA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, to the attention of the Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
(2)(a) By delivery to room PL-401 at the address given in paragraph (1)(a) above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 366-9329. (b) By delivery to OIRA, at the address given in paragraph (1)(b) above, to the attention of the Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
(3) By fax to (a) the Facility at (202) 493-2298 or by contacting (b) OIRA at (202) 395-6566. To ensure your comments are received in time, mark the fax to the attention of Mr. Nathan Lesser, Desk officer for the Coast Guard.
(4)(a) Electronically through the Web site for the Docket Management System (DMS) at
The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for this notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet at
Copies of the complete ICRs are available through this docket on the Internet at
Mr. Arthur Requina, Office of Information Management, telephone (202) 475-3523 or fax (202) 475-3929, for questions on these documents; or Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, (202) 493-0402, for questions on the docket.
The Coast Guard invites comments on the proposed collections of information to determine whether the collections are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information that is the subject of the collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments to DMS or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICRs addressed. Comments to DMS must contain the docket number of this request, [USCG 2006-26741]. For your comments to OIRA to be considered, it is best if OIRA receives them on or before the April 23, 2007.
The Coast Guard and OIRA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change the documents supporting this collection of information or even the underlying requirements in view of them.
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard has already published the 60-day notice (72 FR 970, January 9, 2007) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments.
1.
For this collection, we corrected item 13 of the ICR cover sheet to reflect the supporting statement explanation of the difference in burden hours. The difference is because of an adjustment rather than a program change. A corrected ICR has been added to the docket.
2.
For this collection, we corrected item 13 of the ICR cover sheet to reflect the supporting statement explanation of the difference in burden hours. The difference is because of an adjustment rather than a program change. A corrected ICR has been added to the docket.
3.
4.
60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. OMB Control Number 1615-0015.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until May 22, 2007.
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice, and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352, or via e-mail at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the information collection instrument, please contact Richard A. Sloan, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529; 202-272-8377.
60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Form N-336, Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings Under Section 336; OMB Control No. 1615-0050.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until May 22, 2007.
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice, and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352, or via e-mail at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the information collection instrument, please contact Richard A. Sloan, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529; 202-272-8377.
60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Form N-600K, Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate under Section 322. OMB Control Number 1615-0087.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until May 22, 2007.
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice, and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352, or via e-mail at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information,
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the information collection instrument, please contact Richard A. Sloan, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529; 202-272-8377.
60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Form I-526, Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur, OMB Control No. 1615-0026.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until May 22, 2007.
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice, and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352, or via e-mail at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the information collection instrument, please contact Richard A. Sloan, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529; 202-272-8377.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice of upcoming meeting via conference call.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of an upcoming meeting of the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (the Committee) to be held via telephone conference. This meeting is open to the general public, which may participate by following the instructions below.
The conference call meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 10, 2007, from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. eastern daylight time.
Information concerning the conference call can be obtained from the Department's Consensus Committee Administering Organization, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Interested parties can link onto the NFPA's Web site for instructions concerning how to participate, and for contact information for the conference call, in the section marked “Business” “Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee Information”. The link can be found at:
Alternately, interested parties may contact Jill McGovern of NFPA at (617) 984-7404 (this is not a toll-free number) for conference call information.
William W. Matchneer III, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Regulatory Affairs and Manufactured Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-6409 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with Sections 10(a) and (b) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee was established under Section 604(a)(3) of the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5403(a)(3). The Committee is charged with providing recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revise, and interpret manufactured home construction and safety standards and procedural and enforcement regulations, and with developing and recommending proposed model installation standards to the Secretary.
The purpose of this conference call meeting is for the Committee to review and provide comments to the Secretary on Title 24, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 3286, Manufactured Home Installation Program Draft Final Rule.
A. Roll Call.
B. Welcome and opening remarks.
C. Full Committee meeting for discussion of the Manufactured Home Installation Program Draft Final Rule.
E. Adjournment.
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, HUD.
60-day Notice of Intent to Request Approval of Information Collection from Office of Management and Budget and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) is issuing public notice of its intent to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve an information collection.
The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 22, 2007. Comments are invited on whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of OFHEO, including whether the information will have practical utility; and the accuracy of OFHEO's estimates of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
• U.S. Mail, United Parcel Post, Federal Express, or Other Mail Service:
•
•
OFHEO further requests that comments submitted in hard copy also be accompanied by the electronic version in Microsoft® Word or in portable document format (PDF) on 3.5″ disk or CD-ROM. Copies of all comments received will be posted without change on the OFHEO Internet Web site at
The title of the information collection is OFHEO Application for Employment; it is an on-line job application form. The application form may be made available in paper copy by request. Collection of the information is necessary to gather data concerning potential new hires for OFHEO and the information will be used to evaluate the qualifications of applicants for a variety of positions. Persons responding to the information collection are U.S. citizens applying for employment with OFHEO. The estimated number of respondents is approximately 3,100 job applicants per year. Each application takes approximately 2 hours to complete initially, for a total of 6,200 estimated annual burden hours.
For further information, or to obtain a copy of the proposed information collection, please contact Mark Laponsky, Executive Director, telephone 202-414-3832 (not a toll-free number); Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, Fourth Floor, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. The telephone number for the
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 July 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 May 22, 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.
Our Regional Migratory Bird Permit Offices use information that we collect on permit applications 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) Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.).
(2) Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.).
(3) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668).
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 migratory bird permit applications and the reports associated with the permits. We have:
(1) Modified the format and content of the currently approved application forms so that they (a) are easier to understand and complete and (b) accommodate future electronic permitting.
(2) Added six new forms:
(a) FWS Form 3-200-15b (Eagle Parts for Native American Religious Purposes - Reorder Request) will enable Native Americans to send reorders directly to the National Eagle Repository, which distributes the parts, instead of to the Regional permit office.
(b) FWS Form 3-200-77 (Native American Religious Use - Eagle Take), FWS Form 3-200-78 (Native American Religious Use - Live Eagles), and FWS Form 3-200-79 (Special Purpose-Abatement Activities Using Raptors) will provide the public with applications specifically designed to address information necessary to issue permits for these activities.
(c) FWS Form 3-202-13 (Eagle Exhibition Annual Report) will facilitate reporting under Eagle Exhibition permits by clarifying that we need information about eagles only. Currently, permittees use FWS Form 3-202-5 (Special Purpose Possession Live/Dead (Education) Annual Report), which requests information on other migratory birds.
(d) FWS Form 3-202-14 (Native American Religious Use - Live Eagles Annual Report) will facilitate reporting under the permits for Native American religious use.
We are proposing to transfer FWS Forms 3-200-69 (CITES Import/Export - Eagle Transport for Scientific or Exhibition Purposes) and 3-200-70 (CITES Import/Export - Eagle Transportation for Indian Religious Purposes), which are currently approved under this IC, to OMB Control Number 1018-0093.
The following table lists the migratory bird permit application and report forms and burden estimates for each. We have rounded the annual burden hours to the nearest hour. An asterisk (*) denotes new forms.
We invite comments concerning this IC 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 IC.
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/or marine mammals.
Written data, comments or requests must be received by April 23, 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 application(s) 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 two male and two female captive-hatched resplendent quetzals (
The applicant requests a permit to import two male and two female captive-hatched horned guans (
The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples from hawksbill sea turtles (
The public is invited to comment on the following application for a permit to conduct certain activities with marine mammals. The applications were submitted to satisfy requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant requests an amendment to his permit application for additional observation areas and animals to study the vigilance behavior of northern sea otters (
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of issuance of permits for endangered species and/or marine mammals.
The following permits were issued.
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 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.
Notice is hereby given that on the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
This notice announces the availability of the Pacific Gas & Electric Company San Joaquin Valley Operations and Maintenance Program Final Habitat Conservation Plan (Plan), Implementing Agreement (IA), and the final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for public review and comment. The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is considering the proposed action of issuing a 30-year permit, pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (ESA), for take of 65 species (covered species) in response to receipt of an application from Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). The proposed permit would authorize take of individual members of animal species listed under the ESA. The permit is needed because take of species could occur during routine operations and maintenance activities and minor construction on PG&E's gas and electrical distribution facilities, and other activities associated with the implementation of the final Plan. These covered activities are to occur within a 12.1 million-acre planning area located in the San Joaquin Valley, California. The final Plan describes the actions and the measures PG&E will implement to minimize and mitigate take of the covered species.
A permit decision will occur no sooner than April 23, 2007. Written comments on the final documents must be received on or before this date.
Send written comments on the final documents to Lori Rinek, Division Chief, Conservation Planning and Recovery Division, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento, California 95825; facsimile 916-414-6713.
Nina Bicknese, Senior Fish and Wildlife Biologist, or Lori Rinek, Division Chief, Conservation Planning and Recovery, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, telephone 916-414-6600.
Copies of the final EIS/EIR, the Plan, and the IA may be obtained by contacting Nina Bicknese [see
Section 9 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1538) and implementing regulations prohibit the “take” of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. The term “take” is defined under the ESA to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532). “Harm” is defined by Service regulation to include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures listed wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, and sheltering (50 CFR 17.3(c)). Under limited circumstances, the Service may issue permits to authorize “incidental take” of listed species. Incidental take is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are found at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively.
Although take of listed plant species is not prohibited under the ESA, and therefore cannot be authorized under an incidental take permit, plant species may be included on a permit in recognition of the conservation benefits provided to them under a habitat conservation plan. The applicant, PG&E, would receive assurances under the Services “No Surprises” regulation 50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5) for all species, including plants, identified on the incidental take permit.
PG&E seeks a 30-year permit for incidental take, which may result from specific PG&E activities (covered activities) within a 12.1 million-acre planning area covering portions of nine counties in the California San Joaquin Valley: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Fresno, Kings, Kern, Mariposa, Madera, and Tulare counties. However, the majority of impacts are likely to occur on approximately 276,000 acres. Annual impacts to covered species and their habitats are expected to be limited to approximately 43 acres. Covered activities are defined in the Plan to include routine operations and maintenance activities and minor construction on PG&E's gas and electrical transmission and distribution facilities, and the management and monitoring of compensation lands. PG&E has requested a take permit for 65 covered species, 31 of which are currently listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA and 34 that are currently unlisted. Of these 65 species, PG&E requests a permit and assurances for 23 animal species and assurances for 42 plant species.
Covered species include 8 wildlife species, currently listed as endangered under the ESA [vernal pool tadpole shrimp (
Covered species also include plants and animals that are not listed under the ESA at the current time, including 9 wildlife species [midvalley fairy shrimp (
If the proposed Plan is approved and the permit issued, take authorization for listed covered wildlife species would be effective at the time of permit issuance. Take of the unlisted covered wildlife species would be authorized concurrent with the species' listing under the ESA, should they be listed during the duration of the incidental take permit.
PG&E proposes to minimize and mitigate incidental take of, and effects to, covered species associated with the covered activities described in the Plan. The proposed Plan is intended to be a comprehensive document, providing for regional species conservation and habitat planning, while allowing PG&E to better manage routine operations and maintenance activities and minor construction for PG&E's gas and electrical transmission and distribution facilities. The proposed Plan is also intended to provide a coordinated process for permitting and mitigating the take of covered species as an alternative to the current project-by-project approach.
In order to comply with the requirements of the ESA, the proposed Plan addresses a number of elements, including: goals and objectives; evaluation of the effects of covered activities on covered species, including indirect and cumulative effects; a conservation strategy; a monitoring and adaptive management program, with descriptions of changed circumstances and remedial measures; identification of funding sources; and an assessment of alternatives to the take of listed species expected under the proposed action. The proposed Plan's conservation strategy was designed to minimize and mitigate the impacts of covered activities, contribute to the recovery of listed covered species, and protect and enhance populations of unlisted covered species. A monitoring and reporting plan gauges the proposed Plan's success based on achievement of biological goals and objectives. The proposed Plan's adaptive management program allows for changes in the conservation strategy if the biological species objectives are not met, or new information becomes available to improve the efficacy of the Plan's conservation strategy.
The proposed Plan's conservation strategy uses three mechanisms to address the potential effects of PG&E covered-activities on covered species and their habitat: Avoidance and minimization measures, surveys to assess potential impacts on particular species, when warranted; and compensation for impacts that cannot be avoided. Pre-activity surveys will be conducted before any activity begins that has the potential to disturb 0.1 acre or more of habitat in an area of natural vegetation. Pre-activity surveys will be conducted for activities with the potential to disturb 0.1 acre or less of natural habitat when they occur in wetlands, vernal pools, or other areas of known sensitivity, including designated occupied habitat, or when covered species are known to be present. Where impacts cannot be avoided, the Plan provides a systematic process for compensation of temporary and permanent losses. All permanent losses of habitat, suitable for one or more of the covered species, will be compensated at a 3:1 ratio (3 acres created, restored, or conserved for every acre lost), and temporary losses of suitable habitat will be compensated at a ratio of 0.5:1. Permanent and temporary loss of wetlands, including vernal pools, will be compensated at a 3:1 ratio using existing mitigation banks. Compensation lands must offer habitat characteristics similar to those of the lands disturbed or lost. Several approaches may be used to provide appropriate compensation lands: PG&E purchase of conservation lands, purchase of mitigation credits from existing mitigation banks, establishment of conservation easements on lands currently in PG&E ownership, and purchase of conservation easements on non-PG&E lands. Compensation will be proposed by PG&E in advance and then approved by the Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in 5-year increments to ensure timely and continuous compensation.
The issuance of an incidental take permit triggers the need for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Accordingly, a joint NEPA/CEQA document has been prepared. The Service is the Lead Agency responsible for compliance under NEPA, and the CDFG is the Lead Agency with responsibility for compliance with CEQA. The Service published a notice in the
Alternative 1 (Plan with Reduced Take) would require a more comprehensive implementation of avoidance and minimization measures than the proposed Plan. Specifically, under Alternative 1, avoidance and minimization measures would be implemented for all activities, including all small disturbance activities. These additional requirements would reduce take below the level anticipated under the proposed Plan. Compensation ratios for habitat loss or disturbance would be the same as those for the proposed Plan.
Alternative 2 (Plan with Enhanced Compensation) would provide enhanced compensation for impacts that cannot be avoided. Under Alternative 2, both permanent and temporary losses of suitable habitat would be compensated at a 3:1 ratio. Loss of wetlands, including vernal pools, would be compensated at a 3:1 ratio if compensation is accomplished through an existing mitigation bank, and at a 6:1 ratio if compensation takes place outside existing banks. Avoidance, minimization measures, and thresholds for implementation of avoidance and minimization measures would be the same as those for the proposed Plan.
Alternative 3 (Plan with Reduced Number of Covered Species) would cover fewer species than the proposed Plan. The following species covered under the proposed Plan would not be covered under Alternative 3: the vernal pool crustaceans, limestone salamander, California red-legged frog, giant garter snake, bank swallow, tricolored blackbird, Buena Vista Lake shrew, riparian brush rabbit, riparian woodrat, Tipton kangaroo rat, and 11 plant species. This alternative would focus on those species that are currently Federal or State listed and have been identified as having more than 2 acres of habitat likely to be disturbed by operations or maintenance activities each year. Avoidance and minimization measures, thresholds for implementation of avoidance and minimization measures, and habitat compensation would be the same as the proposed Plan.
Under the No-Action/No-Project alternative, the proposed Plan would not be adopted, and a permit pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA would not be issued by the Service. Compliance with the ESA would continue to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
The final EIS/EIR is intended to accomplish the following: inform the public of the proposed Plan and the alternatives, address public comments received on the draft EIS/EIR; disclose the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the proposed action and each of the alternatives; and indicate any irreversible commitment of resources that would result from the implementation of the proposed Plan.
The Service and PG&E invite the public to review the final EIS/EIR, proposed Plan, and the IA during a 30-day review period beginning on the date of this notice. Written comments from interested parties are welcome to ensure that the issues of public concern related to the proposed action are identified. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the office listed in the
We provide this notice in order to allow the public, agencies, or other organizations to review and comment on these final documents prior to our decision, pursuant to section 10(a) of the ESA and NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6 and 1506.10). The Service will evaluate the permit application, the associated final documents, and public comments submitted thereon to prepare a public Record of Decision (40 CFR 1505.2). No Federal decision on the permit will be made until at least 30 days after publication of this notice and subsequent issuance of the Record of Decision.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), publish this notice to list programs or portions of our programs that are eligible for inclusion in Fiscal Year 2007 funding agreements with self-governance tribes, and to list programmatic targets pursuant to section 405(c)(4) of the Tribal Self-Governance Act.
This notice expires on September 30, 2007.
Direct any inquiries or comments about this notice to the American Indian Liaison Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240.
For questions regarding self-governance, contact Patrick Durham, Native American Liaison, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240; telephone, 202-208-4133; fax 202-208-3524.
Title II of the Indian Self-Determination Act Amendments of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-413, the “Tribal Self-Governance Act” or the “Act”) instituted a permanent self-governance program at the Department of the Interior (DOI). Under the self-governance program, certain programs, services, functions, and activities, or portions thereof, in DOI bureaus other than the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are eligible to be planned, conducted, consolidated, and administered by a self-governance tribal government.
Under section 405(c) of the Act, the Secretary of the Interior is required to publish annually: (1) A list of non-BIA programs, services, functions, and activities, or portions thereof, that are eligible for inclusion in agreements negotiated under the self-governance
Under the Act, two categories of non-BIA programs are eligible for self-governance annual funding agreements (AFAs):
(1) Under section 403(b)(2) of the Act, any non-BIA program, service, function or activity that is administered by DOI that is “otherwise available to Indian tribes or Indians” can be administered by a tribal government through a self-governance AFA. The Department interprets this provision to authorize the inclusion of programs eligible for self-determination contracts under Title I of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638, as amended). Section 403(b)(2) also specifies: “nothing in this subsection may be construed to provide any tribe with a preference with respect to the opportunity of the tribe to administer programs, services, functions and activities, or portions thereof, unless such preference is otherwise provided by law.”
(2) Under section 403(c) of the Act, the Secretary may include other programs, services, functions, and activities or portions thereof that are of “special geographic, historical, or cultural significance” to a self-governance tribe.
Under section 403(k) of the Act, AFAs cannot include programs, services, functions, or activities that are inherently Federal or where the statute establishing the existing program does not authorize the type of participation sought by the tribe. However, a tribe (or tribes) need not be identified in the authorizing statutes in order for a program or element to be included in a self-governance AFA. While general legal and policy guidance regarding what constitutes an inherently Federal function exists, we will determine whether a specific function is inherently Federal on a case-by-case basis considering the totality of circumstances.
The Office of Self-Governance requested comments on the proposed list for all bureaus on June 14, 2006. A number of editorial and technical changes were provided by Interior's bureaus and incorporated into separate bureau-specific notices. While the notice of June 14, 2006, illustrated all eligible non-BIA programs for DOI, this notice is particular to the Fish and Wildlife Service.
1. Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments.
2. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation.
Below is a listing of the types of non-BIA Service programs, or portions thereof, that may be eligible for self-governance funding agreements because they either are “otherwise available to Indians” under Title I and not precluded by any other law, or may have “special geographic, historical, or cultural significance” to a participating tribe. The list represents the most current information on programs potentially available to tribes under a self-governance AFA.
We will also consider for inclusion in funding agreements other programs or activities not included below, but which, upon request of a self-governance tribe, we determine to be eligible under either sections 403(b)(2) or 403(c) of the Act. Tribes with an interest in such potential agreements are encouraged to begin such discussions.
Our mission is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Our primary responsibilities are for migratory birds, endangered species, freshwater and anadromous fisheries, and certain marine mammals. We also have a continuing cooperative relationship with a number of Indian tribes throughout the National Wildlife Refuge System and the Service's fish hatcheries. Any self-governance tribe may contact a national wildlife refuge or national fish hatchery directly concerning participation in our programs under the Act.
Some elements of the following programs may be eligible for inclusion in a self-governance AFA. We developed the list below based on the proximity of an identified self-governance tribe to a national park, monument, preserve, or recreation area and the types of programs that have components that may be suitable for contracting through a self-governance AFA. This list is not all-inclusive, but is representative of the types of Service programs which may be eligible for tribal participation through an AFA.
1.
2.
b. Habitat Surveys.
c. Sport Fish Restoration.
d. Capture of Depredating Migratory Birds.
e. Program Planning.
f. Habitat Restoration Activities.
3.
a. Cooperative Management of Conservation Programs.
b. Development and Implementation of Recovery Plans.
c. Conducting Status Surveys for High Priority Candidate Species.
d. Participation in the Development of Habitat Conservation Plans.
4.
a. Interpretation.
b. Outdoor Classrooms.
c. Visitor Center Operations.
d. Volunteer Coordination Efforts on- and off-Refuge.
5.
a. Analytical Devices.
b. Removal of Underground Storage Tanks.
c. Specific Cleanup Activities.
d. Natural Resource Economic Analysis.
e. Specific Field Data Gathering Efforts.
6.
a. Egg Taking.
b. Rearing/Feeding.
c. Disease Treatment.
d. Tagging.
e. Clerical/Facility Maintenance.
7.
a. Construction.
b. Planning Activities.
c. Habitat Monitoring and Management.
8.
a. Construction.
b. Farming.
c. Concessions.
d. Maintenance.
e. Comprehensive Management Planning.
f. Biological Program Efforts.
g. Habitat Management.
During Fiscal Year 2007, upon request of a self-governance tribe, the Fish and Wildlife Service will negotiate funding agreements for its eligible programs beyond those already negotiated.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Cancellation of the BLM Nevada Resource Advisory Council Recreation Subcommittee Meeting.
The March 29, 2007, meeting of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Resource Advisory Councils Recreation Subcommittee has been cancelled.
The Recreation Subcommittee was scheduled to meet Thursday, March 29, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office, located at 1340 Financial Boulevard in Reno, Nevada.
Doran Sanchez, Chief, Office of Communications (775) 861-6586, or Barbara Keleher, Outdoor Recreation Planner (775) 861-6628, at the BLM Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, Nevada.
The meeting announced by a notice at 72 FR 9580 Mar. 2, 2007 is cancelled. The public will be notified via
Notice is hereby given that on
In this action the United States sought injunctive relief and civil penalties pursuant to Section 113(b) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA”) 42 U.S.C. 7413(b), for alleged violations by Defendant MFS, Inc. of Section 112 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7412, and the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDD. Defendant MFS, Inc. owns and operates a mineral wool production plant in the City of Bethlehem, Northampton County, Pennsylvania and is therefore subject to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“NESHAP”) for mineral wool manufacturers codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDD (“Mineral Wool or MW NESHAP”), specifically §§ 63.1175-63.1196. The Consent Decree requires the performance of injunctive relief including initial performance testing of the MFS facility, stipulated penalties for violations of Decree requirements and the payment of a civil penalty to the United States in the amount of $109,000. The Decree authorizes MFS to use an alternative test protocol set forth in Appendix A to the Decree to determine compliance with the particulate matter (“PM”) emission limits set forth in the Mineral Wool NESHAP, set forth in 40 CFR subpart DDD. If EPA determines that MFS has not complied with the NESHAP, the Decree requires MFS to further submit a plan to achieve compliance with the NESHAP subject to EPA review and approval. The Decree provides for stipulated penalties for noncompliance with the Decree requirements.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the lodged Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to
The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and at U.S. EPA Region III in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. During the public comment period, the Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
By Notice dated November 28, 2006, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture small quantities of marihuana derivatives for research purposes. In reference to drug code 7360 (Marihuana), the company plans to bulk manufacture cannabidiol. In reference to drug code 7370 (Tetrahydrocannabinols), the company will manufacture a synthetic THC. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Cayman Chemical Company to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Cayman Chemical Company 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 security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated November 21, 2006, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture Phenylacetone to be used in the manufacture of Amphetamine for distribution to its customers. The bulk 2,5-Dimethoxyamphetamine will be used for conversion into non-controlled substances.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of ISP Freetown Fine Chemicals, Inc. to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated ISP Freetown Fine Chemicals, Inc. 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 security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated November 21, 2006, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk 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 determined that the registration of JFC Technologies, LLC to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest 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 security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated November 21, 2006, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for sale to its customers.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Johnson Matthey, Inc to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Johnson Matthey, Inc 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 security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated November 21, 2006, and published in the
The company plans to cultivate marihuana for the National Institute of Drug Abuse for research approved by the Department of Health and Human Services.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of National Center for Natural Products Research-NIDA MProject, University of Mississippi to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated National Center for Natural Products Research-NIDA MProject, University of Mississippi 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 security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated November 21, 2006, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substance in bulk for formulation into the pharmaceutical controlled substance Marinol
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Norac, Inc to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Norac, Inc 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 security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated January 16, 2007, and published in the
By Notice dated November 28, 2006, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture a chemical that is a derivative of cocaine that will be sold to another company for research purposes.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of
Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on January 31, 2007, Penick Corporation, 33 Industrial Park Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Poppy Straw Concentrate (9670), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II:
The company plans on manufacturing Poppy Straw Concentrate for internal use and on manufacturing other bulk controlled substance intermediates for sale to their customers.
Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such a substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).
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, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL, Washington, DC 20537; or any being sent via express mail should be sent to DEA Headquarters, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL, 2401 Jefferson-Davis Highway, Alexandria, Virginia 22301; and must be filed no later than May 22, 2007.
Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on December 7, 2006, Sigma Aldrich Research, Biochemicals, Inc., 1-3 Strathmore Road, Natick, Massachusetts 01760, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule I:
The company plans on manufacturing reference standards for research purposes only.
Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such a substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).
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, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL; or any being sent via express mail should be sent to DEA Headquarters, Attention: DEA >Federal Register Representative/ODL, 2401 Jefferson-Davis Highway, Alexandria, Virginia 22301; and must be filed no later than May 22, 2007.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comment.
OSHA solicits public comment concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements specified in its Standard on Derricks (29 CFR 1910.181).
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by May 22, 2007.
Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The Standard specifies several paperwork requirements. The following sections describe who uses the information collected under each requirement as well as how they use it. The purpose of these requirements is to prevent death and serious injuries among employees by ensuring that the derrick is not used to lift loads beyond its rated capacity and that all the ropes are inspected for wear and tear.
Paragraph (c)(1) requires that for permanently installed derricks a clearly legible rating chart be provided with each derrick and securely affixed to the derrick. Paragraph (c)(2) requires that for non-permanent installations the manufacturer provide sufficient information from which capacity charts can be prepared by the employer for the particular installation. The capacity charts must be located at the derrick or at the jobsite office. The data on the capacity charts provide information to the employees to assure the derricks are used as designed and not overloaded or used beyond the range specified in the charts.
Paragraph (f)(2)(i)(d) requires that warning or out of order signs be placed on the derrick hoist while adjustments and repairs are being performed.
Paragraph (g)(1) requires employers to thoroughly inspect all running rope in use, and to do so at least once a month. In addition, before using rope which has been idle for at least a month, it must be inspected as prescribed by paragraph (g)(3) and a record prepared to certify that the inspection was done. The certification records must include the inspection date, the signature of the person conducting the inspection, and the identifier of the rope inspected. Employers must keep the certification records on file and available for inspection. The certification records provide employers, employees, and OSHA compliance officers with assurance that the ropes are in good condition.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Standard on Derricks (29 CFR 1910.181). The Agency is requesting to reduce the burden hours associated with this the Standard from 25,104 to 1,356 for a total reduction of 23,748 burden hours. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in the request to OMB.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Electronic copies of this
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
9 a.m. to 12 p.m., Friday, April 13, 2007.
The offices of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation, 130 South Scott Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85701.
This meeting will be open to the public, unless it is necessary for the Board to consider items in executive session.
(1) A report on the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution; (2) A report from the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy; (3) A report on the Native Nations Institute; (4) Program Reports; (5) Personnel matters; and (6) A Report from the Management Committee.
All sessions with the exception of the session listed below.
Executive session.
Christopher L. Helms, Executive Director, 130 South Scott Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85701, (520) 901-8500.
2 p.m. Wednesday, March 28, 2007.
1325 G Street, NW., Suite 800, Boardroom, Washington, DC 20005.
Open.
Jeffrey T. Bryson, General Counsel/Secretary, (202) 220-2372;
I. Call to Order.
II. Approval of the Minutes.
III. Summary Report of the Audit Committee.
IV. Summary Report of the Corporate Administration Committee.
V. Summary Report of the Finance, Budget and Program Committee.
VI. Summary Report of the Audit Committee.
VII. Financial Report.
VIII. Revised Delegation of Authority to CEO.
IX. Chief Executive Officer's Quarterly Management Report.
X. Multifamily Initiative Presentation.
XI. Adjournment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) to withdraw its February 14, 2006, application for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37 for the Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Surry 1 and 2), located in Surry County, Virginia.
The proposed amendments would have revised the Technical Specifications (TSs) pertaining to restricting the minimum cooling time and burnup of spent fuel assemblies that will be placed into storage in the NUHOMS HD spent fuel dry storage system at Surry 1 and 2 starting in the summer of 2006. Specifically, the proposed amendments would add Figure 5.4-2 to the TSs to ensure that the NUHOMS HD canister remains subcritical during operations in the Surry 1 and 2 spent fuel pool.
The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments published in the
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendments dated February 14, 2006, and the licensee's letter dated March 12, 2007, which withdrew the application for license amendments. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70(C) “Public notice of receipt of an application,” please take notice that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received the following request for an import license. Copies of the request are available electronically through ADAMS and can be accessed through the Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR) link
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed within 30 days after publication of this notice in the
The information concerning this import license application follows.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal will hold a meeting on April 4, 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 purpose of this meeting is to review the Pilgrim license renewal application and the associated Safety Evaluation Report. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., and other interested persons regarding this matter. 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, Ms. Maitri Banerjee (telephone 301/415-6973) 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 6:45 a.m. and 3:30 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.
Request for Internet Services, OMB 3220-0198.
The RRB uses a Personal Identification Number (PIN)/Password system that allows RRB customers to conduct business with the agency electronically. As part of the system, the RRB collects information needed to establish a unique PIN/Password that allows customer access to RRB Internet-based services. The information collected is matched against records of the railroad employee that are maintained by the RRB. If the information is verified, the request is approved and the RRB mails a Password Request Code (PRC) to the requestor. If the information provided cannot be verified, the requestor is advised to contact the nearest field office of the RRB to resolve the discrepancy. Once a PRC is obtained from the RRB, the requestor can apply for a PIN/Password online. Once the PIN/Password has been established, the requestor has access to RRB Internet-based services. The RRB estimates that approximately 14,040 requests for PRCs and PIN/Passwords are received annually and that it takes 5 minutes per response to secure a PRC and 1.5 minutes to establish a PIN/Password. Completion is voluntary, however, the RRB will be unable to provide a PRC or allow a requestor to establish a PIN/Password (thereby denying system access), if the requests are not completed. The RRB proposes non-burden impacting, editorial changes to the PRC and PIN/Password screens.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of application for an order of approval pursuant to Section 26(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Act”).
Applicants seek an order approving the substitution of shares of certain series of John Hancock Trust (“JHT”) for shares of certain series of other, unaffiliated, registered investment companies as described herein.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Applicants, c/o Raymond A. O'Hara III, Blazzard & Hasenauer, P.C., 1375 Kings Highway East, Suite 220, Fairfield, CT 06824.
Alison T. White, Senior Counsel, or Joyce M. Pickholz, Branch Chief, Office of Insurance Products, Division of Investment Management, at (202) 551-6795.
The following is a summary of the amended and restated application. The complete application is available for a fee from the Public Reference Branch of the Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549 (202-551-8090).
1. John Hancock USA, formerly known as The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.), is a stock life insurance company originally organized under the laws of Maine on August 20, 1955 by a special act of the Maine legislature. John Hancock USA redomesticated under the laws of Michigan on December 30, 1992.
2. Account H is registered under the Act as a unit investment trust (File No. 811-4113). The variable annuity contracts funded by Account H that are affected by this application are Scudder Wealthmark Annuity (File Nos. 333-70728 and 333-70730) and Scudder Wealthmark ML3 Annuity (File No. 333-70850).
3. John Hancock New York, formerly known as The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company of New York, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of John Hancock USA and is a stock life insurance company organized under the laws of New York on February 10, 1992.
4. Account A is registered under the Act as a unit investment trust (File No. 811-6584). It is used to fund variable annuity contracts of John Hancock New York. The variable annuity contracts funded by Account A that are affected by this application are Scudder Wealthmark Annuity for New York (File Nos. 33-79112 and 33-46217) and Scudder Wealthmark ML3 Annuity for New York (File No. 333-83558).
5. The individual and group variable annuity contracts affected by this application are collectively referred to as the “Contracts.”
6. Each of the Contracts permits its owners to allocate the Contract's accumulated value among numerous available Subaccounts, each of which invests in a different investment portfolio (“Fund”) of an underlying mutual fund.
7. Each Contract permits its owner to transfer the Contract's accumulated value from one Subaccount to another Subaccount of the issuing Separate Account at any time, subject to certain potential restrictions and charges described in the Contracts and Prospectuses relating to the Contracts. To the extent that the Contracts contain restrictions or limitations on an owner's
8. Each Insurance Company reserves the right to make certain changes, including the right to substitute, for the shares held in any Subaccount, the shares of another Fund or the shares of another underlying mutual fund, as stated in each prospectus for the Contracts.
9. Shares of JHT are sold exclusively to insurance company separate accounts to fund benefits under variable annuity contracts and variable life insurance policies sponsored by the Insurance Companies or their affiliates, and to employer pension and profit sharing plans. JHT is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company of the series type, and its securities are registered under the 1933 Act, File Nos. 002-94157/811-04146 and 33-02081/811-04490. John Hancock Investment Management Services, LLC (formerly, Manufacturers Securities Services, LLC) (“JHIMS”), is the investment adviser to JHT, and each series has its own subadviser.
10. Each Insurance Company, on its behalf and on behalf of the Separate Accounts, proposes to make certain substitutions of shares of thirty-five funds (the “Existing Funds”) held in the Subaccounts of its respective Separate Accounts with certain Series (the “Replacement Funds”) of JHT as follows:
11. With respect to each substitution, the investment objectives and comparative fund expenses for each Existing Fund and each Replacement Fund are below. Asset sizes and comparative performance history for each Existing Fund and each Replacement Fund can be found in the application filed with the Commission.
12. AIM V.I. Utilities Fund—JHT Total Stock Market Index Trust: The AIM V.I. Utilities Fund seeks capital growth and current income. The Fund normally invests at least 80% of its net assets in the equity securities and equity-related instruments of companies engaged in utilities-related industries. The JHT Total Stock Market Index Trust seeks to approximate the aggregate total return of the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Index (“Wilshire 5000 Index”). The Trust invests, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets (plus any borrowings for investment purposes) in the common stocks that are included in the Wilshire 5000 Index, and securities (which may or may not be included in the Wilshire 5000 Index) that the sub-adviser believes as a group will behave in a manner similar to the Wilshire 5000 Index.
13. DWS Blue Chip VIP—JHT Total Stock Market Index Trust: DWS Blue Chip VIP seeks growth of capital and income. Under normal circumstances, the portfolio invests at least 80% of net assets, plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes, in common stocks of large U.S. companies that are similar in size to the companies in the S&P 500 Index and that the portfolio managers consider to be “blue chip” companies. The JHT Total Stock Market Index Trust seeks to approximate the aggregate total return of the Wilshire 5000 Index. The Trust invests, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets (plus any borrowings for investment purposes) in the common stocks that are included in the Wilshire 5000 Index, and securities (which may or may not be included in the Wilshire 5000 Index)
14. DWS Health Care VIP—JHT Total Stock Market Index Trust: DWS Health Care VIP seeks long-term growth of capital by investing at least 80% of total assets, plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes, in common stocks of companies in the health care sector. The JHT Total Stock Market Index Trust seeks to approximate the aggregate total return of the Wilshire 5000 Index. The Trust invests, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets (plus any borrowings for investment purposes) in the common stocks that are included in the Wilshire 5000 Index, and securities (which may or may not be included in the Wilshire 5000 Index) that the sub-adviser believes as a group will behave in a manner similar to the Wilshire 5000 Index.
15. DWS Technology VIP—JHT Total Stock Market Index Trust: DWS Technology VIP seeks growth of capital by, under normal circumstances, investing at least 80% of net assets, plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes, in common stocks of U.S. companies in the technology sector. The JHT Total Stock Market Index Trust seeks to approximate the aggregate total return of the Wilshire 5000 Index. The Trust invests, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets (plus any borrowings for investment purposes) in the common stocks that are included in the Wilshire 5000 Index, and securities (which may or may not be included in the Wilshire 5000 Index) that the sub-adviser believes as a group will behave in a manner similar to the Wilshire 5000 Index.
16. The Dreyfus Socially Responsible Growth Fund, Inc.—JHT Quantitative All Cap Trust: The Dreyfus Socially Responsible Growth Fund, Inc. seeks to provide capital growth, with current income as a secondary goal by investing, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of its assets in the common stocks of companies that, in the opinion of the fund's management, meet traditional investment standards and conduct their business in a manner that contributes to the enhancement of the quality of life in America. The JHT Quantitative All Cap Trust seeks long-term growth of capital. The portfolio seeks to achieve its objective by investing, under normal circumstances, primarily in equity securities of U.S. companies.
17. DWS Dreman High Return Equity VIP—The JHT Quantitative All Cap Trust: DWS Dreman High Return Equity VIP seeks to achieve a high rate of total return. Under normal circumstances, the portfolio invests at least 80% of net assets, plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes, in common stocks and other equity securities. The JHT Quantitative All Cap Trust seeks long-term growth of capital by investing, under normal circumstances, primarily in equity securities of U.S. companies.
18. DWS Janus Growth and Income VIP—JHT Quantitative All Cap Trust: DWS Janus Growth and Income VIP seeks long-term capital growth and current income. The portfolio normally emphasizes investments in equity securities. The JHT Quantitative All Cap Trust seeks long-term growth of capital. Under normal circumstances, the portfolio primarily invests in equity securities of U.S. companies.
19. Alger American Leveraged AllCap Portfolio—JHT All Cap Core Trust: The Alger American Leveraged AllCap Portfolio seeks long-term capital appreciation. The portfolio invests primarily in equity securities, such as common or preferred stocks, which are listed on U.S. exchanges or in the over-the-counter market. The JHT All Cap Core Trust seeks long-term growth of capital. The portfolio invests in common stocks and other equity securities within all asset classes (small, mid and large cap) and primarily within the Russell 3000 Index.
20. DWS Large Cap Value VIP—JHT Quantitative Value Trust: DWS Large Cap Value VIP seeks to achieve a high rate of total return. Under normal circumstances, the portfolio invests at least 80% of net assets, plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes, in common stocks and other equity securities, of large U.S. companies that are similar in size to the companies in the Russell 1000 Value Index and that the portfolio managers believe are undervalued. The JHT Quantitative Value Trust seeks long-term capital appreciation. The portfolio invests primarily in large-cap U.S. securities with the potential for long-term growth of capital.
21. DWS Davis Venture Value VIP—JHT Fundamental Value Trust: Both DWS Davis Venture Value VIP and JHT Fundamental Value Trust seek growth of capital. The DWS Davis Venture Value VIP invests primarily in common stocks of U.S. companies with market capitalizations of at least $5 billion. The JHT Fundamental Value Trust invests, under normal market conditions, primarily in common stocks of U.S. companies with market capitalizations of at least $10 billion.
22. DWS Dreman Small Cap Value VIP-JHT Small Cap Index Trust: DWS Dreman Small Cap Value VIP seeks long-term capital appreciation. Under normal circumstances, the portfolio invests at least 80% of net assets, plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes, in undervalued common stocks of small U.S. companies, which the portfolio defines as companies that are similar in market value to those in the Russell 2000 Value Index. The JHT Small Cap Index Trust seeks to approximate the aggregate total return of the Russell 2000 Index. The Trust invests, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets, plus any borrowings for investment purposes, in the common stocks that are included in the Russell 2000 Index, and securities (which may or may not be included in the Russell 2000 Index) that the sub-adviser believes as a group will behave in a manner similar to the Russell 2000 Index.
23. DWS Small Cap Growth VIP—JHT Small Cap Index Trust: DWS Small Cap Growth VIP seeks maximum appreciation of investors' capital. Under normal circumstances, the portfolio invests at least 80% of net assets, plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes, in small capitalization stocks similar in size to those comprising the Russell 2000 Growth Index. The JHT Small Cap Index Trust seeks to approximate the aggregate total return of the Russell 2000 Index. The Trust invests, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets, plus any borrowings for investment purposes, in the common stocks that are included in the Russell 2000 Index, and securities (which may or may not be included in the Russell 2000 Index) that the sub-adviser believes as a group will behave in a manner similar to the Russell 2000 Index.
24. Alger American Balanced Portfolio—JHT Index Allocation Trust: The Alger American Balanced Portfolio seeks current income and long-term capital appreciation. Under normal circumstances, the portfolio will invest at least 25% of its net assets in fixed-income securities and at least 25% of its net assets in equity securities. The JHT Index Allocation Trust seeks long-term growth of capital by investing approximately 30% of the portfolio's assets in fixed income index funds and approximately 70% of its assets in equity index funds. Current income is also a consideration.
25. DWS Balanced VIP—JHT Index Allocation Trust: The DWS Balanced VIP seeks high total return, a combination of income and capital appreciation. The portfolio normally invests approximately 60% of its net assets in common stocks and other
26. DWS RREEF Real Estate Securities VIP—JHT Real Estate Securities Trust: Both DWS RREEF Real Estate Securities VIP and the JHT Real Estate Securities Trust seek to achieve long-term capital appreciation and current income through investing, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of net assets (plus any borrowings for investment purposes) in equity securities of real estate investment trusts and real estate companies.
27. DWS International VIP—JHT International Value Trust: DWS International VIP seeks long-term growth of capital primarily through diversified holdings of marketable foreign equity investments. Although it may invest in companies of any size and from any country, it invests mainly in common stocks of established companies in countries with developed economies. The JHT International Value Trust seeks long-term growth of capital by investing, under normal market conditions, primarily in equity securities of companies located outside the U.S., including in emerging markets.
28. DWS Global Thematic VIP—JHT Global Trust: DWS Global Thematic VIP seeks long-term capital growth by investing, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of net assets, plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes, in common stocks and other equities of companies throughout the world that the portfolio managers consider to be “blue chip” companies. The JHT Global Trust seeks long-term capital appreciation by investing, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets (plus any borrowings for investment purposes) in the equity securities of companies located anywhere in the world, including emerging markets.
29. DWS Global Opportunities VIP—JHT Global Trust: DWS Global Opportunities VIP seeks above-average capital appreciation over the long term by investing at least 65% of total assets in common stocks and other equities of small companies throughout the world. The JHT Global Trust seeks long-term capital appreciation by investing, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets (plus any borrowings for investment purposes) in the equity securities of companies located anywhere in the world, including emerging markets.
30. DWS Bond VIP—JHT Bond Index Trust A: DWS Bond VIP seeks to provide a high level of income consistent with a high quality portfolio of debt securities by investing, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of net assets, plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes, in bonds of any maturity. The JHT Bond Index Trust A seeks to track the performance of the Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index (“Lehman Index”). The Lehman Index consists of dollar denominated, fixed rate, investment grade debt securities with maturities generally greater than one year and outstanding par values of at least $200 million. Under normal market conditions will invest at least 80% of its assets in securities listed in the Lehman Index.
31. DWS High Income VIP—JHT Active Bond Trust: DWS High Income VIP seeks to provide a high level of current income by investing, under normal circumstances, at least 65% of net assets, plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes, in junk bonds, which are those rated below the fourth highest credit rating category (i.e., grade BB/Ba and below). The JHT Active Bond Trust seeks income and capital appreciation by investing, normally, at least 80% of its assets in a diversified mix of debt securities and instruments, including but not limited to: U.S. Treasury and agency securities; asset-backed securities and mortgage-backed securities; corporate bonds, both U.S. and foreign; and foreign government and agency securities.
32. DWS Strategic Income VIP—JHT Active Bond Trust: DWS Strategic Income VIP seeks a high current return by investing mainly in bonds issued by U.S. and foreign corporations and governments. The JHT Active Bond Trust seeks income and capital appreciation by investing, normally, at least 80% of its assets in a diversified mix of debt securities and instruments, including but not limited to: U.S. Treasury and agency securities; asset-backed securities and mortgage-backed securities; corporate bonds, both U.S. and foreign; and foreign government and agency securities.
33. DWS Core Fixed Income VIP—JHT Investment Quality Bond Trust: DWS Core Fixed Income VIP seeks high current income by investing, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of its assets, plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes, in fixed income securities. The fixed income securities are primarily investment grade and within the top three rating catoegories. The JHT Investment Quality Bond Trust seeks to provide a high level of current income consistent with the maintenance of principal and liquidity by investing, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of the portfolio's net assets (plus any borrowings for investment purposes) in investment-grade bonds.
34. DWS Growth Allocation VIP—JHT Lifestyle Growth Trust: DWS Growth Allocation VIP seeks long-term growth of capital by investing in a portfolio of other portfolios (“underlying portfolios”). The portfolio managers will generally allocate the portfolio's assets in the following ranges: 20-40% in underlying portfolios which invest primarily in fixed income securities of all credit qualities and maturities; and 60-80% in underlying portfolios which invest primarily in equity securities of all capitalization levels. The JHT Lifestyle Growth Trust seeks long-term growth of capital by investing in underlying portfolios of JHT. The portfolio invests approximately 20% of its assets in underlying portfolios of JHT which invest primarily in fixed income securities and approximately 80% in underlying portfolios of JHT which invest primarily in equity securities.
35. DWS Moderate Allocation VIP—JHT Lifestyle Balanced Trust: DWS Moderate Allocation VIP seeks a balance of long-term growth of capital and current income with an emphasis on growth of capital by investing in a portfolio of other portfolios. The portfolio managers will generally allocate the portfolio's assets in the following ranges: 25-55% in underlying portfolios which invest primarily in fixed income securities of all credit qualities and maturities; and 45-75% in underlying portfolios which invest primarily in equity securities of all capitalization levels. The JHT Lifestyle Balanced Trust seeks a balance between a high level of current income and growth of capital, with a greater emphasis on growth of capital by investing in underlying portfolios of JHT. The portfolio invests approximately 40% of its assets in underlying portfolios of JHT which invest primarily in fixed income securities and approximately 60% in underlying portfolios of JHT which invest primarily in equity securities.
36. DWS Conservative Allocation VIP—JHT Lifestyle Moderate Trust: DWS Conservative Allocation VIP seeks a balance of current income and long-term growth of capital with an emphasis on current income by investing in a portfolio of other portfolios. The portfolio managers will generally allocate the portfolio's assets in the
37. Dreyfus MidCap Stock Portfolio—JHT Mid Cap Index Trust: The Dreyfus MidCap Stock Portfolio seeks investment results that are greater than the total return performance of publicly traded common stocks of medium-size domestic companies in the aggregate, as represented by the Standard & Poor's MidCap 400 Index (“S&P 400 Index”). To pursue this goal, the portfolio normally invests at least 80% of its assets in stocks of midsize companies. The JHT Mid Cap Index Trust seeks to approximate the aggregate total return of the S&P 400 Index. The Trust invests, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets (plus any borrowings for investment purposes) in the common stocks that are included in the S&P 400 Index, and securities (which may or may not be included in the S&P 400 Index) that the sub-adviser believes as a group will behave in a manner similar to the S&P 400 Index.
38. DWS Mid Cap Growth VIP—JHT Quantitative Mid Cap Trust: DWS Mid Cap Growth VIP seeks long-term capital growth by investing, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of its assets in companies with market caps within the market capitalization range of the Russell MidCap Growth Index. The JHT Quantitative Mid Cap Trust seeks long-term capital growth by investing, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets (plus any borrowings for investment purposes) in U.S. mid-cap stocks.
39. DWS Turner Mid Cap Growth VIP—JHT Quantitative Mid Cap Trust: DWS Turner Mid Cap Growth VIP seeks capital appreciation by investing in common stocks and other equity securities of U.S. companies with medium market capitalizations. The JHT Quantitative Mid Cap Trust seeks long-term capital growth by investing, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets (plus any borrowings for investment purposes) in U.S. mid-cap stocks.
40. DWS Capital Growth VIP—JHT 500 Index Trust B: DWS Capital Growth VIP seeks to maximize long-term capital growth by investing at least 65% of total assets in common stocks of U.S. companies. The portfolio generally focuses on companies similar in size to the companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 Composite Stock Price Index or the Russell 1000 Growth Index. The JHT 500 Index Trust B seeks to approximate the aggregate total return of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index (“S&P 500 Index”). The Trust invests, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets (plus any borrowings for investment purposes) in the common stocks that are included in the S&P 500, and securities (which may or may not be included in the S&P 500 Index) that the sub-adviser believes as a group will behave in a manner similar to the S&P 500 Index.
41. DWS Growth and Income VIP—JHT 500 Index Trust B: DWS Growth and Income VIP seeks long-term growth of capital, current income and growth of income. The portfolio invests primarily in large U.S. companies. The JHT 500 Index Trust B seeks to approximate the aggregate total return of the S&P 500 Index. The Trust invests, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets (plus any borrowings for investment purposes) in the common stocks that are included in the S&P 500, and securities (which may or may not be included in the S&P 500 Index) that the sub-adviser believes as a group will behave in a manner similar to the S&P 500 Index.
42. DWS International Select Equity VIP—JHT International Equity Index Trust B: DWS International Select Equity VIP seeks capital appreciation by investing at least 50% of its assets in securities represented in the MSCI EAFE Index. The JHT International Equity Index Trust B seeks to track the performance of Morgan Stanley Capital International All Country World Excluding U.S. Index by investing, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its assets in securities listed on this index.
43. Credit Suisse Trust Emerging Markets Portfolio—JHT International Equity Index Trust B: Credit Suisse Trust Emerging Markets Portfolio seeks long-term growth of capital by investing at least 80% of its net assets, plus any borrowings for investment purposes, in foreign equity securities, with a focus on the world's less developed countries. The JHT International Equity Index Trust B seeks to track the performance of Morgan Stanley Capital International All Country World Excluding U.S. Index by investing, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its assets in securities listed on this index.
44. Credit Suisse Trust Global Small Cap Portfolio—JHT International Equity Index Trust B: Credit Suisse Trust Global Small Cap Portfolio seeks long-term growth of capital by investing at least 80% of its net assets, plus any borrowings for investment purposes, in equity securities of post-venture-capital companies from at least three countries, including the U.S. The JHT International Equity Index Trust B seeks to track the performance of Morgan Stanley Capital International All Country World Excluding U.S. Index by investing, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its assets in securities listed on this index.
45. DWS Government & Agency Securities VIP—JHT Money Market Trust B: DWS Government & Agency Securities VIP seeks high current income consistent with preservation of capital by investing, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of net assets, plus the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes, in U.S. government securities and repurchase agreements of U.S. government securities. The JHT Money Market Trust B seeks maximum current income that is consistent with maintaining liquidity and preserving capital. The trust intends to maintain a stable $1 share price and invests only in U.S. dollar-denominated securities rated within the two highest short-term credit categories and their unrated equivalents.
46. DWS Money Market VIP—JHT Money Market Trust B: DWS Money Market VIP seeks maximum current income to the extent consistent with stability of principal. The portfolio pursues its goal by investing exclusively in high quality short-term securities, as well as certain repurchase agreements that are backed by high-quality securities. The JHT Money Market Trust B seeks maximum current income that is consistent with maintaining liquidity and preserving capital. The trust intends to maintain a stable $1 share price and invests only in U.S. dollar-denominated securities rated within the two highest short-term credit categories and their unrated equivalents.
47. The management fees, 12b-1 fees (if applicable), other expenses and total operating expenses for each Existing and Replacement Fund are as follows:
48. The substitutions are expected to provide significant benefits to Contract owners, including improved selection of portfolio managers and simplification of fund offerings through the elimination of overlapping offerings. The Applicants believe that the subadvisers to the Replacement Funds overall are better positioned to provide consistent above-average performance for their Funds than are the advisers or sub-advisers of the Existing Funds. At the same time, Contract owners will continue to be able to select among a large number of funds, with a full range of investment objectives, investment strategies, and managers.
49. The substitutions, each of which replaces outside funds with funds for which JHIMS acts as investment adviser, will permit JHIMS, under a Multi-Manager Order to hire, monitor and replace sub-advisers as necessary to seek optimal performance and to ensure a consistent investment style. JHT has been subject to the Multi-Manager Order since 2000.
50. In addition, Contract owners with Subaccount balances invested in shares of the Replacement Funds will, in every case, have lower total expense ratios than they currently have in the Existing Funds. In each case, the Total Expenses of the Replacement Funds (even without applicable fee waivers) are lower than those of the Existing Funds with their fee waivers. For Contract owners with account balances in funds involved in the substitutions, the substitutions are therefore expected to result in decreased expense ratios. Moreover, there will be no increase in Contract fees and expenses, including mortality and expense risk fees and administration and distribution fees charged to the Separate Accounts as a result of the substitutions. The Applicants believe that the Replacement Funds have investment objectives, policies and risk profiles, as described herein, that are either substantially the same as, or sufficiently similar to, the corresponding Existing Funds to make those Replacement Funds appropriate candidates as substitutes. The Insurance Companies considered the performance history of the Existing Funds and the Replacement Funds and determined that Contract owners would not be materially adversely affected as a result of the substitutions.
51. Applicants represent that relieving the Separate Accounts of the administrative burdens of interfacing with several unaffiliated investment company complexes is expected to simplify compliance, accounting and auditing and, generally, to allow the Insurance Companies to administer the Contracts more efficiently.
52. In addition, as a result of the substitutions, neither JHIMS nor any of its affiliates will receive increased amounts of compensation from the charges to the Separate Accounts related to the Contracts or from Rule 12b-1 fees or revenue sharing currently received from the investment advisers or distributors of the Existing Funds.
1. The prospectuses by which the Contracts are offered state that the Insurance Companies have, subject to the requirements of the Act, the right to substitute the shares of any underlying registered investment company held by the Separate Accounts with shares of another registered investment company.
2. The Contracts expressly reserve to the applicable Insurance Company the right, subject to compliance with applicable law, to substitute shares of another investment company for shares of an investment company held by a sub-account of the Separate Accounts. The prospectuses for the Contracts and the Separate Accounts contain appropriate disclosure of this right.
3. With respect to each proposed substitution, Contract owners with balances invested in the Replacement Fund will have a lower expense ratio in all cases.
4. The proposed Replacement Fund for each Existing Fund has an investment objective that is at least substantially similar to that of the Existing Fund. Moreover, the principal investment policies of the Replacement Funds are similar to those of the corresponding Existing Funds.
5. By a supplement to the prospectuses for the Contracts and the Separate Accounts, each Insurance Company has notified all owners of the Contracts of its intention to take the necessary actions, including seeking the order requested by this application, to substitute shares of the funds as described herein. The supplement advises Contract owners that from the date of the supplement until the date of the proposed substitution, owners may make transfers of Contract value (or annuity unit exchange) out of the Existing Fund Subaccount to another Subaccount permitted under their respective Contracts without the transfer (or exchange) being treated as one of a limited number of permitted transfers (or exchanges) or a limited number of transfers (or exchanges) permitted without a transfer charge. The supplement also informs Contract owners that the Insurance Company will not exercise any rights reserved under any Contract to impose additional restrictions on transfers until at least 30 days after the proposed substitutions, except that the Insurance Companies may impose restrictions on transfers to prevent or limit “market timing” activities by Contract owners or agents of Contract owners. The supplement also advises Contract owners that for at least 30 days following the proposed substitutions, the Insurance Companies will allow Contract owners affected by the substitutions to make transfers of Contract value (or annuity unit exchange) out of the Replacement Fund Subaccount to another Subaccount permitted under their respective Contracts without the transfer (or exchange) being treated as one of a limited number of permitted transfers (or exchanges) or a limited number of transfers (or exchanges) permitted without a transfer charge.
6. The proposed substitutions will take place at relative net asset value in conformity with the requirements of Section 22(c) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder with no change in the amount of any Contract owner's Contract value, cash value, or death benefit or in the dollar value of his or her investment in the Separate Accounts.
7. It is expected that the substitutions will be effected by redeeming shares of an Existing Fund for cash and using the cash to purchase shares of the Replacement Fund.
8. Contract owners will not incur any fees or charges as a result of the proposed substitutions, nor will their rights or an Insurance Company's obligations under the Contracts be altered in any way. The substitutions will not alter in any way the annuity or
9. In addition to the prospectus supplements distributed to owners of Contracts, within five business days after the proposed substitutions, Contract owners will be sent a written notice informing them that the substitutions were carried out and that they may transfer all Contract value or cash value under a Contract invested in any one of the Subaccounts on the date of the notice to another Subaccount available under their Contract at no cost and without regard to the usual limit on the frequency of transfers from the variable account options to the fixed account options. The notice will also reiterate that (other than with respect to “market timing” activity) the Insurance Company will not exercise any rights reserved by it under the Contracts to impose additional restrictions on transfers or to impose any charges on transfers until at least 30 days after the proposed substitutions. The Insurance Companies will also send each Contract owner current prospectuses for the Replacement Funds involved.
10. Each Insurance Company may also seek approval of the proposed substitutions from any state insurance regulators whose approval may be necessary or appropriate.
11. For a two year period following the date of the Substitutions, the Applicants agree that the total operating expenses of each Replacement Fund (taking into account any expense waiver or reimbursement) will not exceed on an annualized basis the net expense level of the corresponding Existing Fund for the 2005 fiscal year.
12. The Applicants agree that the Insurance Companies will not increase total separate account charges (net of any reimbursements or waivers) for any outstanding Contracts involved in the proposed substitution on the date of the substitutions for a period of two years from the date of the substitutions. Applicants and the Insurance Companies may, however, offer additional benefits through one or more Benefit Riders to owners of such Contracts during such two year period and impose additional separate account charges related to the purchase of any such additional benefits.
13. Applicants represent that none of the Replacement Funds was established for the purpose of effecting the substitutions.
For the reasons and upon the facts set forth above, Applicants submit that the requested order meets the standards set forth in Section 26(c). Applicants request an order of the Commission, pursuant to Section 26(c) of the Act, approving the Substitutions.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of March 26, 2007:
A Closed Meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsels to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a) (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10) permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Nazareth, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in a closed session.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, March 28, 2007 will be:
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The BSE proposes to make SR-BSE-2007-11, a rule filing amending the Boston Equities Exchange (“BeX”) fee schedule to include a transaction fee to be charged to BSE Members who request a BeX Purchase & Sale Blotter reflecting the transaction information related to the execution of a single order, part of
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 III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On November 20, 2006, the BSE filed SR-BSE-2006-44, a proposed rule change that amended the existing BSE fee schedule and established a fee schedule for the BeX, a facility of the Exchange.
On March 2, 2007, the BSE filed SR-BSE-2007-11, a proposed rule change amending the BeX fee schedule to include a transaction fee that was deleted from the BSE fee schedule but not transferred to the BeX fee schedule as a part of BSE-2006-44.
In SR-BSE-2007-11 the Exchange proposed charging that same fee, $.05 per 100 shares, for performing that same service, on behalf of BSE members, including BeX EAMs, who request a BeX Purchase & Sale Blotter reflecting the transaction information related to the execution of a single order, part of which was executed on BeX and part of which was executed at an away Trading Center. The fee would be titled “Non-BeX executed trades” and would appear on the BeX fee schedule.
The purpose of the instant filing is to make the Non-BeX executed trade fee retroactively effective for the time period February 1, 2007 through March 2, 2007.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BSE-2007-12. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is requesting approval to add NYMEX Holdings, Inc. (“NMX”) to the CBOE Exchange Index (“EXQ”) on March 19, 2007. The text of the rule proposal is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, CBOE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this rule proposal is to obtain the Commission's approval to add NMX to the EXQ, which is a Micro Narrow-Based security index. Under CBOE's initial and maintenance standards for Micro Narrow-Based security indexes, a security must have achieved certain daily and monthly trading volume levels in
As of the date of this filing, NMX has not been trading for the past six months. The Exchange, however, is requesting Commission approval to add NMX to the EXQ at this time. Specifically, the Exchange would like to add NMX to the EXQ on March 19, 2007, which is after the March expiration (March 17, 2007). The Exchange believes that this is an ideal time to add NMX to the EXQ, since the EXQ will be rebalanced at that time. In addition, the Exchange requests that the Commission permit NMX to meet the maintenance trading volume requirements in the aggregate during the first six months after trading in order to qualify for its inclusion in the EXQ.
In support of this request, the Exchange states that it believes that good cause exists to permit the early inclusion of NMX to the EXQ. The Exchange believes that the addition of NMX to the EXQ will further diversify the EXQ, which is a relatively concentrated index, and will ensure that this emergent index continues to be representative of the exchange market. The Exchange also notes that options are already listed and trading on NMX. Additionally, NMX readily meets the trading volume levels, in the aggregate, required for initial inclusion in a Micro Narrow-Based security index, such as the EXQ.
The EXQ was created to track the performance of stock prices of publicly traded exchanges and is a very small, equal-dollar weighted index currently composed of six security and futures exchanges.
NMX recently became a publicly traded company. On November 16, 2006, NMX priced its initial public offering and its shares began trading on the New York Stock Exchange on November 17, 2006. On that day alone, NMX trading volume exceeded 19.5 million shares and, on November 27, 2006, the Exchange certified that NMX met the initial listing criteria for options under CBOE Rules. The following day, on November 28, 2006, the Exchange began trading options on NMX.
Because there are only six components in the EXQ, and to ensure that the EXQ is representative of the rapidly evolving exchange environment and includes all currently publicly traded exchanges, the Exchange seeks the Commission's approval to permit the early inclusion of NMX to the EXQ. Specifically, the Exchange requests that the Commission allow the Exchange to add NMX to the EXQ on March 19, 2007 because (as will be demonstrated below), NMX has already met and exceeded the initial trading volume levels set forth in Rule 24.2(d) in the aggregate. The Exchange also requests that the Commission permit NMX to meet the maintenance trading volume levels set forth in Rules 24.2(e)(4) and (e)(11) in the aggregate during the first six months after trading of the NMX.
In the aggregate, NMX currently meets the initial trading volume levels required for securities to be added to a Micro Narrow-Based security index. Specifically, Rule 24.2(d)(4), which sets forth initial listing standards, requires:
The average daily trading volume in each of the preceding six months for each component security in the index is at least 45,500 shares, except that each of the lowest weighted component securities in the index that in the aggregate account for no more than 10% of the weight of the index may have an average daily trading volume of only 22,750 shares for each of the last six months.
In the aggregate, the 45,500 average daily trading volume amount is comparable to an average monthly trading requirement of 1 million shares, based on a calendar month having 22 trading days, and the 22,750 average daily trading volume amount is comparable to an average monthly trading requirement of 500,000 shares. These average monthly trading volume requirements multiplied over six months would equal 6 million shares and 3 million shares respectively.
Through March 6, 2007, NMX has traded a total of almost 90 million shares, averaging over 1.2 million shares per day. The following table provides total monthly (or in the case of March, partial monthly) trading volume since initial listing:
In the aggregate, NMX also currently meets the maintenance trading levels required for securities to be added to a Micro Narrow-Based security index. Specifically, Rule 24.2(e)(4), which sets forth maintenance listing standards relating to average daily trading volume, requires:
The average daily trading volume in each of the preceding six months for each component security in the index is at least 22,750 shares, except that each of the lowest weighted component securities in the index that in the aggregate account for no more than 10% of the weight of the index may have an average daily trading volume of only 18,200 shares for each of the last six months.
Also, Rule 24.2(e)(11), which sets forth maintenance listing standards relating to monthly trading volume, requires:
Trading volume of each component security in the index must be at least 500,000 shares for each of the last six months, except that for each of the lowest weighted component securities in the index that in the aggregate account for no more than 10% of the weight of the index, trading volume must be at let 400,000 shares for each of the last six months.
In the aggregate, the 22,750 average daily trading volume amount set forth in Rule 24.2(e)(4) is comparable to an average monthly trading requirement of 500,000, based on a calendar month having 22 trading days, and the 18,200 average daily trading volume amount is comparable to an average monthly trading requirement of 400,000 shares. The Exchange notes that these amounts are equivalent to the average monthly trading requirements of Rule 24.2(e)(11), and these average monthly trading volume requirements multiplied over six months would equal 3 million shares and 2.4 million shares respectively.
As demonstrated above, the total trading volume through March 6, 2007 in NMX has approached 90 million shares, averaging over 1.2 million shares per day. Because the Exchange is requesting early inclusion of NMX to the EXQ, there will not be six months' worth of trading volume data to determine if NMX meets the maintenance trading volume levels set forth in Rules 24.2(e)(4) and (e)(11). As a result, the Exchange requests that the Commission permit NMX to meet the maintenance trading volume levels set
The Exchange further states that NMX must satisfy all other requirements for Micro Narrow-Based security indexes set forth in Rule 24.2 in order to qualify for inclusion and continued inclusion in the EXQ.
The Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance program in place to monitor the component securities in the EXQ, including NMX. The Exchange may obtain trading information upon request via the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) from other exchanges who are members or affiliates of the ISG and which list the security components contained in the EXQ. Specifically, CBOE can obtain such information from the New York Stock Exchange in connection with the trading of NMX shares.
Given the high liquidity of NMX and the other component securities in the EXQ, the Exchange believes that the EXQ is not readily susceptible to manipulation, despite the concentration level of the component securities.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposal.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Normally, a proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to add NMX to the EXQ in connection with the upcoming rebalancing of the EXQ on March 17, 2007 even though NMX has not been trading for the six months specified in CBOE Rule 24.2. The Commission notes that the CBOE has been trading single-stock options on NMX since November 28, 2006. Further, the Commission notes that NMX has exceeded, by a wide margin, the initial trading volume levels in the aggregate contained in CBOE Rule 24.2(d), as well as the maintenance trading volume levels, in the aggregate, contained in CBOE Rule 24.2(e)(4) and (e)(11). Finally, inclusion of the NMX in the EXQ, given that it has met, in the aggregate and by a wide margin, the volume thresholds contained in CBOE Rule 24.2, will diversify the EXQ and should not increase any concerns about the EXQ's susceptibility to manipulation given the large depth and liquidity of trading in NMX. Accordingly, consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change would permit DTC, effective February 1, 2007, to cease to charge fees for “Covered Services” in “Omnibus Accounts” (as each term is defined below) to the CDS Clearing and Depository Services, Inc. (“CDS”), formerly, the Canadian Depository for Securities Ltd., in exchange for CDS agreeing not to charge DTC for such services.
In its filing with the Commission, DTC 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. DTC 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 facilitate the efficient processing of cross-border securities transactions between the U.S. and Canada. CDS is a participant in both DTC and NSCC. CDS holds securities in the name of Cede & Co., DTC's nominee name, in one or more omnibus accounts at DTC and also has a clearance account at NSCC (collectively the “CDS Omnibus Accounts”).
In 1998, the SEC approved a proposed rule change to allow DTC to open an omnibus account at CDS thereby creating a two-way DTC-CDS interface.
In order to more efficiently facilitate cross-border clearance and settlement DTC, NSCC and CDS have agreed not to charge each other for Covered Services
Currently, DTC, NSCC, and CDS charge fees in accordance with their respective standard fee schedules for securities clearing, settlement, and asset servicing in their respective Omnibus Accounts in exchange for CDS no longer charging DTC and NSCC for similar services. The proposed rule change would provide that instead of invoicing each other each month for services in the Omnibus Accounts, DTC and NSCC will no longer charge CDS for Covered Services in Omnibus Accounts. As most of the activity processed in each of the Omnibus Accounts relates to reciprocal services which are charged to DTC, NSCC and CDS respectively at different rates (
DTC, NSCC, and CDS will continue to charge their respective participants for activity in the Omnibus Accounts.
This proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder because it recognizes that most of the activity in the Omnibus Accounts represents the processing of reciprocal activity in similar services used by each of the entities which are charged to DTC, NSCC, and CDS at different rates. As such, it provides for a more equitable allocation of fees charged by DTC and NSCC.
DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any impact or impose any burden on competition.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet been solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by DTC.
Because the foregoing rule change changes fees charged clearing members by DTC, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2007-02 and should be submitted on or before April 13, 2007.
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”)
Nasdaq proposes to trade shares of the PowerShares DB U.S. Dollar Index Bullish Fund (the “Bullish Fund”) and the PowerShares DB U.S. Dollar Index Bearish Fund (the “Bearish Fund,” and together with the Bullish Fund, the “Funds”) pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”). The text of the proposed rule change is available at Nasdaq, 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 III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Pursuant to Nasdaq Rule 4630, which permits the Exchange to approve for UTP trading a “commodity-related security” that is issued by a trust, partnership, commodity pool, or similar entity that invests in any combination of commodities, futures contracts, options on futures contracts, forward contracts, commodity swaps, or other related derivatives, the Exchange proposes to trade pursuant to UTP the shares of the Funds (the “Shares”). The Shares represent beneficial ownership interests in the corresponding common units of beneficial interests of the DB U.S. Dollar Index Master Bullish Fund and the DB U.S. Dollar Index Master Bearish Fund, respectively (collectively, the “Master Funds”). A proposal to list and trade the Shares by the American Stock Exchange
The overall investment objective of each of the Funds and the Master Funds is to reflect the performance of their respective benchmark index,
The use of a long position in a DX Contract in the construction of the Long Index causes the Long Index level to rise as a result of any upward price movement in the DX Contract. Conversely, the use of a short position in a DX Contract in the construction of the Short Index causes the Short Index level to rise as a result of any downward price movement in the DX Contract. As a result, the performance of the Long Index and Short Index would reflect any rise or fall of the USD versus the underlying basket of Index Currencies.
Deutsche Bank AG London (the “Index Sponsor”) calculates the values of the Indexes during the trading day and such values are disseminated at least every 15 seconds through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape (“CT”), major market data vendors, the Web site of DB Commodity Services LLC, as operator of the Funds and Master Funds (the “Managing Owner”), and the Index Sponsor's Web site. Amex also disseminates for each of the Funds on a per-Share basis an updated “Indicative Fund Value,” which reflects the cash required for creations and redemptions for each Fund, adjusted to reflect the price changes of the DX Contracts and the holdings of U.S. Treasury securities and other high-credit-quality, short-term fixed income securities, at least every 15 seconds between 9:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Eastern Time (“ET”). Shortly after 4 p.m. ET each business day, the Bank of New York (the “Administrator”), determines the net asset value (“NAV”) for each of the Funds and disseminates such NAV per Share to all market participants at the same time.
On each business day, the Administrator makes available immediately prior to 9:30 a.m. ET the most recent Cash Deposit Amount
Information regarding the Shares is available through Amex, the Index Sponsor, and various independent sources. Specifically, Amex disseminates on a daily basis for each of the Funds information with respect to the daily trading volume of each of the Shares, the number of Shares outstanding, the closing prices of each Fund's Shares, the corresponding NAV, and a hyperlink on its Web site to the Index Sponsor's Web site. In addition, the Web site for the Funds contains the following information: (1) The current NAV per Share daily, the prior business day's NAV, and the reported closing price; (2) the mid-point of the bid-ask price in relation to the NAV as of the time the NAV is calculated (the “Bid-Ask Price”); (3) the calculation of the premium or discount of such price against such NAV; (4) data in chart form displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the Bid-Ask Price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges for each of the four previous calendar quarters; (5) the prospectus; and (6) other applicable quantitative information.
Nasdaq states that it will halt trading in the Shares of a Fund under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and 4121. The conditions for a trading halt include a regulatory halt by the original listing market. Nasdaq will also halt trading in the Shares if the original listing market delists them. UTP trading in the Shares will be governed by provisions of Nasdaq Rule 4120(b) relating to temporary interruptions in the calculation or wide dissemination of the Indicative Fund Value or the value of the Indexes.
Nasdaq deems the Shares of the Funds to be equity securities, and therefore, trading in the Shares would be subject to Nasdaq's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Trading in the Shares will also be subject to Nasdaq Rule 4630 (Trading in Commodity-Related Securities). The trading hours for the Shares on Nasdaq will be 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET.
In connection with the trading of the Shares, Nasdaq will inform its members in an Information Circular, prior to the commencement of trading, of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Baskets (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) Nasdaq Rule 2310, which imposes suitability obligations on Nasdaq members with respect to recommending transactions in
Nasdaq believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to address any concerns about the trading of the Shares on Nasdaq. Trading of the Shares through Nasdaq will be subject to NASD's surveillance procedures for equity securities, in general, and exchange-traded funds, in particular.
The proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-023. 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 (
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
In addition, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 12(f) of the Act,
The Commission further believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act,
The Commission notes that, if the Shares should be delisted by the listing exchange, the Exchange would no longer have authority to trade the Shares pursuant to this order.
In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made the following representations:
(1) The Exchange's surveillance procedures are adequate to address any concerns associated with the trading of the Shares on a UTP basis.
(2) The Exchange would inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares, including suitability recommendation requirements.
(3) The Exchange would require its members to deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing Shares prior to or concurrently with a transaction in such Shares and will note this prospectus delivery requirement in the Information Circular.
The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposal before the thirtieth day after the publication of notice thereof in the
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change would permit NSCC, effective February 1, 2007, to cease to charge fees for “Covered Services” in “Omnibus Accounts” (as each term is defined below) to the CDS Clearing and Depository Services, Inc. (“CDS”), formerly the Canadian Depository for Securities Ltd., in exchange for CDS agreeing not to charge NSCC for such services.
In its filing with the Commission, NSCC 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. NSCC 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 facilitate the efficient processing of cross-border securities transactions between the U.S. and Canada. CDS is a participant in both NSCC and DTC. CDS holds securities in the name of Cede & Co., DTC's nominee name, in one or more omnibus accounts at DTC, and also has a clearance account at NSCC (collectively the “CDS Omnibus Accounts”).
CDS operates the New York Link Service, which enables CDS Participants to clear and settle transactions with DTC Participants through sponsored accounts maintained by CDS with DTC and NSCC. Through such sponsored accounts, CDS Participants may clear and settle transactions on a trade for trade basis or on a continuous net settlement basis through the facilities of DTC and NSCC. DTC operates the Canadian-Link Service, which enables DTC Participants to clear and settle transactions with CDS Participants through an omnibus account maintained by DTC at CDS.
In order to more efficiently facilitate cross-border clearance and settlement DTC, NSCC, and CDS have agreed not to charge each other for Covered Services
Currently, DTC, NSCC, and CDS charge fees in accordance with their respective standard fee schedules for securities clearing, settlement, and asset servicing in their respective Omnibus Accounts. The proposed rule change would provide that instead of invoicing each other each month for services in the Omnibus Accounts, DTC and NSCC will no longer charge CDS for Covered Services in Omnibus Accounts in exchange for CDS no longer charging DTC and NSCC for similar services. As most of the activity processed in each of the Omnibus Accounts relates to reciprocal services which are charged to DTC, NSCC, and CDS at different rates (
DTC, NSCC, and CDS will continue to charge their respective participants for activity in the Omnibus Accounts.
This proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder because it recognizes that most of the activity in the Omnibus Accounts represents the processing of reciprocal activity in similar services used by each of the entities which are charged to DTC, NSCC, and CDS at different rates. As such, it provides for a more equitable allocation of fees charged by DTC and NSCC.
NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any impact or impose any burden on competition.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet been solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by NSCC.
Because the foregoing rule change changes fees charged clearing members by NSCC, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2007-02 and should be submitted on or before April 13, 2007.
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, as amended, (“Act”)
The Exchange is proposing to trade shares (“Shares”) of the PowerShares DB U.S. Dollar Index Bullish Fund and the PowerShares DB U.S. Dollar Index Bearish Fund (collectively the “Funds”) pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”) under Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200. 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 III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Pursuant to Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200, the Exchange may approve for listing and trading trust issued receipts (“TIRs”) investing in shares or securities (“Investment Shares”) that hold investments in any combination of futures contracts, options on futures contracts, forward contracts, commodities, swaps or high credit quality short-term fixed income securities or other securities.
The Exchange proposes to trade pursuant to UTP the Shares of the Funds under Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Equities Rules 8.200. The Shares represent beneficial ownership interests in the corresponding common units of beneficial interests of the DB U.S. Dollar Index Master Bullish Fund and the DB U.S. Dollar Index Master Bearish Fund, respectively (collectively, the “Master Funds”).
The overall investment objective of each of the Funds and the Master Funds is to reflect the performance of their respective benchmark index, less expenses, plus the excess, if any, of the corresponding Master Fund's interest income from its holdings of U.S. Treasury and other high credit quality short-term fixed income securities over its expenses. The Bullish Fund will seek to track the “Long Index” by investing in long positions in futures contracts (“DX Contracts”) on the U.S. Dollar Index® (USDX®) while the Bearish Fund will seek to track the “Short Index” by investing in short positions in DX Contracts on the USDX (collectively, the “Indexes”). Both the Long Index and Short Index (collectively, the “Indexes”) are designed to reflect the return from investing in the first-to-expire DX Contract. DX Contracts are traded through the FINEX currency markets of the New York Board of Trade (“NYBOT”). As discussed more fully in the Amex Notice, the USDX is composed of six underlying foreign currencies (the “Index Currencies”), and the value of the USDX reflects a general indication of the international value of the U.S. Dollar (“USD”) by averaging the exchange rates between the USD and the Index Currencies.
The use of a long position in a DX Contract in the construction of the Long Index would cause the Long Index level to rise as a result of any upward price movement in the DX Contract. Conversely, the use of a short position in a DX Contract in the construction of the Short Index would cause the Short Index level to rise as a result of any downward price movement in the DX Contract. As a result, the performance of the Long Index and Short Index would reflect any rise or fall of the USD versus the underlying basket of Index Currencies.
According to the Amex Order, on each business day, the Administrator will make available immediately prior to the opening of trading on the Amex the most recent Cash Deposit Amount for the creation of a Basket, and the Amex will disseminate the current value of the Cash Deposit Amount on a per-Share basis at least every 15 seconds throughout the trading day. The daily settlement prices of the DX Contracts, specific contract specifications, and delayed futures contract information on current and past trading sessions, including futures quotes and last sale information, are publicly available on NYBOT's Web site and on the Web sites of various market data vendors, news publications, automated quotation systems, or other financial information services.
The Amex also intends to disseminate on a daily basis for each of the Funds information with respect to the daily trading volume of each of the Shares, the number of Shares outstanding, the closing prices of each Fund's Shares, the corresponding NAV, and a hyperlink on its Web site to the Index Sponsor's Web site.
The Web site for the Funds is
The trading of the Shares will be subject to Commentary .02(e)(1)-(4) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200, which sets forth certain restrictions on ETP Holders acting as registered Market Makers in TIRs that invest in Investment Shares to facilitate surveillance. See “Surveillance” below for more information.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares. Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to which trading is not occurring in the DX Contracts, or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. In addition, trading in Shares will be subject to trading halts caused by extraordinary market volatility pursuant to the Exchange's “circuit breaker” rule
The Shares will not be subject to the short sale rule pursuant to a letter issued in response to a request for no-action advice under Rule 10a-1 under the Act.
The Exchange's current trading surveillance focuses on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
Further, trading in the Shares will be subject to Commentary .02(e)(1)-(4) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200, which sets forth certain restrictions on ETP Holders acting as registered Market Makers in TIRs that invest in Investment Shares to facilitate surveillance. Commentary .02(e)(1) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200 requires that the ETP Holder acting as a registered Market Maker in the Shares provide the Exchange with information relating to its trading in the underlying physical asset or commodity, related futures or options on futures, or any other related derivatives. Commentary .02(e)(4) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200 prohibits the ETP Holder acting as a registered Market Maker in the Shares from using any material nonpublic information received from any person associated with an ETP Holder or employee of such person regarding trading by such person or employee in the underlying physical asset or commodity, related futures or options on futures or any other related derivative (including the Shares). In addition, Commentary .02(e)(1) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200 prohibits the ETP Holder acting as a registered Market Maker in the Shares from being affiliated with a market maker in the underlying physical asset or commodity, related futures or options on futures or any other related derivative unless adequate information barriers are in place, as provided in
The Exchange may obtain information via the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) from other exchanges who are members or affiliates of the ISG, including NYBOT.
In addition, the Information Bulletin will advise ETP Holders, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to the Funds. The Exchange notes that investors purchasing Shares directly from a Fund (by delivery of the corresponding Cash Deposit Amount) will receive a prospectus. ETP Holders purchasing Shares from a Fund for resale to investors will deliver a prospectus to such investors. The Information Bulletin will also discuss any exemptive, no-action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act.
In addition, the Information Bulletin will reference that the Funds are subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Information Bulletin will also reference that the CFTC has regulatory jurisdiction over the trading of futures contracts.
The Information Bulletin will also disclose the trading hours of the Shares of the Funds and that the NAV for the Shares will be calculated after 4 p.m. ET each trading day. The Bulletin will disclose that information about the Shares of each Fund and the corresponding Indexes will be publicly available on the Funds' Web site.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
In addition, the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 12f-5
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.
Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change 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, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
In addition, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 12(f) of the Act,
The Commission further believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act,
Finally, the Commission notes that, if the Shares should be delisted by the Amex, the original listing exchange, the Exchange would no longer have authority to trade the Shares pursuant to this order.
In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made the following representations:
1. The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in this type of security in this session.
2. The Exchange's surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange. The Exchange may obtain information via the ISG from other exchanges who are members or affiliates of the ISG, including NYBOT. In addition, to facilitate surveillance, the Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to Commentary .02(e)(1)-(4) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200.
3. The Exchange will inform its ETP Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares.
4. The Exchange will require its ETP Holders to deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction and will note this prospectus delivery requirement in the Information Bulletin.
5. The Exchange will cease trading the Shares of a Fund if: (a) the listing market stops trading the Shares because of a regulatory halt similar to a halt based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 or a halt because the IFV or the value of the applicable Index is no longer available at least every 15 seconds; or (b) the listing market delists the Shares.
6. The Exchange will halt trading as provided in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34.
This approval order is conditioned on the Exchange's adherence to these representations.
The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposal before the thirtieth day after the publication of notice thereof in the
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages that will require clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. The information collection packages that may be included in this notice are for new information collections, approval of existing information collections, revisions to OMB-approved information collections, and extensions (no change) of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and on ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments and recommendations regarding the information collection(s) should be submitted to the OMB Desk Officer and the SSA Reports Clearance Officer. The information can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to the individuals at the addresses and fax numbers listed below:
I. The information collections listed below are pending at SSA and will be submitted to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. Therefore, your comments should be submitted to SSA
1. State Agency Report of Obligations for SSA Disability Programs (SSA-4513); Time Report of Personnel Services for Disability Determination Services (SSA-4514); State Agency Schedule of Equipment Purchased for SSA Disability Programs (SSA-871)—20 CFR 404.1626-0960-0421. Forms SSA-4513, SSA-4514 and SSA-871 are used to collect data necessary for detailed analysis and evaluation of costs incurred by State Disability Determination Services in making determinations of disability for SSA. The data are also utilized in determining funding levels for each DDS. Respondents are State DDSs.
2. Subpoena-Disability Hearing—20 CFR 404.916(b)(1) & 416.1416(b)(1)—0960-0428. Form SSA-1272-U4 is completed by State and Federal disability hearing officers (DHOs) to subpoena evidence or testimony in connections with hearings required by the Social Security Act. Actual issuance of the subpoena will be done by that appropriate delegated SSA official. Respondents are DHOs.
3. Summary of Evidence—20 CFR 404.913(b), 404.914(a), 416.1707, 416.1313(b), 416.1414(a)—0960-0430. Form SSA-887 is completed by a DHO from the claimant's State Disability Determination Service (DDS). The DHO summarizes all medical and vocational reports that were used to make the no-disability determination. This form, which is used to prepare for and conduct the disability hearing, is also made available to claimants so that they are aware of the basis for the no-disability decision and they can prepare for the reconsideration accordingly. Respondents are DHOs.
4. Information About Joint Checking/Savings Accounts—20 CFR 416.1201(b), 416.1208—0960-0461. The SSA-2574 is used to collect information when a Supplemental Security Income (SSI) applicant/recipient objects to the assumption that he/she owns all or part of the funds in a joint checking or savings account which bears his or her name. Information about the account is collected from both the SSI applicant/recipient and other accountholder(s). These statements regarding ownership are required to determine whether the account is a resource of the SSI claimant. The amount of resources a person owns is one of the factors considered in determining eligibility for SSI. Respondents are applicants and recipients of SSI and individuals who are joint owners of financial accounts with SSI applicants/recipients.
5. Beneficiary Recontact Form—20 CFR 404.703, 404.705—0960-0502. SSA must ensure that eligibility for benefits continues after entitlement. Studies show that mothers/fathers who marry fail to report the marriage and/or the fact that they no longer have a child entitled in their care. SSA uses the SSA-1588-OCR-SM to ask mothers/fathers about their marital status and children in care to detect overpayments and avoid continuing payment to those no longer entitled. Respondents are recipients of survivor mother/father Social Security benefits.
6. Wage Reports and Pension Information—20 CFR 422.122(b)—0960-0547. The information collected through 20 CFR 422.122(b) is used by SSA to identify the requestor of pension plan information and to confirm the individual is entitled to the data SSA provides. Respondents are requestors of pension plan information.
7. SSI Monthly Wage Reporting System— 20 CFR 416.701-732—0960-0715.
SSI recipients are required to report changes in their income, resources and living arrangements that may affect eligibility or payment amount. Currently, SSI recipients report changes on Form SSA-8150, Reporting Events—SSI, or to an SSA teleservice representative through SSA's toll-free telephone number, or they visit their local Social Security office.
Wages have, historically, been the source of SSI's highest error rate largely due to non-reporting by beneficiaries, deemors, and representative payees. Failure to report changes in wages timely accounts for approximately $400 million in overpayments each year. Consequently, SSA is evaluating methods for increasing reporting. SSA has tested and determined that given an easily accessible automated format, individuals will increase compliance with reporting responsibilities. Increased timely reporting has resulted in a decrease in improper payments. One of the methods tested, described
Participants who need to report a change in monthly wages (Comment: There are other forms of earned income that the phone line does not support) will call SSA's toll-free telephone number to report the change. The participants will access SSA's system using knowledge-based authentication (providing name, SSN and date of birth). Participants will speak their report (voice recognition technology) and/or key in the information using the telephone key pad. This automated system will then directly update our records and issue receipts in compliance with Section 202 of the Social Security Protection Act of 2004.
We are requesting permanent authorization of the existing wage reporting system to continue providing an alternative, and more efficient, means by which beneficiaries, their representative payees, and deemors can report wages via a toll-free telephone number. We believe this permanent authorization is necessary to effectively implement national usage of the system and substantially increase the number of reports received via this collection method. Without permanent authorization, we are concerned that an interruption in reporting would prove detrimental to our earlier efforts to recruit and train reporters, would damage the current regularity of reporting, and would considerably mitigate SSA's potential to reduce improper payments resulting from erroneous, or deficient, wage reports. Respondents to this collection are SSI recipients, deemors and representative payees of recipients who agree to participate in the program.
II. The information collections listed below have been submitted to OMB for clearance. Your comments on the information collections would be most useful if received by OMB and SSA within 30 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain a copy of the OMB clearance packages by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454, or by writing to the address listed above.
1. Complaint Form for Allegations of Discrimination in Programs or Activities Conducted by the Social Security Administration—0960-0585. The information collected on form SSA-437 is used by SSA to investigate and formally resolve complaints of discrimination based on race, color, sex, age, religion, disability, sexual orientation, status as a parent, retaliation, and national origin, including limited or no ability with English in any program or activity conducted by SSA. A person who believes that he or she has been discriminated against on any of the above basis may file a written complaint of discrimination. The information will be used to identify the complainant; identify the alleged discriminatory act; ascertain the date of such alleged act; obtain the identity of any individual(s) with information about the alleged discrimination; and ascertain other relevant information that would assist in the investigation and resolution of the complaint. The respondents are individuals who believe they have been discriminated against by SSA or by SSA's employees, contractors or agents in programs or activities conducted by SSA.
2. Work Incentives Planning and Assistance Program (formerly the BPAO Program)—0960-0629. Like the Benefits Planning Assistance Outreach (BPAO) program which it replaces, the Work Incentives Planning and Assistance (WIPA) program collects identifying information from the project sites and the community work incentives coordinators. In addition, data are collected from the beneficiaries on background employment, training, benefits and work incentives. SSA is interested in identifying beneficiary outcomes under the WIPA program to determine the extent to which beneficiaries with disabilities achieve their employment, financial and health care goals. The data will also be valuable to SSA in its analysis and future planning for Social Security Disability Insurance and SSI programs.
3. Expanded Monitoring Site Review Questionnaire for Volume and Fee for Service Payees (SSA-637); Expanded Monitoring Site Review Beneficiary Interview Form (SSA-639)—20 CFR 404.2035, 404.2065, 416.665, 416.701, 416.708—0960-0633. In situations where a Social Security beneficiary or SSI recipient is incompetent or physically unable to take care of his or her own affairs, SSA may pay Social Security benefits and/or SSI payments to a relative, another person, or an organization when the best interest of the beneficiary will be served. In certain situations SSA conducts site reviews in order to ensure that payees are carrying out their responsibilities in accordance with representative payment policies and procedures. SSA is also able to identify poor payee performance, uncover misuse and initiate corrective action. Triennial site reviews are conducted for fee-for-service payees and all volume payees (i.e., organizations serving 100 or more beneficiaries and individuals serving 20 or more beneficiaries). The reviews include a face-to-face meeting with the payee (and appropriate staff), examination/verification of a sample of beneficiary records and supporting documentation, and usually include beneficiary (if competent adult) or custodian (if different from payee) interviews. Forms SSA-637 and SSA-639 are used to
4. Direct Deposit Sign-Up Form (Country)—31 CFR 210—0960-0686. The SSA-1199 form captures the direct deposit information for an account at a foreign financial institution. Our International Direct Deposit program allows beneficiaries living abroad to have their benefits deposited to an account at a financial institution outside the U.S. Routing account number information varies slightly for each country, so we use a variation of the SF-1199 A (the government standard Direct Deposit Sign-Up Form) for each country. The respondents are Social Security beneficiaries residing abroad.
5. Certification of Prisoner Identity Information—20 CFR 422.107—0960-0688. When a valid agreement is in place, prison officials verify the identity of certain incarcerated U.S. citizens who need replacement Social Security cards. Information the prison officials provide will be taken from the official prison files and will be transcribed on their letterhead. This information will be used to establish the applicant's identity in the Social Security card process. The respondents are prison officials that certify identity of prisoners applying for replacement Social Security cards.
6. Claimant Statement about Loan of Food or Shelter; Statement about Food or Shelter Provided to Another—20 CFR 416.1130-416.1148—0960-0529. Forms SSA-5062 and SSA-L5063 are used to obtain statements about food and/or shelter provided to an SSI claimant or recipient. SSA uses this information to determine whether food and/or shelter are bona fide loans or should be counted as income for SSI purposes. This determination can affect eligibility for SSI and the amount of SSI benefits payable. The respondents are claimants/recipients for SSI benefits and individuals that provide loans of food and/or shelter to SSI claimants/recipients.
7. Internet Direct Deposit Application—31 CFR 210—0960-0634. SSA uses Direct Deposit/Electronic Funds Transfer (DD/EFT) enrollment information received from beneficiaries to facilitate DD/EFT of their Social Security benefits with a financial institution. Respondents are Social Security beneficiaries who use the Internet to enroll in DD/EFT.
8. Farm Self-Employment Questionnaire—20 CFR 404.1095—0960-0061. Section 211(a) of the Social Security Act requires the existence of a trade or business as a prerequisite for determining whether an individual or partnership may have “net earnings from self-employment.” Form SSA-7156 elicits the information necessary to determine the existence of an agricultural trade or business and subsequent covered earnings for Social Security entitlement purposes. The respondents are applicants for Social Security benefits, whose entitlement depends on whether the worker has covered earnings from self-employment as a farmer.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a current information collection. Title 49 U.S.C. Section 44936(f) mandates that airlines must obtain safety records of prospective employees from the FAA and from previous air carrier employers, and the National Driver Register, before an offer of employment is made.
Please submit comments by May 22, 2007.
Carla Mauney on (202) 267-9895, or by e-mail at:
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla Mauney, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, Strategy and Investment Analysis Division, AIO-20, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a current information collection. 14 CFR Part 125 prescribes requirements for leased aircraft, Aviation Service Firms, and Air Travel Clubs.
Please submit comments by May 22, 2007.
Carla Mauney on (202) 267-9895, or by e-mail at:
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla Mauney, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, Strategy and Investment Analysis Division, AIO-20, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FMCSA invites comments on its plan to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of a new information collection (IC) associated with the agency's study to investigate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) driver risk factors. The study will be conducted by a research contractor. This IC will aid FMCSA in developing future safety initiatives by examining a wide
Comments must be submitted on or before May 22, 2007.
You may submit comments identified by any of the following methods. Please identify your comments by the FMCSA Docket Number FMCSA-2007-25652.
•
•
•
•
All comments should reference Docket No. FMCSA-2006-25652. You may mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; telefax comments to 202/493-2251; or submit electronically at
Mr. Albert Alvarez, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Office of Research and Analysis (MC-RRR), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 400 Virginia Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20024. Telephone (202) 385-2387 or send an e-mail to
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Request for public comment on proposed collection of information.
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
This document describes one collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.
Comments must be received on or before May 22, 2007.
Comments must refer to the docket notice numbers cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted to Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Please identify the proposed collection of information for which a comment is provided, by referencing its OMB clearance Number. It is requested, but not required, that 2 copies of the comment be provided. The
Complete copies of each request for collection of information may be obtained at no charge from Gayle Dalrymple, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5309, NVS-123, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Dalrymple's telephone number is (202) 366-5559. Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the
(i) 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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses.
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following proposed collections of information:
This final rule included two new “collections of information,” as that term is defined in 5 CFR part 1320
Modifiers who take advantage of the exemption created by this rule are required to furnish NHTSA with a written document providing the modifier's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the modifier is availing itself of the exemption.
The rule requires: “S595.6 Modifier Identification
(a) Any motor vehicle repair business that modifies a motor vehicle to enable a person with a disability to operate, or ride as a passenger in, the motor vehicle and intends to avail itself of the exemption provided in 49 CFR 595.7 shall furnish the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
(1) Full individual, partnership, or corporate name of the motor vehicle repair business.
(2) Residence address of the motor vehicle repair business and State of incorporation if applicable.
(3) A statement that the motor vehicle repair business modifies a motor vehicle to enable a person with a disability to operate, or ride as a passenger in, the motor vehicle and intends to avail itself of the exemption provided in 49 CFR 595.7.
(b) Each motor vehicle repair business required to submit information under paragraph (a) of this section shall submit the information not later than August 27, 2001. After that date, each motor vehicle repair business that modifies a motor vehicle to enable a person with a disability to operate, or ride as a passenger in, the motor vehicle and intends to avail itself of the exemption provided in 49 CFR 595.7 shall submit the information required under paragraph (a) not later than 30 days after it first modifies a motor vehicle to enable a person with a disability to operate, or ride as a passenger in, the motor vehicle. Each motor vehicle repair business who has submitted required information shall keep its entry current, accurate and complete by submitting revised information not later than 30 days after the relevant changes in the business occur.”
This requirement is a one-time submission unless changes are made to the business as described in paragraph (b). NHTSA estimates that there are currently 579 businesses making modifications to motor vehicles to accommodate persons with disabilities which require the use of the make inoperative exemptions and therefore incur the paperwork burden. The initial registration of modifiers wishing to use the exemptions occurred in 2001. Now, we assume that five percent of the 579 businesses currently modifying vehicles will need to change their information or new registrants will elect to use the exemptions. We estimate registrations from 29 businesses each year of: 29 businesses × 10 minutes/business = 4.83 hours.
We estimate the material cost associated with each submission to be 49 cents per responding business, or $14.21 nationwide annually.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by person to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instruction; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
We seek comment on:
1. Is our estimate of 579 businesses engaged in vehicle modification to accommodate people with disabilities and using the make inoperative exemptions correct?
2. Are our estimates of the burden hours and material cost of compliance with 49 CFR 595.6 reasonable?
Modifiers who avail themselves of the exemptions in 49 CFR 595.7 are
We estimate that:
1. There are approximately 2,800 vehicles modified for persons with disabilities per year by 579 businesses, therefore
2. The burden for producing the record required by 49 CFR 595.7 in accordance with paragraph (e) for those vehicles will be 933 hours per year nationwide.
In the final rule we anticipated that the least costly way for a repair business to comply with this portion of the new rule would be to annotate the vehicle modification invoice as to the exemption, if any, involved with each item on the invoice. The cost of preparing the invoice is not a portion of our burden calculation, as that preparation would be done in the normal course of business. The time needed to annotate the invoice, we estimate, is 20 minutes. Therefore, the burden hours for a full year are calculated as: 2,800 vehicles x 20 minutes/vehicle = 933.3 hours.
This burden includes the calculation required by 49 CFR 595.7(e)5, but not the gathering of the information required for the calculation. That information would be gathered in the normal course of the vehicle modification. The only extra burden required by the rule is the calculation of the reduction in loading carrying capacity and conveying this information to the vehicle owner. Again we are assuming that annotation on the invoice is the least burdensome way to accomplish this customer notification.
There will be no additional material cost associated with compliance with this requirement since no additional materials need be used above those used to prepare the invoice in the normal course of business. We are assuming it is normal and customary in the course of vehicle modification business to prepare an invoice, to provide a copy of the invoice to the vehicle owner, and to keep a copy of the invoice for five years after the vehicle is delivered to the owner in finished form.
We seek comment on whether our assumptions about the following are reasonable:
1. The document required by 49 CFR 595.7(b) and specified in paragraph (e) will need to be prepared for approximately 2800 vehicles modified nationwide per year,
2. Annotation of each vehicle modification invoice as to which exemptions were used will take an average of 20 minutes, and
3. It is normal in the course of vehicle modification business to prepare an invoice, to provide a copy of the invoice to the vehicle owner, and to keep a copy of the invoice for five years after the vehicle is delivered to the owner in finished form.
Comments are invited on: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
This notice requests public participation in the OMB approval process for the renewal of an existing National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) information collection. PHMSA is requesting OMB approval for renewal of this information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). With this notice as required by the PRA, PHMSA invites the public to submit comments over the next 60 days on whether the existing information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 22, 2007.
Comments should reference Docket No. PHMSA-98-4957 and may be submitted in the following ways:
•
•
•
•
•
PHMSA posts all comments without changes or edits to
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received in response to any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is published in the
L.E. Herrick at (202) 366-5523, or by e-mail at
Pursuant to § 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, PHMSA is inviting comments on whether the renewal of the existing NPMS information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions
Federal pipeline safety law (49 U.S.C. 60132) requires an operator of a pipeline facility (except distribution lines and gathering lines) to submit geospatial data appropriate for use in the Department's NPMS. A complete data submission includes geospatial data, attribute data, metadata, public contact information for all liquefied natural gas, hazardous liquid, and gas transmission pipeline systems operated by a company. The operator must submit information in accordance with guidelines detailed in the NPMS operator standards document. Operators must update their submissions on an annual basis. Currently operators are able to submit data in paper and electronic formats. After September 30, 2007, PHMSA will cease accepting paper submissions. PHMSA is working with the approximately 2.2 percent of operators who submit paper maps to assist them in making the transition to an electronic format. A copy of the standards document is available in the docket.
PHMSA uses the NPMS as a tool to support various regulatory programs, pipeline inspections, and authorized external customers. Periodic updates of operator pipeline data informs the NPMS of any changes to the data over the previous year and allows PHMSA to maintain and improve the accuracy of the information.
As used in this notice, the term “information collection” includes all work related to preparing and disseminating information in accordance with recordkeeping requirements.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of meeting and public workshop.
This notice announces public meetings of PHMSA's Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Advisory Committee (TPSSC) and Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC). The committees will discuss regulatory issues independently and in joint session. Each committee will vote on one regulatory proposal. The THLPSSC will vote on a proposal to extend pipeline safety regulations to the unregulated hazardous liquid gathering lines and low-stress pipelines. The TPSSC will vote on a proposal to relax regulatory requirements governing public awareness programs conducted by operators of master meter systems and certain operators of petroleum gas systems. PHMSA will also conduct a public workshop to discuss the possible use of special permits to allow variance from the seven-year reassessment interval required as part of a gas transmission integrity management program.
The meetings will be on Wednesday, April 25 and Thursday, April 26, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST.
The committees will meet at the Washington Marriott, 1221 22nd Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. The phone number for reservations at the hotel is 202-872-1500. Attendees staying at the hotel must make reservations as soon as possible.
For additional information regarding this meeting contact Cheryl Whetsel at (202) 366-4431, or by e-mail at
Members of the public may attend the meetings. Lodging is available at the Washington Marriott, 1221 22nd Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. The phone number for reservations is 202-872-1500. The hotel will give priority to the Committee members and to the State Pipeline Safety Representatives for rooms blocked under “DOT Technical Advisory Committee Meetings.” PHMSA will post any additional information or changes on its Web page (
Members of the public who want to make an oral statement should notify Cheryl Whetsel before April 18. The presiding officer at the meeting may deny any request to present an oral statement and may limit the time of any presentation.
Comments should reference Docket No. PHMSA-98-4470 and may be submitted in the following ways:
•
•
•
•
•
All comments will be posted without changes or edits to
The TPSSC and the THLPSSC are statutorily mandated advisory committees that advise PHMSA on proposed safety standards for gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. The TPSSC and the THLPSSC are established under section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 1) and the pipeline safety law (49 U.S.C. Chap. 601). Each committee consists of 15 members—five each representing government, industry, and the public.
The pipeline safety law requires PHMSA to seek the TPSSC's or the THLPSSC's advice on the reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and practicability of each proposed pipeline safety standard. The pipeline safety law also requires PHMSA to submit the cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment information associated with the proposed standard to the appropriate committee. The committees evaluate the merits of the data and, when appropriate, provide recommendations on the adequacy of the analyses.
On Wednesday, April 25, the THLPSSC will discuss and vote on a proposal to extend pipeline safety regulations to the unregulated hazardous liquid gathering lines and low-stress pipelines and, if available, on a supplemental proposal PHMSA is developing. The THLPSSC discussed the proposal and potential changes needed to address the requirements of the Pipeline Integrity, Protection, Enforcement and Safety Act of 2006 (PIPES Act) at its last meeting on February 12, 2007. The committees will meet in joint session following conclusion of the THLPSSC meeting. Committees will discuss PHMSA's strategic plan and how PHMSA is including PIPES Act direction in moving forward on initiatives underway. Among the topics discussed will be underground damage prevention, including civil penalty enforcement authority; status of compliance with public awareness requirements; and development of criteria for community grants.
On Thursday, April 26, PHMSA will conduct a public meeting to discuss how to handle anticipated requests for variance from the seven-year reassessment interval required as part of a gas transmission integrity management program. The method under consideration is the use of PHMSA's authority to grant special permits allowing variance from regulatory requirements. Following conclusion of the public meeting, the TPSSC will discuss and vote on a proposal to relax regulatory requirements governing public awareness programs conducted by operators of master meter systems and certain operators of petroleum gas systems.
49 U.S.C. 60102, 60115.
Surface Transportation Board, DOT.
Approval of rail cost adjustment factor.
The Board has approved the second quarter 2007 rail cost adjustment factor (RCAF) and cost index filed by the Association of American Railroads. The second quarter 2007 RCAF (Unadjusted) is 1.147. The second quarter 2007 RCAF (Adjusted) is 0.537. The second quarter 2007 RCAF-5 is 0.511.
Mac Frampton, (202) 245-0317. [Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.]
Additional information is contained in the Board's decision, which is available on our Web site
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or energy conservation.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we conclude that our action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
By the Board, Chairman Nottingham, Vice Chairman Buttrey and Commissioner Mulvey.
New York & Greenwood Lake Railway (NYGL) has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR part 1152, subpart F—
NYGL has certified that: (1) No local or overhead traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) overhead traffic, if there were any, could be rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a State or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental reports), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on April 24, 2007, unless stayed pending reconsideration.
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to NYGL's representative: Fritz R. Kahn, Fritz R. Kahn, P.C., 1920 N Street, NW. (8th fl.), Washington, DC 20036-1601.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
NYGL has filed a combined environmental and historic report which addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. SEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by March 30, 2007. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to SEA (Suite 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling SEA, at (202) 245-0305. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.] Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), NYGL shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by NYGL's filing of a notice of consummation by March 23, 2008, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
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 5500 and Schedules, Annual Return/ Report of Employee Benefit Plan.
Written comments should be received on or before May 22, 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 8855, Election To Treat a Qualified Revocable Trust as Party of an Estate.
Written comments should be received on or before May 22, 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 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 1118, Foreign Tax Credit-Corporations.
Written comments should be received on or before May 22, 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 notice of proposed rulemaking and temporary regulation, REG-209020-86 (TD 8210), Foreign Tax Credit; Notification and Adjustment Due to Foreign Tax Redeterminations (§§ 1.905-3T, 1.905-4T, 1.905-5T and 301.6689-IT).
Written comments should be received on or before May 22, 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 an existing final regulation, FI-34-91 (TD 8456), Capitalization of Certain Policy Acquisition Expenses (§§ 1.848-2(g)(8), 1.848-2(h)(3) and 1.848-2(i)(4)).
Written comments should be received on or before May 22, 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 Form 5498, IRA Contribution Information.
Written comments should be received on or before May 22, 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
Written comments should be received on or before May 22, 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 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, PS-25-94 (TD 8686), Requirements to Ensure Collection of Section 2056A Estate Tax (§ 20.2056A-2).
Written comments should be received on or before May 22, 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 an existing final regulation, PS-74-89 (TD 8282), Election of Reduced Research Credit (§ 1.280C-4).
Written comments should be received on or before May 22, 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 an existing final regulation, regulation section 601.601, Rules and Regulations.
Written comments should be received on or before May 22, 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 Form 211, Application for Reward for Original Information, and Form 211(SP) Solicitud de Recompensa por Informacion Original.
Written comments should be received on or before May 22, 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 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 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, April 17, 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, April 17, 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, Treasury.
Notice.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. I section 10(d), of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and 5 U.S.C. 552b, the Government in the Sunshine Act, a report summarizing the closed meeting activities of the Art Advisory Panel during 2006 has been prepared. A copy of this report has been filed with the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Management.
The report is available for public inspection and requests for copies should be addressed to: Internal Revenue Service, Freedom of Information Reading Room, Room 1621, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, telephone number (202) 622-5164 (not a toll free number). The report is also available at
Karen Carolan, AP:ART, Internal Revenue Service/Appeals, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, telephone (202) 435-5609 (not a toll free telephone number).
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue has determined that this document is not a major rule as defined in Executive Order 12291 and that a regulatory impact analysis therefore, is not required. Neither does this document constitute a rule subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6).
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
As required by the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2006, Public Law 109-361, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is hereby giving notice of adjustments in certain benefit rates. These adjustments affect the compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) programs.
These adjustments are effective December 1, 2006, the date provided by Public Law 109-361.
Lyric Collier, Program Analyst, Compensation and Pension Service (212A), Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-7212.
Section 2 of Public Law 109-361 provides for an increase in each of the rates in sections 1114, 1115(1), 1162, 1311, 1313, and 1314 of title 38, United States Code. VA is required to increase these benefit rates by the same percentage as increases in the benefit amounts payable under title II of the Social Security Act. In computing increased rates in the cited title 38 sections, fractions of a dollar are rounded down to the nearest dollar. The increased rates are required to be published in the
The Social Security Administration has announced that there will be a 3.3 percent cost-of-living increase in Social Security benefits. Therefore, applying the same percentage, the following rates for VA compensation and DIC programs will be effective December 1, 2006:
(1) If the veteran served as sergeant major of the Army, senior enlisted advisor of the Navy, chief master sergeant of the Air Force, sergeant major of the Marine Corps, or master chief petty officer of the Coast Guard, the
(2) If the veteran served as Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Staff of the Army, Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Commandant of the Marine Corps, or Commandant of the Coast Guard, the surviving spouse's monthly rate is $2,443.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Advisory Committee on CARES Business Plan Studies has scheduled a meeting for April 10, 2007 at the Canandaigua VA Medical Center, Building 5, Auditorium, 40 Fort Hill Avenue, Canandaigua, New York. The meeting will convene at 1 p.m. and conclude at 4 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on proposed business plans at those VA facility sites identified in May 2004 as requiring further study by the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) Decision document.
The objective of the meeting is to provide the Secretary with advice regarding the final selection of a business planning option to modernize the medial center from those options previously selected by the Secretary for further study. An analysis of the business planning options completed by the VA contractor will be presented for Committee review in preparation for submitting the Committee's final recommendations to VA. The agenda will also accommodate public commentary on the options.
Interested persons may attend and present oral or written statements to the Committee. For additional information regarding the meeting, please contact Mr. Jay Halpern, Designated Federal Officer, (00CARES), at 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, by phone at (202) 273-5994, or by e-mal at
By direction of the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans will meet at VA Central Office, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC on April 16-19, 2007. The meeting is open to the public.
April 16, 2007 from 7:45 a.m. to 4 p.m., Room 230.
April 17, 2007 from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Room 230.
April 18, 2007 from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Room 230.
April 19, 2007 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Room 530.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary on the administration of VA benefits and services to minority veterans, to assess the needs of minority veterans and to evaluate whether VA compensation, medical and rehabilitation services, outreach, and other programs are meeting those needs. The Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary regarding such activities.
On April 16, the agenda will include briefings and updates from the Veterans Health Administration, the Veterans Benefits Administration, Readjustment Counseling Service, CARES, Loan Guaranty Service, and Policy & Program Management. On April 17, the agenda will include briefings and updates of the National Cemetery Administration, Human Resources Administration, National Veterans Employment Program, VA Strategic Plan, Telehealth, and the presentation of Certificates of Appointment to five new Committee members.
On April 18, the agenda will include briefings and updates on the Center for Women Veterans, seamless transition activities, the Fisher House/Center for the Intrepid, VA Office of Research and Development, homeless veterans programs, and DC National Guard. The agenda will also feature a panel of OIF/OEF soldiers from Walter Reed Army Medical Center. On April 19, the Committee will review and analyze comments presented during the meeting to prepare for the Committee's annual report and recommendations to the Secretary.
Any member of the public wishing to attend should contact Ms. Juanita J. Mullen, at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Center for Minority Veterans (OOM), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. Ms. Mullen may be contacted either by phone at (202) 273-6708, fax at (202) 273-7092, or e-mail at
By direction of the Secretary.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice.
The “Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007,” (Public Law 110-5), signed into law by President Bush on February 15, 2007, makes funds available for all of the surface transportation programs of the Department of Transportation (DOT) for the Fiscal Year (FY) ending September 30, 2007. This notice provides information on the FY 2007 funding available for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) assistance programs, and provides program guidance and requirements, and information on several program issues important in the current year. The notice also includes tables that show unobligated carryover funding available in FY 2007 under certain discretionary programs from prior years. Finally, this notice also references separate Notices of Funding Availability (NOFA) published concurrently for discretionary opportunities under the Bus and Bus Facilities Program and the Alternatives Analysis Program.
For general information about this notice contact Mary Martha Churchman, Director, Office of Transit Programs, at (202) 366-2053. Please contact the appropriate FTA regional office for any specific requests for information or technical assistance. The Appendix at the end of this notice includes contact information for FTA regional offices. An FTA headquarters contact for each major program area is also included in the discussion of that program in the text of the notice.
This document apportions or allocates the FY 2007 funds available under the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, among potential program recipients according to statutory formulas in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 or congressional designations in Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
For each FTA program included, we have provided relevant information on the FY 2007 funding currently available, requirements, period of availability, and other related program information and highlights, as appropriate. A separate section of the document provides information on requirements and guidance that are applicable to all FTA programs.
The Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, (Pub. L. 110-5, February 15, 2007); hereafter called the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, provides general funds and obligation authority for trust funds that total $8.97 billion for FTA programs, through September 30, 2007. Table 1 of this document shows the funding for the FTA programs, as provided for in the Continuing
Congress has enacted a full year Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, in lieu of a new Appropriations Act for FY 2007. This Notice includes tables of apportionments and allocations for FTA programs. Allocations based on SAFETEA-LU are included for some discretionary programs. In addition, FTA will issue separate Notices of Funding Availability to solicit applications for discretionary funds not allocated in SAFETEA-LU.
FTA uses a percentage of funds appropriated to certain FTA programs for program oversight activities conducted by the agency. The funds are used to provide necessary oversight activities, including oversight of the construction of any major project under these statutory programs; to conduct safety and security, civil rights, procurement, management and financial reviews and audits; and to provide technical assistance to correct deficiencies identified in compliance reviews and audits.
Section 5327 of title 49, U.S.C., 5327 authorizes the takedown of funds from FTA programs for project management oversight. Section 5327 provides oversight takedowns at the following levels: 0.5 percent of Planning funds, 0.75 percent of Urbanized Area Formula funds, 1 percent of Capital Investment funds, 0.5 percent of Special Needs of Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities formula funds, 0.5 percent of Nonurbanized Area Formula funds, and 0.5 percent of Alternative Transportation in the Parks and Public Lands funds.
In FY 2007, FTA continues to focus on implementation of SAFETEA-LU through issuance of new and revised program guidance and regulations. As any documents that include binding obligations on grantees are issued, FTA makes them available for public comment prior to finalizing. We encourage grantees to regularly check the FTA Web site at
FTA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are not issuing new planning emphasis areas for FY 2007, and are rescinding planning emphasis areas from prior years, in recognition of the priority that planning organizations and grantees must pay to implementing the new and changed provisions of SAFETEA-LU.
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, did not include any new earmarks under any FTA program. However, SAFETEA-LU contained statutory earmarks under several programs, and they are listed in the tables in this Notice. FTA will honor those statutory earmarks. This Notice also includes tables of unobligated balances for earmarks from prior years under the Bus and Bus Facilities Program, the New Starts Program, the Clean Fuels Program, and the Alternatives Analysis Program. FTA will continue to honor those earmarks.
Because there are no new appropriations earmarks in FY 2007, there are unallocated balances available in several programs to be administered at FTA's discretion. FTA has allocated most of the discretionary New Starts funds to the projects listed in the President's Budget for FY 2007. FTA is soliciting applications for the unallocated balance of the Bus and Bus Facilities program through two Notices of Funding Availability, one published in a separate Part of today's
FHWA has changed the accounting procedures for flexible funds, high priority projects and transportation improvement projects transfers to FTA. As a result, FTA will no longer be able to combine these transferred funds in a single grant with FTA funds in the program to which they are transferred. FTA is establishing new codes and procedures for grants involving funds transferred from FHWA. See Section V D of this Notice for more information.
It has been FTA's policy not to make adjustments to the annual funding apportionment of transit agencies for strikes, labor disputes or work stoppages. FTA has changed this policy. Effective with NTD Report Year (RY) 2005 data, FTA will make “hold harmless” adjustments due to strikes, labor disputes, or work stoppages. An adjustment will be made beginning with the FY 2008 apportionment.
NTD RY 2005 data are the actual data used in apportionment of FY 2007 funds. NTD RY 2006 data will be used in the FY 2008 apportionment. If your agency had a valid strike, labor dispute or work stoppage during RY 2005 or RY 2006, please contact the NTD Web site.
Instructions for requesting a “hold harmless” adjustment can be found in the 2006 NTD Reporting Manual,
This section of the notice provides available FY 2007 funding and other important program-related information for the three major FTA funding accounts included in the notice (Formula and Bus Grants, Capital Investment Grants, and Research). Of the 17 separate FTA programs contained in this notice that fall under the major program area headings, the funding for ten is apportioned by statutory or administrative formula. Funding for the other seven is allocated on a discretionary or competitive basis.
Funding and other important information for each of the 17 programs is presented immediately below. This includes program apportionments or allocations, certain program requirements, length of time FY 2007 funding is available to be committed, and other significant program information pertaining to FY 2007, including the availability of competitive opportunities under several programs.
Section 5303 authorizes a cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive planning program for transportation investment decision-making at the metropolitan area level. State Departments of Transportation are direct recipients of funds, which are
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, provides $81,892,800 to the Metropolitan Planning Program (49 U.S.C. 5303). The total amount apportioned for the Metropolitan Planning Program (to States for MPOs' use in urbanized areas (UZAs) is $82,373,861, as shown in the table below, after the deduction for oversight (authorized by 49 U.S.C. Section 5327) and addition of prior year reapportioned funds.
States' apportionments for this program are displayed in Table 2.
As specified in law, 82.72 percent of the amounts authorized for Section 5305 are allocated to the Metropolitan Planning program. FTA allocates Metropolitan Planning funds to the States according to a statutory formula. Eighty percent of the funds are distributed to the States as a basic allocation based on each State's UZA population, based on the most recent Census. The remaining 20 percent is provided to the States as a supplemental allocation based on an FTA administrative formula to address planning needs in the larger, more complex UZAs. The amount published for each State is a combined total of both the basic and supplemental allocation.
The State allocates Metropolitan Planning funds to MPOs in UZAs or portions thereof to provide funds for projects included in an annual work program (the Unified Planning Work Program, or UPWP) that includes both highway and transit planning projects. Each State has either reaffirmed or developed, in consultation with their MPOs, a new allocation formula, as a result of the 2000 Census. The State allocation formula may be changed annually, but any change requires approval by the FTA regional office before grant approval. Program guidance for the Metropolitan Planning Program is found in FTA Circular C8100.1B, Program Guidance and Application Instructions for Metropolitan Planning Program Grants, dated October 25, 1996. FTA is in the process of updating this circular to incorporate references to the new and changed planning requirements in sections 5303 and 5305, as amended by SAFETEA-LU and associated rulemaking.
The funds apportioned under the Metropolitan Planning program remain available to be obligated by FTA to recipients for four fiscal years—which includes the year of apportionment plus three additional years. Any apportioned funds that remain unobligated at the close of business on September 30, 2010, will revert to FTA for reapportionment under the Metropolitan Planning Program.
a. Planning Emphasis Areas (PEAs). FTA and FHWA are not issuing new PEAs this year, and are rescinding PEAs issued in prior years, in light of the priority given to implementation of SAFETEA-LU planning and program provisions.
b. Consolidated Planning Grants. FTA and FHWA planning funds can be consolidated into a single consolidated planning grant (CPG), awarded by either FTA or FHWA. The CPG eliminates the need to monitor individual fund sources, if several have been used, and ensures that the oldest funds will always be used first. Unlike “flex funds,” State planning funds from FHWA will be able to be combined with FTA planning funds in a single grant. Alternatively FTA planning funds can be transferred to FHWA for administration.
Under the CPG, States can report metropolitan planning expenditures (to comply with the Single Audit Act) for both FTA and FHWA under the Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance number for FTA's Metropolitan Planning Program (20.505). Additionally, for States with an FHWA Metropolitan Planning (PL) fund-matching ratio greater than 80 percent, the State (through FTA) can request a waiver of the 20 percent local share requirement in order that all FTA funds used for metropolitan planning in a CPG can be granted at the higher FHWA rate. For some States, this Federal match rate can exceed 90 percent.
States interested in transferring planning funds between FTA and FHWA should contact the FTA regional office or FHWA Division Office for more detailed procedures.
For further information on CPGs, contact Candace Noonan, Office of Planning and Environment, FTA, at (202) 366-1648, or Kenneth Petty, Office of Planning and Environment, FHWA, at (202) 366-6654.
This program provides financial assistance to States for Statewide planning and other technical assistance activities (including supplementing the technical assistance program provided through the Metropolitan Planning program), planning support for nonurbanized areas, research, development and demonstration projects, fellowships for training in the public transportation field, university research, and human resource development. For more about the Statewide Planning and Research Program contact Candace Noonan, Office of Planning and Environment, at (202) 366-1648.
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, provides $17,107,200 to the Statewide Planning and Research Program (49 U.S.C. 5304). The total amount apportioned for the Statewide Planning and Research Program (SPRP) is $17,252,652, as shown in the table below, after the deduction for oversight (authorized by 49 U.S.C. Section 5327) and addition of prior year reapportioned funds.
State apportionments for this program are displayed in Table 2.
As specified in law, 17.28 percent of the amounts authorized for Section 5305 are allocated to the Statewide Planning and Research program. FTA apportions funds to States by a statutory formula that is based on information received from the latest decennial census, and the State's UZA population as compared to the UZA population of all States. However, a State must receive at least 0.5 percent of the amount apportioned under this program.
Funds are provided to States for statewide planning and research programs. These funds may be used for a variety of purposes such as planning, technical studies and assistance, demonstrations, management training, and cooperative research. In addition, a State may authorize a portion of these funds to be used to supplement Metropolitan Planning funds allocated by the State to its UZAs, as the State deems appropriate. Program guidance for the Statewide Planning and Research program is found in FTA Circular C8200.1, Program Guidance and Application Instructions for State Planning and Research Program Grants, dated December 27, 2001. FTA is in the process of updating this circular to incorporate the new and changed planning requirements in sections 5304 and 5305, as amended by SAFETEA-LU and associated rulemaking.
The funds apportioned under the Statewide Planning and Research program remain available to be obligated by FTA to recipients for four fiscal years—which include the year of apportionment plus three additional fiscal years. Any apportioned funds that remain unobligated at the close of business on September 30, 2010, will revert to FTA for reapportionment under the Statewide Planning and Research Program.
The information about Planning Emphasis Areas and CPGs described in Section A. 5, above for the Metropolitan Planning Program (49 U.S.C. 5303), also applies to the Statewide Planning Program.
Section 5307 authorizes Federal capital and operating assistance for transit in Urbanized Areas (UZAs). A UZA is an area with a population of 50,000 or more that has been defined and designated as such in the most recent decennial census by the U.S. Census Bureau. The Urbanized Area Formula Program may also be used to support planning activities, as a supplement to that funded under the Metropolitan Planning program described above. Urbanized Areas Formula Program funds used for planning must be shown in the UPWP for MPO(s) with responsibility for that area. Funding is apportioned directly to each UZA with a population of 200,000 or more, and to the State Governors for UZAs with populations between 50,000 and 200,000. Eligible applicants are limited to entities designated as recipients in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5307(a)(2) and other public entities with the consent of the Designated Recipient. Generally, operating assistance is not an eligible expense for UZAs with populations of 200,000 or more. However, there are several exceptions to this restriction. The exceptions are described in section 2(e) below.
For more information about the Urbanized Area Formula Program contact Scott Faulk, Office of Transit Programs, at (202) 366-2053.
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, provides $3,606,175,000 to the Urbanized Area Formula Program (49 U.S.C. 5307). The total amount apportioned for the Urbanized Area Formula Program is $3,924,820,789 as shown in the table below, after the deduction for oversight (authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5327) and including prior year reapportioned funds and funds apportioned to UZA's from the appropriation for Section 5340 for Growing States and High Density States.
Table 3 displays the amounts apportioned under the Urbanized Area Formula Program.
FTA apportions Urbanized Area Formula Program funds based on legislative formulas. Different formulas apply to UZAs with populations of 200,000 or more and UZAs with populations less than 200,000. For UZAs 50,000 to 199,999 in population, the formula is based simply on population and population density. For UZAs with populations of 200,000 and more, the formula is based on a combination of bus revenue vehicle miles, bus passenger miles, fixed guideway revenue vehicle miles, and fixed guideway route miles, as well as population and population density. Table 4 includes detailed information about the formulas.
To calculate a UZA's FY 2007 apportionment, FTA used population and population density statistics from the 2000 Census and (when applicable) validated mileage and transit service data from transit providers' 2005 National Transit Database (NTD) Report Year. Also, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5336(b). FTA used 60 percent of the directional route miles attributable to the Alaska Railroad passenger operations system to calculate the apportionment for the Anchorage, Alaska UZA.
We have calculated dollar unit values for the formula factors used in the Urbanized Area Formula Program apportionment calculations. These values represent the amount of money each unit of a factor is worth in this year's apportionment. The unit values change each year, based on all of the data used to calculate the apportionments. The dollar unit values for FY 2007 are displayed in Table 5. To replicate the basic formula component of a UZA's apportionment, multiply the dollar unit value by the appropriate formula factor (i.e., the population, population x population density), and (when applicable, data from the NTD (i.e., route miles, vehicle revenue miles, passenger miles, and operating cost).
In FY 2007, one percent of funds appropriated for Section 5307, $36,061,750, is set aside for Small Transit Intensive Cities (STIC). FTA apportions these funds to UZAs under 200,000 in population that operate at a level of service equal to or above the industry average level of service for all UZAs with a population of at least 200,000, but not more than 999,999, in one or more of six performance categories: passenger miles traveled per vehicle revenue mile, passenger miles traveled per vehicle revenue hour, vehicle revenue miles per capita, vehicle revenue hours per capita, passenger miles traveled per capita, and passengers per capita.
The data for these categories for the purpose of FY 2007 apportionments comes from the NTD reports for the 2005 reporting year. This data is used to determine a UZA's eligibility under the STIC formula, and is also used in the STIC apportionment calculations. Because this performance data change with each year's NTD reports, the UZAs eligible for STIC funds and the amount each receives may vary each year. In FY 2007, FTA apportioned $120,608 for each performance factor/category for which the urbanized area exceeded the national average for UZAs with a population of at least 200,000 but not more than 999,999.
In addition to the funds apportioned to UZAs, according to the Section 5307 formula factors contained in 49 U.S.C. 5336, FTA also apportions funds to urbanized areas under Section 5340 Growing States and High Density States formula factors. In FY 2007, FTA apportioned $138,734,486 to 453 UZA's in 50 Growing States and $202,000,000 to 46 UZA's in seven High Density States. Half of the funds appropriated for Section 5340 are available to Growing States and half to High Density States. FTA apportions Growing States funds by a formula based on State population forecasts for 15 years beyond the most recent Census. FTA distributes the amounts apportioned for each State between UZAs and nonurbanized areas based on the ratio of urbanized/nonurbanized population within each State in the 2000 census. FTA apportions the High Density States funds to States with population densities in excess of 370 persons per square mile. These funds are apportioned only to UZAs within those States. FTA pro-rates each UZA's share of the High Density funds based on the population of the UZAs in the State in the 2000 census.
FTA cannot provide unit values for the Growing States or High Density formulas because the allocations to individual States and urbanized areas are based on their relative population data, rather than on a national per capita basis.
Based on language in the SAFETEA-LU conference report that directs FTA to show a single apportionment amount for Section 5307, STIC and Section 5340, FTA shows a single Section 5307 apportionment amount for each UZA in Table 3, the Urbanized Area Formula apportionments. The amount includes funds apportioned based on the Section 5307 formula factors, any STIC funds, and any Growing States and High Density States funding allocated to the area. FTA uses separate formulas calculations to generate the respective apportionment amounts for the Section 5307, STIC and Section 5340. For technical assistance purposes, the UZAs that received STIC funds are listed in Table 6. FTA will make available breakouts of the funding allocated to each UZA under these formulas, upon request to the regional office.
Program guidance for the Urbanized Area Formula Program is presently found in FTA Circular C9030.1C, Urbanized Area Formula Program: Grant Application Instructions, dated October 1, 1998, and supplemented by additional information or changes provided in this document. FTA is in the process of updating the circular to incorporate changes resulting from language in SAFETEA-LU. Several important program requirements are highlighted below.
a.
b.
The term “transit enhancement” includes projects or project elements that are designed to enhance public transportation service or use and are physically or functionally related to transit facilities. Eligible enhancements include the following: (1) Historic preservation, rehabilitation, and operation of historic mass transportation buildings, structures, and facilities (including historic bus and railroad facilities); (2) bus shelters; (3) landscaping and other scenic beautification, including tables, benches, trash receptacles, and street lights; (4) public art; (5) pedestrian access and walkways; (6) bicycle access, including bicycle storage facilities and installing equipment for transporting bicycles on mass transportation vehicles; (7) transit connections to parks within the recipient's transit service area; (8) signage; and (9) enhanced access for persons with disabilities to mass transportation.
It is the responsibility of the MPO to determine how the one-percent for transit enhancements will be allotted to transit projects. The one percent minimum requirement does not preclude more than one percent from being expended in a UZA for transit enhancements. However, activities that are only eligible as enhancements—in particular, operating costs for historic facilities—may be assisted only within the one-percent funding level.
c.
FTA is often called upon to report to Congress and others on how grantees are expending Federal funds for security enhancements. To facilitate tracking of grantees' security expenditures, which are not always evident when included within larger capital or operating activity line items in the grant budget, we have established a non-additive (“non-add”) scope code for security expenditures—Scope 991. The non-add scope is to be used to aggregate activities included in other scopes, and it does not increase the budget total. Section 5307 grantees should include this non-add scope in the project budget for each new Section 5307 grant application or amendment. Under this non-add scope, the applicant should repeat the full amount of any of the line items in the budget that are exclusively for security and include the portion of any other line item in the project budget that is attributable to security, using under the non-add scope the same line item used in the project budget. The grantee can modify the ALI description or use the extended text feature, if necessary, to describe the security expenditures.
The grantee must provide information regarding its use of the one percent for security as part of each Section 5307 grant application, using a special screen in TEAM-Web. If the grantee has certified that it is not necessary to expend one percent for security, the Section 5307 grant application must include information to support that certification. FTA will not process an application for a Section 5307 grant until the security information is complete.
d.
(1) Section 5307(b)(2) allows UZAs that grew in population from under 200,000 to over 200,000, as a result of the 2000 Census to use FY 2007 funds for operating assistance in an amount up to 25 percent of the grandfathered amount for FY 2005 funds. (The provision is completely phased out in FY 2008.) Table 7 shows the maximum amount of each eligible UZA's Section 5307 apportionment that can be used for operating assistance.
(2) Section 5307(b)(1)(E) provides for grants for the operating costs of equipment and facilities for use in public transportation in the Evansville, IN-KY urbanized area, for a portion or portions of the UZA if: the portion of the UZA includes only one State; the population of the portion is less than 30,000; and the grants will be not used to provide public transportation outside of the portion of the UZA.
(3) Section 5307(b)(1)(F) provides operating costs of equipment and facilities for use in public transportation for local governmental authorities in areas which adopted transit operating and financing plans that became a part of the Houston, Texas, UZA as a result of the 2000 decennial census of population, but lie outside the service area of the principal public transportation agency that serves the Houston UZA.
(4) Section 5336(a)(2) prescribes the formula to be used to apportion Section 5307 funds to UZAs with population of 200,000 or more. SAFETEA-LU amended 5336(a)(2) to add language that stated, “* * * except that the amount apportioned to the Anchorage urbanized area under subsection (b) shall be available to the Alaska Railroad for any costs related to its passenger operations.” This language has the effect of directing that funds apportioned to the Anchorage urbanized area, under the fixed guideway tiers of the Section 5307 apportionment formula, be made available to the Alaska Railroad, and that these funds may be used for any capital or operating costs related to its passenger operations.
(5) Section 3027(c)(3) of TEA-21, as amended (49 U.S.C. 5307 note), provides an exception to the restriction on the use of operating assistance in a UZA with a population of 200,000 or more, by allowing transit providers/grantees that provide service exclusively to elderly persons and persons with disabilities and that operate 20 or fewer vehicles to use Section 5307 funds apportioned to the UZA for operating assistance. The total amount of funding made available for this purpose under Section 3027(c)(3) is $1.4 million. Transit providers/grantees eligible under this provision have already been identified and notified.
e.
1. In cash from non-Government sources other than revenues from providing public transportation services;
2. From revenues derived from the sale of advertising and concessions;
3. From an undistributed cash surplus, a replacement or depreciation cash fund or reserve, or new capital;
4. From amounts received under a service agreement with a State or local social service agency or private social service organization; and
5. Proceeds from the issuance of revenue bonds.
In addition, funds from Section 403(a)(5)(C)(vii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(C)(vii)) can be used to match Urbanized Area Formula funds.
f.
The list of small UZAs included within the planning boundaries of designated TMAs is provided in the table below.
The MPO must notify the Associate Administrator for Program Management, Federal Transit Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, in writing, no later than July 1 of each year, to identify any small UZA within the planning boundaries of a TMA.
The MPO should notify the appropriate FTA Regional Administrator of its intent to use FTA funds for highway purposes, as prescribed in section V.D below. Urbanized Area Formula funds that are designated by the MPO for highway projects will be transferred to and administered by FHWA.
The Urbanized Area Formula Program funds apportioned in this notice remain available to be obligated by FTA to recipients until September 30, 2010. Any of these apportioned funds that remain unobligated at the close of business on September 30, 2010, will revert to FTA for reapportionment under the Urbanized Area Formula Program.
In each UZA with a population of 200,000 or more, the Governor in consultation with responsible local officials, and publicly owned operators of public transportation has designated one or more entities to be the Designated Recipient for Section 5307 funds apportioned to the UZA. The same entity(s) may or may not be the Designated Recipient for the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom program funds apportioned to the UZA. In UZAs under 200,000 population, the State is the Designated Recipient for Section 5307 as well as JARC and New Freedom programs. The Designated Recipient for Section 5307 may authorize other entities to apply directly to FTA for Section 5307 grants pursuant to a supplemental agreement. While the requirement that projects selected for funding be included in a locally developed coordinated public transit/human service transportation plan is not included in Section 5307 as it is in Sections 5310, 5316 (JARC) and 5317 (New Freedom), FTA expects that in their role as public transit providers, recipients of Section 5307 funds will be participants in the local planning process for these programs.
The Clean Fuels Grant Program supports the use of alternative fuels in air quality maintenance or nonattainment areas for ozone or carbon monoxide through capital grants to urbanized areas for clean fuel vehicles and facilities. Previously an unfunded Formula Program under TEA-21, the program is now a discretionary program. FTA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the discretionary program on October 16, 2006, and is now in the process of reviewing comments and finalizing the rule. For more information about this program contact Kimberly Sledge, Office of Transit Programs, at (202) 366-2053.
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, provides $45,000,000 to the Clean Fuels Grant Program (49 U.S.C. 5308). SAFETEA-LU earmarked $18,721,000 for specific Clean Fuel projects. The balance of $26,279,000 was transferred to the discretionary Bus Program.
Allocations to projects earmarked under the Clean Fuels program in SAFETEA-LU are displayed in Table 8.
Section 3044(b) of SAFETEA-LU included 16 projects to be funded through the Clean Fuels program. Table 8 displays the amounts available in FY 2007 to the Clean Fuels projects designated in SAFETEA-LU. FY 2006 carryover funds are shown in Table 9. No funds are available for competitive allocation in FY 2007.
Clean Fuels program funds may be made available to any grantee in a UZA that is designated as maintenance or nonattainment area for ozone or carbon monoxide as defined in the Clean Air Act. Eligible recipients include Section 5307 Designated Recipients as well as recipients in small UZAs. In the case of a small UZA, the State in which the area is located will act as the recipient.
Eligible projects include the purchase or lease of clean fuel buses (including buses that employ a lightweight composite primary structure), the construction or lease of clean fuel buses or electrical recharging facilities and related equipment for such buses, and construction or improvement of public transportation facilities to accommodate clean fuel buses.
Legislation will be necessary if a recipient wishes to use Clean Fuels funds earmarked in SAFETEA-LU for
Unless otherwise specified in law, grants made under the Clean Fuels program must meet all other eligibility requirements as outlined in Section 5308.
Funds designated for specific Clean Fuels Program projects remain available for obligation for three fiscal years, which includes the year of appropriation plus two additional fiscal years. The FY 2007 funding for projects included in this notice remains available through September 30, 2009. Clean Fuels funds not obligated in an FTA grant for their original purpose at the end of the period of availability will generally be made available for other projects.
This program provides capital assistance for the modernization of existing fixed guideway systems. Funds are allocated by a statutory formula to UZAs with fixed guideway systems that have been in operation for at least seven years. A “fixed guideway” refers to any transit service that uses exclusive or controlled rights-of-way or rails, entirely or in part. The term includes heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, monorail, trolleybus, aerial tramway, inclined plane, cable car, automated guideway transit, ferryboats, that portion of motor bus service operated on exclusive or controlled rights-of-way, and high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes. Eligible applicants are the public transit authorities in those urbanized areas to which the funds are allocated. For more information about Fixed Guideway Modernization contact Scott Faulk, Office of Transit Programs, at (202) 366-2053.
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, provides $1,448,000,000 to the Fixed Guideway Modernization Program. The total amount apportioned for the Fixed Guideway Modernization Program is $1,433,520,000, after the deduction for oversight, as shown in the table below.
The FY 2007 Fixed Guideway Modernization Program apportionments to eligible areas are displayed in Table 10.
The formula for allocating the Fixed Guideway Modernization funds contains seven tiers. The apportionment of funding under the first four tiers is based on amounts specified in law and NTD data used to apportion funds in FY 1997. Funding under the last three tiers is apportioned based on the latest available data on route miles and revenue vehicle miles on segments at least seven years old, as reported to the NTD. Section 5337(f) of title 49, U.S.C. provides for the inclusion of Morgantown, West Virginia (population 55,997) as an eligible UZA for purposes of apportioning fixed guideway modernization funds. Also, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5336(b) FTA used 60 percent of the directional route miles attributable to the Alaska Railroad passenger operations system to calculate the apportionment for the Anchorage, Alaska UZA under the Section 5309 Fixed Guideway Modernization formula.
FY 2007 Formula apportionments are based on data grantees provided to the NTD for the 2005 reporting year. Table 11 provides additional information and details on the formula. Dollar unit values for the formula factors used in the Fixed Guideway Modernization Program are displayed in Table 5. To replicate an area's apportionment, multiply the dollar unit value by the appropriate formula factor, i.e., route miles and revenue vehicle miles.
Fixed Guideway Modernization funds must be used for capital projects to maintain, modernize, or improve fixed guideway systems. Eligible UZAs (those with a population of 200,000 or more) with fixed guideway systems that are at least seven years old are entitled to receive Fixed Guideway Modernization funds. A threshold level of more than one mile of fixed guideway is required in order to receive Fixed Guideway Modernization funds. Therefore, UZAs reporting one mile or less of fixed guideway mileage under the NTD are not included. However, funds apportioned to an urbanized area may be used on any fixed guideway segment in the UZA. Program guidance for Fixed Guideway Modernization is presently found in FTA Circular C9300.1A, Capital Program: Grant Application Instructions, dated October 1, 1998. FTA is in the process of updating this circular to incorporate changes resulting from language in SAFETEA-LU.
The funds apportioned in this notice under the Fixed Guideway Modernization Program remain available to be obligated by FTA to recipients for three fiscal years following FY 2007. Any of these apportioned funds that remain unobligated at the close of business on September 30, 2010, will revert to FTA for reapportionment under the Fixed Guideway Modernization Program.
This program provides capital assistance for new and replacement buses and related facilities. Funds are allocated on a discretionary basis. Eligible purposes are acquisition of buses for fleet and service expansion, bus maintenance and administrative facilities, transfer facilities, bus malls, transportation centers, intermodal terminals, park-and-ride stations, acquisition of replacement vehicles, bus rebuilds, bus preventive maintenance, passenger amenities such as passenger shelters and bus stop signs, accessory and miscellaneous equipment such as mobile radio units, supervisory vehicles, fare boxes, computers, and shop and garage equipment. Eligible applicants are State and local governmental authorities. Eligible subrecipients include other public agencies, private companies engaged in public transportation and private non-profit organizations. For more information about Bus and Bus-Related Facilities contact Maria Wright, Office of Transit Programs, at (202) 366-2053.
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, provides $881,779,000 for the bus and bus facilities program. This amount includes $855,500,000 provided for the Bus Program and $26,279,000 transferred from the Clean Fuels Program. The amount of funding for projects designated in Section 3044 of SAFETEA-LU for Bus and Bus-Related Facilities in FY 2007 is $459,670,089. The balance remains unallocated, as shown in the following table.
The FY 2007 Bus and Bus Facility Program allocations are displayed in Table 12.
Funds are provided annually under Section 5309 for discretionary allocation for bus and bus facilities projects. SAFETEA-LU listed 646 earmarked projects to be funded each year through the Bus Program (Section 3044) and specified additional projects in Section 5309(m)(7). Table 12 displays the allocation of the FY 2007 Bus and Bus-Related Facilities funds by State and project for projects earmarked in SAFETEA-LU. The table includes a SAFETEA-LU project number for each project listed in Section 3044. No additional projects were earmarked in the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007. In fact, Section 112 of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, (H.J. Res 20) specifically precluded using FY 2007 funds to award grants for projects designated Section 5309 bus funds in the statement of managers accompanying the FY 2006 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 109-115).
Section 125 and Section 113 of the FY 2005 and FY 2006 Department of Transportation Appropriations Acts, respectively, make projects identified in the statement of managers automatically eligible to receive the funds designated to the project “notwithstanding any other provision of law.” Similar language was first included as a general provision in Section 547 of the FY 2004 Department of Transportation Appropriations Acts. In addition, Section 3044 of SAFETEA-LU earmarked 646 Bus and Bus Facilities projects in FY 2007. FTA will review Congressional intent on a case by case basis.
FTA honors Congressional earmarks for the purpose designated, for purposes eligible under the program or under the expanded eligibility of a “notwithstanding” provision. If you want to apply to use funds designated under the Bus Program in any year for project activities outside the scope of the project designation included in report language, you must submit your request for reprogramming to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations for resolution. FTA will not reprogram projects Congress designated in report language without direction from the Appropriations Committees.
FTA will honor projects earmarked to receive Section 5309 bus funds in SAFETEA-LU. Legislation will be necessary to amend the earmark if you wish to use funds for project activities outside the scope of the project description.
Grants made under the Bus and Bus-Related Facilities program must meet all other eligibility requirements as outlined in Section 5309 unless otherwise specified in law.
Program guidance for Bus and Bus-Related Facilities is found in FTA Circular C9300.1A, Capital Program: Grant Application Instructions. FTA is in the process of updating this circular to incorporate changes resulting from language in SAFETEA-LU.
The FY 2007 Bus and Bus-Related Facilities funds not obligated for their original purpose as of September 30, 2009, may be made available for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309. The unusual appropriations process in FY 2007 has not yet resulted in directions from Congress to FTA not to reallocate unobligated bus program funds for designations that lapsed at the end of FY 2006.
Prior year unobligated balances for Bus and Bus-Related allocations in the amount of $870,471,637 remain available for obligation in FY 2007. This includes $861,331,362 in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 unobligated allocations, and $9,140,275 for fiscal years 2002-2004 unobligated allocations that were extended by previous direction by the House and Senate appropriation committees. The unobligated amounts available as of September 30, 2006, are displayed in Table 13.
In two Notices of Funding Availability (NOFA), published as separate parts of today's
The New Starts program provides funds for construction of new fixed guideway systems or extensions to existing fixed guideway systems. Eligible purposes are light rail, rapid rail (heavy rail), commuter rail, monorail, automated fixed guideway system (such as a “people mover”), or a busway/high occupancy vehicle (HOV) facility, Bus Rapid Transit that is fixed guideway, or an extension of any of these. Projects become candidates for funding under this program by successfully completing the appropriate steps in the major capital investment planning and project development process. Major new fixed guideway projects, or extensions to existing systems, financed with New Starts funds typically receive these funds through a full funding grant agreement (FFGA) that defines the scope of the project and specifies the total multi-year Federal commitment to the project. Beginning in FY 2007, up to $200,000,000 each year is designated for “Small Starts” (Section 5309(e)) projects with a New Starts share of less than $75,000,000 and a net project cost of less than $250,000,000. The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, however, did not set aside a specific amount for Small Starts from the amounts appropriated for Capital Investment Grants.
Section 5309(m)(6) also made annual allocations of New Start funding available to Alaska and Hawaii for ferryboats and to the Denali Commission in Anchorage, Alaska under the terms of Section 307(e) of the Denali Commission Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 3121) for docks, waterfront development projects and related transportation infrastructure in rural Alaska communities.
For more information about New Starts project development contact Sean Libberton, Office of Planning and Environment, at (202) 366-4033, or for information about published allocations contact Kimberly Sledge, Office of Transit Programs, at (202) 366-2053.
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, provides $1,566,000,000 to New Starts. The total amount allocated for New Starts is $1,550,340,000, as shown in the table below.
Congress included authorizations for specific New Starts projects in SAFETEA-LU and in statutory takedowns from the program for Alaska and Hawaii Ferryboats and the Denali Commission. The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, did not include project allocations. FTA has allocated available FY 2007 New Starts funding as shown in Table 14, based on existing FFGAs and the President's Budget for FY 2007.
Because New Starts projects are earmarked in law rather than report language, reprogramming for a purpose other than that specified must also occur in law. New Starts projects are subject to a complex set of approvals related to planning and project development set forth in 49 CFR Part 611. FTA has published a number of rulemakings and interim guidance documents related to the New Starts program since the passage of SAFETEA-LU. Grantees should reference the FTA Web site at
New Starts funds remain available for three fiscal years (including the fiscal year the funds are made available or appropriated plus two additional years.) FY 2007 funds remain available through September 30, 2009. Funds may be extended by Congress or made available for other projects after the period of availability has expired. The unusual appropriations process in FY 2007 has not yet resulted in any extensions of prior year unobligated balances that lapsed at the end of FY 2006.
Prior year unobligated allocations for New Starts in the amount of $717,087,493 remain available for obligation in FY 2007. This amount includes $118,384,337 in FY 2005 and $598,703,156 in FY 2006 unobligated allocations. These unobligated amounts are displayed in Table 15. Information on pre-award authority for New Starts projects is detailed in section V below.
This program provides formula funding to States for capital projects to assist private nonprofit groups in meeting the transportation needs of the elderly and individuals with disabilities when the public transportation service provided in the area is unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate to meet these needs. A State agency designated by the Governor administers the Section 5310 program. The State's responsibilities include: notifying eligible local entities of funding availability; developing project selection criteria; determining applicant eligibility; selecting projects for funding; and ensuring that all subrecipients comply with Federal requirements. Eligible nonprofit organizations or public bodies must apply directly to the designated State agency for assistance under this program. For more information about the Elderly and Individuals with Disabilities Program contact Cheryl Oliver, Office of Transit Programs, at (202) 366-2053.
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, provides $117,000,000 to the Elderly and Individuals with Disabilities Program (49 U.S.C. 5310). After deduction of 0.5 percent for oversight, and the addition of reapportioned prior year funds, $116,659,554 remains available for allocation to the States.
The FY 2007 Elderly and Individuals with Disabilities Program apportionments to the States are displayed in Table 16.
FTA allocates funds to the States by an administrative formula consisting of a $125,000 floor for each State ($50,000 for smaller territories) with the balance allocated based on 2000 Census population data for persons aged 65 and over and for persons with disabilities.
Funds are available to support the capital costs of transportation services for older adults and people with disabilities. Uniquely under this program, eligible capital costs include the acquisition of service. Seven specified States (Alaska, Louisiana, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, and Wisconsin) may use up to 33 percent of their apportionment for operating assistance under the terms of the SAFETEA-LU Section 3012(b) pilot program.
Capital assistance is provided on an 80 percent Federal, 20 percent local matching basis except that Section 5310(c) allows States eligible for a higher match under the sliding scale for FHWA programs to use that match ratio for Section 5310 capital projects. Operating assistance is 50 percent Federal, 50 percent local, or the 62.5 percent of the sliding scale Federal share. Funds provided under other Federal programs (other than those of the DOT, with the exception of the Federal Lands Highway Program established by 23 U.S.C. 204) may be used as match. Revenue from service contracts may also be used as local match.
While the assistance is intended primarily for private non-profit organizations, public bodies approved by the State to coordinate services for the elderly and individuals with disabilities, or any public body that certifies to the State that there are no non-profit organizations in the area that are readily available to carry out the service, may receive these funds.
States may use up to ten percent of their annual apportionment to administer, plan, and provide technical
The State recipient must certify that: the projects selected were derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan; and, the plan was developed through a process that included representatives of public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services providers and participation by the public. The locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation planning process must be coordinated and consistent with the metropolitan and statewide planning processes and funding for the program must included in the metropolitan and statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP and STIP) at a level of specificity or aggregation consistent with State and local policies and procedures. Finally, the State must certify that allocations of the grant to subrecipients are made on a fair and equitable basis.
The coordinated planning requirement is also a requirement in two additional programs. Projects selected for funding under the Job Access Reverse Commute program and the New Freedom program are also required to be derived from a locally developed coordinated public transit/human service transportation plan. FTA anticipates that most areas will develop one consolidated plan for all the programs, which may include separate elements and other human service transportation programs.
The Section 5310 program is subject to the requirements of Section 5307 to the extent the Secretary determines appropriate. Program guidance is found in FTA C 9070.1E, dated October 1, 1998. FTA published a proposed revised circular for this program and is currently reviewing comments submitted to the docket. The new circular will be posted on the FTA Web site at
FTA has administratively established a three year period of availability for Section 5310 funds. Funds allocated to States under the Elderly and Individuals with Disabilities Program in this notice must be obligated by September 30, 2009. Any funding that remains unobligated as of that date will revert to FTA for reapportionment among the States under the Elderly and Individuals with Disabilities Program.
States may transfer Section 5310 funds to Section 5307 or Section 5311, but only for projects selected under the Section 5310 program, not as a general supplement for those programs. FTA anticipates that the States would use this flexibility primarily for projects to be implemented by a Section 5307 recipient in a small urbanized area, or for Federally recognized Indian Tribes that elect to receive funds as a direct recipient from FTA under Section 5311. A State that transfers Section 5310 funds to Section 5307 must certify that each project for which the funds are transferred has been coordinated with private nonprofit providers of services. FTA has established a new scope code (641) to track 5310 projects included within a Section 5307 or 5311 grant. Transfer to Section 5307 or 5311 is permitted but not required. FTA expects primarily to award stand-alone Section 5310 grants to the State for any and all subrecipients.
This program provides formula funding to States and Indian Tribes for the purpose of supporting public transportation in areas with a population of less than 50,000. Funding may be used for capital, operating, State administration, and project administration expenses. Eligible subrecipients include State and local public agencies, Indian Tribes, private non-profit organizations, and private operators of public transportation services, including intercity bus companies. Indian Tribes are also eligible direct recipients under Section 5311, both for funds apportioned to the States and for projects selected to be funded with funds set aside for a separate Tribal Transit Program.
For more information about the Nonurbanized Area Formula Program contact Lorna Wilson, Office of Transit Programs, at (202) 366-2053.
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, provides $404,000,000 to the Nonurbanized Area Formula Program (49 U.S.C. 5311). The total amount apportioned for the Nonurbanized Area Formula Program is $386,179,139, after take-downs of two percent for the Rural Transportation Assistance Program (RTAP), 0.5 percent for oversight, and $10,000,000 for the Tribal Transit Program, and the addition of Section 5340 funds and prior year funds reapportioned, as shown in the table below.
The FY 2007 Nonurbanized Area Formula apportionments to the States are displayed in Table 17.
FTA apportions the funds available for apportionment after take-down for oversight, the Tribal Transit Program, and RTAP according to a statutory formula. FTA apportions the first twenty percent to the States based on land area in nonurbanized areas with no state receiving more than 5 percent of the amount apportioned. FTA apportions the remaining eighty percent based on nonurbanized population of each State relative to the national nonurbanized population. FTA does not apportion Section 5311 funds to the Virgin Islands, which by a statutory exception are treated as an urbanized area for purposes of the Section 5307 formula program.
FTA also allocated $63,265,514 to the 50 States for nonurbanized areas from the Growing States portion of Section 5340. FTA apportions Growing States funds by a formula based on State population forecasts for 15 years beyond the most recent census. FTA distributes the amounts apportioned for each State between UZAs and nonurbanized areas based on the ratio of urbanized/nonurbanized population within each State in the 2000 census.
The Nonurbanized Area Formula Program provides capital, operating and administrative assistance for public transit service in areas under 50,000 in population.
The Federal share for capital assistance is 80 percent and for operating assistance is 50 percent, except that States eligible for the sliding scale match under FHWA programs may use that match ratio for Section 5311 capital projects and 62.5 percent of the sliding scale capital match ratio for operating projects.
Each State must spend no less than 15 percent of its FY 2007 Nonurbanized Area Formula apportionment for the development and support of intercity bus transportation, unless the State certifies, after consultation with affected intercity bus service providers, that the intercity bus service needs of the State are being adequately met. SAFETEA-LU added this requirement for consultation with the industry to strengthen the certification requirement. FTA also encourages consultation with other stakeholders, such as communities affected by loss of intercity service.
Each State prepares an annual program of projects, which must provide for fair and equitable distribution of funds within the States, including Indian reservations, and must provide for maximum feasible coordination with transportation services assisted by other Federal sources.
In order to retain eligibility for funding, recipients of Section 5311 funding must report data annually to the NTD, beginning with the 2006 reporting year.
Program guidance for the Nonurbanized Area Formula Program is found in FTA C 9040.1F, Nonurbanized Area Formula Program Guidance and Grant Application Instructions, dated April 1, 2007, which was revised and reissued after notice and comment. FTA announced availability of this circular in the
Funds apportioned to nonurbanized areas under the Nonurbanized Area Formula Program will remain available for two fiscal years following FY 2007. Any funds that remain unobligated at the close of business on September 30, 2009, will revert to FTA for allocation among the States under the Nonurbanized Area Formula Program.
By law, FTA requires that each recipient under the Section 5311 program submit an annual report to the NTD containing information on capital investments, operations, and service provided with funds received under the Section 5311 program. Section 5311(b)(4), as amended by SAFETEA-LU, specifies that the report should include information on total annual revenue, sources of revenue, total annual operating costs, total annual capital costs, fleet size and type, and related facilities, revenue vehicle miles, and ridership. In consultation with State Departments of Transportation (DOT), FTA previously developed a voluntary state-based rural data module for the NTD. The existing NTD Rural Data Reporting Module manual and reporting instructions are posted on the NTD Web site,
This program provides funding to assist in the design and implementation of training and technical assistance projects, research, and other support services tailored to meet the needs of transit operators in nonurbanized areas. For more information about Rural Transportation Assistance Program (RTAP) contact Lorna Wilson, Office of Transit Programs, at (202) 366-2053.
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, provides $8,080,000 to RTAP (49 U.S.C. 5311(b)(2)), as a two percent takedown from the funds appropriated for Section 5311. FTA has reserved 15 percent for the National RTAP program. After adding prior year funds eligible for reapportionment, $7,320,588 is available for allocations to the States, as shown in the table below.
Table 17 shows the FY 2007 RTAP allocations to the States.
FTA allocates funds to the States by an administrative formula. First FTA allocates $65,000 to each State ($10,000 to territories), and then allocates the balance based on nonurbanized population in the 2000 census.
States may use the funds to undertake research, training, technical assistance, and other support services to meet the needs of transit operators in nonurbanized areas. These funds are to be used in conjunction with a State's administration of the Nonurbanized Area Formula Program, but may also support the rural components of the Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom programs.
Funds apportioned to States under RTAP remain available for two fiscal years following FY 2007. Any funds that remain unobligated at the close of business on September 30, 2009, will revert to FTA for allocation among the States under the RTAP.
The National RTAP project is administered by the American Public Works Association in consortium with the Community Transportation Association of America, under a cooperative agreement re-competed at five-year intervals. During FY 2007, FTA will be soliciting proposals for the National RTAP program services for the next five years. The projects are guided by a project review board of managers of rural transit systems and State DOT RTAP programs. National RTAP resources also support the biennial TRB National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation and other research and technical assistance projects of a national nature.
The percentage takedown for RTAP, combined with rising funding levels for Section 5311, make additional resources available at the State RTAP program level as well as the national RTAP for projects such as providing technical assistance for the new tribal transit program and conducting intercity bus needs assessments.
FTA refers to this program as the Tribal Transit Program. It is funded as a takedown from funds appropriated for the Section 5311 program. Indian Tribes are defined as eligible direct recipients. The funds are to be apportioned for grants to Indian Tribes for any purpose eligible under Section 5311, which includes capital, operating, planning, and administrative assistance for rural public transit services and rural intercity bus service. For more information about the Tribal Transit Program contact Lorna Wilson, Office of Transit Programs, at (202) 366-2053.
Under the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, the amount allocated to the program in FY 2007 is $10,000,000, as authorized in Section 5311(c)(1)(B).
Based on procedures developed in consultation with the Tribes, FTA will issue a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) soliciting applications for FY 2007 funds.
FTA developed streamlined program requirements based on statutory authority allowing the Secretary to determine the terms and conditions appropriate to the program. These conditions are contained in the annual NOFA.
Funds remain available for three fiscal years, which includes the fiscal year the funds were apportioned or appropriated plus two additional years. Funds appropriated in FY 2007 will remain available for obligation to the tribes competitively selected to receive the funds through September 30, 2009. Any funds that remain unobligated after September 30, 2009, will revert to FTA for reallocation among the Tribes.
The funds set aside for the Tribal Transit Program are not meant to replace or reduce funds that Indian Tribes receive from states through the Section 5311 program but are to be used to enhance public transportation on Indian reservations and transit serving tribal communities. Funds allocated to Tribes by the States may be included in the State's Section 5311 application or awarded by FTA in a grant directly to the tribe. We encourage Tribes intending to apply to FTA as direct recipients to contact the appropriate FTA regional office at the earliest opportunity.
Technical assistance for Tribes may be available from the State DOT using the State's allocation of RTAP or funds available for State administration under Section 5311, from the Tribal Transportation Assistance Program (TTAP) Centers supported by FHWA, and from the Community Transportation Association of America under a program funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The National RTAP will also be developing new resources for Tribal Transit.
FTA's National Research Programs include the National Research and Technology Program (NRTP), the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), the National Transit Institute (NTI), and the University Transportation Centers Program (UTC).
Through funding under these programs, FTA seeks to deliver solutions that improve public transportation. FTA's Strategic Research Goals are to provide transit research leadership, increase transit ridership, improve capital and operating efficiencies, improve safety and emergency preparedness, and to protect the environment and promote energy independence. For more information contact Bruce Robinson, Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation, at (202) 366-4209.
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, provides $61,000,000 for the National Research Programs. Of this amount $9,300,000 is allocated for TCRP, $4,300,000 for NTI, $7,000,000 for the UTC, and $40,400,000 for NRTP. Within the NRTP—$22,800,920 is allocated for specific activities under 49 U.S.C. 5338(d) and in Section 3046 of SAFETEA-LU. A breakdown of NRP funds is provided in the table below.
All research and research and development projects are subject to a 2.6% reduction for the Small Business Innovative Research Program (SBIR). The project allocations are listed in Table 18.
Application Instructions and Program Management Guidelines are set forth in FTA Circular 6100.1C. Research projects must support FTA's Strategic Research Goals and meet the Office of Management and Budget's Research and Development Investment Criteria. All research recipients are required to work with FTA to develop approved Statements of Work and plans to evaluate research results before award.
Eligible activities under the NRTP include research, development, demonstration and deployment projects as defined by 49 U.S.C. 5312(a); Joint Partnership projects for deployment of innovation as defined by 49 U.S.C. 5312(b); International Mass Transportation Projects as defined by 49 U.S.C. 5312(c); and, human resource programs as defined by 49 U.S.C. 5322.
Problem Statements for TCRP can be submitted on TCRP's website:
Funds are available until expended.
Funds not designated by Congress for specific projects and activities will be programmed by FTA based on national priorities. Opportunities are posted in www.grants.gov under Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 20.514.
The Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program provides formula funding to States and Designated Recipients to support the development and maintenance of job access projects designed to transport welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals to and from jobs and activities related to their employment, and for reverse commute projects designed to transport residents of UZAs and other than
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, provides $144,000,000 for the JARC Program. The total amount apportioned by formula is $144,000,000, as shown in the table below.
Table 19 shows the FY 2007 JARC apportionments.
By law, FTA allocates 60 percent of funds available to UZAs with populations of 200,000 or more persons (large UZAs); 20 percent to the States for urbanized areas with populations ranging from 50,000 to 200,000 persons (small UZAs), and 20 percent to the States for rural and small urban areas with populations of less than 50,000 persons. FTA apportions funds based upon the number of low income individuals residing in a State or large urbanized area, using data from the 2000 Census for individuals below 150 percent of poverty. FTA publishes apportionments to each State for small UZAs and for rural and small urban areas and a single apportionment for each large UZA.
The Designated Recipient, either for the State or for a large UZA, is responsible for further allocating the funds to specific projects and subrecipients through a competitive selection process. If the Governor has designated more than one recipient of JARC funds in a large UZA, the Designated Recipients may agree to conduct a single competitive selection process or sub-allocate funds to each Designated Recipient, based upon a percentage split agreed upon locally, and conduct separate competitions.
States may transfer funds between the small UZA and the nonurbanized apportionments, if all of the objectives of JARC are met in the size area the funds are taken from. States may also use funds in the small UZA and nonurbanized area apportionments for projects anywhere in the State (including large UZAs) if the State has established a statewide program for meeting the objectives of JARC. A State planning to transfer funds under either of these provisions should submit a request to the FTA regional office. FTA will assign new accounting codes to the funds before obligating them in a grant.
States and Designated Recipients must solicit grant applications and select projects competitively, based on application procedures and requirements established by the Designated Recipient, consistent with the Federal JARC program objectives. In the case of large UZAs, the area-wide solicitation shall be conducted in cooperation with the appropriate MPO(s).
Funds are available to support the planning, capital and operating costs of transportation services that address the needs of welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals that are not met by other transportation services. The transportation services may be provided by public, non-profit, or private-for-profit operators. The Federal share is 80 percent of capital expenses and 50 percent of operating expenses. Funds provided under other Federal programs (other than those of the U.S. DOT) may be used for local/State match for funds provided under section 5316, and revenue from service contracts may be used as local match.
Funding is available for transportation services provided by public, non-profit, or private-for-profit operators. Assistance may be provided for a variety of transportation services and strategies directed at assisting welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals address unmet transportation needs, and to provide reverse commute services.
States and Designated Recipients may use up to ten percent of their annual apportionment to administer, plan, and provide technical assistance for a funded project. No local share is required for these program administrative funds. Funds used under this program for planning must be shown in the UPWP for MPO(s) with responsibility for that area.
The Designated Recipient must certify that: The projects selected were derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan; and, the plan was developed through a process that included representatives of public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services providers and participation by the public, including those representing the needs of welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals. The locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation planning process must be coordinated and consistent with the metropolitan and statewide planning processes and funding for the program must included in the metropolitan and statewide Transportation Improvement Program (TIP and STIP) at a level of specificity or aggregation consistent with State and local policies and procedures. Finally, the State must certify that allocations of the grant to subrecipients are made on a fair and equitable basis.
The coordinated planning requirement is also a requirement in two additional programs. Projects selected for funding under the Section 5310 program and the New Freedom program are also required to be derived from a locally developed coordinated public transit-human service transportation plan. FTA anticipates that most areas will develop one consolidated plan for all the programs, which may include separate elements and other human service transportation programs.
The JARC program is subject to the relevant requirements of Section 5307, including the requirement for certification of labor protections. FTA published a proposed circular for this program and is currently reviewing comments submitted to the docket. The new circular will be posted on the FTA Web site at
FTA is establishing a consistent three-year period of availability for JARC, New Freedom, and the Section 5310 program, which includes the year of apportionment plus two additional years. FY 2007 funding is available through FY 2009. Any funding that remains unobligated on September 30, 2009 will revert to FTA for reapportionment among the States and large UZAs under the JARC program.
a. Carryover Earmarks. Table 20 lists prior year carryover of $45,154,056 for JARC projects designated by Congress in FYs 2002-2005. JARC earmarks carried over from TEA-21 are subject to the terms and conditions under which they were originally appropriated, including the requirement for a 50 percent local share for both capital and operating assistance. All projects should be in a regional JARC Plan as required under TEA-21 or in the new local coordinated plan required by the new formula JARC program. FTA will award a grant for a designated project upon receipt of a complete application, but can honor changes to the original designation only
b. Designated Recipient. Beginning in FY 2007, FTA must have received formal notification from the Governor or Governor's designee of the Designated Recipient for JARC funds apportioned to a State or large UZA before awarding a grant to that area for JARC projects.
c. Transfers to Section 5307 or 5311. States may transfer JARC funds to Section 5307 or Section 5311, but only for projects competitively selected under the JARC program, not as a general supplement for those programs. FTA anticipates that the States would use this flexibility primarily for projects to be implemented by a Section 5307 recipient in a small urbanized area or for Federally recognized Indian Tribes that elect to receive funds as a direct recipient from FTA under Section 5311. FTA has established a new scope code (646) to track JARC projects included within a Section 5307 or 5311 grant. Transfer to Section 5307 or 5311 is permitted but not required. FTA will also award stand-alone Section 5316 grants to the State for any and all subrecipients. In order to track disbursements accurately against the appropriate program, FTA will not combine JARC funds with Section 5307 funds in a single Section 5307 grant, nor will FTA combine JARC with New Freedom funds in a single Section 5307 grant.
d. Evaluation. Section 5316(i)(2), as added by SAFETEA-LU, requires FTA to conduct a study to evaluate the effectiveness of the JARC program. To support the evaluation, annual GAO reports on the program, and DOT Performance Measures, while reducing the burden grantees previously experienced from separate reporting required for the JARC program under TEA-21, FTA has incorporated reporting for performance measures into the annual progress report all JARC grantees submit in TEAM.
SAFETEA-LU established the New Freedom Program under 49 U.S.C. 5317. The program purpose is to provide new public transportation services and public transportation alternatives beyond those currently required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) that assist individuals with disabilities with transportation, including transportation to and from jobs and employment support services. For more information about the New Freedom program contact Henrika Buchanan-Smith, Office of Transit Programs, at (202) 366-2053.
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, provides $81,000,000 for the New Freedom Program. The entire amount is apportioned by formula, as shown in the table below.
Table 21 shows the FY 2007 New Freedom apportionments.
By law, FTA allocates 60 percent of funds available to UZAs with populations of 200,000 or more persons (large UZAs); 20 percent to the States for urbanized areas with populations ranging from 50,000 to 200,000 persons (small UZAs), and 20 percent to the States for rural and small urban areas with populations of less than 50,000 persons. FTA apportions funds based upon the number of persons with disabilities over the age of five residing in a State or large urbanized area, using data from the 2000 Census. FTA publishes apportionments to each State for small UZAs and for rural and small urban areas and a single apportionment for each large UZA.
FTA has learned from the U.S. Bureau of the Census that there is a better source of disability data from the 2000 Census than the 2000 census file we had previously used for SAFETEA-LU projections and for the FY 2006 New Freedom program apportionments. We have therefore based the FY 2007 apportionments for the New Freedom program on the information for States and urbanized areas contained in the Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF-3)—Sample Data (tables QT-P21 and P42), and Census publication PHC-2, which provides more accurate data for individuals with disabilities than the file based on projections from a sample that we had previously used. We will also base future apportionments on this data and will update the SAFETEA-LU estimates for FY 2008-2009 on the Web site. We regret any inconvenience this technical change in the source data for the formula may cause areas in their planning and selection of New Freedom projects.
The Designated Recipient, either for the State or for a large UZA, is responsible for further allocating the funds to specific projects and subrecipients through a competitive selection process. If the Governor has designated more than one recipient of JARC funds in a large UZA, the Designated Recipients may agree to conduct a single competitive selection process or sub-allocate funds to each Designated Recipient, based upon a percentage split agreed upon locally and conduct separate competitions.
States and Designated Recipients must solicit grant applications and select projects competitively, based on application procedures and requirements established by the Designated Recipient, consistent with the Federal New Freedom program objectives. In the case of large UZAs, the area-wide solicitation shall be conducted in cooperation with the appropriate MPO(s).
Funds are available to support the capital and operating costs of new public transportation services and public transportation alternatives that are beyond those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Funds provided under other Federal programs (other than those of the DOT) may be used as match for capital funds provided under Section 5317, and revenue from contract services may be used as local match.
Funding is available for transportation services provided by public, non-profit, or private-for-profit operators. Assistance may be provided for a variety of transportation services and strategies directed at assisting persons with disabilities address unmet transportation needs. Eligible public transportation services and alternatives to public transportation funded under the New Freedom program must be both new and beyond the ADA. (Note, however, that FTA has published interim guidance holding Designated Recipients harmless for project selections conducted in good faith based on FTA's earlier preliminary determination that eligible services could be either new or beyond the ADA.)
The Federal share is 80 percent of capital expenses and 50 percent of operating expenses. Funds provided under other Federal programs (other than those of the DOT) may be used for local/state match for funds provided under Section 5317, and revenue from service contracts may be used as local match.
States and Designated Recipients may use up to ten percent of their annual apportionment to administer, plan, and provide technical assistance for a funded project. No local share is required for these program administrative funds. Funds used under this program for planning must be
The Designated Recipient must certify that: the projects selected were derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan; and, the plan was developed through a process that included representatives of public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services providers and participation by the public, including those representing the needs of welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals. The locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation planning process must be coordinated and consistent with the metropolitan and statewide planning processes, and funding for the program must be included in the metropolitan and statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP and STIP) at a level of specificity or aggregation consistent with State and local policies and procedures. Finally, the State must certify that allocations of the grant to subrecipients are made on a fair and equitable basis.
The coordinated planning requirement is also a requirement in two additional programs. Projects selected for funding under the Section 5310 program and the JARC program are also required to be derived from a locally developed coordinated public transit-human service transportation plan. FTA anticipates that most areas will develop one consolidated plan for all the programs, which may include separate elements and other human service transportation programs.
The New Freedom program is subject to the relevant requirements of Section 5307, but certification of labor protections is not required. FTA published a proposed circular for this program and is currently reviewing comments submitted to the docket. The new circular will be posted on the FTA Web site at
FTA is establishing a consistent three-year period of availability for New Freedom, JARC, and the Section 5310 program, which includes the year of apportionment plus two additional years. FY 2007 funding is available through FY 2009. Any funding that remains unobligated on September 30, 2009 will revert to FTA for reapportionment among the States and large UZAs under the New Freedom program.
5. Other Program or Apportionment Related Information and Highlights
a.
b.
c.
The Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands (ATPPL) program is administered by FTA in partnership with the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service. The purpose of the program is to enhance the protection of national parks and Federal lands, and increase the enjoyment of those visiting them. The program funds capital and planning expenses for alternative transportation systems such as buses and trams in federally managed parks and public lands. Federal land management agencies and State, tribal and local governments acting with the consent of a Federal land management agency are eligible to apply. DOI, after consultation with and in cooperation with FTA, determines the final selection and funding of projects.
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, makes $23 million available for the program in FY 2007. Ten percent of the funds are reserved for administration and technical assistance. FTA published a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) in the
Projects are competitively selected based on criteria specified in the Notice of Funding Availability. The terms and conditions applicable to the program are also specified in the NOFA. Projects must conserve natural, historical, and cultural resources, reduce congestion and pollution, and improve visitor mobility and accessibility. No more than 25 percent may be allocated for any one project.
The funds under the Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands remain available until expended.
Project selections for the FY 2006 funding were published in the
The Alternatives Analysis Program provides grants to States, authorities of the States, metropolitan planning organizations, and local government authorities to develop studies as part of the transportation planning process. These studies include an assessment of a wide range of public transportation alternatives designed to address a transportation problem in a corridor or subarea; sufficient information to enable the Secretary to make the findings of project justification and local financial commitment required; the selection of a locally preferred alternative; and the
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, provides $25,000,000 to the Alternatives Analysis Program (49 U.S.C. 5339). The Act made available $18,900,000 for discretionary allocation to the projects designated in SAFETEA-LU. The balance of $6,100,000 will be made available for competitive allocation.
Allocations to projects designated in SAFETEA-LU are displayed in Table 22.
Section 3037(c) of SAFETEA-LU included 18 projects to be funded through Alternatives Analysis Program in FYs 2006 and 2007. Table 22 displays the amounts available in FY 2007 to the Alternatives Analysis projects designated in SAFETEA-LU. In a separate part of today's
Alternatives Analysis program funds may be made available to States, authorities of the States, metropolitan planning organizations, and local governmental authorities. The Government's share of the cost of an activity funded may not exceed 80 percent of the cost of the activity. The funds will be awarded as separate Section 5339 grants. The grant requirements will be comparable to those for Section 5309 grants. Eligible projects include planning and corridor studies and the adoption of locally preferred alternatives within the fiscally constrained Metropolitan Transportation Plan for that area. Funds awarded under the Alternatives Analysis Program must be shown in the UPWP for MPO(s) with responsibility for that area. Pre-award authority applies to these funds after Congress appropriates funds for these projects and the allocations are published in an FTA notice of apportionments and allocations.
Legislation to amend the earmark is necessary should a recipient wish to use funds provided under Section 5339 for eligible project activities outside the scope of the project description.
Unless otherwise specified in law, grants made under the Alternatives Analysis program must meet all other eligibility requirements as outlined in Section 5309.
Funds designated for specific Alternatives Analysis Program projects remain available for obligation for three fiscal years, which includes the year of appropriation plus two additional fiscal years. The FY 2007 funding for projects included in this notice remains available through September 30, 2009. Alternatives Analysis funds not obligated in an FTA grant for their original purpose at the end of the period of availability will generally be made available for other projects.
Table 23 lists prior year carryover of $19,305,000 for Alternative Analysis projects made available in FY 2006.
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, makes $404,000,000 available for apportionment in accordance with the formula factors prescribed for Growing States and High Density States in Section 5340 of SAFETEA-LU. Fifty percent of this amount (or $202,000,000) will be allotted eligible States and urbanized areas using the Growing State formula factors. The other 50 percent is apportioned to eligible States and urbanized areas using the High Density States formula factors. Based on application of the formulas, $138,734,486 of the Growing States funding was apportioned to urbanized areas and $63,265,514 to nonurbanized areas. All of the $202,000,000 allotted to High Density States is apportioned to urbanized areas.
The term “State” is defined only to mean the 50 States. For the Growing State portion of Section 5340, funds are allocated based on the population forecasts for fifteen years after the date of that census. Forecasts are based on the trend between the most recent decennial census and Census Bureau population estimates for the most current year. Funds allocated to the States are then sub-allocated to urbanized and non-urbanized areas based on forecast population, where available. If forecasted population data at the urbanized level is not available, funds are allocated to current urbanized and non-urbanized areas on the basis of current population. Funds allocated to urbanized areas are included in their Section 5307apportionment. Funds allocated for non-urbanized areas are included in the states' Section 5311 apportionments.
The Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility (OTRB) Program authorizes FTA to make grants to operators of over-the-road buses to help finance the incremental capital and training costs of complying with the DOT over-the-road bus accessibility final rule, 49 CFR Part 37, published on September 28, 1998 (63 FR 51670). FTA conducts a national solicitation of applications, and grantees are selected on a competitive basis. For more information about the OTRB program contact Blenda Younger, Office of Transit Programs, at (202) 366-2053.
The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, provides $7,600,000 for the Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility (OTRB) Program, which is the total amount allocable for OTRB, as shown in the table below.
Of this amount, $5,700,000 is allocable to providers of intercity fixed-route service, and $1,900,000 to other providers of over-the-road bus services, including local fixed-route service, commuter service, and charter and tour service.
Projects are competitively selected. The Federal share of the project is 90 percent of net project cost. Program guidance is provided in the
Funds are available until expended.
A
1.
2.
a. FTA does not impose additional conditions on pre-award authority for operating, planning, or administrative assistance under the formula grant programs. Grantees may be reimbursed for expenses incurred prior to grant award so long as funds have been expended in accordance with all Federal requirements. In addition to cross-cutting Federal grant requirements, program specific requirements must be met. For example, a planning project must have been included in a UPWP; a New Freedom operating assistance project or a JARC planning or operating project must have been derived from a coordinated plan and competitively selected by the Designated Recipient prior to incurring expenses; expenditure on State Administration expenses under State Administered programs must be consistent with the State Management Plan. Designated Recipients for JARC and New Freedom have pre-award authority for the ten percent of the apportionment they may use for program administration.
b. Pre-Award authority for Alternatives Analysis planning projects designated in 49 U.S.C. 5339, as amended by SAFETEA-LU, is triggered by the publication of the allocation in FTA's
c. Pre-award authority for design and environmental work on a capital project is triggered by the authorization of formula funds, or the appropriation of funds for a discretionary project and publication of the project in FTA's annual
d. Following authorization of formula funds or appropriation and publication of discretionary projects, pre-award authority for capital project implementation activities including property acquisition, demolition, construction, and acquisition of vehicles, equipment, or construction materials is triggered by completion of the environmental review process with FTA's concurrence in the categorical exclusion (CE) determination or signing of an environmental Record of Decision (ROD) or Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Prior to exercising pre-award authority, grantees must comply with the conditions and Federal requirements outlined in paragraph 3 below. Failure to do so will render an otherwise eligible project ineligible for FTA financial assistance. Capital projects under the Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom programs must comply with specific program requirements, including coordinated planning and competitive selection. In addition, prior to incurring costs, grantees are strongly encouraged to consult with the appropriate FTA regional office regarding the eligibility of the project for future FTA funds and the applicability of the conditions and Federal requirements.
e. Pre-award authority does not apply to the Section 5309 Capital Investment Bus and Bus-Related Facilities and Clean Fuels program high priority project designations or any other transit discretionary projects designated in SAFETEA-LU until funds have been appropriated and the allocations published in the annual
f. In previous notices FTA extended pre-award authority to Section 330 projects and those surface transportation projects commonly referred to as Section 115 projects administered by FTA, for which amounts were provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 and Section 117 projects in the 2005 Appropriations Act administered by FTA. Pre-award authority is now extended to transit projects in Section 112 of the 2006 Appropriations Act that are to be administered by FTA. The same conditions described for bus projects apply to these projects. We strongly encourage any prospective applicant that does not have a previous relationship with FTA to review Federal grant requirements with the FTA regional office before incurring costs.
g. Blanket pre-award authority does not apply to Section 5309 Capital Investment New Starts funds. Specific instances of pre-award authority for Capital Investment New Starts projects are described in paragraph 4 below. Pre-award authority does not apply to Capital Investment Bus and Bus-Related or Clean Fuels projects authorized for funding beyond this fiscal year. Before an applicant may incur costs for Capital Investment New Starts projects, Bus and Bus-Related projects, or any other projects not yet published in a notice of apportionments and allocations, it must first obtain a written Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) from FTA. To obtain an LONP, a grantee must submit a written request accompanied by adequate information and justification to the appropriate FTA regional office, as described below.
3.
a. Pre-award authority is not a legal or implied commitment that the subject project will be approved for FTA assistance or that FTA will obligate Federal funds. Furthermore, it is not a legal or implied commitment that all items undertaken by the applicant will be eligible for inclusion in the project.
b. All FTA statutory, procedural, and contractual requirements must be met.
c. No action will be taken by the grantee that prejudices the legal and administrative findings that the Federal Transit Administrator must make in order to approve a project.
d. Local funds expended by the grantee pursuant to and after the date of the pre-award authority will be eligible for credit toward local match or reimbursement if FTA later makes a grant or grant amendment for the project. Local funds expended by the grantee prior to the date of the pre-award authority will not be eligible for credit toward local match or reimbursement. Furthermore, the expenditure of local funds on activities such as land acquisition, demolition, or construction prior to the date of pre-award authority for those activities (i.e., the completion of the NEPA process) would compromise FTA's ability to comply with Federal environmental laws and may render the project ineligible for FTA funding.
e. The Federal amount of any future FTA assistance awarded to the grantee for the project will be determined on the basis of the overall scope of activities and the prevailing statutory provisions with respect to the Federal/local match ratio at the time the funds are obligated.
f. For funds to which the pre-award authority applies, the authority expires with the lapsing of the fiscal year funds.
g. When a grant for the project is subsequently awarded, the Financial Status Report, in TEAM-Web, must indicate the use of pre-award authority.
h. Environmental, Planning, and Other Federal Requirements.
All Federal grant requirements must be met at the appropriate time for the project to remain eligible for Federal funding. The growth of the Federal transit program has resulted in a growing number of inexperienced grantees who make compliance with Federal planning and environmental laws increasingly challenging. FTA has therefore modified its approach to pre-award authority to use the completion of the NEPA process, which has as a prerequisite the completion of planning and air quality requirements, as the trigger for pre-award authority for all activities except design and environmental review.
i. The requirement that a project be included in a locally adopted metropolitan transportation plan, the metropolitan transportation improvement program and Federally-approved statewide transportation improvement program (23 CFR Part 450) must be satisfied before the grantee may advance the project beyond planning and preliminary design with non-Federal funds under pre-award authority. If the project is located within an EPA-designated nonattainment area for air quality, the conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act, 40 CFR Part 93, must also be met before the project may be advanced into implementation-related activities under pre-award authority. Compliance with NEPA and other environmental laws and executive orders (e.g., protection of parklands, wetlands, and historic properties) must be completed before State or local funds are spent on implementation activities, such as site preparation, construction, and acquisition, for a project that is expected to be subsequently funded with FTA funds. The grantee may not advance the project beyond planning and preliminary design before FTA has determined the project to be a categorical exclusion, or has issued a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or an environmental record of decision (ROD), in accordance with FTA environmental regulations, 23 CFR Part 771. For planning projects, the project must be included in a locally-approved Planning Work Program that has been coordinated with the State.
j. In addition, Federal procurement procedures, as well as the whole range of applicable Federal requirements (e.g., Buy America, Davis-Bacon Act, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise) must be followed for projects in which Federal funding will be sought in the future. Failure to follow any such requirements could make the project ineligible for Federal funding. In short, this increased administrative flexibility requires a grantee to make certain that no Federal requirements are circumvented through the use of pre-award authority. If a grantee has questions or concerns regarding the environmental requirements, or any other Federal requirements that must be met before incurring costs, it should contact the appropriate regional office.
4.
a. Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Final Design (FD). Projects proposed for Section 5309 New Starts funds are required to follow a Federally defined New Starts project development process. This New Starts process includes, among other things, FTA approval of the entry of the project into PE and into FD. In accordance with Section 5309(d), FTA considers the merits of the project, the strength of its financial plan, and its readiness to enter the next phase in deciding whether or not to approve entry into PE or FD. Upon FTA approval to enter PE, FTA extends pre-award authority to incur costs for PE activities. Upon FTA approval to enter FD, FTA extends pre-award authority to incur costs for FD activities. The pre-award authority for each phase is automatic upon FTA's signing of a letter to the project sponsor approving entry into that phase. PE and FD are defined in the New Starts regulation entitled Major Capital Investment Projects, found at 49 CFR Part 611.
b.
For FTA-assisted projects, any acquisition of real property or real property rights must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (URA) and its implementing regulations, 49 CFR Part 24. This pre-award authority is strictly limited to costs incurred: (i) to acquire real property and real property rights in accordance with the URA regulation, and (ii) to provide relocation assistance in accordance with the URA regulation. This pre-award authority is limited to the acquisition of real property and real property rights that are explicitly identified in the final environmental impact statement (FEIS), environmental assessment (EA), or CE document, as needed for the selected alternative that is the subject of the FTA-signed ROD or FONSI, or CE determination. This pre-award authority does not cover site preparation, demolition, or any other activity that is not strictly necessary to comply with the URA, with one exception. That exception is when a building that has been acquired, has been emptied of its occupants, and awaits demolition poses a potential fire-safety hazard or other hazard to the community in which it is located, or is susceptible to reoccupation by vagrants, demolition of the building is also covered by this pre-award authority upon FTA's written agreement that the adverse condition exists.
Pre-award authority for property acquisition is also provided when FTA makes a CE determination for a protective buy or hardship acquisition in accordance with 23 CFR 771.117(d)(12), and when FTA makes a CE determination for the acquisition of a pre-existing railroad right-of-way in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5324(c). When a tiered environmental review in accordance with 23 CFR 771.111(g) is being used, pre-award authority is NOT provided upon completion of the first-tier environmental document except when the Tier-1 ROD or FONSI signed by FTA explicitly provides such pre-award authority for a particular identified acquisition.
FTA's rationale for providing this pre-award authority was described in the FY 2003 Apportionments and Allocations Notice published in the
c.
FTA's regulation entitled Environmental Impact and Related Procedures at 23 CFR Part 771 states that the costs incurred by a grant applicant for the preparation of environmental documents requested by FTA are eligible for FTA financial assistance (23 CFR 771.105(e)). Accordingly, FTA extends automatic pre-award authority for costs incurred to comply with NEPA regulations and to conduct NEPA-related activities for a proposed New Starts project, effective as of the date of the Federal approval of the relevant STIP or STIP amendment that includes the project or any phase of the project. NEPA-related activities include, but are not limited to, public involvement activities, historic preservation reviews, section 4(f) evaluations, wetlands evaluations, endangered species consultations, and biological assessments. This pre-award authority is strictly limited to costs incurred to conduct the NEPA process, and to prepare environmental, historic preservation and related documents. It does not cover PE activities beyond those necessary for NEPA compliance. As with any pre-award authority, FTA reimbursement for costs incurred is not guaranteed.
d.
5.
LONP authority allows an applicant to incur costs on a project utilizing non-Federal resources, with the understanding that the costs incurred subsequent to the issuance of the LONP may be reimbursable as eligible expenses or eligible for credit toward the local match should FTA approve the project at a later date. LONPs are applicable to projects and project activities not covered by automatic pre-award authority. The majority of LONPs will be for Section 5309 New Starts funds not covered under a full funding grant agreement, or for Section 5309 Bus and Bus-Related funds not yet appropriated by Congress. At the end of an authorization period, LONPs may be issued for formula funds beyond the life of the current authorization or FTA's extension of automatic pre-award authority.
The conditions for pre-award authority specified in section VIII A2 above apply to all LONPs. The Environmental, Planning and Other Federal Requirements described in section V.A.3, also apply to all LONPs. Because project implementation activities may not be initiated prior to NEPA completion, FTA will normally not issue an LONP for such activities until the NEPA process has been completed with a ROD, FONSI, or Categorical Exclusion determination.
Before incurring costs for a project not covered by automatic pre-award authority, the project sponsor must first submit a written request for an LONP, accompanied by adequate information and justification, to the appropriate regional office and obtain written approval. As a prerequisite to FTA approval of an LONP for a New Starts project, FTA will require project sponsors to demonstrate project worthiness and readiness that establish the project as a candidate for an FFGA. Projects will be assessed based upon the criteria considered in the New Start evaluation process. Specifically, upon the request for an LONP, the applicant shall provide sufficient information to allow FTA to consider the following items:
a. Description of the activities to be covered by the LONP.
b. Justification for advancing the identified activities.
c. Data that indicates that the project will maintain its ability to receive a rating of “medium”, or better and that its cost-effectiveness rating will be “medium” or better, unless such project has been specifically exempt from such a requirement.
d. Allocated level of risk and contingency for the activity requested.
e. Status of procurement progress, including, if appropriate, submittal of bids for the activities covered by the LONP.
f. Strength of the capital and operating financial plan for the New Starts project and the future transit system.
g. Adequacy of the Project Management Plan.
h. Resolution of any readiness issues that would affect the project, such as land acquisition and technical capacity to carry out the project.
The full text of the FY 2007 Certifications and Assurances was published in the
SAFETEA-LU continues provisions in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and TEA-21 that expanded modal choice in transportation funding by including substantial flexibility to transfer funds between FTA and FHWA formula program funding categories. In addition SAFETEA-LU included a provision allowing for transfer of certain discretionary program funds for administration of highway projects by FHWA and transit projects by FTA. FTA and FHWA execute Flex Funding Transfers between the Formula and Bus Grants Transit programs and the Federal Aid Highway programs. This has also included the transfer of State planning set-aside funds from FHWA to FTA to be combined with metropolitan and statewide planning resources as Consolidated Planning Grants (CPG). These transfers are based on States requests to transfer funding from the Highway and/or Transit programs to fund States and local project priorities, and joint planning needs. This practice can result in transfers to the Federal Transit Program from the Federal Aid Highway Program or vice versa.
SAFETEA-LU was enacted in August, 2005. With the enactment of SAFETEA-LU, beginning in FY2006, mass transit programs are funded solely from general funds or trust funds. The transit formula and bus grant programs are now funded from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. The Formula and Bus Grant Programs receive flex funding transfers from the Federal Aid Highway Program.
As a result of the changes to program funding mechanisms, there is no longer a requirement to transfer budget authority and liquidating cash resources simultaneously upon the execution of a Flex Funding transfer request by a State. Since the transfers are between trust fund accounts, the only requirement is to transfer budget authority (obligation limitation) between the Federal Aid Program trust fund account and the Federal Transit Formula and Bus Grant Program account. At the point in time that the obligation resulting from the transfer of budgetary authority is expended, a transfer of liquidating cash will be required.
Beginning in FY 2007, the accounting process is changing for transfers of flex funds and other specific programs to allow budget authority to be transferred and the cash to be transferred separately. FTA is requiring that flexed fund transfers to FTA be in separate and identifiable grants in order to ensure that the draw-down of flexed funds can be tracked, thus securing the internal controls for monitoring these resources from the Federal Highway Administration to avoid deficiencies in FTA's Formula and Bus Grants account.
FTA will need to monitor the expenditures of flexed funded grants and request the transfer of liquidating cash from FHWA to ensure sufficient funds are available to meet expenditures. To facilitate tracking of grantees' flex funding expenditures, FTA developed new codes to provide distinct identification of “flex funds.”
The process for transferring flexible funds between FTA and FHWA programs is described below. Note that the new transfer process for “flex funds” beginning in FY 2007 does not apply to the transfer of State planning set-aside funds from FHWA to FTA to be combined with metropolitan and statewide planning resources as Consolidated Planning Grants (CPG). These transfers are based on States requests to transfer funding from the Highway and/or Transit programs to fund States and local project priorities, and joint planning needs. Planning funds transferred will be allowed to be merged in a single grant with FTA planning resources using the same process implemented in FY 2006. For information on the process for the transfer of funds between FTA and FHWA planning programs refer to section IV.A and B.
Note also that certain prior year appropriations earmarks (Sections 330, 115, 117, and 112) are allotted annually for administration rather than being transferred. For information regarding these procedures, please contact Kristen D. Clarke, FTA Budget Office, at (202) 366-1686; or Elissa Konove, FHWA Budget Division, at (202) 366-2845.
a.
The FHWA Division Office confirms that the apportionment amount is available for transfer and concurs in the transfer, by letter to the State DOT and FTA. The FHWA Office of Budget and Finance then transfers obligation authority and an equal amount of cash to FTA. All FHWA CMAQ and STP funds transferred to FTA will be transferred to one of the three FTA formula programs (i.e. Urbanized Area Formula (Section 5307), Nonurbanized Area Formula (Section 5311) or Elderly and Persons with Disabilities (Section 5310). High Priority projects in SAFETEA-LU Section 1702 or Transportation Improvement projects in SAFETEA-LU Section 1934 and other Congressional earmarks when necessary that are transferred to FTA will be aligned and administered through FTA's discretionary Bus Program (Section 5309).
The FTA grantee's application for the project must specify which program the funds will be used for, and the application must be prepared in accordance with the requirements and procedures governing that program. Upon review and approval of the grantee's application, FTA obligates funds for the project.
Transferred funds are treated as FTA formula or discretionary funds, but are assigned a distinct identifying code for tracking purposes. The funds may be transferred for any capital purpose eligible under the FTA formula program to which they are transferred and, in the case of CMAQ, for certain operating costs. FHWA issued revised interim guidance on project eligibility under the CMAQ program in a Notice at 71 FR 76038 et seq. (December 19, 2006) incorporating changes made by SAFETEA-LU. In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 104(k), all FTA requirements except local share are applicable to transferred funds. Earmarks that are transferred to the Section 5309 Bus Program for administration, however, can be used for the Congressionally designated transit purpose and are not limited to eligibility under the Bus Program.
In the event that transferred formula funds are not obligated for the intended purpose within the period of availability of the formula program to which they were transferred, they become available to the Governor for any eligible capital transit project.
b.
Transfers of discretionary earmarks for administration by FHWA are handled on a case by case basis, by the FTA regional office, in consultation with the FTA Office of Program Management and Office of Budget and Policy.
c.
There are three instances in which a Federal share higher than 80 percent would be permitted. First, in States with large areas of Indian and certain public domain lands and national forests, parks and monuments, the local share for highway projects is determined by a sliding scale rate, calculated based on the percentage of public lands within that State. This sliding scale, which permits a greater Federal share, but not to exceed 95 percent, is applicable to transfers used to fund transit projects in these public land States. FHWA develops the sliding scale matching ratios for the increased Federal share.
Second, commuter carpooling and vanpooling projects and transit safety projects using FHWA transfers administered by FTA may retain the same 100 percent Federal share that would be allowed for ride-sharing or safety projects administered by FHWA.
The third instance is the 100 percent Federally-funded safety projects; however, these are subject to a nationwide 10 percent program limitation.
d.
1. Grantees must provide a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number for inclusion in all applications for a Federal grant or cooperative agreement. The DUNS number should be entered into the grantee profile in TEAM-Web. Additional information about this and other Federal grant streamlining initiatives mandated by the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-107) can be accessed on OMB's Web site at
2. All applications for FTA funds should be submitted electronically to the appropriate FTA regional office through TEAM-Web, an Internet-accessible electronic grant application
3. In FY 2007, FTA remains committed to processing applications promptly upon receipt of a completed application by the appropriate regional office. In order for an application to be considered complete and for FTA to assign a grant number, enabling submission in TEAM-Web, the following requirements must be met:
a. The project is listed in a currently FTA approved Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), or Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP).
b. All eligibility issues have been resolved.
c. Required environmental findings have been made.
d. The project budget's Activity Line Items (ALI), scope, and project description meet FTA requirements.
e. Local share funding source(s) have been identified.
f. The grantee's required Civil Rights submissions are current.
g. Certifications and assurances are properly submitted.
h. Funding is available, including any flexible funds included in the budget.
i. For projects involving new construction (using at least $100 million in New Starts or formula funds), FTA engineering staff has reviewed the project management plan and given approval.
j. When required for grants related to New Starts projects, PE and/or FD has been approved.
k. Milestone information is complete, or FTA determines that milestone information can be finalized before the grant is ready for award. The grant must include sufficient milestones appropriate to the scale of the project to allow adequate oversight to monitor the progress of projects from the start through completion and closeout.
4. Under most FTA programs, grants involving funding related to transit operations, must be submitted to the Department of Labor for certification of labor protective arrangements, prior to grant award. In addition, before FTA can award grants for discretionary projects and activities designated by Congress, notification must be given to members of Congress, and in the case of awards greater than $1 million, to the House and Senate authorizing and appropriations committees. Discretionary grants allocated by FTA also go through the Congressional notification process if they are greater than $1 million.
5. Other important issues that impact FTA grant processing activities are discussed below.
a.
For formula programs funded solely from trust funds beginning in FY 2006, grantees may not combine FY 2006 and FY 2007 funds in the same grant with FY 2005 and prior year funds. Grant amendments cannot be made to add FY 2006 and later year funds to a grant that includes FY 2005 or prior funds. Obligations of FY 2005 and prior year carryover funds must be made in the original program accounts established under TEA-21 (either as an amendment to an existing grant or as a new grant) and cannot be combined with funds appropriated in FY 2006 or later. However, grantees are able to amend new grants established with FY 2006 or later year funds to add funds made available after FY 2006. We regret any inconvenience this accounting change may cause as we implement new statutory requirements under SAFETEA-LU. We encourage grantees to spend down and close out old grants as quickly as possible to minimize the inconvenience.
b.
c.
d.
Once a grant has been awarded and executed, requests for payment can be processed. To process payments FTA uses ECHO-Web, an Internet accessible system that provides grantees the capability to submit payment requests on-line, as well as receive user-IDs and passwords via e-mail. New applicants
FTA conducts periodic oversight reviews to assess grantee compliance with Federal requirements. Each UZA grantee is reviewed every three years (a Triennial Review). States are reviewed periodically for their management of the Section 5310 and 5311 programs. Other more detailed reviews are scheduled based on an annual grantee risk assessment, for example, reviews in the areas of Procurement, Financial Management, Safety and Civil Rights. FTA is developing appropriate oversight procedures for the new programs authorized by SAFETEA-LU.
FTA headquarters and regional staff will be pleased to answer your questions and provide any technical assistance you may need to apply for FTA program funds and manage the grants you receive. This notice and the program guidance circulars previously identified in this document may be accessed via the FTA Web site at
In addition, copies of the following circulars and other useful information are available on the FTA Web site and may be obtained from FTA regional offices: 4220.1E, Third Party Contracting Requirements, dated June 19, 2003; and C5010.1C, Grant Management Guidelines, dated October 1, 1998. The FY 2007 Annual List of Certifications and Assurances and Master Agreement are also posted on the FTA Web site. The DOT final rule on “Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs,” which was effective July 16, 2003, can be found at
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of Availability of Fiscal Year 2007 Funds; Solicitation of Grant Applications.
This notice invites applications for the discretionary funds available in Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 for the discretionary Bus and Bus Facilities Program, authorized by 49 U.S.C. 5309(b). The Bus and Bus Facilities Program makes funds available to public transit providers to finance capital projects to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities, including programs of bus and bus-related projects for assistance to subrecipients that are public agencies, private companies engaged in public transportation, or private non-profit organizations.
The notice includes priorities established by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for the discretionary program, includes the criteria FTA will use in evaluating applications, and describes how to apply. Applications will be accepted from Designated Recipients for the FTA Urbanized Area Formula program and States, on behalf of nonurbanized or urbanized area transit providers.
This announcement is available on the Internet on the FTA Web site at:
Complete proposals for the discretionary Bus and Bus Facilities Program grants must be submitted by May 22, 2007. Anyone intending to apply electronically through
Proposals may be submitted electronically through the Grants.Gov website or through FTA's TEAM-Web grants management and award system. Applicants applying to Grants.Gov may also send an e-mail to their regional grant contact to receive confirmation that FTA retrieved the application.
Contact the appropriate FTA Regional Administrator (Appendix A) for application-specific information and issues. For general program information, contact Henrika Buchanan-Smith, (202) 366-4020, e-mail:
The program is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 5309(b)(3), as amended by section 3011 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Pub. L. 109-059, August 10, 2005.
The Secretary may make grants under this section to assist State and local governmental authorities in financing * * *
(3) capital projects to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities, including programs of bus and bus-related projects for assistance to subrecipients that are public agencies, private companies engaged in public transportation, or private non-profit organizations.
The “Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007” (Pub. L. 110-05) enacted, February 15, 2007, made available $881,779,000 for the FTA Bus and Bus Facilities program in FY 2007. Of this amount, $8,817,790 is deducted for oversight and $459,670,089 is allocated to statutory provisions and project designations in SAFETEA-LU. The balance of $413,291,121 in FY 2007 funds is available to FTA for discretionary allocation. In addition, a balance of $24,893,251 of FY 2006 Bus and Bus Facilities program funding that was not allocated to specific projects in the FY 2006 appropriations legislation is also available for discretionary award in FY 2007, for a total of $438,184,372.
The authorizing legislation allows for the Secretary of Transportation to make awards under this program at her discretion. FTA is issuing two separate Notices of Funding Availability for discretionary funding in the Bus Program in FY 2007. One notice, which appears in another part of today's
Improving mobility and shaping America's future by ensuring that the transportation system is accessible, integrated, and efficient, and offers flexibility of choices is a key strategic goal of the Department of Transportation. Bus and Bus Facilities projects will improve mobility for all individuals by providing financial assistance to help transit providers address planned capital improvements beyond what can be provided with existing resources such as Urbanized Area (49 U.S.C. 5307) and Nonurbanized Area (49 U.S.C. 5311) formula resources that are currently available to grantees. These competitive grants will support cost effective
Federal transit funds are available to State or local governmental authorities as recipients and other public transportation providers as subrecipients for up to 80 percent of the net project capital cost. The $438 million available to FTA for discretionary allocation in FY 2007 will be allocated to projects submitted in response to this notice and the Congestion Relief notice published separately in this
FTA will give special consideration to applications that address the following priority areas that FTA has established for the FY 2007 discretionary Bus and Bus Facilities program:
• Fleet replacement needs that cannot be met with formula funds.
• Fleet expansion that allows significant service increase and/or improvements and/or operating efficiencies.
• Facility construction or renovation to support increased service or introduction of clean fuels.
• Strategic investments in rural areas where formula funding is inadequate.
• Purchase of clean fuel vehicles.
• Intermodal terminal projects that include intercity bus providers.
• Gulf Coast Recovery—capital to support bus and bus facilities replacement and expansion related to the impacts of the 2005 Hurricanes. Eligibility is limited to those areas identified as eligible under Section 7025 of Pub. L. 109-234 and FTA's implementing guidance.
Eligible applicants under this program are Designated Recipients under the Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula program and States. Proposals for funding of eligible projects in rural (nonurbanized) areas must be submitted as part of a consolidated State application. States and Designated Recipients may also submit consolidated proposals for projects in urbanized areas.
Proposals may contain projects to be implemented by the Designated Recipient or its subrecipients. Eligible subrecipients include public agencies, private non-profit organizations, and private providers engaged in public transportation. Tribal rural transit projects must be included in a State proposal, but FTA may make a direct grant to a Federally recognized tribe for a project included in the proposal if selected.
Section 5309 grants authority to the Secretary to make grants “to assist State and local governmental authorities in financing capital projects to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities, including programs of bus and bus-related projects for assistance to subrecipients that are public agencies, private companies engaged in public transportation, or private non-profit organizations.”
Projects eligible for funding under the Bus program are capital projects such as: purchase and rehabilitation of buses and vans, bus related equipment (including Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) equipment, fare boxes, radios), construction and rehabilitation of bus related facilities (including administrative, maintenance, transfer, and intermodal facilities, including facilities consistent with FTA's joint development policy.)
Funds made available under this Notice cannot be used to fund operating expenses or the expanded capital eligibility activities such as preventive maintenance, security drills, or debt service reserve otherwise eligible under the Bus Program. Funds also cannot be used to reimburse grantees that have incurred prior expenses for the project absent evidence that FTA had issued a Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) for the project prior to the costs being incurred. There is no blanket pre-award authority for projects to be funded under this announcement prior to announcement in the
Costs will be shared at the following ratio: 80 percent FTA/20 percent local contribution. Match for the incremental cost of ADA or Clean Air Act improvements may be 90/10, consistent with the guidance for other FTA programs. FTA can waive local share for Gulf Coast projects under provisions of Section 7025. FTA will not approve deferred local share under this program.
The eligible applicants, Designated Recipients and States, because they are already established FTA grantees, may apply through FTA's TEAM-Web electronic grants management and award system. Any applicant information specified in section 2.A below that is not part of the recipient profile in TEAM-Web may be included as a narrative attachment. The material regarding Project Information specified in section 2.B below should be provided as a narrative attachment. To ensure that FTA identifies the application as a candidate for consideration in the competitive selection process, the application must be given the following temporary project name: BUSNOFA—(two letter State code)—(4 digits Recipient TEAM ID). Supplemental information may be submitted as a PDF attachment. Mail and fax submissions will not be accepted except for supplemental information that cannot be sent electronically.
Submission through TEAM-Web does not guarantee that the application will be selected for funding. Only those projects selected for award through the competitive process will advance to formal submission for grant award, and revisions may be required prior to submission, for example reductions in the project budget.
Alternatively, applicants may submit project proposals electronically through
This opportunity is only for funds available to FTA in FY 2007 for discretionary allocation. In the past, the entire Bus and Bus Facilities program has typically been allocated by Congress in the Authorization and in subsequent appropriation legislation. If there are future discretionary funding opportunities, FTA will issue a new Notice of Funding Availability.
This addresses basic identifying information, including:
a. Applicant name and FTA recipient ID number.
b. Contact information (including contact name, e-mail, fax and phone number).
c. Brief description of services provided by the agency, including areas served.
Every proposal must:
1. Describe the projects(s) for which funding is requested.
2. Identify which of the FTA priorities the project addresses, or indicate that the project addresses other local priorities.
3. Address each of the evaluation criteria separately, providing evidence that demonstrates how the project responds to each criterion, for example, age and condition of current fleet to demonstrate need if applying for replacement vehicles, projected ridership increases that will result from the project if applying for fleet expansion to support service enhancements, status of environmental compliance activities if applying for construction projects, advance preparations that will enable the project to be implemented quickly.
4. Provide a line item budget for the project, including the Federal amount requested and the total cost for each purpose for which funds are sought, and the total Federal amount requested and total project cost.
5. Document the matching funds, including amount and source of the match.
6. Provide a project time-line, including significant milestones such as anticipated date of contract award for purchase of vehicle(s), and actual or expected delivery date of vehicles.
7. Proposal may include additional supplemental information, for example, architectural drawings, letters of support, maps.
Complete proposals for the Bus and Bus Facilities Program grants must be submitted to TEAM-Web by May 22, 2007 or submitted electronically through the Grants.Gov Web site by the same date. Applicants planning to apply through grants.gov are encouraged to begin the process of registration on the Grants.Gov site well in advance of the submission deadline. Registration is a multi-step process, which may take several weeks to complete before an application can be submitted. FTA will announce grant selections when the competitive selection process is complete.
Only proposals from eligible recipients for eligible activities will be considered for funding (see Section III). Due to funding limitations, applicants that are selected for funding may receive less than the amount requested.
Applicants should submit 3 copies of any supplemental information that cannot be submitted electronically to the appropriate regional office. Supplemental information submitted in hardcopy must be postmarked or delivered by alternate delivery services by May 22, 2007.
Projects will be evaluated according to the following criteria:
A. Cost Effective Strategic Investment.
i. Project represents a one-time or periodic capital investment that cannot reasonably be funded from formula allocations or State and/or local revenues. Applicants for the Gulf Coast recovery priority must also demonstrate that funds have not been made available for the investment by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or other supplemental resources.
ii. Applicant did not receive sufficient funding for the proposed project in the SAFETEA-LU earmarks and formula funds are not available to support the project.
iii. For vehicle replacement applications, average fleet age is at or close to 75 percent of useful life, and/or vehicles to be replaced exceed their useful life based on mileage and/or age.
iv. The project will have a significant impact on service delivery.
B. Planning and prioritization at local/regional level.
i. Project is consistent with the transit priorities identified in the Metropolitan Transportation plan or statewide long range plan and/or contingency/illustrative projects in those plans. The project could not be included in the financially constrained Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)/State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) due to lack of funding (if selected, project must be on TIP before grant award).
ii. Local support is demonstrated by the availability of local match for this project and, if applicable, letters of support from project partners (e.g., intercity bus operators, in the case of an application for an intermodal facility).
iii. Capital projects are consistent with service needs of the area based on local plans and projected population trends. For example, a proposal for fleet expansion shows evidence of the need for additional capacity.
iv. In an area with more than one transit operator, the application demonstrates coordination with and support of other transit operators, or in rural areas, with human service transportation providers.
C. The project clearly addresses one or more of the FTA FY 2007 Bus priority areas.
i. Application clearly addresses one or more of the priority areas and demonstrates merit in that area, for example, investment for bus replacements is justified by age and condition of fleet.
If the project does not address one of the FTA priority areas, application demonstrates how the project addresses significant regional or local priorities.
D. The project is ready to implement.
i. At a minimum, any required environmental work has been initiated for construction projects requiring an Environmental Assessment (EA). Prior FTA environmental approval indicates a higher state of readiness.
ii. Initial design of facilities projects is complete, and where applicable, implementation plans have been developed or are under development.
iii. TIP/STIP can be readily amended (as evidenced by Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)/State endorsement).
iv. Project can be obligated and implemented quickly if selected, for example, an existing bus procurement includes options the grantee could exercise.
E. The applicant demonstrates the ability to carry out the proposed project successfully.
Applicants must have basic technical, legal, and financial capacity as a precondition of grant award. Since proposals are limited to existing FTA grantees,
i. For larger capital projects, the applicant has the technical capacity to administer the project.
ii. For fleet replacement and expansion, the acquisition is consistent with the system's capital replacement plans and/or operational plans or plans for system improvements.
iii. There are no outstanding legal, technical or financial issues with the grantee that would make this a high risk project.
iv. Source of 20 percent local match is identified and is available for prompt project implementation if selected (no deferred local share will be allowed).
Proposals will be screened and ranked by the appropriate FTA regional office (see Appendix A) and FTA headquarters staff. Meritorious projects will be considered for inclusion in a national list of selected projects that addresses the identified priorities and represents the highest and best use of the available funding. The Administrator shall determine the final selection and amount of funding for each project.
Selected projects will be announced approximately eight weeks after the application deadline. FTA will publish the list of all selected projects and funding levels in the
FTA will announce project selections in a
If selected, applicants will apply for a grant through TEAM and adhere to the customary FTA grant requirements of the Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities program, including those of FTA C 9300.1A; C 5010.1C; and labor protections required under 49 U.S.C. 5333(b). Discretionary grants greater than $1 million will go through Congressional Notification and release process. Technical assistance regarding these requirements is available from each FTA regional office.
Applicants are encouraged to notify the appropriate State Departments of Transportation and MPOs in areas likely to be served by the project funds made available under this program. Before grant award, the project must satisfy requirements for inclusion in the STIP and Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), where applicable.
FTA annually issues a set of standard Certifications and Assurances which each FTA grantee must sign, assuring that it will comply with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, FTA circulars, and other Federal administrative requirements in carrying out any project supported by the FTA grant. The Applicant acknowledges that it is under a continuing obligation to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant agreement issued for its project with FTA. The Applicant understands that Federal laws, regulations, policies, and administrative practices might be modified from time to time and affect the implementation of the project. The Applicant agrees that the most recent Federal requirements will apply to the project, unless FTA issues a written determination otherwise. The Applicant must submit all relevant current Certifications and Assurances prior to receiving a grant under this announcement.
Post-award reporting requirements include submission of Financial Status Reports, Milestone reports, and narrative progress reports in TEAM on a quarterly basis for projects within a large urbanized area, or annual reports for grants in Small urban or rural areas. Documentation is required for payment.
Contact the appropriate FTA Regional Administrator (see Appendix A) for application-specific information and issues. For general program information, contact Henrika Buchanan-Smith, Office of Transit Programs, (202) 366-2053, e-mail:
Building, 915 Second Avenue, Suite 3142, Seattle, WA 98174-1002, (206) 220-7954.
Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”), DOT.
Notice of funding availability; solicitation for applications.
This notice solicits applications for a significant portion of funds not “earmarked” by law and otherwise available in Fiscal Year 2007 under the Section 5309 Bus and Bus-Related Facilities Discretionary Grant Program (the “Bus Program”) reserved by the Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”) for proposals selected in accordance with the terms of this notice. Under 49 U.S.C. 5309, the FTA Administrator, acting on behalf of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation (the “Secretary”), has the discretion to award grants for bus and bus-related equipment and facilities. By this notice, the Department, acting through FTA, is seeking applications to the Bus Program that support the objectives of the National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America's Transportation Network (the “Congestion Initiative”) established in May 2006 by the U.S. Department of Transportation (the “Department”). This Notice is one of four solicitations issued by the Department to date in connection with the Urban Partnership Program as part of the Congestion Initiative. See below “Supplementary Information: Coordination with Other Urban Partnership Program Solicitations.”
Applications must be submitted by May 22, 2007. Late-filed applications may be considered to the extent practical.
Applications may be submitted electronically to
Please address questions concerning this notice to David B. Horner, Esq., Chief Counsel, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, via e-mail at
This solicitation is one of four solicitations issued to date by the Department in connection with the Urban Partnership Program. The other three solicitations are:
(1) Solicitation for the Urban Partnership Agreement (“UPA”). The purpose of the UPA solicitation, published on December 8, 2006, in the
(2) Solicitation for the Value Pricing Pilot (“VPP”) Program. The VPP Program, as authorized by Section 1012(b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (“ISTEA”), as amended (23 U.S.C. 149 note), supports implementation of a variety of pricing-based approaches for managing congestion on highways. The solicitation for the VPP Program, published on December 22, 2006, in the
(3) Solicitation for the Intelligent Transportation System Operational Testing to Mitigate Congestion Program (“ITS-OTMC”). The ITS Research and Development Program, as reauthorized in subtitle C of title 5 of SAFETEA-LU, supports the research, development and testing of ITS for a variety of purposes. The solicitation for the ITS-OTMC Program, published on December 18, 2006, in the
Applicants for funding under the UPA, ITS-OTMC and/or VPP Programs that also wish to apply for funding under this announcement must respond to each solicitation separately. However, the Department will accept identical copies of a single application as long as it satisfies the requirements of each relevant solicitation.
By this notice, the Department, acting through FTA, is seeking applications to the Bus Program that support the objectives of the National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America's Transportation Network (the “Congestion Initiative”). For this purpose, FTA will reserve a significant portion of the funds not “earmarked” by law and otherwise available in Fiscal Year 2007 under the Bus Program for projects selected in accordance with this notice. By separate notice to be published in the
Traffic congestion also has a substantial negative impact upon the quality of life of many American families. In a 2005 survey, for example,
The Congestion Initiative & Urban Partnership Agreement. In May 2006, in response to the “crisis of congestion,” the Department announced the Congestion Initiative and its intention to enter into “Urban Partnership Agreements” (or “UPAs”) with qualified metropolitan areas (or “urban partners”) in order to implement strategies with a proven track-record of effectiveness in reducing traffic congestion. On December 8, 2006, the Department published in the
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
In return for their commitment to adopt innovative, system-wide solutions to traffic congestion, the Department, to the maximum extent possible, would support its urban partners with the Department's financial resources (including a combination of grants, loans, and borrowing authority), regulatory flexibility and dedicated expertise and personnel.
Congestion pricing can be implemented using various methods, including corridor pricing, cordon pricing, and area pricing systems. A corridor pricing system charges drivers when they use certain roads or corridors during peak congestion periods. For example, under a corridor pricing system, drivers may be charged for using all corridors leading into a central business district during peak congestion periods, but would not be charged for entering the central business district itself or for any movement while in the central business district. In contrast, a cordon pricing system charges drivers when they enter a specific area during peak congestion periods. For example, under a cordon pricing system, a driver may be charged only when entering a central business district during peak congestion periods, but not charged for using corridors into the central business district or for any movement within the central business district. In further contrast, an area pricing system charges drivers for all trips made within a specific area during peak congestion periods. For example, under an area pricing system, a driver could be charged for all trips made within a central business district during peak congestion periods.
In all its forms, congestion pricing benefits drivers and businesses by reducing delays and stress, increasing the predictability of trip times, and allowing for more deliveries per hour. It benefits public transportation by improving transit speeds and the reliability of transit service, increasing transit ridership and lowering costs per traveler for transit providers. It benefits State and local government by improving the quality of transportation services without tax increases or large capital expenditures, providing additional revenues for funding transportation, retaining businesses and expanding the tax base. It saves lives by shortening incident response times for emergency responders. And it benefits society as a whole by reducing fuel consumption and vehicle emissions, allowing for more efficient land use decisions, reducing housing market distortions, and increasing time available for participation in civic life.
Congestion pricing is no longer simply a theory; it has demonstrated positive results both in the U.S. and around the world. Successful American applications of congestion pricing include California's SR-91 between Anaheim and Riverside, portions of I-15 outside of San Diego, and Express Lanes on I-394 between downtown Minneapolis and its western suburbs, all of which have enabled congestion-free rush hour commuting and proven popular with drivers of all income levels. Internationally, congestion pricing has yielded dramatic reductions in traffic congestion and increases in travel speeds in Singapore, London, and Stockholm. Notably, a small reduction in vehicles can yield dramatic improvements in traffic, as demonstrated by a British study, which projected that a 9% drop in traffic could yield a 52% drop in congestion delay.
Congestion pricing and public transportation benefit each other: Road pricing benefits public transportation by improving transit speeds and the reliability of transit service, increasing transit ridership, lowering costs per traveler for transit providers, and expanding the source of revenue that may be used for transit; while public transportation benefits road pricing by absorbing commuters who shift their travel from automobile to bus or rail. By replacing congested traffic with free-flowing conditions on major routes, congestion pricing will improve the speed and productivity of current express bus services, making them more attractive to commuters while reducing their operating costs per traveler. Reducing congestion will also facilitate rapid deployment of innovative, high-performance BRT operations in major corridors, which require only modest investments in new vehicles and passenger facilities that may be eligible for financial support through the Department's various funding mechanisms. Improving the performance and variety of peak-period transit commuting options through a combination of congestion pricing and limited capital investment will provide significant benefits to current transit riders, while improving transit's effectiveness in reducing peak-period auto travel and providing the expanded passenger-carrying capacity necessary to accommodate shifts to transit commuting induced by the adoption of congestion pricing.
In addition, technological advancements may enhance the quality of transit service deployed to reduce urban congestion. These technology-based improvements may include lane-keeping devices or longitudinal control designed to enhance spatial efficiency on existing highways, precision docking, signal priority systems for buses, contactless fare collection, real-time travel information (bus arrival times, schedules, etc.), advanced traveler information systems, parking alerts and automatic vehicle locator systems.
Other technological innovations that may help reduce congestion include:
•
•
•
(1) The applicant is a state or public body or agency or subdivision thereof, or a public corporation, board or commission established under state or local law for transportation purposes, in each case duly recognized by FTA as a grantee;
(2) The applicant is located within a Metropolitan Statistical Area or Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, which has (A) a travel-time index of 1.25 or greater, as reported by the Texas Transportation Institute (“TTI”) in its 2005 Annual Urban Mobility Report,
(3) The applicant can demonstrate, either by a motion from its board of directors or letter from an authorizing authority, that it is located within a jurisdiction that has adopted, or proposes to adopt within two years after the date of this notice, a congestion reduction demonstration;
(4) The applicant proposes to use the funds applied for to improve existing transit service or to provide new transit service in a corridor, cordon or area
(1) The extent to which the congestion reduction demonstration is reasonably projected to reduce congestion from current levels on major highways and arterial facilities within the demonstration area, as measured by projected travel speeds, “levels of service” or other objective measures of performance during the hours when the congestion reduction demonstration is in effect;
(2) The extent to which the congestion reduction plan is reasonably projected to enable improvements in transit service on major highways and arterial facilities within the demonstration area, as measured by projected reductions from current levels in scheduled running times or intervals between departures or other objective measures of performance during the hours when the congestion reduction plan is in effect;
(3) The extent to which the acquisition or improvement of transit assets deployed within the demonstration area is necessary to enable improvements in transit service within the demonstration area, as measured by qualitative benefits to transit users, including, without limitation, amenities such as high-quality seating, on-board electric power sources, wireless computer connections, interior vehicle lighting or enclosed or sheltered waiting areas; and
(4) The extent to which the acquisition or improvement of transit assets deployed within the demonstration area is necessary to enable improvements in transit service described in subsections (1), (2) and (3) above.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
The Administrator, acting on behalf of the Secretary, may amend, revise, waive or modify the terms for funding set forth in this notice at any time, unless otherwise prohibited under 49 U.S.C. 5309 or other relevant law.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of Funding Availability; Alternatives Analysis Discretionary Program.
This notice solicits proposals to compete for $12 million in Section 5339 funds to support technical work conducted within an alternatives analysis, in which one of the alternatives is a major transit capital investment. Under this authority, FTA will allocate the available discretionary funding for alternatives analysis. This analysis will support technical work that will improve and expand the information available to decision-makers considering potential New Starts and Small Starts funding. FTA will give priority to alternatives analyses that would add tasks to collect and analyze data on transit ridership patterns, the travel times of buses operating in mixed traffic, and/or other information on the current performance of the transit system. FTA will also give priority to proposals to develop and apply methods to estimate the time savings experienced by highway users that result from transit investments as well as proposals to develop and apply simplified travel forecasting approaches for Small Starts alternatives that cannot be addressed easily by the existing regional travel forecasting procedures. FTA encourages potential study sponsors to contact FTA to discuss the development of proposals under this section.
Complete proposals must be received by the designated Federal Transit Administration contact listed in this notice by the close of business May 22, 2007.
Proposals may be submitted electronically through the Grants.Gov Web site or via e-mail to
Steve Lewis-Workman at the Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, by phone at 202-366-1868 or by e-mail at
FTA has the authority to implement this program under the
The “Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007” (Pub. L. 110-05) enacted, February 15, 2007, made available $6 million in FY 2007 funds to FTA for discretionary allocation. In addition, a balance of $6 million of FY 2006 funding that was not allocated to specific projects in the FY 2006 appropriations legislation is also available for discretionary award in FY 2007, for a total of $12 million.
The authorizing legislation allows for the Secretary of Transportation to make awards under this program at her discretion. These funds will be allocated for alternatives analysis activities selected from applications submitted in response to this notice.
Section 5339 allows FTA to make grants and agreements, under criteria established by the Secretary, to States, authorities of the States, metropolitan planning organizations, and local governmental authorities to develop alternatives analyses as defined by section 5309(a)(1). Eligible study sponsors must be able to incorporate the results of this work into an ongoing alternatives analysis study or must commit to initiate an alternatives analysis study within 12 months of the grant approval.
FTA will allocate available discretionary funding for alternatives analysis to support technical work that will improve and expand the information available to decision-makers considering funding for potential New Starts and Small Starts projects. FTA will give priority to alternatives analyses that would add one or more of the following tasks to:
(1) Collect and analyze data on transit ridership patterns and use the results to validate travel forecasting models.
(2) Collect and analyze the travel times of buses operating in mixed traffic, and other information on the current performance of the transit system, and use the results to determine the user benefits attributable to better reliability of fixed guideway projects.
(3) Develop and apply simplified travel forecasting approaches for Small Starts alternatives.
(4) Develop improved methods for estimating the highway system user travel time savings associated with public transit alternatives.
FTA will consider proposals for other areas of technical work that can better develop information about the costs and benefits of projects seeking New or Small Starts funding.
FTA's intent in allocating funding for alternatives analysis is to support tasks that will improve and expand the information available to decision-makers considering funding for proposed New Starts and Small Starts projects. Alternatives analyses must be documented in the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) of the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the area, with a commitment to begin the alternatives analysis study within 12 months of grant approval, or already underway. Proposals will be evaluated and awarded points as follows:
Study sponsors may demonstrate need for these funds by demonstrating a substantial transportation problem in the study corridor and the presence of one or more of the following conditions:
(a) The lack a recent survey of transit riders;
(b) The lack of useful information on bus travel times and schedule reliability in the presence of substantial traffic congestion that affects the travel speeds and schedule reliability of buses operating in mixed traffic;
(c) A study that contains Small Starts alternatives for which the existing regional travel forecasting models are deemed inappropriate;
(d) The degree to which technical work will develop information on the full range of costs and benefits of projects seeking New or Small starts funding.
In addition, FTA will give additional consideration to studies in metropolitan areas that are part of the Department's Congestion Initiative.
Study sponsors must demonstrate the potential impact of the proposed tasks on decision-making. For example, for a task to collect and analyze bus travel times, this could be accomplished by considering alternatives that would improve transit speeds and schedule reliability, having access to electronically archived data from an Automated Vehicle Locator system, and anticipating the analysis of information on a variety of transit operating regimes. The operating regimes include local buses, limited-stop buses, bus rapid transit, and other services.
Study sponsors will demonstrate capacity to successfully undertake the proposed tasks by the quality of the local procedures for predicting the system performance, multimodal impacts, and ridership response of new transit investments, and the track record, if any, of the applicant in the prediction of ridership for previous New Starts projects.
Outstanding proposals in study areas with substantial transportation problems could receive up to $2 million in 5339 funding.
FTA staff is available to discuss and clarify our expectations regarding these efforts before study sponsors submit applications. After receiving funding proposals, FTA regional offices will conduct an eligibility review with headquarters performing evaluations of the surviving proposals. FTA will announce successful applicants/projects in a subsequent
Once FTA has reviewed the proposals and selected the winners, FTA will award funds to the project sponsor to support the agreed upon tasks. These funds will be administered according to federal requirements as well as the appropriate policies, guidelines and rules of the pertinent agencies.
The Government's share of the cost of an activity funded using amounts made available under this section may not exceed 80 percent of the cost of the activity.
An amount made available or appropriated for this section remains available for 3 fiscal years, including the fiscal year in which the amount is made available or appropriated. The Secretary may use any amount that is unobligated at the end of the 3-fiscal-year period for any purpose under Section 5339. FTA will not approve deferred local share.
(1) State and local agencies may apply by e-mail to
(2) Apply electronically through the Grants.Gov portal, or
(3) Agencies may apply via paper application to Steve Lewis-Workman, Federal Transit Administration, TPE-21, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Participants may be asked to compile data for use in measuring program performance.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
Kathy Ezzell, room 7266, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to John Hicks, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, room 5B-17, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Mark Johnston at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (
Office of the Secretary, HUD.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would relocate HUD's regulations governing nonprocurement debarment and suspension to a new part in Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The relocation is part of a governmentwide initiative to create one location where the public can locate both the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance for grants and agreements and the associated federal agency implementing regulations. The proposed new part would adopt the OMB guidance on nonprocurement debarment and suspension and supplement it with HUD-specific clarifications and additions. The proposed rule would also make conforming changes to HUD regulations referencing the nonprocurement debarment and suspension regulations. This proposed regulatory action is an administrative simplification that would make no substantive change in HUD policy or procedures for nonprocurement debarment and suspension.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule to the Office of General Counsel, Rules Docket Clerk, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0001. Communications should refer to the above docket number and title and should contain the information specified in the “Request for Comments” section.
Dane Narode, Assistant General Counsel, Office of Program Enforcement, Administrative Proceedings Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW., Suite 200, Washington DC 20024-0500; telephone (202) 708-2350 (this is not a toll-free number); e-mail address
OMB is undertaking to restructure the framework of federal government policies for grants, other financial assistance, and nonprocurement agreements in an effort to make it easier for applicants and recipients to locate and comply with such policies. On May 11, 2004, OMB established a new Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (69 FR 26276), which is comprised of two subtitles. Subtitle A, entitled “Government-wide Grants and Agreements,” contains OMB policy guidance to federal agencies on grants and agreements. Subtitle B, entitled “Federal Agency Regulations for Grants and Agreements,” will contain the regulations of federal agencies implementing the OMB guidance, as it applies to grants and other financial assistance agreements and nonprocurement transactions. The HUD regulations governing nonprocurement debarment and suspension would be located in Subtitle B at 2 CFR part 2424. Consolidating the OMB guidance and co-locating the agency regulations provides a good foundation for streamlining and simplifying the policies governing grants and agreements.
On August 31, 2005, OMB continued its initiative to create a single location where OMB guidance and federal agency implementing regulations could be found by incorporating four guidance documents into 2 CFR, Subtitle A, and making conforming changes (70 FR 51862). OMB is engaging in a multi-phase process by which it will relocate and revise guidance documents. In the first phase, OMB is relocating its circulars, in their current form, into chapter II of subtitle A. In the second phase, OMB will publish guidance in chapter I of subtitle A after OMB: (1) Proposes for public comment any changes to streamline and simplify the guidance based on recommendations from interagency working groups; and (2) Resolves the comments and finalizes the guidance with the help of the working groups. Part 180 of 2 CFR, entitled “OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement),” has been immediately incorporated into subtitle A, chapter I, because the substance of the guidance is up to date and is not expected to change in the near future. The other three guidance documents have been located in subtitle A, chapter II, pending review and revision.
This proposed rule would adopt the OMB guidance in subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180, as supplemented by HUD's policies and procedures for nonprocurement debarment and suspension at 2 CFR part 2424. This implementation would give regulatory effect to the OMB guidance for HUD. The provisions of 2 CFR part 180 are supplemented and clarified to address HUD-specific issues at 2 CFR part 2424. The nonprocurement debarment and suspension standards being codified at 2 CFR part 180 will serve as governmentwide guidance having effect for those federal agencies that adopt them.
Through this proposed rule, HUD is creating a new part at 2 CFR part 2424 that adopts, by reference, the baseline provisions of 2 CFR part 180 and includes HUD-specific supplements, clarifications, and modifications to 2 CFR part 180. Accordingly, HUD's regulations at 24 CFR part 24, entitled “Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement),” are being supplanted by 2 CFR part 2424. It is important to note that this does not result in a change in HUD policy or procedures since the August 31, 2005, rule promulgating 2 CFR part 180 conformed those OMB requirements to the federal agencies' November 26, 2003, updated version of the nonprocurement debarment and suspension common rule (68 FR 66534), which HUD adopted. The proposed rule would result in entities following the policies and procedures specified in each applicable section of the OMB guidance in subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180, because that section has been implemented in part 2424.
This proposed rule would make conforming regulatory changes throughout Title 24 to reflect the new location of HUD's suspension and debarment regulations at 2 CFR part 2424. Various parts of Title 24 have cross-references to the nonprocurement suspension and debarment provisions contained at 24 CFR part 24. This proposed rule replaces the references to 24 CFR part 24 with 2 CFR part 2424. HUD is also revising all references to the Drug Free Workplace Act (the Act). The requirements of the Act were originally included within 24 CFR part 24. The November 26, 2003, final common rule created a new part, 24 CFR part 21, which is where the Act's requirements can now be found. This proposed rule is revising outdated references regarding the Act, replacing references to 24 CFR part 24 with 24 CFR part 21. Neither the conforming regulatory changes nor the revision of references to the Act are intended to have substantive effect on the Department's regulations.
Prior to 1995, HUD required entities to certify that they would comply with the requirements of the Act. The certification requirements, which were contained in the appendices of 24 CFR part 24, were eliminated by HUD in a September 11, 1995, final rule (60 FR 47260) as part of a governmentwide streamlining effort. The elimination of the certification requirement does not absolve entities of complying with the requirements of the Act, as implemented by HUD at 24 CFR part 21. HUD is taking advantage of the opportunity afforded by this proposed rule in order to revise and remove those parts of Title 24 where the regulations still refer to this certification requirement.
HUD is taking the opportunity afforded by this proposed rulemaking to revise its Limited Denial of Participation (LDP) Regulations. The regulations governing LDPs were formerly found at 24 CFR part 24, subpart J. Due to the relocation of part 24, the LDP regulations will now be found at 2 CFR part 2424, subpart J. The LDP regulations are a HUD-specific supplement to the governmentwide nonprocurement debarment and suspension regulations. An LDP is an action taken to immediately exclude a person or entity from participating in a specific program, within a limited geographical area, for a specified period not to exceed 12 months.
HUD is proposing to revise 24 CFR 24.1110 in order to clarify one of the enumerated causes for an LDP. Currently, § 24.1110(a)(8) lists a cause for imposing an LDP as the “commission of an offense listed in § 24.800.” The language of the current regulation could be misinterpreted as limiting the incorporated causes to just § 24.800(a), which sets forth causes for debarment based on a conviction or civil judgment for the commission of certain offenses. The proposed change would avoid such confusion by amending the regulation to account for the relocation of the nonprocurement debarment and suspension rules, as well as to clarify that included within the causes for imposing an LDP under new 2 CFR 2424.1110(a)(8) are any acts or omissions that would be cause for debarment under 2 CFR 180.800. Additionally, this proposed rule would remove 24 CFR 24.1110(a)(12), which provides debarment or suspension by another federal agency as a basis for an LDP. That provision is unnecessary in light of the governmentwide effect of the suspension and debarment procedures.
When the governmentwide nonprocurement debarment and suspension regulations were amended on November 26, 2003, HUD inadvertently removed reference to the information that is to be considered in deciding whether to terminate, modify, or affirm an LDP. This proposed rule would redesignate the provision at 24 CFR 24.1130 to 2 CFR 24.1130 and amend it by reincorporating paragraph (c) to specify that the applicable factors found in 2 CFR 180.860 may be considered by the Departmental official or designee in deciding whether to terminate, modify, or affirm an LDP. In addition, the Departmental Hearing Officer may also consider the factors listed at 2 CFR 180.860 in making any recommended decision.
HUD proposes to make a clarifying change to § 5.105, in which the term “participant” is being added. This modification is consistent with HUD's current usage and interpretation of entities and activities covered by the suspension and debarment regulations.
HUD is making a technical correction to 24 CFR 21.605, which currently contains an incorrect reference. Section 21.605(a)(2) currently states that OMB circular A-102 is implemented at 24 CFR part 24. The reference would state that OMB Circular A-102 is implemented at 24 CFR part 85.
HUD would also make a technical amendment to § 84.13 to remove HUD as a regulated entity under part 84. In serving as HUD's implementation of OMB circulars, part 84 applies to federal grants and agreements awarded to institutions of higher education, hospitals, and other non-profit organizations. This technical amendment would not alter HUD's obligations under 2 CFR part 2424 or 24 CFR part 21.
HUD is proposing the new part 2424 in 2 CFR in order to adopt the OMB guidelines, by making the same additions and clarifications as were made to HUD's codification of the common rule on nonprocurement suspension and debarment in the November 26, 2003, final common rule. HUD's clarification of the term “covered transaction,” adding that each salary payment under an employment contract constitutes a separate covered transaction, has been relocated to the definition of “Nonprocurement Transaction” for ease of use. All other clarifications and additions remain as described in the November 26, 2003, final rule. HUD has added a new § 2424.137, which codifies existing agency practice as required by the OMB Guidelines at 2 CFR 180.25(b)(1). Therefore, in soliciting comments on this proposed rule, HUD is not seeking to revisit substantive issues that were addressed during the preparation of the 2003 final common rule. However, because the new part is not intended to make any changes in current policies and procedures, HUD specifically invites comments on any unintended changes in substantive content that the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
Notwithstanding HUD's determination that this rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, HUD specifically invites comments regarding any less burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's objectives as described in this preamble.
This proposed rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This proposed rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and on the private sector. This proposed rule does not impose any federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, within the meaning of UMRA.
Administrative practice and procedure, Debarment and suspension, Grant programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Claims, Crime, Government contracts, Grant programs—housing and community development, Individuals with disabilities, Intergovernmental relations, Loan programs—housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Mortgage insurance, Penalties, Pets, Public housing, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Unemployment compensation, Wages.
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs—housing and community development, Investigations, Loan programs—housing and community development, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Equal employment opportunity, Grant programs—housing and community development, Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs—housing and community development, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Classified information, Courts, Freedom of information, Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug abuse, Grant programs, Loan programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government contracts, Grant programs, Loan programs, Technical assistance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Loan programs—housing and community development, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Accounting, Colleges and universities, Grant programs, Hospitals, Nonprofit organizations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accounting, Grant programs, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Aged, Grant programs—housing and community development, Homeless, Individuals with disabilities, Low and moderate income housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs—housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Manufactured homes, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Fair housing, Individuals with disabilities, Intergovernmental relations, Investigations, Mortgages, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Fair housing, Grant programs—housing and community development, Loan programs—housing and community development, Religious discrimination, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination.
Administrative practice and procedure, Community development, Equal employment opportunity, Government contracts, Grant programs—housing and community development, Housing, Loan programs—housing and community development, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal employment opportunity, Fair housing, Housing standards, Lead poisoning, Loan programs—housing and community development, Mortgage insurance, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Unemployment compensation, Wages.
Administrative practice and procedure, Home improvement, Manufactured homes, Mortgage insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Hawaiian Natives, Home improvement, Indians—lands, Loan programs—housing and community development, Mortgage insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Solar energy.
Aged, Condominiums, Loan programs—housing and community development, Mortgage insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Condominiums, Cooperatives, Grant programs—housing and community development, Loan programs—housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Utilities.
Community facilities, Homeless, Low and moderate income housing, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surplus government property.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Loan programs—housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Mortgage insurance, Mortgages, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Low and moderate income housing, Rent subsidies.
Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Community development block grants, Grant programs—education, Grant programs—housing and community development, Guam, Indians, Loan programs—housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Northern Mariana Islands, Pacific Islands Trust Territory, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid, Virgin Islands.
Government property, Grant programs—housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Nonprofit organizations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Community facilities, Grant programs—housing and community development, Homeless, Low and moderate income housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Loan programs—housing and community development, Public housing.
Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—Indians, Indians, Low and moderate income housing, Manufactured homes, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—Indians, Indians, Public housing, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Grant programs—housing and community development, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Aged, Community development block grants, Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—Indians, Indians, Individuals with disabilities, Public housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Alaska, Community development block grants, Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—Indians, Indians, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Indians, Loan programs—Indians, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Community development block grants, Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—Indians, Hawaiian Natives, Low and moderate income housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Consumer protection, Intergovernmental relations, Investigations, Manufactured homes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Consumer protection, Housing, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, HUD proposes to amend 2 CFR part 2424 and 24 CFR parts 5, 6, 8, 15, 21, 24, 25, 26, 84, 91, 92, 103, 107, 135, 200, 202, 203, 206, 245, 291, 401, 402, 570, 572, 585, 941, 954, 982, 983, 1000, 1003, 1005, 1006, 3282, and 3500 to read as follows:
1. Under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), add Chapter XXIV consisting of part 2424 to Subtitle B to read as follows:
Sec. 2455, Pub. L. 103-355, 108 Stat. 3327; E.O. 12549, 3 CFR, 1986 Comp., p. 189; E.O. 12689, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 235.
In this part, HUD adopts, as HUD policies, procedures, and requirements for nonprocurement debarment and suspension, the OMB guidance in subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180, as supplemented by this part. This adoption thereby gives regulatory effect for HUD to the OMB guidance as supplemented by this part. This part satisfies the requirements in section 3 of Executive Order 12549, “Debarment and Suspension” (3 CFR 1986 Comp., p. 189), Executive Order 12689, “Debarment and Suspension” (3 CFR 1989 Comp., p. 235) and 31 U.S.C. 6101 note (Section 2455, Pub. L. 103-355, 108 Stat. 3327).
This part and, through this part, pertinent portions of subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180 (see table at 2 CFR 180.100(b)), apply to you if you are a—
(a) Participant or principal in a “covered transaction” (see subpart B of 2 CFR part 180 and the definition of “nonprocurement transaction” at 2 CFR 180.970, as supplemented by § 2424.970 of this part);
(b) Respondent in a HUD suspension or debarment action;
(c) HUD debarment or suspension official; or
(d) HUD grants officer, agreements officer, or other official authorized to enter into any type of nonprocurement transaction that is a covered transaction.
The HUD policies and procedures that you must follow are the policies and procedures specified in each applicable section of the OMB guidance in subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180, as that section is supplemented by the section in this part with the same section number. The contracts that are covered transactions, for example, are specified by section 220 of the OMB guidance (i.e., 2 CFR 180.220) as supplemented by section 220 in this part (i.e., § 2424.220). For any section of OMB guidance in subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180 that has no corresponding section in this part, HUD policies and procedures are those in the OMB guidance.
The Secretary, the Director of the Enforcement Center, or a designee may grant an exception permitting an excluded person to participate in a particular covered transaction. If the Secretary, the Director of the Enforcement Center, or a designee grants an exception, the exception must be in writing and state the reason(s) for deviating from the governmentwide policy in Executive Order 12549.
In addition to the contracts covered under 2 CFR 180.220(b) of the OMB guidance, this part applies to any contract, regardless of tier, that is awarded by a contractor, subcontractor, supplier, consultant, or its agent or representative in any transaction, if the contract is to be funded or provided by HUD under a covered nonprocurement transaction and the amount of the contract is expected to equal or exceed $25,000. This extends the coverage of the HUD nonprocurement suspension and debarment requirements to all lower tiers of subcontracts under covered nonprocurement transactions, as permitted under the OMB guidance at 2 CFR 180.220(c) (see optional lower-tier coverage in the figure in the Appendix to 2 CFR part 180).
(a) You, as a participant, are responsible for determining whether you are entering into a covered transaction with an excluded or disqualified person. You may decide the method by which you do so.
(1) You may, but are not required to, check the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS).
(2) You may, but are not required to, collect a certification from that person.
(b) In the case of an employment contract, HUD does not require employers to check the EPLS prior to making salary payments pursuant to that contract.
To communicate the requirements to lower-tier participants, you must include a term or condition in the transaction requiring compliance with subpart C of the OMB guidance in 2 CFR part 180, as supplemented by this subpart.
To communicate to a participant the requirements described in 2 CFR 180.435 of the OMB guidance, you must include a term or condition in the transaction that requires the participant to: comply with subpart C of 2 CFR part 180, as supplemented by subpart C of this part, and include a similar term or condition in lower-tier covered transactions.
In all HUD suspensions, the official receiving the referral for findings of fact regarding disputed material facts must be a hearing officer.
In all HUD debarments, the official receiving the referral for findings of fact regarding disputed material facts must be a hearing officer.
In the case of employment contracts that are covered transactions, each salary payment under the contract is a separate covered transaction.
A person who has a critical influence on, or substantive control over, a covered transaction, whether or not employed by the participant. Persons who have a critical influence on, or substantive control over, a covered transaction may include, but are not limited to:
(a) Loan officers;
(b) Staff appraisers and inspectors;
(c) Underwriters;
(d) Bonding companies;
(e) Borrowers under programs financed by HUD or with loans guaranteed, insured, or subsidized through HUD programs;
(f) Purchasers of properties with HUD-insured or Secretary-held mortgages;
(g) Recipients under HUD assistance agreements;
(h) Ultimate beneficiaries of HUD programs;
(i) Fee appraisers and inspectors;
(j) Real estate agents and brokers;
(k) Management and marketing agents;
(l) Accountants, consultants, investment bankers, architects, engineers, and attorneys who are in a business relationship with participants in connection with a covered transaction under a HUD program;
(m) Contractors involved in the construction or rehabilitation of properties financed by HUD, with HUD-insured loans or acquired properties, including properties held by HUD as mortgagee-in-possession;
(n) Closing agents;
(o) Turnkey developers of projects financed by or with financing insured by HUD;
(p) Title companies;
(q) Escrow agents;
(r) Project owners;
(s) Administrators of hospitals, nursing homes, and projects for the elderly financed or insured by HUD; and
(t) Developers, sellers, or owners of property financed with loans insured under Title I or Title II of the National Housing Act.
Ultimate beneficiaries of HUD programs include, but are not limited to, subsidized tenants and subsidized mortgagors, such as those assisted under Section 8 Housing Assistance Payment contracts, by Section 236 Rental Assistance, or by Rent Supplement payments.
A limited denial of participation excludes a specific person from participating in a specific program, or programs, within a HUD field office's geographic jurisdiction, for a specific period of time. A limited denial of participation is normally issued by a HUD field office, but may be issued by a Headquarters office. The decision to impose a limited denial of participation is discretionary and based on the best interests of the Federal government.
The Secretary designates HUD officials who are authorized to impose a limited denial of participation, affecting any participant and/or their affiliates, except mortgagees approved by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).
(a) An authorized HUD official may issue a limited denial of participation against a person, based upon adequate evidence of any of the following causes:
(1) Approval of an applicant for insurance would constitute an unsatisfactory risk;
(2) There are irregularities in a person's past performance in a HUD program;
(3) The person has failed to maintain the prerequisites of eligibility to participate in a HUD program;
(4) The person has failed to honor contractual obligations or to proceed in
(5) The person has failed to satisfy, upon completion, the requirements of an assistance agreement or contract;
(6) The person has deficiencies in ongoing construction projects;
(7) The person has falsely certified in connection with any HUD program, whether or not the certification was made directly to HUD;
(8) The person has committed any act or omission that would be cause for debarment under 2 CFR 180.800;
(9) The person has violated any law, regulation, or procedure relating to the application for financial assistance, insurance, or guarantee, or to the performance of obligations incurred pursuant to a grant of financial assistance or pursuant to a conditional or final commitment to insure or guarantee;
(10) The person has made or procured to be made any false statement for the purpose of influencing in any way an action of the Department; or
(11) Imposition of a limited denial of participation by any other HUD office.
(b) Filing of a criminal Indictment or Information shall constitute adequate evidence for the purpose of limited denial of participation actions. The Indictment or Information need not be based on offenses against HUD.
(c) Imposition of a limited denial of participation by any other HUD office shall constitute adequate evidence for a concurrent limited denial of participation. Where such a concurrent limited denial of participation is imposed, participation may be restricted on the same basis without the need for additional conference or further hearing.
(d) An affiliate or organizational element may be included in a limited denial of participation solely on the basis of its affiliation, and regardless of its knowledge of or participation in the acts providing cause for the sanction. The burden of proving that a particular affiliate or organizational element is currently responsible and not controlled by the primary sanctioned party (or by an entity that itself is controlled by the primary sanctioned party) is on the affiliate or organizational element.
A limited denial of participation is effective immediately upon issuance of the notice.
A limited denial of participation may remain in effect up to 12 months.
A limited denial of participation is made effective by providing the person, and any specifically named affiliate, with notice:
(a) That the limited denial of participation is being imposed;
(b) Of the cause(s) under § 2424.1110 for the sanction;
(c) Of the potential effect of the sanction, including the length of the sanction and the HUD program(s) and geographic area affected by the sanction;
(d) Of the right to request, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the notice, a conference under § 2424.1130; and
(e) Of the right to contest the limited denial of participation under § 2424.1130.
(a) Within 30 days after receiving a notice of limited denial of participation, you may request a conference with the official who issued such notice. The conference shall be held within 15 days after the Department's receipt of the request for a conference, unless you waive this time limit. The official or designee who imposed the sanction shall preside. At the conference, you may appear with a representative and may present all relevant information and materials to the official or designee. Within 20 days after the conference, or within 20 days after any agreed-upon extension of time for submission of additional materials, the official or designee shall, in writing, advise you of the decision to terminate, modify, or affirm the limited denial of participation. If all or a portion of the remaining period of exclusion is affirmed, the notice of affirmation shall advise you of the opportunity to contest the notice and to request a hearing before a Departmental Hearing Officer. You have 30 days after receipt of the notice of affirmation to request this hearing. If the official or designee does not issue a decision within the 20-day period, you may contest the sanction before a Departmental Hearing Officer. Again, you have 30 days from the expiration of the 20-day period to request this hearing. If you request a hearing before the Departmental Hearing Officer, you must submit your request to the Debarment Docket Clerk, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., B-133 Portals 200, Washington, DC 20410-0500.
(b) You may skip the conference with the official and you may request a hearing before a Departmental Hearing Officer. This must also be done within 30 days after receiving a notice of limited denial of participation. If you opt to have a hearing before a Departmental Hearing Officer, you must submit your request to the Debarment Docket Clerk, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., B-133 Portals 200, Washington, DC 20410-0500. The hearing before the Departmental Hearing Officer is more formal than the conference before the sanctioning official described above. The Departmental Hearing Officer will conduct the hearing in accordance with 24 CFR part 26, subpart A. The Departmental Hearing Officer will issue findings of fact and make a recommended decision. The sanctioning official will then make a final decision, as promptly as possible, after the Departmental Hearing Officer's recommended decision is issued. The sanctioning official may reject the recommended decision or any findings of fact, only after specifically determining that the decision or any of the facts are arbitrary, capricious, or clearly erroneous.
(c) In deciding whether to terminate, modify, or affirm a limited denial of participation, the Departmental official or designee may consider the factors listed at 2 CFR 180.860. The Departmental Hearing Officer may also consider the factors listed at 2 CFR 180.860 in making any recommended decision.
Federal agencies do not coordinate limited denial of participation actions. As stated in § 2424.1100, a limited denial of participation is a HUD-specific action and applies only to HUD activities.
The scope of a limited denial of participation is as follows:
(a) A limited denial of participation generally extends only to participation in the program under which the cause arose. A limited denial of participation may, at the discretion of the authorized official, extend to other programs, initiatives, or functions within the jurisdiction of an Assistant Secretary. The authorized official, however, may determine that where the sanction is based on an indictment or conviction, the sanction shall apply to all programs throughout HUD.
(b) For purposes of this subpart, participation includes receipt of any benefit or financial assistance through
(c) The sanction may be imposed for a period not to exceed 12 months, and shall be effective within the geographic jurisdiction of the office imposing it, unless the sanction is imposed by an Assistant Secretary or Deputy Assistant Secretary, in which case the sanction may be imposed on either a nationwide or a more restricted basis.
For purposes of determining a limited denial of participation, HUD may impute conduct as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
If you have submitted a request for a hearing pursuant to § 2424.1130 of this subpart, and you also receive, pursuant to subpart G or H of this part, a notice of proposed debarment or suspension that is based on the same transaction(s) or the same conduct as the limited denial of participation, as determined by the debarring or suspending official, the following rules shall apply:
(a) During the 30-day period after you receive a proposed debarment or suspension, during which you may elect to contest the debarment under 2 CFR 180.815, or the suspension pursuant to 2 CFR 180.720, all proceedings in the limited denial of participation, including discovery, are automatically stayed.
(b) If you do not contest the proposed debarment pursuant to 2 CFR 180.815, or the suspension pursuant to 2 CFR 180.720, the final imposition of the debarment or suspension shall also constitute a final decision with respect to the limited denial of participation, to the extent that the debarment or suspension is based on the same transaction(s) or conduct as the limited denial of participation.
(c) If you contest the proposed debarment pursuant to 2 CFR 180.815, or the suspension pursuant to 2 CFR 180.720, then:
(1) Those parts of the limited denial of participation and the debarment or suspension based on the same transaction(s) or conduct, as determined by the debarring or suspending official, shall be immediately consolidated before the debarring or suspending official;
(2) Proceedings under the consolidated portions of the limited denial of participation shall be stayed before the hearing officer until the suspending or debarring official makes a determination as to whether the consolidated matters should be referred to a hearing officer. Such a determination must be made within 90 days of the date of the issuance of the suspension or proposed debarment, unless the suspending/debarring official extends the period for good cause.
(i) If the suspending or debarring official determines that there is a genuine dispute as to material facts regarding the consolidated matter, the entire consolidated matter will be referred to the hearing officer hearing the limited denial of participation, for additional proceedings pursuant to 2 CFR 180.750 or 180.845.
(ii) If the suspending or debarring official determines that there is no dispute as to material facts regarding the consolidated matter, jurisdiction of the hearing officer under 2 CFR part 2424, subpart J, to hear those parts of the limited denial of participation based on the same transaction[s] or conduct as the debarment or suspension, as determined by the debarring or suspending official, will be transferred to the debarring or suspending official, and the hearing officer responsible for hearing the limited denial of participation shall transfer the administrative record to the debarring or suspending official.
(3) The suspending or debarring official shall hear the entire consolidated case under the procedures governing suspensions and debarments, and shall issue a final decision as to both the limited denial of participation and the suspension or debarment.
The imposition of a limited denial of participation does not affect the right of the Department to suspend or debar any person under this part.
If the cause for the limited denial of participation is resolved before the expiration of the 12-month period, the official who imposed the sanction may terminate it.
When a limited denial of participation has been made final, or the period for requesting a conference pursuant to § 2424.1130 has expired without receipt of such a request, the official imposing the limited denial of participation shall notify the Director of the Compliance Division in the Departmental Enforcement Center of the scope of the limited denial of participation.
2. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437d, 1437f, 1437n, 3535(d), and Sec. 327, Pub. L. 109-115, 119 Stat. 2936.
3. Revise § 5.105(c) and (d) to read as follows:
(c)
(d)
4. The authority citation for part 6 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d); 42 U.S.C. 5309.
5. Revise § 6.12(a)(4) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) Take such other actions as may be provided by law, including, but not limited to, the initiation of proceedings under 2 CFR part 2424 or any applicable proceeding under State or local law.
6. The authority citation for part 8 continues to read as follows:
29 U.S.C. 794; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 5309.
7. Revise § 8.57(a)(2) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) The initiation of debarment proceedings pursuant to 2 CFR part 2424; and
8. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d). Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. Section 15.107 also issued under E.O. 12958, 60 FR 19825, 3 CFR Comp., p. 333. Subparts C and D also issued under 5 U.S.C. 301.
9. Revise § 15.109(d) to read as follows:
(d)
10. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:
41 U.S.C. 701; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
11. Revise § 21.510(c) to read as follows:
(c) Suspension or debarment of the recipient under 2 CFR part 2424, for a period not to exceed five years.
12. Revise § 21.605(a)(2) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) A block grant or a grant in an entitlement program, whether or not the grant is exempted from coverage under the governmentwide rule 24 CFR part 85 that implements OMB Circular A-102 and specifies uniform administrative requirements.
13. The authority citation for part 24 would be revised to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
14. Revise part 24 to read as follows:
The policies, procedures, and requirements for debarment, suspension, and limited denial of participation are set forth in 2 CFR part 2424.
15. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1708(c), 1708(d), 1709(s), 1715(b) and 1715(f)-14; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
16. In § 25.2, revise the reference to “part 24 of this subtitle A” to read “2 CFR part 2424.”
17. Revise § 25.9(n) to read as follows:
(n) Employing or retaining:
(1) An officer, partner, director, or principal at such time when such person was suspended, debarred, ineligible, or subject to a limited denial of participation under 2 CFR part 2424 or otherwise prohibited from participation in HUD programs, where the mortgagee knew or should have known of the prohibition;
(2) An employee who is not an officer, partner, director, or principal and who is or will be working on HUD/FHA program matters at a time when such person was suspended, debarred, ineligible, or subject to a limited denial of participation under 2 CFR part 2424 or otherwise prohibited from participation in HUD programs, where the mortgagee knew or should have known of the prohibition;
18. The authority citation for part 26 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
19. Revise § 26.1 to read as follows:
This part sets forth rules of procedure in certain proceedings of the Department of Housing and Urban Development presided over by a hearing officer. These rules of procedure apply to hearings with respect to determinations by the Multifamily Participation Review Committee pursuant to 24 CFR part 200, subpart H, to hearings conducted pursuant to referrals by debarring or suspending officials under 2 CFR part 2424, and to hearings conducted pursuant to referrals by a hearing official under 24 CFR part 25, unless such regulations at 2 CFR part 2424, 24 CFR parts 25, or 200, provide otherwise. They also apply in any other case where a hearing is required by statute or regulation, to the extent that rules adopted under such
20. Revise § 26.9 to read as follows:
In every case, there shall be a notice of administrative action. The notice shall be in writing and inform the party of the determination. The notice shall state the reasons for the proposed or imposed action, except where general terms are permitted by 2 CFR part 2424. The notice shall inform the party of any right to a hearing to challenge the determination, and the manner and time in which to request such a hearing. A supplemental notice may be issued, in the discretion of the initiating official, to add to or modify the reasons for the action.
21. The authority citation for part 84 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
22. In § 84.2, revise the definition of “Suspension” to read as follows:
23. Revise § 84.13 to read as follows:
(a) Recipients and subrecipients shall comply with the governmentwide nonprocurement debarment and suspension requirements in 2 CFR part 2424. These governmentwide requirements restrict subawards and contracts with certain parties that are debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in federal assistance programs or activities.
(b) Recipients and subrecipients shall comply with the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 701), as set forth at 24 CFR part 21.
24. Revise § 84.44(d) to read as follows:
(d) Contracts shall be made only with responsible contractors who possess the potential ability to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of the proposed procurement. Consideration shall be given to such matters as contractor integrity; compliance with public policy, including, where applicable, Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701u); record of past performance; and financial and technical resources or accessibility to other necessary resources. In certain circumstances, contracts with certain parties are restricted by implementation of Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, “Debarment and Suspension,” at 2 CFR part 2424.
25. Revise § 84.62(d) to read as follows:
(d)
26. Revise § 84.84(e)(4) to read as follows:
(e) * * *
(4) Contracts shall be made only with responsible contractors who possess the potential ability to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of the proposed procurement. Consideration shall be given to such matters as contractor integrity; compliance with public policy, including, where applicable, Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701u); record of past performance; and financial and technical resources or accessibility to other necessary resources. In certain circumstances, contracts with certain parties are restricted, as set forth at 2 CFR part 2424.
27. Revise § 84.86(b)(4) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(4)
28. Remove paragraphs 8 and 9 from Appendix A.
29. The authority citation for part 85 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
30. In § 85.3, revise the definition of “Suspension” to read as follows:
31. Revise § 85.35 to read as follows:
Grantees and subgrantees must not make any award or permit any award (subgrant or contract) at any tier to any party that is debarred or suspended or is otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in federal assistance programs subject to 2 CFR part 2424.
32. Revise § 85.43(d) to read as follows:
(d)
33. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 3601-3619, 5301-5315, 11331-11388, 12701-12711, 12741-12756, and 12901-12912.
34. Remove § 91.225(a)(3) and redesignate paragraphs (a)(4), (5), (6), (7), and (8) as (a)(3), (4), (5), (6), and (7), respectively.
35. Remove § 91.325(a)(3) and redesignate paragraphs (a)(4), (5), (6), (7), and (8) as (a)(3), (4), (5), (6), and (7), respectively.
36. Remove § 91.425(a)(1)(iii) and redesignate paragraphs (a)(1)(iv), (v), (vi), (vii), and (viii) as (a)(1)(iii), (iv), (v), (vi), and (vii), respectively.
37. The authority citation for part 92 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 12701-12839.
38. Remove § 92.61(c)(6) and redesignate (c)(7) as (c)(6).
39. In § 92.508, revise paragraph (a)(7)(viii) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(7) * * *
(viii) Records demonstrating compliance with debarment and suspension requirements in 2 CFR part 2424.
40. The authority citation for part 103 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 3600-3619.
41. Revise § 103.510(b) to read as follows:
(b) Take appropriate steps to initiate proceedings leading to the debarment of the respondent under 2 CFR part 2424, or initiate other actions leading to the imposition of administrative sanctions, where HUD determines that such actions are necessary to the effective operation and administration of Federal programs or activities.
42. The authority citation for part 107 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d); E.O. 11063, 27 FR 11527, 3 CFR, 1958-1963 Comp., p. 652; E.O. 12892, 59 FR 2939, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 849.
43. Revise § 107.60(b) to read as follows:
(b) Such sanctions as are specified by E.O. 11063, the contract through which federal assistance is provided, and such sanctions as are specified by the rules or regulations of the Department governing the program under which federal assistance to the project is provided, shall be applied in accordance with the relevant regulations. Actions that may be taken include: cancellation or termination, in whole or in part, of the contract or agreement; refusal to approve a lender or withdrawal of approval; or a determination of ineligibility, suspension, or debarment from any further assistance or contracts; provided, however, that sanctions of debarment, suspension, and ineligibility are subject to the Department's regulations under 2 CFR part 2424, and, further, that no sanction under section 302 (a), (b), and (c) of Executive Order 11063 shall be applied by the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity without the concurrence of the Secretary.
44. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1701u; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d)
45. Revise § 135.72(b) to read as follows:
(b) The recipient shall refrain from entering into a contract with any contractor after notification to the recipient by HUD that the contractor has been found in violation of the regulations in this part. The provisions of 2 CFR part 2424 apply to the employment, engagement of services, awarding of contracts, or funding of any contractors or subcontractors during any period of debarment, suspension or otherwise ineligible status.
46. Revise § 135.74(d) to read as follows:
(d)
47. The authority citation for part 200 continues to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1702-1715z-21; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
48. Revise § 200.31 to read as follows:
The requirements set forth in 2 CFR part 2424 apply to these programs.
49. Revise § 200.172(d) to read as follows:
(d)
50. Revise § 200.192(d) to read as follows:
(d)
51. Revise § 200.195(d) to read as follows:
(d)
52. Revise § 200.204(a) introductory text and (e) to read as follows:
(a)
(e)
53. In § 200.226(a)(2)(i), revise the reference to “24 CFR part 24” to read “2 CFR part 2424.”
54. In § 200.230(a), revise the reference to “part 24 of this title” to read “2 CFR part 2424.”
55. Revise § 200.236 to read as follows:
Approvals will not be modified or withdrawn except in cases where the principal is subsequently suspended or debarred from further participation in any HUD programs under 2 CFR part 2424, or is found by the Review Committee to have obtained approval based upon submission to HUD of a false, fraudulent, or incomplete report or certificate. In such cases, the Review Committee may take such action, including modification or withdrawal of approval, as it determines to be in the best interest of the Department and the public. For the purpose of this section, the term “approval” includes conditional approval.
56. Revise § 200.243(b) to read as follows:
(b) Hearings and review of determination by the Hearing Officer shall be governed by the procedures contained in 2 CFR part 2424, except as modified in paragraph (a) of this section and by § 200.245.
57. Revise § 200.935(c)(3) to read as follows:
(c) * * *
(3)
58. Revise § 200.1500(b) to read as follows:
(b) The actions listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section are carried out in accordance with the requirements of this subpart. An LDP is a sanction applied in accordance with subpart J of 2 CFR part 2424 to participants in loan transactions other than FHA-insured lenders. The Mortgagee Review Board procedures are found at 24 CFR part 25.
59. Revise § 200.1530(b)(14) and (15) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(14) Employing or retaining an officer, partner, director, or principal at the time when the person was suspended, debarred, ineligible, or subject to an LDP under 2 CFR part 2424, or otherwise prohibited from participation in HUD programs, when the MAP lender knew or should have known of the prohibition;
(15) Employing or retaining an employee who is not an officer, partner, director, or principal, and who is or will be working on HUD-FHA program matters, at a time when that person was suspended, debarred, ineligible, or subject to an LDP under 2 CFR part 2424, or otherwise prohibited from participation in HUD programs, when the MAP lender knew or should have known of the prohibition;
60. The authority citation for part 202 continues to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1703, 1709, and 1715b; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
61. Revise § 202.5(j)(1) to read as follows:
(j) * * *
(1) Be suspended, debarred, or otherwise restricted under 2 CFR part 2424 or part 25 of this title, or under similar procedures of any other Federal agency;
62. The authority citation for part 203 continues to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1709, 1710, 1715b, 1715z-16, and 1715u; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
63. Revise § 203.202(b) and (d) to read as follows:
(b) In evaluating applications for renewal of Plan acceptance, HUD will take into consideration such reliable evidence, as is made available to the Department, of a Plan issuer's failure to fulfill its obligations. Where HUD has credible evidence of a Plan issuer's failure to correct covered homeowner problems, or there are justifiable homeowner complaints about untimely problem resolution by a Plan issuer, HUD will consider this as cause for termination of a Plan's acceptance and as grounds for initiation of sanctions against a Plan issuer or insurance backer, in accordance with 2 CFR part 2424. If HUD proposes to terminate a Plan's acceptance, the issuer of the Plan will be advised of the reason therefore, and the procedural safeguards of 2 CFR part 2424 will apply.
(d) After a Plan has been accepted by HUD, there shall be no change in, or modification to, its provisions, or in its insurance backers or insurance contract(s), without prior written HUD
64. The authority citation for part 206 continues to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1715b, 1715z-1720; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
65. Revise § 206.201(b) to read as follows:
(b)
66. The authority citation for part 245 continues to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1715z-1b; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
67. Revise § 245.135 to read as follows:
(a) Owners of housing identified in § 245.10, and their agents, as well as any principals thereof (as defined in 2 CFR part 2424), who violate any provision of this subpart so as to interfere with the organizational and participatory rights of tenants, may be liable for sanctions under 2 CFR part 2424. Such sanctions may include:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(b) These sanctions may also apply to affiliates (as defined in 2 CFR part 2424) of these persons or entities.
(c) The procedures in 2 CFR part 2424 shall apply to actions under this subpart.
68. The authority citation for part 291 continues to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1701
69. Revise § 291.200(b) to read as follows:
(b)
70. Revise § 291.303 to read as follows:
HUD will provide information on the eligibility of bidders in the bid package, a notice in the
71. The authority citation for part 401 continues to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1715z-1 and 1735f-19(b); 42 U.S.C. 1437(c)(8), 1437f(t), 1437f note, and 3535(d).
72. Revise § 401.101(a) and (b)(1) to read as follows:
(a) Mandatory rejection. The request of an owner of an eligible project will not be considered for a Restructuring Plan if the owner is debarred or suspended under 2 CFR part 2424.
(b) * * *
(1) An affiliate is debarred or suspended under 2 CFR part 2424; or
73. Revise § 401.403(b)(1) and (b)(2)(i) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1)
(2) * * *
(i) An affiliate is debarred or suspended under 2 CFR part 2424;
74. The authority citation for part 402 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 1437(c)(8), 1437f note, and 3535(d).
75. In § 402.7, revise the introductory text of paragraph (a) and paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
(a)
(1) The owner or an affiliate is debarred or suspended under part 2 CFR part 2424;
76. The authority citation for part 570 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 5301-5320.
77. Revise § 570.489(l) to read as follows:
(l)
78. Remove and reserve § 570.704(b)(5) and (6).
79. The authority citation for part 572 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 12891.
80. Revise § 572.225(b)(2)(v) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) Taking action against the recipient under 2 CFR part 2424 with respect to future HOPE 3, HUD, or Federal grant awards; and
81. The authority citation for part 585 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 8011.
82. In § 585.502, remove paragraph (c) and redesignate paragraphs (d) through (j) as (c) through (i), respectively.
83. Revise § 585.504 to read as follows:
The provisions of 2 CFR part 2424 apply to the employment of, engagement of services from, awarding of contracts to, or funding of any contractors or subcontractors during any period of debarment, suspension, or placement in ineligibility status.
84. The authority citation for part 941 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 1437b, 1437c, 1437g, and 3535(d).
85. Revise § 941.205(d) to read as follows:
(d) Each PHA shall certify before executing any contract with a contractor that the contractor is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise ineligible under 2 CFR part 2424. Each PHA also shall ensure that all subgrantees, contractors, and subcontractors select only contractors who are not listed as suspended, debarred, or otherwise ineligible under 2 CFR part 2424.
86. The authority citation for part 954 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 12701-12839.
87. Remove § 954.4(i).
88. The authority citation for part 982 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 1437f and 3535(d).
89. Revise § 982.306(a) to read as follows:
(a) The PHA must not approve an assisted tenancy if the PHA has been informed (by HUD or otherwise) that the owner is debarred, suspended, or subject to a limited denial of participation under 2 CFR part 2424.
90. Revise § 982.628(c) to read as follows:
(c)
91. Remove § 982.631(c)(2)(v).
92. The authority citation for part 983 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 1437f and 3535(d).
93. In § 983.4, revise the undesignated paragraph captioned “Debarment” to read as follows:
94. The authority citation for part 1000 continues to read as follows:
25 U.S.C. 4101
95. Revise § 1000.44 to read as follows:
In addition to any tribal requirements, the prohibitions in 2 CFR part 2424 on the use of debarred, suspended, or ineligible contractors apply.
96. Revise § 1000.46 to read as follows:
Yes. In addition to any tribal requirements, the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 701,
97. The authority citation for part 1003 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 5301
98. Revise § 1003.608 to read as follows:
The requirements in 2 CFR part 2424 are applicable. ICDBG funds cannot be provided to excluded or disqualified persons.
99. The authority citation for part 1005 continues to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1715z-13a; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
100. Revise § 1005.107(b)(5)(ii) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii)
101. The authority citation for part 1006 continues to read as follows:
25 U.S.C. 4221
102. Revise § 1006.375(b) to read as follows:
(b)
103. The authority citation for part 3282 continues to read as follows:
28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 42 U.S.C. 5424; and 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
104. Revise § 3282.151(d) to read as follows:
(d) To the extent that these regulations provide for Formal or Informal Presentations of Views for parties that would otherwise qualify for hearings under 2 CFR part 2424, the procedures of 2 CFR part 2424 shall not be available and shall not apply.
105. The authority citation for part 3500 continues to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 2601
106. Revise § 3500.19(a) to read as follows:
(a)