Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Interim rule and request for comments.
We are amending the emerald ash borer regulations by designating the States of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, in their entirety, as quarantined areas. This action is necessary to prevent the artificial spread of the emerald ash borer into noninfested areas of the United States. As a result of this action, the interstate movement of regulated articles from those States is restricted.
This interim rule is effective April 2, 2007. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 1, 2007.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0005, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0005.
Ms. Deborah McPartlan, National Emerald Ash Borer Program Manager, Emergency and Domestic Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 137, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-5356.
The emerald ash borer (EAB) (
The EAB regulations in 7 CFR 301.53-1 through 301.53-9 (referred to below as the regulations) restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from quarantined areas to prevent the artificial spread of EAB into noninfested areas of the United States. Portions of the States of Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio are already designated as quarantined areas.
Recent surveys conducted by inspectors of State, county, and city agencies and by inspectors of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) have revealed that spot infestations of EAB are prevalent outside the quarantined areas in Indiana and Ohio, and also in the State of Illinois. Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio have quarantined the infested areas and have restricted the intrastate movement of regulated articles from the quarantined areas to prevent the spread of EAB within each State. However, Federal regulations are necessary to restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from the quarantined areas to prevent the spread of EAB to other States and other countries.
The regulations in § 301.53-3(a) provide that the Administrator of APHIS will list as a quarantined area each State, or each portion of a State, where EAB has been found by an inspector, where the Administrator has reason to believe that EAB is present, or where the Administrator considers regulation necessary because of its inseparability for quarantine enforcement purposes from localities where EAB has been found.
Less than an entire State will be designated as a quarantined area only under certain conditions. Such a designation may be made if the Administrator determines that: (1) The State has adopted and is enforcing restrictions on the intrastate movement of regulated articles that are equivalent to those imposed by the regulations on the interstate movement of regulated articles; and (2) the designation of less than an entire State as a quarantined area will be adequate to prevent the artificial spread of the EAB. Although all three States have quarantined the infested areas within their boundaries, we believe that the prevalence of spot infestations of EAB throughout each State makes it necessary to quarantine these States in their entirety to prevent the artificial spread of EAB.
In accordance with these criteria and the recent EAB findings described above, we are amending § 301.53-3(c) to add the States of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, in their entirety, to the list of quarantined areas.
This rulemaking is necessary on an emergency basis to help prevent the spread of EAB to noninfested areas of the United States. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this rule effective less than
We will consider comments we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (see
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.
This emergency situation makes timely compliance with section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
This interim rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Section 301.75-15 issued under sec. 204, Title II, Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-293; sections 301.75-15 and 301.75-16 issued under sec. 203, Title II, Public Law 106-224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note).
(c) * * *
The entire State.
The entire State.
The entire State.
Office of Policy and International Affairs, Department of Energy.
Final rule.
The Department of Energy (DOE) published an interim final rule on January 31, 2007, to correct, update, and make clarifying changes to Technical Guidelines used for reporting under the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program authorized by section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The Technical Guidelines were incorporated by reference in final program guidelines that were published on April 21, 2006, and placed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). In accordance with the rules governing incorporation by reference in the CFR, DOE is required to amend its program regulations to reflect any update of the Technical Guidelines. DOE now discusses the comments received in response to the interim final rule, and adopts that rule as final without change.
Effective April 2, 2007, the interim rule published on January 1, 2007 (72 FR 4211), which became effective March 2, 2007, is confirmed as final.
Stephen Eule, PI-63, Office of Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington DC 20585, or e-mail:
Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 directed DOE to issue guidelines establishing a voluntary greenhouse gas reporting program (42 U.S.C. 13385(b)). On February 14, 2002, the President directed DOE, together with other involved Federal agencies, to recommend reforms to enhance the Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program established by DOE in 1994. On April 21, 2006, following a lengthy public review process, DOE published revised final General Guidelines for Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting (71 FR 20784). Those guidelines incorporated by reference detailed Technical Guidelines, dated March 2006, that are needed to fully implement the revised Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program.
Subsequent to the April 21, 2006 publication of the revised final General Guidelines and during preparation of new forms and instructions for reporting, DOE identified a number of errors and inconsistencies in the Technical Guidelines that warranted correction or clarification. To ensure that any revision of the March 2006 Technical Guidelines addressed as many of these problems as possible, on August 3, 2006, DOE sent a message by electronic mail to all persons who had previously expressed an interest in the guidelines and requested that they identify any needed technical corrections, clarifications, interpretations or other changes to the guidelines. Subsequently, DOE received communications that recommended additional corrections and other changes for consideration.
Following a careful review of the recommended corrections and other suggested changes, DOE made those modifications to the Technical Guidelines that it believed were necessary to correct all the identified errors and inconsistencies or other ambiguities, while adhering to the essential language and intent of the March 2006 version of the Technical Guidelines. The updated version of the Technical Guidelines is dated January 2007. As required by the regulations of the Administrative Committee of the
DOE received six sets of comments in response to the interim final rule. All of the comments are posted on the internet at the following website:
• Identified inconsistencies, drafting errors or clarity problems in the Technical Guidelines that may warrant further corrections.
• Proposed to add or reference new measurement methods or calculation tools.
• Sought to reopen some issues that had been previously resolved during the development of the guidelines published on April 21, 2006.
• Proposed changes that exceed the DOE's statutory authority.
DOE sees the value of making most of the changes that fall into this category, although none of these changes are necessary to enable the EIA to initiate reporting under the corrected Technical Guidelines dated January 2007. Since making these changes at this time could cause some confusion among prospective reporters and may further delay EIA's efforts to finalize its revised reporting forms and instructions, DOE has decided not to implement these changes at this time. Instead, DOE plans to address these changes when DOE proposes its first substantive amendments to the guidelines pursuant to 10 CFR 300.1(f).
Similarly, AF&PA's comments recommended that a specific calculation tool developed by the International Council of Forests and Paper Associations be referenced in the Technical Guidelines as an acceptable model for estimating the harvested wood products pool.
While the amendments proposed by Beta Analytic, Inc., and AF&PA may be worthwhile, they are outside the scope of this rulemaking, which is limited to correcting factual and drafting errors, eliminating inconsistencies, updating certain existing references, clarifying intent, and modifying or eliminating certain inappropriate calculation methods. Those organizations may formally propose that DOE adopt these methods when it undertakes to make substantive revisions to the guidelines pursuant to 10 CFR 300.1(f). Proposed calculation methods should be submitted in writing to the Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC, 20585, with an electronic copy sent to
Section 300.1(f) of the General Guidelines indicates that DOE intends to periodically review and update the General Guidelines and Technical Guidelines, and that it anticipates that these reviews will occur approximately every three years. During these periodic reviews, DOE may reconsider any of the issues initially resolved by the April 2006 guidelines. DOE will solicit stakeholder input at the start of any such review process.
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to Congress a report regarding the issuance of today's final rule. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 801(2).
The Secretary of Energy has approved the publication of this final rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Energy, Gases, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Housing Finance Board.
Final rule.
The Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) is issuing a final regulation that is substantially the same as the interim final rule that established a process for the appointment of directors to the Federal Home Loan Banks (Bank or Banks), which was adopted on January 24, 2007. The final rule makes two changes to the interim rule, regarding the number of nominees to be submitted and the date by which nominations must be submitted. Both changes are being made in response to comments received on the interim final rule.
Neil R. Crowley, Acting General Counsel, 202-408-2990,
Section 7(a) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) (12 U.S.C. 1427(a)) authorizes the Finance Board to appoint directors to the board of each Bank. Section 7(f)(2) of the Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1427(f)(2)) authorizes the Finance Board to fill any vacancy in an appointive directorship for the remainder of its unexpired term. The Finance Board has determined that adopting procedures for the selection of appointive directors will enhance its ability to identify and appoint well-qualified individuals to serve as Bank directors.
Accordingly, on January 24, 2007 (72 FR 3028) the Finance Board issued an interim final rule that amended 12 CFR 915.10 to adopt procedures under which the board of directors of each Bank has to submit to the Finance Board a list of individuals to be considered for appointment to the board of the Bank. The list is to include information regarding each individual's eligibility and qualifications to serve as an appointive director, and the Finance Board will use that information in making its appointments to the boards. The interim rule set an initial deadline of March 31, 2007, by which the Banks are to provide a list of nominees to the Finance Board for the directorships that are currently vacant.
At the time that it published the interim final rule, the Finance Board requested comments from the public and established a 30-day comment period, which expired on February 23, 2007.
The Finance Board received 8 comment letters in response to the interim rule. Three letters were submitted by Banks, 1 by a member of a Bank, 3 from trade associations, and 1 from a community organization. All of the comments were supportive of the rule, but also suggested certain revisions to the rule.
One issue commenters raised relates to section 915.10(b), which gives the Finance Board the discretion to request additional names from any Bank if the Finance Board does not fill all vacant appointive directorships from the names the Bank initially submits. Certain of the comment letters objected to the permissive nature of the provision, contending that the provision should be mandatory, i.e., that the final rule should require the Finance Board to seek additional names only from the Banks and should preclude it from considering prospective directors from other sources. For the reasons noted below, the Finance Board has determined to retain the language of the interim rule.
In adopting section 7 of the Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1427), Congress vested the power to appoint Bank directors solely in the Finance Board. To revise the rule in the manner suggested would preclude the Finance Board from ever considering other sources for prospective appointive directors. Such a limitation likely would impair the Finance Board's ability to carry out its statutory responsibility. As a practical matter, the Finance Board fully expects that the Banks will make every effort to submit well-qualified nominees for the appointive directorships, both in their initial submissions and in response to any subsequent request from the Finance Board. In the event that a Bank does not do so, however, the Finance Board believes that it must reserve the right to consider nominees from other sources in order to carry out its own responsibilities.
A second issue raised by the comment letters relates to the number of nominees a Bank must submit for the number of directorships to be filled. Section 915.10(a)(3) of the interim rule requires each Bank to submit twice as many nominees as there are appointive directorships to be filled at the Bank. Three commenters suggested that the rule be changed to require the submission of only 1 nominee per directorship to be filled. These commenters believed that the Banks are more likely to find well qualified persons who are willing to serve if those persons have some reasonable expectation of being chosen if they agree to be nominated. These commenters noted that the interim rule created a process in which half of all nominees would be rejected, and contended that such a process would have a chilling effect on prospective nominees' willingness to go through the nominations process.
Another commenter urged the Finance Board to require at least twice as many nominees as there are directorships to be filled, particularly with respect to the community interest directorships. That commenter reasoned that doing so would help to maintain the independence of the community interest appointive directors by lessening the degree of control that the Banks would have over their selection. Another commenter proposed that the
The Finance Board has considered each of the suggestions made with respect to the number of nominees to be submitted by the Banks. As noted below, the Finance Board believes that there is merit to the contention that the interim rule might have a chilling effect on the willingness of some qualified persons to agree to serve on the board of a Bank. To address that concern, the Finance Board has decided to modify the rule to require the Banks to submit up to 2 nominees for each directorship to be filled. As a result, a Bank with 4 directorships to be filled would have to submit at least 4 nominees, but could submit up to 8 nominees if it so chose.
Another area for which certain commenters sought changes to the interim rule relates to the March 31, 2007 deadline for the submission of nominees for the currently vacant directorships. One commenter suggested that the deadline be extended to allow the Banks a range of time beyond March 31, 2007 in which to submit nominees to the Finance Board. The commenter reasoned that some Banks may need more time to identify the appropriate number of nominees, particularly if they have to submit twice as many names as there are directorships to be filled. As discussed below, the Finance Board believes that the process of vetting prospective directors may be improved by allowing a Bank the opportunity to request additional time to complete the process and the final rule would allow a Bank to do so.
An additional concern raised by the comment letters related to the confidentiality of the information prospective directors must provide on the Federal Home Loan Bank Appointive Director Application Form (Form), which was published in the
The Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act) (5 U.S.C. 552a) governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personal information by federal agencies. The Finance Board has issued a rule implementing the Privacy Act that governs how individuals can gain access to information about themselves that the Finance Board may possess. 12 CFR part 913. The Finance Board also has published “systems of records” explaining the types of information the agency may possess and the uses of that information that are permitted under the Privacy Act.
One of the Finance Board's Privacy Act systems of records covers the Form prospective appointive directors must submit to the Finance Board. Under that system of records, the Form is used only by appropriate Finance Board staff to determine whether the nominees and current appointive directors meet the applicable eligibility requirements and possess the requisite skills and background to perform the job effectively. Within this system of records, the Finance Board retains only the Forms of individuals who are appointed as a Bank director and only for the duration of their respective term of service as an appointive director.
The Forms themselves not subject to production to the public under FOIA because they are covered by the Privacy Act. However, the Finance Board has made limited biographical information about the newly appointed directors publicly available, typically through a press release issued after the appointments have been made. See, e.g., Press Release FHFB 04-05 (Jan. 23, 2004) (available on the Finance Board's Web site:
As noted above, the final rule differs in 2 respects from the interim rule. First, section 915.10(e) is being modified to allow any Bank to request an extension of time beyond March 31, 2007 in which to submit its initial list of nominees for the directorships that currently are vacant. Second, section 915.10(a)(3) is being modified to allow any Bank to submit up to twice as many nominees as there are appointive directorships to be filled.
In reaching this conclusion, the Finance Board also considered whether the revision could create any unintended consequences, such as lessening the independence of the appointive directors. One commenter suggested that persons who are nominated by the Bank are less likely to act independently of the persons who nominated them. Although there may be some such risk in a process where the board of the Bank plays a role in selecting new directors, the Finance Board believes that any such risk is
The Finance Board also recognizes that allowing a Bank to submit only 1 nomination for each directorship has the potential to delay the appointment process if the Finance Board declines to appoint 1 or more of the persons nominated by the Bank. The Finance Board believes that any such delay is unlikely to cause a directorship to become vacant, principally because the Finance Board intends to act expeditiously in considering the nominations. Moreover, the October 1st deadline for the annual submission of nominations is far enough in advance of the start of a new term of office that a Bank should have sufficient time to submit additional nominees if they are needed. With respect to the submissions required for the currently vacant directorships, the Finance Board believes that allowing additional time to submit the nominations should allow a Bank to conduct a search that results in well-qualified persons being nominated and notes that the final rule allows a Bank to submit more than 1 nominee per directorship if it wishes to do so.
Apart from the revisions noted above, the final rule is identical to the interim final rule. Thus, the final rule: establishes a process for the Banks to submit a list of well-qualified nominees for the Finance Board to consider in filling appointive directorships; allows the Banks discretion in deciding whether to submit 1 or 2 names for each directorship; requires each Bank to submit a signed Finance Board Form for each nominee; and authorizes the Finance Board to require a Bank to submit additional nominees if the initial nominees are not appointed.
The Finance Board for good cause finds that the final rule should become effective on April 2, 2007.
The final rule will have no substantive effect on any collection of information covered by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Finance Board adopted this procedural amendment in the form of an interim final rule and not as a proposed rule. Therefore, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply to this final rule.
Banks, Banking, Conflict of interests, Elections, Ethical conduct, Federal home loan banks, Financial disclosure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
12 U.S.C. 1422a(a)(3), 1422b(a), 1426, 1427, and 1432.
(a)
(2) If an appointive directorship becomes vacant prior to the expiration of its term, the board of directors of the Bank shall submit to the Finance Board a list of eligible nominees who are well-qualified to fill that directorship, along with each individual's executed appointive director application form, promptly after the vacancy arises.
(3) The number of nominees on any list submitted by a Bank's board of directors pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this section shall be at least equal to the number of appointive directorships to be filled but shall not exceed 2 times the number of such directorships.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
By the Board of Directors of the Federal Housing Finance Board.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is revising an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for certain SAP cylinder assemblies installed in Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) 470, 520, and 550 series reciprocating engines, Lycoming Engines (LE) 320, 360, and 540 series reciprocating engines, Avco Lycoming (AL) 540 series reciprocating engines, and Superior Air Parts, Inc. (SAP) 360 series reciprocating engines. That AD currently requires removing from service certain SAP part numbered (P/N) cylinder assemblies installed in TCM, LE, and AL reciprocating engines. That AD also requires removing from service certain cylinder assemblies installed as original equipment in SAP reciprocating engines, or in certain overhauled or repaired SAP reciprocating engines.
This AD continues to require those same actions. This AD results from comments from the Public on the existing AD. We are issuing this AD to prevent cylinder separation that can lead to engine failure, a possible engine compartment fire, and damage to the airplane.
Effective May 7, 2007.
We must receive any comments on this AD by June 1, 2007.
Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD.
•
•
•
•
•
You may examine the comments on this AD in the AD docket on the Internet at
Jurgen Priester, Aerospace Engineer, Special Certification Office, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Southwest Regional Headquarters, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137;
On February 13, 2007, the FAA issued AD 2007-04-19, Amendment 39-14951 (72 FR 8089, February 23, 2007). That AD requires removing from service certain installed SAP cylinder assemblies, listed in that AD by P/N and serial number (SN), no later than 150 hours total time-in-service (TIS) to preclude cylinder head fatigue failure and separation at the head-to-barrel threaded interface. That AD was the result of nine separated SAP cylinder assemblies in TCM reciprocating engines and one in a LE reciprocating engine. That condition, if not corrected, could result in cylinder separation that can lead to engine failure, a possible engine compartment fire, and damage to the airplane.
Since we issued AD 2007-04-19, we received comments that cause us to better define and reduce the applicability of this AD.
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.
A number of commenters ask us to include the date range when SAP manufactured the cylinders. The commenters state that including the range of dates will help users to determine if they need to investigate further and will eliminate unnecessary time and money spent to determine if a suspect cylinder assembly is installed on their engine.
We agree. We changed the applicability to provide a date range to help narrow the applicability. Also, we clarified the SN range to narrow the applicability even further.
We included some minor editorial changes in this AD to clarify some nomenclature.
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
The unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other TCM 470, 520, and 550; LE 320, 360, and 540; AL 540, and SAP 360 series reciprocating engines of the same type design with certain SAP cylinder assemblies that have a part number listed in this AD. For that reason, we are issuing this AD to prevent cylinder separation which can lead to engine failure, a possible engine compartment fire, and damage to the airplane. This AD requires removing from service installed SAP cylinder assemblies listed in this AD, no later than 150 hours total TIS to preclude cylinder head fatigue failure and separation at the head-to-barrel threaded interface.
Since we do not anticipate adverse public interest in this action, a situation exists that allows for immediate adoption of this AD, and we have found that notice and opportunity for further public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to send us any written relevant 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
You may examine the docket that contains the AD, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in
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.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 7, 2007.
(b) This AD revises AD 2007-04-19.
(c) This AD applies to Superior Air Parts, Inc. (SAP), cylinder assemblies, manufactured between April 2005 and November 2005, part numbers (P/Ns): SA47000L-A1, SA47000L-A20P, SA47000S-A1, SA47000S-A20P, SA47000S-A21P, SA52000-A1, SA52000-A20P, SA52000-A21P, SA52000-A22P, SA52000-A23P, SA55000-A1, and SA55000-A20P, installed in Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) 470, 520, and 550 series reciprocating engines. These P/N cylinder assemblies may be installed in the TCM engine models listed in the following Table 1.
These engine models are installed in, but not limited to, the aircraft models listed in the following Table 2:
This AD also applies to SAP, cast cylinder assemblies, P/Ns SL32000W-A1, SL32000W-A20P, SL32000W-A21P, SL32000WH-A1, SL32000WH-A20P, SL32006W-A1, SL32006W-A20P, SL32006W-A21P, SL36000TW-A1, SL36000TW-A20P, SL36000TW-A21P, SL36000TW-A22P, SL36000W-A1, SL36000W-A20P, SL36000W-A21P, SL36006W-A1, SL36006W-A20P, and SL36006W-A21P, installed in Lycoming Engines (LE) 320, 360, and 540 series reciprocating engines and Avco Lycoming 540 series reciprocating engines. These P/N cylinder assemblies may be installed in the LE and AL engine models listed in the following Table 3.
These engine models are installed in, but not limited to, the aircraft models listed in the following Table 4:
These engine models are known to be installed in the aircraft models listed in the following Table 5:
(d) This AD results from comments from the Public on the existing AD. We are issuing this AD to prevent cylinder separation that can lead to engine failure, a possible engine compartment fire, and damage to 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) If aircraft engine records do not list the P/N of the cylinder installed during engine overhaul or repair, visually inspect the cylinders. The affected SAP cylinder head barrel flanges are marked: SA47000L-A1, SA47000L-A20P, SA47000S-A1, SA47000S-A20P, SA47000S-A21P, SA52000-A1, SA52000-A20P, SA52000-A21P, SA52000-A22P, SA52000-A23P, SA55000-A1, or SA55000-A20P or SL32000W-A1, SL32000W-A20P, SL32000W-A21P, SL32000WH-A1, SL32000WH-A20P, SL32006W-A1, SL32006W-A20P, SL32006W-A21P, SL36000TW-A1, SL36000TW-A20P, SL36000TW-A21P, SL36000TW-A22P, SL36000W-A1, SL36000W-A20P, SL36000W-A21P, SL36006W-A1, SL36006W-A20P, or SL36006W-A21P.
(g) Remove all cylinder assemblies with a serial number of 47LE053559 through 47LF053643, or 47SE054212 through 47SF054251, or 52D0531708 through 52H0532197, or 55E05223 through 55G05289, or 32WE059006 through 32WF059067, or 32WHE05379 through 32WHE05392, or 326WF055517 through 326WF055532, or 36TWF05430 through
(h) For cylinder assemblies with more than 150 hours total TIS on the effective date of this AD, a 10 hour TIS extension is permitted for the purpose of flying the aircraft to a location where maintenance action can be done to meet the requirements of this AD.
(i) After the effective date of this AD, do not install any cylinder assemblies with P/Ns SA47000L-A1, SA47000L-A20P, SA47000S-A1, SA47000S-A20P, SA47000S-A21P, SA52000-A1, SA52000-A20P, SA52000-A21P, SA52000-A22P, SA52000-A23P, SA55000-A1, or SA55000-A20P,or SL32000W-A1, SL32000W-A20P, SL32000W-A21P, SL32000WH-A1, SL32000WH-A20P, SL32006W-A1, SL32006W-A20P, SL32006W-A21P, SL36000TW-A1, SL36000TW-A20P, SL36000TW-A21P, SL36000TW-A22P, SL36000W-A1, SL36000W-A20P, SL36000W-A21P, SL36006W-A1, SL36006W-A20P, or SL36006W-A21P with a serial number of 47LE053559 through 47LF053643, or 47SE054212 through 47SF054251, or 52D0531708 through 52H0532197, or 55E05223 through 55G05289, or 32WE059006 through 32WF059067, or 32WHE05379 through 32WHE05392, or 326WF055517 through 326WF055532, or 36TWF05430 through 36TWG05453, or 36WF058058 through 36WG058124, or 366WE056944 through 366WF057061, or 366WF057150 through 366WF057232, or 366WF057259 through 366WG057534, or 366WG057556, 366WG057569, 366WG057598, 366WG057616, 366WG057621, 366WG057624, or 366WJ057770 through 366WJ057776, or 366WL058131 into any engine.
(j) The Manager, Special Certification Office, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(k) For aircraft with engines that have between 140 hours and 150 hours TIS only, special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to a location where the requirements of this AD can be done. Special flight permits may not be issued for aircraft that have utilized the provisions of paragraph (h) of this AD.
(l) Superior Air Parts, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin B06-01, Rev. E, dated January 24, 2007, contains information related to the subject of this AD.
(m) Contact Jurgen Priester, Aerospace Engineer, Special Certification Office, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Southwest Regional Headquarters, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; e-mail:
(n) None.
Federal Maritime Commission.
Final rule; corrections.
This document corrects the regulations in sections 501.27 of 46 CFR parts 501 inadvertently omitted from the Final Rule published on February 15, 2005. These revisions to the regulations are non-substantive and no public comments on the Final Rule are necessary.
On October 27, 2004, the Federal Maritime Commission (“FMC” or “Commission”) issued a final rule changing several provisions in the Commission's agreement rules and delegating authority to the Director, Bureau of Trade Analysis to request certain information. 46 CFR part 535. Docket No. 03-15, 46 CFR parts 501 and 535,
This document revises certain sections of the regulation in part 501 of the Final Rule published on February 15, 2005. The revisions correct certain omissions and errors in the regulations, which were not detected in the course of preparing the Final Rule for publication. The revisions are non-substantive in nature and do not alter the decision adopted by the Commission in this Final Rule. Therefore, no further public comments on the Final Rule are necessary. The following sections in the regulations of part 501 of the Final Rule have been revised.
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies).
46 U.S.C. 305; 46 U.S.C. 40104; 46 U.S.C. 40302; 46 U.S.C. 40304.
(c) Authority to grant or deny applications filed under § 535.504 of this chapter for waiver of the Information Form requirements in subpart E of part 535.
(d) Authority to grant or deny applications filed under § 535.705 of this chapter for waiver of the reporting requirements in subpart G of part 535 of this chapter.
(o) Authority to require Monitoring Reports from, or prescribe alternative periodic reporting requirements for, parties to agreements under §§ 535.702(c) and (d) of this chapter.
(p) Authority to require parties to agreements subject to the Monitoring Report requirements in § 535.702(a)(2) of this chapter to report their agreement
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Final rule.
This document adjusts the dollar limits and size limits used to define small businesses for the Department of Transportation's Airport Concessions Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) program. The Department of Transportation amends these size limits in order to ensure that the opportunity of small businesses to participate in the ACDBE program remains unchanged after taking inflation into account. This document, as required by statute, also adjusts the dollar limits used to define small businesses for the Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program, which applies to State and local highway, transit, and airport recipients of DOT financial assistance. This document also corrects a reference error in a previous final rule. Finally, this document makes minor changes to the language of a previous rule in order to accurately explain the role of administrative guidance material.
This rule is effective May 2, 2007.
Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 10424, Washington, DC 20590, phone numbers (202) 366-9310 (voice), (202) 3669313 (fax), (202) 755-7687 (TTY),
On March 22, 2005, the Department published a final rule revising 49 CFR Part 23—the regulation governing the airport concessions disadvantaged business enterprise (ACDBE) program. On the same day, the Department published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) on the business size standards for eligibility in the ACDBE program as well as on two other matters concerning implementation of the program. This final rule addresses the issues raised in the SNPRM and the comments made in response to the SNPRM.
The DOT-assisted contracts DBE rule and airport concessions DBE rule are based on different statutes. Each statute applies to a distinct type of business that may seek DOT financial assistance. The ACDBE program is designed to give business opportunities to certain small business concerns that operate at airports and that are owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. The ACDBE program is mandated by 49 U.S.C. 47107(e), originally enacted in 1987 and amended in 1992.
The DBE program for DOT-assisted contracts is a statutory program intended to ensure nondiscriminatory contracting opportunities for small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals in the Department's highway, mass transit and airport financial assistance programs. The statutory provision governing the DBE program in the highway and mass transit financial assistance programs is 1101(b) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Public Law 109-59, August 10, 2005. The statutory provision governing the DBE program as it relates to the airport planning and airport development financial assistance programs is 49 U.S.C. 47113.
The ACDBE program is designed to help small business concerns, owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, become self-sufficient and able to compete with non-disadvantaged firms. Under the current DOT rule, if the airport concessions firm's annual gross receipts averaged over the preceding three fiscal years exceed $30 million, then it is not considered a small business eligible to be certified as an ACDBE. The Department notes that the existing size standards have not been adjusted for inflation since June 1, 1992. This final rule adjusts the size standards for eligibility as an ACDBE.
A number of comments submitted to the Department supported adjusting the gross receipts size limit for inflation. One comment suggested that the Department consider distinct size standards for each type of concession. A number of comments also suggested that an employee based size standard is inappropriate because businesses may operate using different business model configurations with different numbers of employees. These comments also point out that verifying the number of employees is more complex than verifying gross receipts, which are recorded in tax returns.
This final rule adjusts the general ACDBE gross receipts cap for inflation. This rule only applies an employee based size standard if the business operates pay telephones or if the business is an automobile dealer. The Department views a general gross receipts size limit that is adjusted for inflation as the most efficient and fair way to establish size limits for the ACDBE program. The adjustment compensates for the rise in the general level of prices over time from the second quarter of 1992 to the third quarter of 2006. In order to ensure that this adjustment is made on a more timely basis in the future, the rule provides for a similar adjustment every two years, using the same methods. At two year intervals, the Department will publish a final rule to update the size standard numbers.
It should be emphasized that this action does not increase the size standard for ACDBEs in real dollar terms. It simply maintains the status quo, adjusting to 2006 dollars. A number of comments opposed the idea of making Part 23 and Part 26 size standards identical because the capitalization requirements for airport concessions are much higher. The Department agrees and will not harmonize the standards.
In order to make an inflation adjustment to the gross receipts figures, the Department of Transportation uses a Department of Commerce price index. The Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis prepares constant dollar estimates of state and local government purchases of goods and services by deflating current dollar estimates by suitable price indexes. These indices include purchases of durable and non-durable goods, and other services. Using these price deflators enables the Department to adjust dollar figures for past years' inflation. Given the nature of the Department's DBE Program and ACDBE Program, adjusting the gross receipts cap in the same manner in which inflation adjustments are made to the costs of state and local government
The inflation rate on purchases by State and local governments for the current year is calculated by dividing the price deflator for the third quarter of 2006 (128.352) by 1992's second quarter price deflator (80.583). The result of the calculation is 1.5928, which represents an inflation rate of 59.28% from the second quarter of 1992. Multiplying the $30,000,000 figure for small business enterprises by 1.5928 equals $47,784,000, which will be rounded off to the nearest $10,000, or $47,780,000.
Therefore, under the new rule, if a firm's gross receipts, averaged over the firm's previous three fiscal years, exceeds $47,780,000, then it exceeds the airport concessions small business size limit contained in Part 23.
Under the existing rule, car rental companies are not eligible to participate in the ACDBE program if their average gross receipts over the three previous fiscal years exceed $40 million. This final rule adjusts the size standard for car rental companies to reflect the effects of inflation on the real dollar value.
The inflation rate on purchases by State and local governments for the current year is calculated by dividing the price deflator for the third quarter of 2006 (128.352) by 1992's second quarter price deflator (80.583). The result of the calculation is 1.5928, which represents an inflation rate of 59.28% from the second quarter of 1992. Multiplying the $40,000,000 figure for car rental companies by 1.5928 equals $63,712,000, which will be rounded off to the nearest $10,000, or $63,710,000.
Therefore, under the new rule, if a car rental company's gross receipts, averaged over the company's previous three fiscal years, exceeds $63,710,000, then it exceeds the airport concessions car rental company size limit contained in Part 23.
A number of comments also supported establishing car rental goals on a nationwide basis for car rental agencies with a nationwide presence. The Department recognizes that a number of issues need to be considered before such a rule can be published. The Department will continue to consider developing a future rulemaking on nationwide car rental company goals. The Department will also continue to look for input from stakeholders when drafting any future rule on this subject.
A number of comments said that financial industry regulators (
The existing rule imposes a $275 million asset limit for banks and financial institutions. This final rule increases the dollar amount of assets that a bank or financial institution may have while still remaining eligible to participate in the ACDBE program; the new limit is $750 million. The new size standard will more closely approach the “small” bank and financial institution standards referenced in the comments while accommodating the size of actual minority financial institutions. The new standard will also reflect the size differences between most minority banks and the banking industry generally.
Finally, the current rule has no unique size standard for automobile dealers. Some comments suggested that the size standard for automobile dealers selling vehicles to car rental concessionaires at airports should be based on the number of employees working for a dealer. The comments recommend an employee based size standard because automobile dealers who process sales of fleets of cars to car rental companies (“fleet dealers”) generate high gross sales, with the result that few, if any, fleet dealers would qualify as small businesses, under the existing standard. A number of commenters recommended that a 500-employee size standard be created for car dealers, which, in their view, would ensure that all potential DBE car dealers would qualify as small businesses.
The Department believes that commenters made a persuasive case for replacing the current gross receipts standard with an employee-based standard. However, we are concerned that using the suggested 500 employee standard would go too far in the other direction, encompassing all but a few of all car dealers in the industry (2005 statistics from the National Association of Automobile Dealers, for example, state that the average number of employees of a dealer was 53). We believe that a small business standard should not be so inclusive that the distinction between smaller and larger businesses is erased. At the same time, we realize that “fleet dealers,” who sell large numbers of cars to car rental companies and other fleet purchasers, are likely to have more employees than the typical retail dealer. Consequently, we are establishing a 200 employee standard for purposes of this rule.
In the NPRM, the Department asked for comment on ways to better monitor the eligibility of ACDBEs as well as the ongoing performance of ACDBEs in the concession business. A number of comments responded to this inquiry. These comments suggested creating additional reporting requirements, detailed annual reviews, and more detailed initial review of certification applications. Some comments voiced concern with the administrative burdens from the monitoring and goal setting that is already required by the ACDBE program, pointing out that this burden is especially significant for small hub airports. The Department has reviewed the current administrative requirements of the rule and will not change the process in this final rule. The ACDBE program carefully balances the benefits of administrative requirements that are designed to eliminate fraud and abuse with the burdens associated with those requirements, and we do not believe that further regulatory provisions are needed at this time.
This rule also adjusts the gross receipts cap for the Department's financial assistance programs in 49 CFR Part 26. The existing DBE business size limits became effective on August 10, 2005 with the passage of SAFETEA-LU. Under the existing rule, if a firm's average annual gross receipts over the preceding three fiscal years exceed $19,570,000, then it cannot qualify as an eligible DBE firm. SAFETEA-LU
The inflation rate on purchases by State and local governments for the current year is calculated by dividing the price deflator for the third quarter of 2006 (128.352) by 2005's third quarter price deflator (123.079). The result of the calculation is 1.0428, which represents an inflation rate of 4.28% from the third quarter of 2005. Multiplying the $19,570,000 figure for disadvantaged business enterprises in Department of Transportation financial assistance programs by 1.0428 equals $20,407,596, which will be rounded off to the nearest $10,000, or $20,410,000.
Therefore, if a firm's gross receipts, averaged over the firm's previous three fiscal years, exceeds $20,410,000, then it exceeds the small business size limit for participation by disadvantaged business enterprises in Department of Transportation financial assistance programs contained in the statutes and in Part 26.
This rule corrects an error in the definition section of the original ACDBE rule. In the first publication of the rule, the definition of “small business concern” incorrectly referred to § 23.23 for the applicable size standards. The definition of a “small business concern” now refers readers to § 23.33 for additional information on the size standards necessary to qualify as a “small business concern.” In addition, we are amending sec. 23.11 to add an omitted reference to sec. 26.109, concerning confidentiality of DBE information.
The changes to § 26.9 of 49 CFR Part 26 are intended to clarify the role of guidance documents in the Department's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) programs. Guidance documents do not have the same binding authority as a final “legislative” rule; however, guidance documents do express the Department's official view of the meaning and application of our rules. Consequently, we are deleting the word “binding.”
The change also clarifies that this provision applies to guidance issued by individual operating administrations as well as by the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) or DOT as a whole. For example, guidance could not purport to express the official views of FHWA, FTA, or FAA if it did not comply with this provision. This provision also applies to any guidance or instructional material prepared by an outside party (
For the same reasons, this rule makes a parallel change to § 23.13 of 49 CFR Part 23. We also note that the review mechanism specified in these sections would be the method through which the Department would comply with provisions of the recently-issued Executive Order 13422 and OMB Bulletin on Good Guidance Practices for any guidance issued by the Department that would be considered to be significant guidance.
This rule is non-significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The rule is an essentially ministerial adjustment for inflation of a statutory small business size standard that does not change the standard in real dollar terms. It will not impose burdens on any regulated parties. This rule does not have Federalism impacts sufficient to warrant consultation with state and local officials. The rule does not impose information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The only effect of the rule on small entities is to allow some small businesses to continue to participate in the ACDBE and the DBE programs by adjusting for inflation and modifying the size standards as measured by average annual gross receipts, total asset amounts, and total number of employees. Therefore, I certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Since this rule pertains to a nondiscrimination requirement and affects only Federal financial assistance programs, the Unfunded Mandates Act does not apply.
Administrative practice and procedure, Airports, Civil rights, Concessions, Government contracts, Grant programs—transportation, Minority businesses, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Airports, Civil rights, Concessions, Government contracts, Grant programs—transportation, Highways and roads, Mass transportation, Minority business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 200d
* * *
(a) Only guidance and interpretations (including interpretations set forth in certification appeal decisions) consistent with this part 23 and issued after April 21, 2005, express the official positions and views of the Department of Transportation or the Federal Aviation Administration.
(b) The Secretary of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, and the FAA may issue written interpretations of or written guidance concerning this part. Written interpretations and guidance are valid, and express the official positions and views of the Department of Transportation or the FAA, only if they are issued over the signature of the
The General Counsel of the Department of Transportation has reviewed this document and approved it as consistent with the language and intent of 49 CFR part 23.
(a) As a recipient, you must, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, treat a firm as a small business eligible to be certified as an ACDBE if its gross receipts, averaged over the firm's previous three fiscal years, do not exceed $47.78 million.
(b) The following types of businesses have size standards that differ from the standard set forth in paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) Banks and financial institutions: $750 million in assets;
(2) Car rental companies: $63.71 million average annual gross receipts over the firm's three previous fiscal years;
(3) Companies providing pay telephones: 1,500 employees;
(4) Automobile dealers: 200 employees.
(c) The Department adjusts the numbers in paragraphs (a) and (b)(2) of this section using the Department of Commerce price deflators for purchases by state and local governments as the basis for this adjustment. These adjustments are made every two years from May 2, 2007. The Department publishes a final rule informing the public of each adjustment.
23 U.S.C. 324; 42 U.S.C. 2000d
(a) Only guidance and interpretations (including interpretations set forth in certification appeal decisions) consistent with this part 26 and issued after March 4, 1999 express the official positions and views of the Department of Transportation or any of its operating administrations.
(b) The Secretary of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, FHWA, FTA, and FAA may issue written interpretations of or written guidance concerning this part. Written interpretations and guidance are valid, and express the official positions and views of the Department of Transportation or any of its operating administrations, only if they are issued over the signature of the Secretary of Transportation or if they contain the following statement:
The General Counsel of the Department of Transportation has reviewed this document and approved it as consistent with the language and intent of 49 CFR part 26.
(a) To be an eligible DBE, a firm (including its affiliates) must be an existing small business, as defined by Small Business Administration (SBA) standards. As a recipient, you must apply current SBA business size standard(s) found in 13 CFR part 121 appropriate to the type(s) of work the firm seeks to perform in DOT-assisted contracts.
(b) Even if it meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, a firm is not an eligible DBE in any Federal fiscal year if the firm (including its affiliates) has had average annual gross receipts, as defined by SBA regulations (see 13 CFR 121.402), over the firm's previous three fiscal years, in excess of $20.41 million.
(c) The Department adjusts the number in paragraph (b) of this section using the Department of Commerce price deflators for purchases by State and local governments as the basis for this adjustment. The Department issues a final rule by August 10 of each year making this adjustment.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; interim measures.
This final rule implements interim measures to reduce overfishing of Gulf red snapper. This final rule reduces the commercial and recreational quotas for red snapper, reduces the commercial minimum size limit for red snapper, reduces the recreational bag limit for Gulf red snapper, prohibits the retention of red snapper under the bag limit for captain and crew of a vessel operating as a charter vessel or headboat, and establishes a target level of reduction of shrimp trawl bycatch mortality of red snapper. The intended effect is to reduce overfishing of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico.
This final rule is effective May 2, 2007 through September 29, 2007, except for amendments to § 622.37, which are effective April 2, 2007 through September 29, 2007.
Copies of documents supporting this final rule, including a final environmental impact statement (FEIS), a Record of Decision (ROD), and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA), may be obtained from Peter Hood, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13
Peter Hood, telephone: 727-551-5784, fax: 727-824-5308, e-mail:
The red snapper fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is managed under the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, and the shrimp fishery is managed under the FMP for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. The FMPs were prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) and are implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-
On October 13, 2006, NMFS published a notice of availability of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for this action (71 FR 60509). The notice of availability of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) was published on December 29, 2006 (71 FR 78427). On December 14, 2006, NMFS published the proposed rule and requested public comment. The rationale for these interim measures is provided in the FEIS and the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here.
The following is a summary of comments received on the proposed rule and NMFS' responses. A total of 6,403 comments were received from individuals and organizations. In addition to these comments, NMFS received two comment letters, with a total of 10,280 signatures, that opposed various provisions of the proposed rule. NMFS' response to comments on the proposed rule including the issues presented in the two comment letters is provided below.
The interim measures implemented through this final rule are designed to minimize to the extent practicable the unavoidable adverse impacts of ending overfishing during a time when Gulf of Mexico fisheries are recovering from the adverse effects of two particularly severe hurricane seasons. Additionally, the analyses underlying these measures assume effort in the red snapper and shrimp fisheries will be slightly below average during 2007 as a result of the hurricanes. NMFS has determined this rule is based on the best scientific information available. NMFS continues to actively monitor red snapper and shrimp effort data so this information can be taken into account in developing measures to achieve the additional, longer-term reductions in red snapper harvest and bycatch needed to end overfishing of red snapper.
The reports produced during the SEDAR workshops document in detail key findings regarding data usage and assessment methodology and were formally peer reviewed during the SEDAR Review Workshop in April 2005. The SEDAR Review panel identified the results of the red snapper stock assessment as the best scientific information available. Additionally, the SEDAR Review panel provided a series of recommendations including additional data needs to improve future assessments. An additional endorsement of the stock assessment came from the Gulf Council's Joint Standing and Special Reef Fish/Mackerel/Spiny Lobster Scientific and Statistical Committee who recognized the assessment as the best available science during their July 5-6, 2005, meeting.
The 2005 red snapper SEDAR assessment supports the observation
SEDAR participants discussed and addressed, to the extent possible, the potential impacts of artificial reefs on stock productivity and recruitment, as well as issues related to each of the other criticisms described above. The rationale for their decisions on each of these issues is provided in the SEDAR 07 working papers and reports, which can be accessed online at:
Estimates of red snapper recreational fishery discards were reviewed through the SEDAR process and have been determined to be the best available science (see response to Comment 3). During the SEDAR data workshop, discard estimates based on the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) were reviewed and considered to underestimate total recreational discards. Additionally, there were concerns about estimating discards for headboats and from Texas waters using MRFSS discard estimates or other studies. Therefore, the red snapper stock assessment estimated recreational and commercial discards using predicted length composition of the catch, and discards were primarily attributed to the minimum size limit.
The Council will examine recreational fishing regulations in Amendment 14/27. Consequently, if the core season can no longer be preserved, or if public comments request the Council to preserve different core seasons in the eastern and western Gulf, then the Council could re-examine these and other seasonal closure alternatives in developing a plan to end overfishing of red snapper in compliance with the red snapper rebuilding plan and the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
NMFS did not evaluate seasonal closure alternatives for the commercial red snapper fishery because the mortality rate of that fishery is managed in season through an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program. This program was implemented in part to eliminate the derby fishery conditions that had developed in response to short fishing seasons. IFQ programs intend to control total annual harvest by enabling fishery managers to track and limit the landings of each individual program participant.
Best available survey and modeling results indicate relatively few trip cancellations are expected to occur as a result of this action. Most survey respondents indicated when faced with a reduced red snapper bag limit, they would either continue fishing for red snapper or fish for another species. This change in fishing behavior may generate distributional effects (i.e., the substituted trip may occur from a different port, different mode, or in a different season, resulting in one port/season losing while another gains). These distributional effects, however, cannot be predicted with current data.
Alternative management strategies suggested above other than bag limits could create confusion for anglers should the Council adopt different measures in Amendment 14/27, which considers red snapper management beyond 2007. Other measures suggested above, such as retaining the first four or five fish caught, were considered but rejected because preliminary analyses indicated these regulations would increase total recreational fishing mortality Gulf-wide and across all modes, thus slowing recovery. Measures that slow recovery also have negative long-term economic consequences. However, the Council may choose to consider these alternatives in Amendment 14/27 to assist in ending overfishing and continue the recovery of the red snapper stock.
While NMFS did reduce the recreational fishing season by six days in 2000 to allow the captain and crew of for-hire vessels to maintain their bag limits, these measures were put in place based on a 1999 stock assessment. The measures considered in this final rule are based on the 2005 stock assessment using new and updated data. Thus the condition of the stock has been reevaluated, and the measures in this final rule are based on this updated assessment.
Differences in minimum size limits may potentially result in user conflicts. Recreational fishermen have expressed concern commercial fishermen could reduce the number of fish available to anglers at known fishing areas. However, the interim measures in this rule are designed to reduce overfishing for the 2007 season. If the Council determines the difference in the commercial and recreational minimum size limit results in a conflict between the sectors, then the Council could explore alternatives, such as restrictions on depth fished, to minimize or eliminate that conflict. With respect to measures in this final rule not being fair and equitable between the recreational and commercial sectors, percent reductions in quota are equivalent. However, because the fisheries are prosecuted differently, alternative measures are needed to constrain harvest to each fishery's respective quota.
For the commercial fishery, data used to assess the potential discard reductions was based on two studies. One was empirical sampling of 16 commercial vessels off Louisiana. The other used data from the 2005 stock assessment, which was Gulf-wide. The trends from both studies were similar, with the results from the empirical study showing a slightly higher discard rate than the Gulf-wide study. However, in describing discard rates of undersized fish, results from both studies provided a potential range in discard reductions relative to different minimum size limits.
More research is needed to evaluate discard mortality in both the commercial and recreational fisheries. Discussion in the SEDAR data workshop recognized the limitation of information on the fate of discarded red snapper. Rather than using direct estimates from the fishery, the SEDAR assessment panel chose to estimate recreational discards internally by the assessment model. Further, discard mortality research was identified in the SEDAR process as an important component for the next assessment.
With regards to reducing discard mortality in the commercial fishery by changing fishing practices, reductions in minimum size do not affect discard mortality rates once fish have been released. However, reducing the commercial minimum size limit does reduce the overall number of discards by the fishery because a greater number of fish, which would have been discarded under the current 15-inch (38-cm) size limit, will be retained under the 13-inch (33-cm) size limit and counted against the commercial quota. If the Council determines further reductions in discard mortality may be achieved through changing fishing practices, the Council may evaluate alternatives in future actions.
The fact that bag limit reductions and seasonal restrictions are necessary to constrain the recreational sector to allowable harvest levels demonstrates that the recreational sector has the capacity to harvest more than the target threshold for this fishery.
The EIS for this temporary rule evaluated a number of seasonal closure alternatives designed to reduce red snapper bycatch in the shrimp trawl fishery, but shrimp effort levels are such that they are unlikely to exceed the target reduction goal for 2007 set in this temporary rule. Therefore, they were not considered practicable for the temporary rule. The Council is currently evaluating the potential benefits of additional alternatives in Shrimp Amendment 15 that would establish seasonal or fixed closures in areas identified through a review of recent literature and ongoing research programs. Three of these areas are located off the coast of Texas, one is located south of Mobile, and one is located west of the Mississippi Delta.
On March 12, 2007, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, issued a ruling on legal challenges to the current red snapper rebuilding plan contained in Amendment 22 to the FMP for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (
NMFS finds that this temporary rule is necessary to reduce overfishing of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS issues this temporary rule, effective for not more than 180 days, as authorized by section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This temporary rule may be extended for an additional 186 days, as authorized by section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act, provided the public has had an opportunity to comment on the rule and provided that the Council is actively preparing proposed regulations to address overfishing of Gulf red snapper on a permanent basis. Public comments
The Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, (RA) has determined that the interim measures this final rule will implement are necessary for the conservation and management of the Gulf red snapper fishery. The RA has also determined that this rule is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared an FEIS for this action. The FEIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on December 22, 3006. A notice of availability was published on December 29, 2006 (71 FR 78427). NMFS issued a ROD on March 5, 2007. A copy of the ROD is available from NMFS (see
NMFS prepared a FRFA, as required by section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, for this final rule. The FRFA describes the economic impact this final rule is expected to have on small entities and incorporates the IRFA, comments received on the IRFA and the economic impact of the rule, and NMFS' responses to those comments. A succinct statement of the need for and objectives of the action are contained in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is available from NMFS (see
This final rule will reduce total allowable catch (TAC) and the resultant commercial and recreational quotas in the red snapper fishery, lower the recreational red snapper bag limit to 2 fish, lower the red snapper bag limit for captain and crew of a vessel operating as a charter vessel or headboat to 0 fish, reduce the red snapper minimum size limit in the commercial fishery to 13 inches (33 cm), and establish a reduction goal for red snapper bycatch mortality in the commercial shrimp fishery. The purpose of this action is to reduce overfishing of the red snapper stock on a temporary basis, for the 2007 fishing season, while the Council develops a comprehensive plan to reduce directed and incidental red snapper fishing mortality rates in the red snapper and shrimp fisheries. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for the final temporary rule.
Several comments on the economic impact of the rule were received from the public in response to the proposed rule. For the reasons described in the responses to these comments above, no changes were made in the final rule as a result of these comments. These comments raised issues regarding the economic impacts of the proposed TAC reduction on the charter fishermen and businesses dependent on offshore fishing. Best available survey and modeling results indicate that relatively few trip cancellations are expected to occur as a result of this action. Most survey respondents indicated that when faced with a reduced red snapper bag limit, they would either continue fishing for red snapper or fish for another species. Fishing for other species may generate distributional effects (i.e., the trips may occur from different ports, modes, or seasons, resulting in one port/entity/season losing business while another gains). These distributional effects, however, cannot be predicted with current data.
This final rule is expected to impact red snapper commercial fishers and for-hire operators, and reef fish dealers and processors participating in the red snapper trade. This final rule also contains actions that apply to the commercial shrimp fishery. However, the shrimp fishery actions either maintain the status quo or otherwise accommodate current fishery conditions, such that no direct impacts are expected to accrue at this time. Nevertheless, a description of the entities in the shrimp fishery is included in the following discussion.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including fish harvesters, for-hire operations, fish processors, and fish dealers. A business involved in fish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined average annual receipts not in excess of $4.0 million (NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing) for all affiliated operations worldwide. For for-hire operations, the other qualifiers apply and the annual receipts threshold is $6.5 million (NAICS code 713990, recreational industries). For seafood processor and dealers, rather than a receipts threshold, the SBA uses an employee threshold of 500 or fewer persons on a full-time, part-time, temporary, or other basis, at all affiliated operations for a seafood processor and 100 or fewer persons for a seafood dealer.
Just prior to the implementation of the red snapper individual fishing quota (IFQ) program on January 1, 2007, 136 entities held Class 1 licenses that allowed a commercial vessel trip limit of up to 2,000 lb (907 kg) of red snapper and 628 entities held Class 2 licenses that allowed a trip limit of up to 200 lb (91 kg) of red snapper. Between 2002 and 2004, the top 50 red snapper vessels harvested a total of 2.77 million lb (1.26 million kg) of red snapper, on average, or 64 percent of the industry total. Vessels ranked 51 to 131 harvested 1.29 million lb (0.58 million kg), on average, or 30 percent of the industry total for the same period. In total, the top 131 vessels accounted for approximately 94 percent of the total red snapper commercial landings. Red snapper are mainly harvested by vertical line fishermen, who accounted for approximately 90 percent of commercial red snapper Gulf harvests, on average, between 2002 and 2004.
Reported average annual gross receipts (2004 dollars) of commercial reef fish vessels in the Gulf range from $24,095 for low-volume vertical line vessels to $116,989 for high-volume longline vessels. Annual net incomes range from $4,479 for low-volume vertical line vessels to $28,466 for high-volume vertical line vessels. Some fleet activity is known to exist in the commercial red snapper fishery, but the extent of such activity is unknown. The maximum number of reef fish permits reported owned by the same person/entity is six permits. Additional permits (and the revenues associated with those permits) may be linked to an entity through affiliation rules, but such affiliation links cannot be made using existing data. A definitive determination of whether any commercial entities would be considered large entities cannot be made using average income information. However, based on the size and value of the commercial red snapper fishery (an average of 4.336 million lb (1.967 million kg) and $11.652 million ex-vessel revenue per year, 2002-2004), the number of participants in the fishery, the summary statistics provided above, and the maximum number of permits owned by a single entity, NMFS determined, for the purpose of this assessment, that all commercial reef fish harvest entities that would be affected by this final rule are small entities.
Currently, 1,625 vessels are estimated to possess the required Federal permit to operate in the Gulf reef fish for-hire fishery. Fleet behavior also exists in this
The for-hire fleet is comprised of charterboats, which charge a fee on a vessel basis, and headboats, which charge a fee on an individual angler (head) basis. The average charterboat is estimated to generate $76,960 in annual revenues and $36,758 in annual profits, whereas the appropriate values for the average headboat are $404,172 and $338,209, respectively. The calculation of profits does not include fixed and other non-operating expenses, which tend to be higher for headboats.
Based on the average revenue figures, it is determined, for the purpose of this assessment, that all for-hire operations that will be affected by this final rule are small entities.
The measures in this final rule are also expected to affect fish dealers that handle red snapper. Two hundred and twenty-seven dealers currently have the required Federal permit to buy and sell commercial reef fish species. All processors would be included in this total since all processors must be dealers. From 1997-2002, an average of 154 dealers purchased red snapper from commercial vessels. Average employment information per reef fish dealer is unknown. Although dealers and processors are not synonymous entities, reported total employment for reef fish processors in the Southeast is estimated to be approximately 700 individuals, both part and full time. While all processors must be dealers, a dealer need not be a processor. Further, processing is a much more labor-intensive exercise than dealing. Therefore, given the total employment estimate for the processing sector (700 persons), the total number of dealers recently operating in the red snapper fishery (154), and the total number of permitted reef fish dealers, NMFS concludes that the average number of employees per dealer and the average number of employees per processor would be unlikely to surpass the SBA employment benchmark and, for the purpose of this analysis, NMFS determined that all red snapper dealers and processors that will be affected by this final rule are small entities.
Beginning on March 26, 2007, a moratorium permit will be required to shrimp in Federal waters of the Gulf. Although it is unknown how many eligible applicants will apply for a moratorium permit, 2,666 vessels could qualify for the shrimp permit and are assumed to constitute the potential affected universe of shrimp vessels. The average annual gross revenue (from all fishing activity) per qualifying vessel in 2005 was approximately $116,000, while the comparable figure for active qualifying vessels (vessels with recorded shrimp harvests) is approximately $152,000. In the same year, the maximum annual gross revenue from shrimp by a vessel was approximately $757,000 for both all qualifying and active qualifying vessels, whereas the maximum annual gross revenue from all harvest activities was approximately $1.89 million by an inactive qualifier and $757,000 for an active qualifier. This indicates that the inactive qualifier found activity in other fisheries more lucrative than participation in the shrimp fishery, whereas the most active qualifier operated exclusively in the shrimp fishery. Fleet activity is also known to exist in the commercial shrimp fishery, but the magnitude of such activity cannot be determined with available data. Given these findings, for the purpose of this analysis, NMFS determined that all Gulf shrimp vessels are small entities.
In 2005, 609 dealers were identified operating in the commercial shrimp fishery. Employment information for this sector is not available. In 2004, 61 shrimp processors were identified, employing approximately 3,700 persons, or an average of 61 employees per entity. Similar to the finfish sector, shrimp processing is more labor intensive than dealing, so average employment in the shrimp dealer sector is assumed to be less than that in the processing sector. Since the average employment per entity does not exceed the SBA threshold, NMFS determined, for this analysis, that all Gulf shrimp dealers and processors are small entities.
This final rule does not change current reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements under either the Reef Fish or Shrimp FMPs. Preexisting requirements include qualification criteria for vessel permits and participation in data collection programs if selected by NMFS. All of the information elements required for these processes are standard elements essential to the successful operation of a fishing business and should, therefore, already be collected and maintained as standard operating practice by the business. The requirements do not require professional skills that fishery participants do not already possess.
This final rule is expected to affect all vessels that operate in the commercial Gulf red snapper fishery, all vessels that have a Federal reef fish for-hire permit, and all reef fish dealers and processors. All such entities have been determined, for the purpose of this analysis, to be small entities. Therefore, NMFS determined that the final rule will affect a substantial number of small entities.
Commercial red snapper fishing vessels, for-hire operations, and red snapper dealers are expected to bear the primary burden of the actions in the final rule that pertain to red snapper, though spill-over impacts would be expected in associated industries, such as marinas and fishery suppliers. The net result of the combined TAC reduction and commercial minimum size limit decrease for the commercial red snapper fishery is expected to be an approximate 28-percent decline in net revenues, or approximately $7.0 million. Although over 750 entities were recently permitted to operate in the commercial red snapper fishery, 131 vessels accounted for approximately 94 percent of the red snapper harvests from 2002-2005, which had an average ex-vessel value of approximately $11.18 million out of total average annual ex-vessel revenues for all fishing activity by these entities of approximately $17.34 million. Since most commercial red snapper fishing entities operate in multiple fisheries, the projected $7.0 million reduction in net revenues captures lost revenue for all species.
During 2002-2005, the top 50 harvesters in the commercial red snapper fishery averaged approximately $144,000 in ex-vessel revenue per year out of total finfish revenues of approximately $211,000, indicating approximately 68 percent of the total revenues came from red snapper. The second tier vessels averaged approximately $40,000 in red snapper revenues and approximately $84,000 total revenues, or 48 percent of total revenues coming from red snapper. Combined, the top 131 vessels averaged approximately $80,000 per year from red snapper, $132,000 total revenues, and 60 percent of total revenues coming from red snapper. The remaining vessels that landed red snapper accounted for only approximately $700 per vessel per year from red snapper, out of total average revenues of $14,000, or approximately 5 percent from red snapper. Red snapper is most likely not the primary species this third-tier group is targeting for harvest.
The TAC reduction is expected to primarily impact operations that target red snapper rather than those that incidentally harvest red snapper. If the entire quota reduction is assumed borne by the top 50 and 131 vessels, respectively, the reduction in net revenues would equate to approximately $140,000 and $53,000 per vessel for the two groups,
An alternative perspective is to consider the number of vessels projected to operate under the IFQ program. Under the IFQ program, the commercial red snapper fleet is expected to consolidate to 39-95 vessels, the range determined by whether the fleet gravitates to exclusively larger vessels (39 65-ft (19.8-m) vessels) or small vessels (95 35-ft (10.7-m) vessels). The period of time required to achieve this consolidation is not known, but TAC reduction may accelerate the consolidation. It is noted that any IFQ-related consolidation is voluntary, vessels are compensated for their exit (through sale of their quota shares), and exiting vessels may continue to operate in other fisheries. Under this final rule (i.e., during the 2007 season), the commercial red snapper fleet is projected to consolidate to 28-68 vessels, or 11-27 fewer vessels than the status quo (IFQ final rule), with the range again determined by whether the resultant fleet is primarily large vessels (28 vessels), or small vessels (68 vessels). Average performance of the fleet under the status quo (IFQ final rule) (39-95 vessels) is estimated at approximately $274,000 ($26.0 million over 95 vessels, revenues from all fishing activity) to $667,000 ($26.0 million over 39 vessels) in net revenues. The projected loss of $7.0 million in net revenues under the TAC reduction is expected to reduce these values to approximately $200,000 and $487,000, respectively, or reductions of 27 percent.
The for-hire sector is expected to lose approximately 2,000 trips in the charter vessel sector, 643 angler days in the headboat sector, and $43,000 overall for the entire for-hire sector in producer surplus as a result of the final temporary rule. These reductions are not expected to occur uniformly across all operations because some vessels are more active in the red snapper fishery than others. The extent of individual vessel activity, however, cannot be determined with available data. If averaged over the 1,625 vessels active in the for-hire fleet, these reductions amount to fewer than 2 trips and less than $30 per permitted vessel.
Related businesses are also expected to lose income from the expenditures associated with the trip losses in the for-hire and private angler sectors as a result of this final rule. These trips, however, represent less than 1 percent of the total effort directed at the species encompassed in the assessment (red snapper as the focus species, and grouper, dolphin, and king mackerel as potential substitute target species).
The target bycatch reduction goal for the commercial shrimp fishery is administrative in nature and is not expected to have a direct economic impact on any entities in the shrimp fishery or associated sectors.
Five alternatives, including the preferred alternative and the status quo, were considered for the action to set TAC in the red snapper fishery. Three of the alternatives contained multiple options and sub-options to manage the recreational fishery under the respective TAC. The first alternative, the status quo, would not have achieved progress towards eliminating overfishing, and would increase the necessary reduction in subsequent years to allow the resource to continue on the designated recovery path, thereby increasing the subsequent year short-term adverse economic impacts relative to the final temporary rule, and would not meet NMFS objectives.
The second alternative would have reduced the red snapper TAC to 7.0 million lb (3.2 million kg). Although this alternative has the potential of generating, depending upon the sub-option selected, lower first-year adverse economic impacts than the 6.5 million lb (3.0 million kg) TAC, this TAC would require greater TAC reduction in subsequent years, with greater adverse economic impacts in subsequent years than the final temporary rule.
The third alternative would have reduced the red snapper TAC to 6.0 million lb (2.7 million kg). This alternative would be expected to result in greater short-term adverse economic impacts, ranging from losses in economic value (consumer and producer surplus) in the overall recreational sector of approximately $16.0 million to $27.0 million and a loss of approximately $8.5 million in net revenues in the commercial sector, than the final temporary rule, which is expected to result in a reduction of consumer and producer surplus of approximately $15.0 million in the recreational sector and a reduction in net revenues of $7.0 million in the commercial sector.
The fourth alternative would have reduced the red snapper TAC to 5.0 million lb (2.3 million kg). This alternative would be expected to result in greater short-term adverse economic impacts, ranging from losses in economic value in the recreational sector of approximately $23.0 million to $25.0 million and a loss of approximately $11.5 million in net revenues in the commercial sector, than the final temporary rule.
Two alternatives, the preferred alternative and the status quo, were considered for the action to set the captain and crew red snapper bag limit. The status quo would be expected to decrease the ability of meeting harvest reduction targets and would have required more restrictive measures on recreational anglers, resulting in increased adverse economic impacts relative to the final rule.
Three alternatives, including the preferred alternative and the status quo, were considered for the commercial red snapper minimum size limit. The first alternative, the status quo alternative, would be expected to result in continued unnecessary bycatch mortality and would not, therefore, meet NMFS objectives.
The second alternative would eliminate the commercial minimum size limit entirely. Because no commercial market is known to exist for red snapper smaller than 12 inches (30 cm), the expected economic impacts of this alternative and the final rule are very similar. However, maintaining a minimum size limit in the commercial sector, as will be accomplished by the final rule, is expected to generate unquantifiable economic benefits accruing to a perception of greater sector equity and avoidance of user conflict because the final temporary rule will decrease the incentive, relative to no minimum size limit, for commercial operations to move their fishing location to areas where smaller fish congregate.
Four alternatives were considered for gear requirements in the red snapper fishery. The final rule (status quo) will not impose any new gear requirements on fishermen and will not result in any direct adverse economic impacts on these entities. Each of the three alternatives to the final temporary rule would be expected to result in greater adverse economic impacts than the final temporary rule as a result of either increased gear costs or reduced operating efficiency. Given the short-term nature of the final temporary rule, these adverse impacts would not be expected to be balanced by the economic benefits of reduced bycatch mortality and improved stock conditions. Thus, each alternative would be expected to increase costs in the fishery without demonstrable benefits and, thus, would not meet NMFS objectives.
Three alternatives, including the preferred alternative and the status quo, were considered for the red snapper bycatch mortality reduction target in the commercial shrimp fishery. The status quo would not have established a bycatch reduction target, would not ensure consistent reductions in bycatch fishing mortality of juvenile red snapper in the shrimp fishery, and would not meet NMFS objectives. The second alternative would establish a higher reduction target than the final rule. Although the establishment of a bycatch reduction target is an administrative action with no expected direct adverse economic effects, the higher target exceeds the level of bycatch reduction the fishery has demonstrated to date and would, therefore, be expected to require effort reductions in the commercial shrimp fishery, resulting in greater adverse economic impacts than the final rule.
Four alternatives were considered for effort reduction in the commercial shrimp fishery. The final rule (status quo) will not impose any effort controls on the fishery and will not result in any adverse economic impacts on the shrimp fishery or associated businesses. Each of the other alternatives would have imposed effort limitations in the shrimp fishery and would, therefore, be expected to result in greater adverse economic impacts than the final rule, ranging from $7.8 million to $14.8 million reductions in ex-vessel revenues, fishery-wide, and adversely impact 394-863 vessels. Although some behavioral changes would be expected by these vessels to mitigate these losses, the nature of these changes and their net impact cannot be determined.
Copies of the FRFA are available from NMFS (see
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare an FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” As part of this rulemaking process, NMFS prepared a fishery bulletin, which also serves as a small entity compliance guide. The fishery bulletin will be sent to all vessel permit holders and permitted dealers in the Gulf red snapper and shrimp fisheries.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date for reducing the commercial minimum size limit from 15 inches (38 cm) to 13 inches (33 cm). Reducing the minimum size limit for commercial Gulf red snapper will result in additional legal-sized fish being available to fishers and will help minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality as required by national standard nine of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The current 15-inch (38 cm) minimum size limit results in unnecessarily high levels of red snapper bycatch mortality because most undersized fish are discarded dead. To end overfishing as soon as possible, bycatch and bycatch mortality of undersized red snapper must be curtailed. Prolonging overfishing of the red snapper resource would lead to more severe harvest reductions and associated short-term adverse socioeconomic impacts in the future. For all of these reasons, the 30-day delay of effective date for this measure is waived.
Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands.
16 U.S.C. 1801
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) Red snapper—16 inches (40.6 cm), TL, for a fish taken by a person subject to the bag limit specified in § 622.39(b)(1)(iii) and 13 inches (38.1 cm), TL, for a fish taken by a person not subject to the bag limit.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(viii) Red snapper—2. However, no red snapper may be retained by the captain or crew of a vessel operating as a charter vessel or headboat. The bag limit for such captain and crew is zero.
(ix) Gulf reef fish, combined, excluding those specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (ii), (iv), (vi), (vii), and (viii) of this section and excluding dwarf sand perch and sand perch—20, but not to exceed 10 vermilion snapper.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) Red snapper—3.315 million lb (1.504 million kg), round weight.
(3)
Federal Housing Finance Board.
Proposed rule.
The Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) is proposing to clarify the types of financial interests a Federal Home Loan Bank (Bank) appointive director may own in a Bank member. The proposal would incorporate into Finance Board rules its long-standing policy that financial interests in a Bank member acquired though ownership of shares of a diversified mutual fund are permissible holdings for an appointive director. The proposal would extend the rationale for permitting mutual fund investments to other types of vehicles and accounts that share certain of the same key features as mutual funds and thus are unlikely to pose a risk of conflict of interest for an appointive director. The proposal also would set forth additional criteria to define when owning shares of a holding company, or having other types of financial interests in a member, would be permissible for an appointive director.
The Finance Board will accept written comments on the proposed rule on or before May 17, 2007.
Submit comments to the Finance Board using any one of the following methods:
We will post all public comments we receive without change, including any personal information you provide, such as your name and address, on the Finance Board Web site at
Neil R. Crowley, Acting General Counsel,
Section 7(a) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) (12 U.S.C. 1427(a)), provides for management of each Bank by a board of directors of at least 14 persons, with 8 directors elected by the members and 6 directors appointed by the Finance Board. This provision also states that any individual appointed by the Finance Board may not, “during such Bank director's term of office, serve as an officer of any Federal Home Loan Bank or a director or officer of any member of a Bank, or hold shares, or any other financial interest in, any member of a Bank.”
In January 1990, the Finance Board adopted an interim final rule implementing the FIRREA appointive director and conflict of interest provision. See Interim Final Rule: Election of Directors; Eligibility Requirements, 55 FR 1393 (Jan. 18, 1990), codified at 12 CFR 932.18 (1991). The Finance Board later modified this rule somewhat based on the comments it received on the interim final rule. See Final Rule: Eligibility and Financial Disclosure Requirements for Directors of the Federal Home Loan Banks, 56 FR 55205 (Oct. 25, 1991). The rule, as amended in October 1991, provided among other things, that no appointive director may during his or her term of office have a financial interest in any member (or a subsidiary or non-diversified holding company thereof, or affiliate of such holding company) of the Bank on whose board the director served.
A holding company whose member subsidiary and related activities, as specified in 12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(2), represented on either an actual or pro forma basis less than fifty (50) percent of both its consolidated net worth and its consolidated net earnings at the close of its preceding fiscal year. For purposes of the foregoing, consolidated net worth and consolidated net earnings shall be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. 56 FR at 55219.
In 1998, the Finance Board substantially revised its rules governing elective and appointive directors.
The 1998 revisions also deleted the detailed provisions addressing appointive director qualifications and prohibited financial interests in favor of more general references to the Bank Act and somewhat more general definitions of terms such as “financial interests.” The new definition of “financial interests” specifically excluded deposit or savings accounts maintained with a member and loans and other extensions of credit from a member so long as they were obtained in the normal course of business on terms generally available to the public. See 63 FR at 65691. Among the provisions that were dropped in 1998, however, was the one that specifically had allowed an appointive director to hold shares or other financial interests in a member if they arose solely through ownership of one or more diversified mutual funds. Notwithstanding that change, the Finance Board has continued to interpret section 7(a) as it had done previously, and has allowed appointive directors to have indirect financial interests in a member if held through ownership of shares of a diversified mutual fund.
The conflict of interest rules for appointive directors remain substantively the same as adopted in 1998, and currently are found at 12 CFR § 915.11. The Finance Board recently adopted an interim final rule to address procedures for how appointive directors are selected.
The recent changes in the selection process for appointive directors have prompted questions to the Finance Board about whether specific investments held by potential candidates would be barred by section 7(a), and thus would have to be sold if the person were to accept an appointment to the board of a Bank. These questions have brought to light the extent to which developments in the financial services marketplace in recent years have created different types of investment accounts and investment vehicles that either did not exist when FIRREA was enacted or were not as widely held as they are today, and for which the Finance Board has not previously provided formal guidance.
The Finance Board believes that the lack of a rule providing clear guidance as to what investments are encompassed by the terms “shares” and “financial interests” could cause some potential appointive director candidates to decline to consider an appointive directorship for fear that they would be required to divest certain investments in order to accept the position. Any such divestiture could prove financially costly and disruptive to their personal financial planning strategies. At the same time, the Finance Board recognizes that as the Banks have become involved in more complex financial activities, it is important that some of a Bank's individual appointive directors have more sophisticated skills and a deeper understanding of financial markets to provide strong oversight. Such persons can bring business and leadership skills to the boards that will complement the skills and expertise brought by the elective directors and the community interest directors. In some cases, persons who possess those analytical skills and related business experience may also be sophisticated investors in their own right and have investments that go beyond traditional stock, bond, and mutual fund holdings.
The possibility that persons who can bring needed skills and experience to the board of a Bank might be discouraged from serving as appointive directors due to uncertainty about how the conflict of interest limitations may apply to their investments has caused the Finance Board to consider whether it should amend its regulations. The Finance Board hopes that in updating these provisions, a new rule will better reflect the range of investments or investment vehicles (beyond traditional investments) through which an appointive director may obtain some interest in a member but which, because of the director's lack of control over the investment or the minimal value of the interest obtained, would not present concerns that should disqualify such individual from serving as an appointive director. Thus, the Finance Board is proposing this rule in an attempt to balance the need to assure that appointive directors do not have actual or apparent conflicts that would undermine their ability to represent the public interest against the need to attract a sufficient pool of candidates with sophisticated skills in areas such as housing and finance to build boards of directors capable of overseeing the Banks as they evolve and undertake new activities.
The proposal is based primarily on the Finance Board's experience to date in administering section 7(a) and the questions raised about potential conflicts as a result of interests in various investment vehicles and strategies. The Finance Board recognizes that it has had only limited experience in dealing with the types of investment products that are available in today's financial marketplace, particularly those that are available to high net worth individuals. In order to craft a final rule that will strike an appropriate balance between allowing investments that
The Finance Board emphasizes that because it is not proposing to amend the broad definition of “financial interests” now contained in § 915.11(f)(2), the proposed rule would not change the extent to, or the manner in which an individual Bank's disclosure and recusal policies must address the types of investments or activities identified in proposed § 915.10(f), even if the investments themselves would no longer be deemed to disqualify an individual from serving as an appointive director. See 12 CFR §§ 915.11(b) and (f)(2). The Finance Board views continued application of the rules related to the Bank's recusal and disclosures policies to the types of investments identified in proposed § 915.10(f) as an additional safeguard to assure that these investments would not create a conflict of interest. The Finance Board, however, requests comments on whether this approach is appropriate or if some modification to §§ 915.11(b) and (f)(2) may be warranted. The Finance Board also requests comment on whether it should require appointive directors to disclose their financial holdings to the Banks as part of their application so the Banks can verify that the investments—including the vehicles and accounts described below—do not create a conflict that would be barred by section 7(a).
Accordingly, proposed § 915.11(f)(1) would allow an appointive director to own shares or other interests in certain investment vehicles, which in turn may own equity or debt securities issued by a member of the director's Bank, without violating section 7(a) of the Bank Act. In order for such an investment to be permissible, the investment vehicle must be a legally separate entity and the appointive director must not control the investment vehicle or play any role in the selection of the entity's underlying investments. By providing that the investment vehicle must be organized as a “legally recognized entity,” the proposal would require that the vehicle be a corporation, limited partnership, trust, or similar entity that is recognized as having its own corporate existence under state law and is legally separate and distinct from the individual appointive director. As drafted, the provision would include registered investment companies (mutual funds) as well as limited partnership interests and other passive interests in distinct entities, even if those investment vehicles were not required to register under the Investment Company Act.
The proposal would require that an appointive director not control the investment entity or be involved in decisions involving investments or trading strategies, which is intended to assure that the director could not direct the entity to purchase or sell member securities or otherwise manipulate trading based on knowledge acquired as a result of the individual's duties on the Bank's board. Because a general partner typically is deemed under state law to have the ability to control or otherwise act on behalf of either a general or limited partnership, a general partnership interest would not be permissible under this proposal.
Proposed § 915.10(f)(2) is intended to allow appointive directors to hold securities of a member through such an account, based principally on the requirement that the director would have no control over the acquisition of securities for the account. Thus, the proposal would deem any debt or equity securities issued by a member that an appointive director owns through accounts where the director has no investment discretion not to constitute shares or financial interests in a member. To qualify for the exclusion under the proposed provision, however, the account would have to be managed by an investment adviser registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Advisers Act, the appointive director would have to pay a fee to the adviser for the advisory services that are provided as an integral component of the account, and the director would have to give the adviser complete discretion to buy or sell all securities in the account. The Finance Board believes that where an appointive director has turned over all investment decisions regarding the portfolio to a professional adviser and is not otherwise involved in the investment decisions concerning the account to have no greater interest in the member securities, in a practical sense, than does a director who owns such securities indirectly through a mutual fund. To further assure that the director could not indirectly influence the purchase or sale of securities within the portfolio, the proposal provides that the director could not be affiliated with the investment adviser and could not otherwise have control over the choice of securities acquired for the account. Given these proposed safeguards (coupled with the continued application of current disclosure and recusal policies), the Finance Board views accounts covered by this proposed provision as not presenting risks of a conflict of interest greater than those posed by investments in mutual funds or similar investments.
In applying this provision, an investor's right to identify broad financial goals or broad investment strategies or asset classes (
Accordingly, proposed § 915.10(f)(3) would deem debt or equity securities issued by a holding company that controls one or more members to not constitute “shares” or “financial interests” in a member, provided that the assets of all members of the Bank that are controlled by the holding company constitute less than 25 percent of the total assets of the holding company, on a consolidated basis. The Finance Board believes that where the assets of the institutions that are members of the Bank on whose board the director sits constitute less than 25 percent of the total assets of a holding company, the debt or equity instruments issued by the holding company represent interests that are predominately something other than an interest in a member.
The Finance Board believes the proposed standard limiting members' assets to less than 25 percent of the consolidated assets would be more restrictive than the standard applied under the former the definition of “diversified holding company” (
Moreover, while proposed § 915.10(f)(3) would deem interests in certain holding companies not to constitute shares or financial interests in a member, the proposed provision does not deal with other relationships with a holding company. Given the current practice, however, the Finance Board would not permit an appointive director to serve as an officer or director of any holding company that controls a member, even if the member constitutes less than 25 percent of the assets of the holding company.
The Finance Board would intend the director to calculate his or her adjusted gross income for the purposes of this proposed test in the same manner as would be done for federal tax purposes. The Finance Board would also expect the director to aggregate all amounts earned (or to be earned) under contracts with all members of the Bank on whose board the director serves in determining the amount due the director for purposes of applying the proposed test. Given the attribution provision in proposed § 915.11(f)(6), if an appointive director's spouse has contractual relationships with Bank members, the amounts due under those contracts also would be combined with those of the director (and the adjusted gross income would represent that of both the director and the spouse) to determine if the contracts exceed the 10 percent threshold. If only the director's spouse had a contract with Bank members, the adjusted gross income used in applying the test would be that of the spouse only.
The proposed rule also would require an appointive director to disclose all contractual relationships with members of the Bank on whose board the director serves (or will serve) whether or not the amounts due exceed 10 percent of the director's adjusted gross income, as well as those of a spouse. Where the amounts due under such contracts would be 10 percent or more of the director's adjusted gross income, the proposed rule would require the Finance Board to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the contractual relationships represent a financial interest that would disqualify an individual from serving as an appointive director. In making the determination, the Finance Board would consider, among other things, if the contractual relationships may result in the appointive director not fairly representing the public interest when considering matters that come before the board or otherwise causing the director to be partial toward or biased against any member or otherwise partial in his or her judgment. In weighing this matter, the Finance Board would consider whether the contractual relationships may create an appearance of partiality in deciding if the contractual relationship may disqualify a person from holding an appointive directorship.
The Finance Board also is proposing amendments to § 915.11(a)(2) to conform this provision to the changes proposed in new § 915.10(f). As now written, § 915.11(a)(2), given the broad definition of financial interest in § 915.11, could be read to require the Banks to adopt policies for appointive directors that would be more restrictive with regard to allowable investments than the changes proposed in § 915.10(f). Because the Bank Act provides the Finance Board the sole discretion to select appointive directors,
The Finance Board also is proposing to delete §§ 915.16 and 915.17, which applied only to election cycles that occurred between 1999 and 2001 and primarily were needed to implement changes made by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
The appointive director application form is part of the information collection entitled “Federal Home Loan Bank Directors.” Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has assigned control number 3069-0002, which is due to expire on November 30, 2007. The Finance Board and the Banks use the information contained in the application form to determine whether prospective appointive Bank directors satisfy the statutory and regulatory eligibility requirements and are well qualified to serve as a Bank director. Only individuals meeting these requirements may serve as Bank directors. See 12 U.S.C. 1427. The proposed rule, if adopted as a final rule, would not make substantive or material modifications to the “Federal Home Loan Bank Directors” information collection. Consequently, the Finance Board has not submitted any information to OMB for review.
The proposed rule would apply only to the Banks and to individuals who may be willing to serve as Bank appointive directors. Neither the Banks nor individuals come within the meaning of “small entities” as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). See 5 U.S.C. 601(6). Thus, in accordance with section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Finance Board hereby certifies that the proposed rule, if promulgated as a final rule, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Conflict of interests, Elections, Federal home loan banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Finance Board is proposing to amend 12 CFR Part 915 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 915 continues to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1422a(a)(3), 1422b(a), 1426, 1427, and 1432.
2. Amend § 915.10 by adding a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:
(f) Financial interests. Except as otherwise provided in this section, an appointive director may not own any debt or equity securities issued by, or have any other financial interest in, a member of the Bank on whose board the director serves. An appointive director also may not serve as an officer or director of any member of the Bank on whose board the director serves or serve as an officer of any Bank.
(1) Investment vehicles. An appointive director's investment in a legally recognized entity that owns debt or equity securities issued by a member shall not be deemed to constitute the shares or other financial interests in a member, provided that the appointive director does not control the entity and plays no role in the purchase or sale of the securities owned by the entity.
(2) Investment accounts. Debt or equity securities owned by an appointive director through an account managed by an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1
(3) Holding companies. Debt or equity securities issued by a holding company that controls one or more members of the Bank on whose board an appointive director serves shall not be deemed to constitute the shares or other financial interest in a member, provided that the assets of all such members constitute less than 25 percent of the assets of the holding company, on a consolidated basis.
(4) Loans and deposits. Loans obtained from a member and money placed on deposit with a member shall not be deemed to constitute a financial interest in a member, provided that the transactions occur in the normal course of business of the member and are on terms that are no more favorable than those that would be available under like circumstances to members of the public.
(5) Contractual relationships. Any contractual relationship between an appointive director and one or more members of the Bank on whose board an appointive director serves, under which the director has a contractual right to the payment of money, shall be presumed not to constitute a financial interest in a member if the amount due to the director under such contracts in any calendar year is less than 10 percent of the director's adjusted gross income for that calendar year. An appointive director with any such contractual relationships, or any contractual relationship involving amounts greater than the above threshold, shall disclose the relationship to the board of directors of the Bank and to the Finance Board. The Finance Board shall determine, on a case by case basis, whether any contractual relationships greater than the above threshold constitutes a financial interest in a member.
(6) Attribution. Any debt or equity securities owned by the spouse or minor children of an appointive director shall be attributed to the director for purposes of complying with this section, as shall be any contractual relationships between a member and the spouse of an appointive director.
3. Amend § 915.11 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(a) Adoption of conflict of interest policy. Each Bank shall adopt a written conflict of interest policy that shall apply to all Bank directors. At a minimum, the conflict of interest policy of each Bank shall:
(1) Require the directors to administer the affairs of the Bank fairly and impartially and without discrimination in favor of or against any member or nonmember borrower;
(2) Require appointive directors to comply with § 915.10(f) of this part;
(3) Prohibit the use of a director's official position for personal gain;
(4) Require directors to disclose actual or apparent conflict of interests and establish procedures for addressing such conflicts;
(5) Provide internal controls to ensure that reports are filed and that conflicts are disclosed and resolved in accordance with this section; and
(6) Establish procedures to monitor compliance with the conflict of interests policy.
4. Remove § 915.16.
5. Remove § 915.17.
6. Remove Appendix A to part 915.
By the Board of Directors of the Federal Housing Finance Board.
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:
Abnormal manufacturing variations of the universal joints in combination with mechanical wear can lead to a joint failure and subsequent disconnection between selector and the fuel valve. This result in a loss of capability to select the fuel tank for supply. This condition might remain unrecognised by the pilot and can result in fuel starvation during flight and/or unavailability of emergency fuel shutoff.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 2, 2007.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Mr. Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;
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 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No. 2006-0067, dated March 24, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Abnormal manufacturing variations of the universal joints in combination with mechanical wear can lead to a joint failure and subsequent disconnection between selector and the fuel valve. This result in a loss of capability to select the fuel tank for supply. This condition might remain unrecognised by the pilot and can result in fuel starvation during flight and/or unavailability of emergency fuel shutoff.
Revision History:
This inspection was initially addressed by Austrian AD A-2004-003. The design of the fuel selector/fuel valve universal joint has than been changed by design change M-M
Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB 40-030/3, dated January 31, 2006. 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 476 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1.5 work-hours 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 $57,120, or $120 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 2.5 work-hours and require parts costing $382, for a cost of $582 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.
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 May 2, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Model DA 40 airplanes, serial numbers 40.006 up to and including 40.079, 40.081 up to and including 40.083, 40.201 up to and including 40.417, that:
(1) Are certificated in any category; and
(2) Have fuel shaft part number D41-2823-20-00 Rev “-” installed.
(d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 28: Fuel.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
Abnormal manufacturing variations of the universal joints in combination with mechanical wear can lead to a joint failure and subsequent disconnection between selector and the fuel valve. This result in a loss of capability to select the fuel tank for supply. This condition might remain unrecognised by the pilot and can result in fuel starvation during flight and/or unavailability of emergency fuel shutoff.
(f)
(1) Upon accumulating 200 hours time-in-service (TIS) or within 15 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, inspect the universal joint in accordance with Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB 40-030/3, dated January 31, 2006. Repetitively inspect thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS until the modified universal joint specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD is installed.
(2) Before further flight, replace the complete joint assembly with the new joint assembly, part number (P/N) D41-2823-20-00 rev “a” or higher in accordance with Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB 40-030/3, dated January 31, 2006, if one or more defects are found on the universal joint during any inspection required by this AD.
(3) The 50-hour TIS repetitive inspection interval required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD is terminated when the joint assembly has been replaced with the new joint specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.
(4) At 1,000-hour TIS intervals after the replacement specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, inspect the universal joints in the fuel selector shaft as specified in Diamond Aircraft DA 40 Series Temporary Revision to the Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM), AMM-TR-MÄM-40-142/a, Fuel Tank Selector, Doc. No. 6.02.01, Section 25-20-00, page 28a, dated May 23, 2005.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: The MCAI incorporates the repetitive inspection requirement for the new joint assembly, P/N D41-2823-20-00 rev “a” or higher, into the AMM. In order for this inspection to be required for U.S.-owner/operators, we are incorporating the 1,000-hour repetitive inspection into this AD.
(g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2006-0067, dated March 24, 2006; and Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB 40-030/3, dated January 31, 2006, for related information.
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:
Two cases of rudder lower support with cracks have been reported, waiting for a technical solution * * *
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 2, 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;
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 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No. F-2004-143, dated August 18, 2004 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an
Two cases of rudder lower support with cracks have been reported, waiting for a technical solution * * *
The MCAI requires:
* * * inspections are required.
APEX Aircraft has issued Apex Aircraft Service Bulletin No. 040707, dated July 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 8 work-hours 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 $19,840, or $640 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 5 work-hours and require parts provided by APEX Aircraft under warranty, for a cost of $400 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.
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 May 2, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Model CAP 10 B airplanes fitted with a rudder lower support, part number (P/N) CAP10-30-08-01* or CAP230-30-08-01* (* with or without a letter at the reference end), as applicable, supplied by APEX Aircraft after January 1, 2001 (supplied as spare part or incorporated in production), all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
(d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 55: Stabilizers.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
Two cases of rudder lower support with cracks have been reported, waiting for a technical solution * * *
(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, do inspection A using Apex Aircraft Service Bulletin No. 040707, dated July 29, 2004.
(2) Every 50 hours TIS after the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, do inspection B using Apex Aircraft Service Bulletin No. 040707, dated July 29, 2004.
(3) When a crack is detected as a result of any inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, before further flight, return the part to APEX Aviation using Apex Aircraft Service Bulletin No. 040707, dated July 29, 2004. Continued operation with any rudder lower support with cracks is prohibited.
(4) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install a rudder lower support, P/N CAP10-30-08-01* or CAP230-30-08-01*, unless it is inspected and found to be crack free per the requirements of this AD.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: The MCAI and service bulletin require inspection A before the next flight and inspection B every 25 flight hours. We consider before the next flight as 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 issued this action through the normal notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) AD process. The time of 50 hours TIS is an adequate compliance for this AD action and meets the FAA requirements of an NPRM.
(g)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(h) Refer to MCAI EASA AD No. F-2004-143, dated August 18, 2004; and Apex Aircraft Service Bulletin No. 040707, dated July 29, 2004, for related information.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Proposed rules.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) is proposing to amend Commission Regulation 3.10 regarding the registration of firms located outside the U.S. that are engaged in commodity interest activities with respect to trading on U.S. designated contract markets (“DCMs”) and U.S. derivative transaction execution facilities (“DTEFs”).
Comments must be received on or before May 2, 2007.
Comments may be submitted, identified by RIN 3038-AC26, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• E-mail:
• Fax: 202/418-5521.
• Mail or Courier: Send to Eileen A. Donovan, Acting Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC 20581.
All comments received will be posted without change to
Lawrence B. Patent, Deputy Director, or Andrew V. Chapin, Special Counsel, at (202) 418-5430, Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. Electronic mail:
Part 3 of the Commission's regulations governs the registration of intermediaries engaged in the offer and sale of, and providing advice concerning, futures and commodity options traded on U.S. markets, including both DCMs and DTEFs. In particular, Regulation 3.10 sets forth the manner in which FCMs, introducing brokers (“IBs”), commodity trading advisors (“CTAs”), commodity pool operators (“CPOs”) and leverage transaction merchants must apply for registration with the Commission. Regulation 3.10(c) also provides an exemption from registration for certain persons. Currently, the only exemption from registration as an FCM is for any person trading solely for proprietary accounts, as defined in Regulation 1.3(y).
With respect to registration, the Act does not distinguish between an intermediary located within or outside the U.S., nor does that Act distinguish between a firm conducting commodity interest
(A) Engaged in soliciting or accepting orders for the purchase or sale of any commodity for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any contract market or derivatives transaction execution facility; and (B) in or in connection with such solicitation or acceptance of orders, accepts any money, securities or property (or extends credit in lieu thereof) to margin, guarantee, or secure any trades or contracts that result or may result therefrom.
Section 4d(a) of the Act states that:
[I]t shall be unlawful for any person to engage as [an FCM] * * * in soliciting or accepting orders for the purchase or sale of any commodity for future delivery, or involving any contracts of sale of any commodity for future delivery, on or subject to the rules of any contract market or
(1) Such person shall have registered, under this Act, with the Commission as such [FCM] * * * and such registration shall not have expired nor been suspended nor revoked; * * *
The term “foreign broker” never has been defined in the context of the Part 3 registration requirements. Rather, the term “foreign broker” has been defined solely in the context of the financial surveillance reporting requirements set forth in Parts 15 to 21 of the Commission's regulations. Specifically, Regulation 15.00(a)(1) defines “foreign broker” to mean “any person located outside the U.S. or its territories who carries an account in commodity futures or commodity options on any contract market for any other person.” In various contexts, the Commission has indicated that it would not require registration of a foreign broker that (1) limits its customers to foreign customers, (2) submits the trades of such foreign customers that are entered into on U.S. markets for clearing on an omnibus basis through a registered FCM,
The genesis of the “foreign broker exemption” occurred in 1938 when the Commodity Exchange Authority (“CEA”), the Commission's predecessor, issued an Administrative Determination stating that the segregation requirements in Section 4d of the Act did not apply to foreign, non-clearing member firms because that provision, despite containing no express territorial limitation, was considered to be “confined to the geographical area over which the law-making power has jurisdiction.”
In 1980, the Commission further addressed the participation of foreign persons on U.S. markets in a
[F]oreign entities presently comprise a significant portion of the traders in various commodities on domestic exchanges. Nevertheless by engaging in futures trading in the United States, foreign persons, like domestic market participants, become subject to the regulatory scheme of the Commodity Exchange Act * * *.”
[A] foreign broker, like any other person or entity, is required to place all orders to buy or sell futures contracts through a registered futures commission merchant. Historically, futures commission merchants have often carried foreign brokers' accounts as ‘omnibus accounts' in which transactions for a broker's customers are combined and carried in the name of the broker, rather than being accounted for and separately identified by the customer.
In 1983, the Commission unambiguously set forth its policy regarding the registration of foreign brokers in a final rulemaking establishing the registration requirements and procedures for introducing brokers and other futures industry professionals. The Commission stated that
Given this agency's limited resources, it is appropriate at this time to focus [the Commission's] customer protection activities upon domestic firms and upon firms soliciting or accepting orders from domestic users of the futures markets and that the protection of foreign customers of firms confining their activities to areas outside this country, its territories, and possessions may best be for local authorities in such areas.
The Commission's staff has taken action consistent with the Commission's policy regarding the participation of foreign persons on U.S. markets. For example, in CFTC Staff Letter 89-07, Commission staff state that
The Commission has not required a person located outside the United States which engages in the conduct described in section 2(a)(1)(A) of [the Act] for or on behalf of foreign customers through a U.S. FCM to register as an FCM. Specifically, the Commission has not required a foreign broker as that term is defined in rule 15.00(a)(1) to register as an FCM.
The Commission notes that, by limiting the exemptive relief to activities conducted “through a U.S. FCM,” staff did not extend the exemptive relief available to a foreign broker to include the submission of trades executed for its customer and non-customer accounts directly to a clearing organization for a U.S. market.
In addition, the Commission's Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) issued an interpretative letter in 1976 addressing the participation of foreign-based CPOs and CTAs on U.S. markets. In its letter, OGC stated that a person who operates commodity pools outside of the territorial U.S. is not required to register as a CPO when such a person confines the pool activities to areas outside the territorial U.S., none of the participation in the pool is a resident or citizen of the U.S., and none of the funds or capital contributed to the pools are from U.S. sources.
The Commission believes that it is appropriate at this time to codify the “foreign broker exemption” as a means to provide greater legal certainty with respect to the commodity interest activities undertaken by those persons located outside the U.S. on U.S. markets. Accordingly, the Commission is proposing to amend Regulation 3.10(c) to exempt from registration as an FCM any person that (1) limits its customers to customers located outside the U.S.
The Commission proposes to amend Regulation 3.10(c) to provide a limited exemption from registration to certain persons located outside the U.S. that engage in brokerage activities on domestic markets on behalf of customers located outside the U.S. Specifically, the Commission proposes to codify the “foreign broker exemption” previously articulated by the Commission and its staff by amending Regulation 1.3 to include a new definition of “foreign broker.” The existing definition of “foreign broker” in Regulation 15.00(g) is limited in context to the market surveillance reporting requirements set forth in Parts 15 to 21 of the Commission's regulations. Proposed Regulation 1.3(xx) would define “foreign broker” as a person located outside the U.S.
The Commission also is proposing to amend Regulation 1.3 to add new paragraph (yy) to provide a definition of the term “commodity interest.” Regulation 4.10(a)(1) currently defines “commodity interest” to mean: (1) any contract for the purchase or sale of a commodity for future delivery; and (2) any contract, agreement or transaction subject to Commission regulation under Section 4c or 19 of the Act. This definition of “commodity interest.” includes not only futures contracts, but options on futures and cash commodities traded on U.S. markets. Regulation 4.10(a)(1), however, applies only to Part 4 of the Commission's regulations governing CPOs and CTAs. Rather than address the commodity interest activities of foreign brokers and other persons located outside the U.S. by reference to Regulation 4.10(a)(1), the Commission is proposing to promulgate new Regulation 1.3(yy) to clarify that these activities are subject to the Commission's general oversight, including the registration requirements set forth in Part 3 of the Commission's regulations. In order to eliminate any confusion resulting from duplicate regulations, the Commission proposes further to remove the existing definition of “foreign broker” from Regulation 15.00(g), and the existing definitions of “commodity interest” from 1.56(a), 3.1(f), 4.10(a), and 166.1(a), respectively.
In addition to the proposed changes to Part 1 of the Commission's regulations, the Commission proposes to amend Regulation 3.10(c) to exempt from FCM registration any foreign broker, as defined in new Regulation 1.3(xx), that submits customer or proprietary trades executed on or subject to the rules of U.S. markets for clearing on an omnibus basis through a fully registered FCM. Any foreign broker eligible for such relief would be required to continue to comply with all other provisions of the Act and of the rules, regulations and orders thereunder, including the reporting requirements set forth in Parts 15 to 21 of the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has not proposed to extend the exemption from FCM registration to permit a foreign broker to become a remote clearing member of a derivatives clearing organization (“DCO”) without having to register as an FCM. A firm routinely submitting customer positions for clearing by a DCO is not confining its activities to areas located outside this country.
The Commission also believes that remote clearing raises material policy issues with respect to both the financial integrity of the markets and customer protection. For example, FCM registrants are subject to requirements concerning fitness, capital, treatment of funds, recordkeeping, and ongoing reporting, and FCM compliance and these standards are monitored by the Commission, and the relevant self-regulatory organization. Exemption from registration would relinquish those safeguards.
Comments regarding the proposed amendment to Regulation 3.10(c) and the corresponding amendments to related regulations should not be limited to the areas cited above, but rather should address all aspects of the Commission's regulatory program, including its goals to protect investors and the public interest; to promote fair competition, market efficiency, innovation and the expansion of investment opportunities; and to maintain fair and orderly markets.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601-611, requires that agencies, in proposing regulations, consider the impact of those regulations on small businesses. The Commission has previously established certain definition of “small entities” to be used
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
While the proposed rule discussed herein has no burden, the group of rules (3038-0023, Rules, Regulations and Forms for Domestic and Foreign Futures and Options Related to Registration with the Commission) of which it is a part has the following burden:
Section 15(a) of the Act requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its actions before issuing new regulations under the Act. By its terms, Section 15(a) does not require the Commission to quantify the costs and benefits of new regulations or to determine whether the benefits of the proposed regulations outweigh their costs. Rather, Section 15(a) requires the Commission to “consider the cost and benefits” of the subject regulations.
Section 15(a) further specifies that the costs and benefits of the proposed regulations shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: (1) Protection of market participants and the public; (2) efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; (3) price discovery; (4) sound risk management practices; and (5) other public interest considerations. The Commission may, in its discretion, give greater weight to any one of the five enumerated areas of concern and may, in its discretion, determine that, notwithstanding its costs, a particular regulation is necessary or appropriate to protect the public interest or to effectuate any of the provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of the Act.
The proposed regulations should foster the protection of market participants and the public by providing greater legal certainty to the commodity interest activities of persons located outside the U.S. As the activity set forth in the proposed regulations presently is permitted under staff interpretation and no-action, the proposed regulations should have no material impact from the standpoint of imposing costs or creating benefits, on efficiency, competitiveness and financial integrity of financial markets, price discovery, sound risk management practices, or any other public interest considerations.
Definitions, Registration, Minimum financial and reported requirements, Prohibited transactions in commodity options, Customers' money, securities and property, Miscellaneous.
Definitions, Foreign futures, Consumer protection, Foreign options, Registration requirements.
Advertising, Commodity futures, Consumer Protection, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Brokers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authorization to trade, Customer protection.
In consideration of the foregoing, and pursuant to the authority contained in the Commodity Exchange Act and, in particular, Sections 2(a)(1), 4(b), 4c and 8a thereof, 7 U.S.C. 2, 6(b), 6c and 12a (1982), and pursuant to the authority contained in 5 U.S.C. 552 and 552b (1982), the Commission hereby proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 5, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6i, 6j, 6k, 6l, 6m, 6n, 6o, 6p, 7, 7a, 7b, 8, 9, 12, 12a, 12c, 13a, 13a-1, 16, 16a, 19, 21, 23, and 24, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 1.3 is amended by adding paragraphs (xx) and (yy) to read as follows:
(xx)
(yy)
Section 1.56 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (a).
4. The authority citation for part 3 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 522, 522b; 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 4, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6i, 6k, 6m, 6n, 6o, 6p, 8, 9, 9a, 12, 12a, 13b, 13c, 16a, 18, 19, 21, 23, unless otherwise noted.
5. Section 3.1 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (f).
6. Section 3.10 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
(c)
(2)(i) A foreign broker, as defined in § 1.3(xx) of this chapter, is not required to register as a futures commission merchant if it submits any commodity interest transactions executed on or subject to the rules of designated contract market or derivatives transaction execution facility for clearing on an omnibus basis through a futures commission merchant registered in accordance with section 4d of the Act.
(ii) A foreign broker acting in accordance with paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section remains subject to all other provisions of the Act and of the rules, regulations and orders thereunder.
7. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 4, 6(c), 6b, 6c, 6l, 6m, 6n, 6o, 12a and 23.
8. Section 4.10 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (a).
9. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2, 5, 6(c), 6a, 6c(a)-(d), 6f, 6g, 6i, 6k, 6m, 6n, 7, 9, 12a, 19 and 21, as amended by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, Appendix E of Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000).
10. Section 15.00 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (g).
11. The authority citation for part 166 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6g, 6h, 6k, 6l, 6o, 7, 12a, 21, and 23, as amended by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, Appendix E of Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000).
12. Section 166.1 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b).
By the Commission.
Forest Service, USDA.
Proposed rule; request for comment.
The Forest Service is proposing to revise 36 CFR part 261, Prohibitions, to establish a new prohibition for starting and negligently failing to maintain control of a prescribed fire. Proof of criminal negligence is required of this offense. The Forest Service also is proposing to clarify that the prohibition for causing and failing to maintain control of all other fires is a strict liability offense, not requiring proof of criminal intent. In implementing the National Fire Plan, the Forest Service has encouraged adjacent landowners to develop integrated fire management plans for the use of prescribed fire for the restoration and protection of private lands adjacent to National Forest System lands. Without the proposed changes, adjacent landowners might be discouraged from using prescribed fire.
Comments must be received in writing by June 1, 2007.
Written comments concerning this notice should be addressed to USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Stop 1109, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1109. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to
Denny Truesdale, State and Private Forestry, 202-205-1588. 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.
The following outline contains the contents of the
A new paragraph (c) would be added to section 261.1, Scope, to clarify that unless criminal intent (
However, the general presumption that some guilty intent or purpose is required does not apply to “public welfare offenses.” These are offenses that typically impose penalties to serve as an effective means of regulation.
The proposed clarification to section 261.1 would make express the agency's long-standing interpretation of its criminal prohibitions as public welfare offenses and confirm that, as such, they generally are strict liability offenses. Proof of criminal intent would be required only where expressly provided by the specific prohibition.
To this end, section 261.5(e) would be revised to remove the term “allowing.” Section 261.5(e) currently prohibits “allowing a fire to escape from control.” The term “allowing” has been interpreted differently by courts in some cases to require proof of criminal intent.
In addition to removing the term “allowing,” section 261.5(e) also would be revised to limit its application to fires that are not prescribed fires. As clarified, the prohibition would be a strict liability offense for causing and failing to maintain control of a fire that is not a prescribed fire that damages National Forest System (NFS) lands.
Section 261.5 also would be revised to add a new prohibition to address prescribed fires. Paragraph (g) would be added to prohibit the negligent failure to maintain control of a prescribed fire that damages NFS lands. This prohibition would not be a strict liability offense. It would require proof that the offender acted with criminal negligence. Section 261.2 would be revised to add a definition of “prescribed fire.” The term would be defined to mean a planned and intentionally lit fire allowed to burn within the applicable requirements of Federal or State laws, regulations, or permits. Many States do not have laws establishing requirements for prescribed fires. Under the definition, if a prescribed fire is allowed under applicable law (even if the law does not limit how the burn is to be conducted) and the fire was intentionally lit and planned to some extent, section 261.5(g) would apply and the Federal government would need to prove that the defendant acted with criminal negligence.
The distinction between failure to maintain control of a prescribed fire (requiring proof of criminal negligence) and another fire (requiring no proof of criminal intent) is necessary to support efforts to reduce hazardous fuels on properties adjacent to National Forest System lands. These efforts are intended to restore ecosystems and, by doing so, protect communities in the wildland urban interface. In implementing the National Fire Plan, the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior land managing agencies have increased the amount of prescribed burning on lands under their jurisdiction. The agencies also have encouraged adjacent landowners to develop integrated fire management plans, including the use of prescribed fire, for the restoration and protection of private lands. If the prohibition for lighting and failing to maintain a prescribed fire were a strict liability offense, adjacent landowners might be discouraged from using prescribed fire as a tool on their lands out of concern that, if the fire were to escape control, they could be cited for a criminal violation without regard to whether they acted with criminal intent. New paragraph (g) would alleviate this impediment.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under USDA procedures and Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this is a non-significant rule as defined by E.O 12866. This proposed rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy, nor adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, nor State or local governments. This proposed rule would not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency nor raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this proposed rule will not alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs. Therefore, it has been determined that this proposed rule is not an economically significant regulatory action.
This proposed rule also has been considered in light of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, (5 U.S.C. 601
Section 31.11a of Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (69 FR 40591; July 6, 2004) excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement “civil and criminal law enforcement and investigative activities.” This proposed rule clearly falls within this category of actions and the agency has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist which would require preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Moreover, this proposed rule itself has no impact on the human environment. Therefore, it has been determined that preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement is not required in promulgating this proposed rule.
The agency has considered this proposed rule under the requirements of Executive Order 12612 and has made a preliminary assessment that the proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the agency has determined that no further assessment on federalism implications is necessary at this time.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under E.O. 13175 of November 6, 2000, “Consultation, and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” This proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects 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. Nor does this proposed rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Therefore, it has been determined that this proposed rule does
This proposed rule has been reviewed for its impact on private property rights under Executive Order 12630. It has been determined that this proposed rule does not pose a risk of taking private property; in fact, the proposed rule honors access to private property pursuant to statute and to outstanding or reserved rights.
This proposed rule does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR Part 1320 and, therefore, imposes no paperwork burden on the public. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
This proposed rule has been reviewed under E.O. 13211 of May 18, 2001, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.” This proposed rule will not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Nor has the Office of Management and Budget designated this rule as a significant energy action. Therefore, it has been determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a significant energy action requiring the preparation of a Statement of Energy Effects.
This proposed rule revision has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The proposed revision: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are found to be in conflict with or that would impede its full implementation; (2) does not retroactively affect existing permits, contracts, or other instruments authorizing the occupancy and use of National Forest System lands, and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging these provisions.
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Department has assessed the effects of this proposed rule on State, local, and tribal governments, and on the private sector. This proposed rule does not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or tribal government, or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the act is not required.
Law enforcement, National forests.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Forest Service proposes to amend Part 261of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read:
7 U.S.C. 1011(f); 16 U.S.C. 4601-6(d) 472, 551, 620(f), 1133(c), (d)(1), 1246(i).
2. In § 261.1, add paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
(c) Unless an offense set out in this part specifies that intent is required, intent is not an element of any offense under this part.
(d) None of these prohibitions apply to any person engaged in fire suppression actions.
3. In § 261.2, add a definition for “Prescribed fire” to read as follows
4. Amend § 261.5 by revising paragraph (e) and by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
(e) Causing and failing to maintain control of a fire that is not a prescribed fire that damages National Forest System.
(g) Negligently failing to maintain control of a prescribed fire on Non-National Forest system lands that damages the National Forest System.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Risk Management Agency (RMA), on behalf of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), is committed to meeting the risk management needs and improving or developing risk management tools for the nation's farmers and ranchers. It does this by offering Federal crop insurance through a network of private-sector entities and by overseeing the creation of new products, seeking enhancements in existing products, and by expanding the use of a variety of risk management tools. Risk management tools also include a variety of non-insurance risk management options and strategies developed to assist producers in mitigating the risks inherent in agricultural production. For the purposes of this announcement, risk management tools do not include insurance products, plans of insurance, policies or modifications thereof.
The purpose of this program is to fund partnership agreements that assist producers, minimize their production risks, or develop risk management tools. The agreements are for the development of risk management tools for use directly by agricultural producers. To aid in meeting these goals each partnership agreement awarded through this program will provide the recipient with funds, guidance, and the substantial involvement of RMA to carry out these risk management initiatives. Applications requesting funding for the development of insurance products, plans of insurance, policies or modifications thereof are excluded from consideration under this announcement.
In accordance with section 522(d) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (Act), FCIC announces the availability of funding for risk management non-insurance program activities. Priority will be given to those activities addressing the need for risk management tools for producers of the following agricultural commodities (For purposes of this announcement, these commodities are collectively referred to as “Priority Commodities”):
•
•
•
The project objective listed below highlights the research priority of RMA. All proposals must clearly describe how the objective will be met and provide information on the usefulness and demand for the tool to be developed.
The project objective is:
To develop a risk management tool designed to increase knowledge of and participation in existing insurance programs available to producers of agricultural products. This tool should not be part of the insurance policy or plan of insurance but should be a stand alone product that can be used by producers to make the purchase decision for insurance easier or ease the burden on producers in fulfilling the requirements under the policy. The tool should, at a minimum, be designed to assist producers who purchase one or more of the following products: Pasture, Rangeland and Forage (PRF); Livestock insurance, or Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) and Adjusted Gross Revenue-Lite (AGR-Lite). Educational materials explaining the use of the tool should be included as a component of the tool; however, tools which are exclusively educational in nature will not meet the objective. Information on non-insurance risk management tools, developed in partnership with RMA, may be included in the tool; however tools dealing exclusively with non-insurance risk management tools will not meet the objective. The tool may be web-based, electronic media, or traditional media. Any web-based tool must conform to all established USDA standards, policies, and procedures. The tool may be developed for use with any other insurance products including pilot or regulatory programs that are listed at the following Web sites:
• Tools that assist producers in constructing and maintaining a farm records system required to participate in an insurance program, e.g., development of a software package for producers who sell through Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs and direct markets. Development of materials (software, electronic media or traditional media) to assist producers in establishing insurance guarantees (including adjustments for added value), maintaining accurate inventory records, and calculating farm losses for producers who elect to insure their operations under the AGR program.
• Tools that assist producers in selecting the most appropriate risk management strategy including the most appropriate plan of crop insurance,
• Tools that assist producers that are socially disadvantaged, limited resource or with limited English proficiency in understanding and participating in crop insurance programs, e.g., development of a system that would promote accessibility, and target the limited resource farmer, including a plan to provide access to web-based tools, that would explain and inform producers concerning available crop insurance options in a variety of languages.
Approximately $3 million is available for partnership agreements that will fund the development of risk management tools. Awards under this program will be made on a competitive basis. Projects may be funded for a period of up to three years for the activities described in this announcement. Projects can also be in two parts with the first part including the research and feasibility studies and the second part including the development, implementation, delivery and maintenance of the risk management tool. If the development of the tool is determined not to be feasible, the partnership may be terminated by RMA after completion of the first part with funding reduced accordingly.
There is no commitment by RMA to fund any particular project or to make a specific number of awards. Applicants awarded a partnership agreement for an amount that is less than the amount requested will be required to modify their application to conform to the reduced amount before execution of the partnership agreement. No maximum or minimum funding levels have been established for individual projects. All awards will be made and agreements completed no later than September 30, 2007.
Recipients of awards must demonstrate non-financial benefits from a partnership agreement and must agree to substantial involvement of RMA in the project.
The applicant will be required to perform the following activities:
a. Finalize, in cooperation with RMA, the partnership agreement.
b. Finalize, in cooperation with RMA, the plan to administer, maintain and update the risk management tool in the future. The applicant must develop a plan for the delivery and evaluation of the risk management tool to producers and the ongoing maintenance and support of the risk management tool, including how the applicant will fund the delivery, support, maintenance and updating of the tool to maintain its applicability, benefits, usefulness, and value to producers. The applicant must also deliver the risk management tool to producers and support, maintain and update the tool as applicable.
c. Define non-financial benefits and the substantial involvement of the RMA.
d. Coordinate, manage, document and implement the timely completion of the approved research and development activities.
e. Abide by the plans and provisions contained in the partnership agreement.
f. Report on program performance in accordance with the partnership agreement.
g. The recipient may be required to make a presentation to the FCIC Board of Directors.
h. Adhere to RMA guidelines for systems development and information technology development.
RMA will be substantially involved during the performance of the funded activity. Potential types of substantial involvement may include, but are not limited to the following activities:
a. Collaborate on the research plan;
b. Assist in the selection of subcontractors and project staff;
c. Review and approve critical stages of project development before subsequent stages may be started;
d. Provide assistance in the management or technical performance of the project;
e. Collaborate with the recipient in the development of materials associated with the funded project, as it relates to publication or presentation of the results and the distribution of the risk management tools to the public, any producer groups, RMA, and the FCIC Board of Directors;
f. Assist in the collection of data and information that may be available in RMA databases;
g. Collaborate with the recipient in the development of a proposal to administer, maintain and update the risk management tool in the future.
h. Similar types of activities.
In addition to the specific activities listed above, the applicant may suggest other activities that would contribute directly to the purpose of this program. For any additional activity suggested, the applicant should identify the objective of the activity, the specific tasks required to meet the objective, specific timelines for performing the tasks, and specific responsibilities of the partners. The applicant should also identify specific ways in which RMA could or should have substantial involvement in that activity.
Proposals are invited from qualified public and private entities. Eligible applicants include colleges and universities, Federal, State, and local agencies, Native American tribal organizations, non-profit and for-profit private organizations or corporations, and other entities. Individuals are not eligible applicants.
Although an applicant may be eligible to compete for an award based on its status as an eligible entity, other factors may exclude an applicant from receiving Federal assistance under this program (
Cost sharing, matching, in-kind contributions, or cost participation is not required.
1. Applicants must demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed risk management tool and the benefits of the tool to producers of priority commodities. Applicants must include information supporting the need for the tool, such as a market analysis, or communications from producers or producer organizations expressing a need for the proposed tool. The proposal must also clearly define how the proposed tool will meet the needs of the producer groups identified. Refer to section V.A.3 for the evaluation criterion.
2. If the project proposed for development requires ongoing maintenance, support and delivery to producers beyond the development stage, the applicant must submit a plan to continue the maintenance, support and delivery of the tool without relying on RMA's resources. If the applicant does not plan to directly support, maintain and deliver the tool using non-award funds after the development period funded by this award is completed, then the proposal should identify a third party sponsor who will do so. For example, if a proposed tool would require constant updating of data and availability on a Web site in order to be utilized by producers, then a sponsor should be identified that would be able to provide the funds necessary to maintain and host the tool. Third party sponsors may include government agencies, grower organizations, industry organizations, private sector entities, etc. If the tool proposed does not require support, maintenance, updating or revisions to maintain applicability or value or does not require continued delivery to producers, the proposal should so state and provide the basis why such actions are not required. Refer to section V.A.4 for evaluation criterion.
3. Applicants must be able to demonstrate they will receive non-financial benefits as a result of the partnership agreement. Non-financial benefits must accrue to the applicant and must include more than the ability to provide income to the applicant or for the applicant's employees or the community. The applicant must demonstrate that performance under the partnership agreement will further the specific mission of the applicant (such as providing research or activities necessary for graduate or other students to complete educational programs or benefits derived through the furtherance of an organization's mission). Refer to section V.A.2 for evaluation criterion.
Applicants may download an application package from the Risk Management Agency Web site at:
If assistance is needed to access the application package via Grants.gov (
• Grants.gov customer support
Applicants who submit their applications via the Grants.gov Web site are not required to submit any hard copy documents to RMA.
When using Grants.gov to apply, RMA strongly recommends that you submit the online application at least one week prior to the application due date in case there are problems with the Grants.gov Web site and you need to submit your application via a mail delivery service.
If submitting the application via regular mail an original and twelve (12) paper copies are requested (these are optional), however, three copies are required. Of the complete and signed application, and one copy (Microsoft Word format preferred) on diskette or compact disk must be submitted in one package at the time of initial submission along with the following documents:
1. A completed and signed OMB Standard Form 424, “Application for Federal Assistance”.
2. A completed and signed OMB Standard Form 424-A, “Budget Information—Non-construction Programs”. Reviewers will need sufficient information to effectively evaluate the budget. Indirect cost for projects submitted in response to this solicitation are limited to 10 percent of the total direct cost of the agreement. A sample budget narrative, including suggestions for format and content, is available on the RMA Web site (
3. A completed and signed OMB Standard Form 424-B, “Assurances, Non-construction Programs”.
4. A statement of the non-financial benefits of any partnership agreement to the recipient. (Refer to section III.C.3).
5. A completed Form RD-1, “Title Page and Proposal Summary.” If the same or similar proposals are submitted by the same entity, the first received will be the only one evaluated.
6. A proposal narrative submitted with the application package should be limited to 10 single-sided pages. Reviewers will need sufficient information to effectively evaluate the application under the criteria contained in section V. A sample narrative, including suggestions for format and content, is available on the RMA Web site (
7. An appendix containing any attachments that may support information in the narrative (Optional).
8. A completed Form RD-2, “Statement of Work.”
If submitting the above materials electronically, as described on the RMA Web site, paper copies of the submission will not be required. Applicants are responsible for ensuring the application materials are received by the closing date. Incomplete application packages will not receive further consideration.
The closing date and time for receipt of an application is 5 p.m. CDT on May 17, 2007. Applications received after the deadline will not be evaluated by the technical review panel and will not be considered for funding.
No maximum or minimum funding levels have been established for individual projects. The funding level will be determined by FCIC. Indirect cost for projects submitted in response to this solicitation are limited to 10 percent of total direct cost of the agreement. Each project may be funded for a period of up to three years for the activities described in this announcement. Partnership agreement funds may not be used to:
1. Plan, repair, rehabilitate, acquire, or construct a building or facility including a processing facility;
2. Purchase, rent, or install fixed equipment;
3. Repair or maintain privately owned vehicles;
4. Pay for the preparation of the partnership application;
5. Fund political activities;
6. Pay costs incurred prior to receiving this partnership agreement;
7. Fund any activities prohibited under 7 CFR parts 3015 and 3019, as applicable.
1. If submitting the application via regular mail, an original and twelve (12) paper copies are requested (these are optional), however, three copies are required. Of the completed and signed application, and one copy (Microsoft Word format preferred) on diskette or compact disk must be submitted in one package at the time of initial submission.
2. If submitting the application via regular mail all applications must be submitted and received by the deadline. Applications that do not meet all of the requirements in this announcement are considered incomplete applications. Late or incomplete applications will not be considered in this competition and will be returned to the applicant.
3. Applications will be considered as meeting the announced deadline if they are received in the mailroom at the address stated below in section IV.E.4, on or before the deadline. Applicants are cautioned that express, overnight mail or other delivery services do not always deliver as agreed. Applicants are responsible for mailing applications well in advance, to ensure that applications are received on or before the deadline time and date. Applicants should be aware that there may be significant delays in delivery if applications are mailed using mail delivery due to the additional security measures that mail delivered to government offices now requires. Applicants should take this into account because failure of such delivery services will not extend the deadline.
4. Address when using mail delivery: USDA/RMA, Non-Insurance Programs, 6501 Beacon Drive, Stop 0813, Kansas City, Missouri 64133-4676.
Applications transmitted electronically via Grants.gov are strongly encouraged. The application package can be accessed via Grants.gov.
If assistance is needed to access the application package via Grants.gov (
• Grants.gov customer support
Applicants who submit their applications via the Grants.gov Web site are not required to submit any hard copy documents to RMA.
When using Grants.gov to apply, RMA strongly recommends that you submit the online application at least one week prior to the application due date in case there are problems with the Grants.gov Web site and you need to submit your application via a mail delivery service.
Receipt of applications will be acknowledged by e-mail, whenever possible. Therefore, each applicant is encouraged to provide an e-mail address in the application. If an e-mail address is not indicated on an application, receipt will be acknowledged by letter. There will be no notification of incomplete, unqualified or unfunded applications until the awards have been made.
When received by RMA, applications will be assigned an identification number. This number will be communicated to applicants in the acknowledgement of receipt of applications. An application identification number should be referenced in all correspondence regarding the application. If the applicant does not receive an acknowledgement within 15 days of the submission deadline, the applicant should contact Kristin Chow, Non-Insurance Programs at (816) 926-6343.
The application must receive a minimum score of 20 points under this criterion in order to be considered for further evaluation and funding. Applications receiving less than 20 points will be eliminated and will not be evaluated under criterion 2 through 4. The proposal must clearly define the development, management and implementation of a risk management tool designed to meet the needs of producers under the objective listed in section I.D. The proposal will be reviewed to determine if it is similar to a project that has been funded, has been recommended for funding, or is currently under development through other means.
The proposal clearly indicates areas of substantial involvement by RMA and clearly indicates benefits derived from the partnership that extend beyond the financial benefits or funding of the research proposal. Those proposals that clearly outline the involvement of RMA in all aspects of the project and demonstrate non-financial benefits will receive the highest score.
The proposal clearly demonstrates a sound research approach and defines the methodology to be used as well as describes the development and implementation of the risk management tool. The proposal must clearly demonstrate the usefulness of the tool and the benefits of the tool to producers of priority commodities and demonstrate that there is a reasonable expectation that the tool will actually be used by a substantial number of such producers. The proposal will be evaluated to ensure that the risk management tool can be readily and easily updated, delivered to producers and will be supported, maintained, updated or revised as necessary. Proposals that demonstrate a clear, concise and generally accepted research methodology and innovative approach will receive the highest number of points.
The proposal clearly demonstrates the applicant's ability and resources to coordinate and manage all aspects of the proposed research project. Applicants must provide a detailed budget summary that clearly explains and justifies costs associated with the project. The applicant must submit a plan, if necessary, to continue the maintenance, support and delivery of the tool without relying on RMA's resources. The applicant whose approach is the most cost effective and optimizes the use and effective application of the funding will receive the highest score.
Each application will be evaluated using a four-part process. First, each application will be screened by RMA to ensure that each proposal meets the objective stated in section I.D. The same or similar proposals cannot be submitted multiple times by the same entity. If the same or similar proposals are submitted by the same entity, the first received will be the only one evaluated. Applications that do not meet the objective stated in section I.D. and all other requirements in this announcement or are incomplete, will not receive further consideration.
Second, all eligible applications will be evaluated using the criterion in section V.A.1. Applications must score at least 20 points under this criterion in order to be evaluated further.
Third, all applications scoring the required 20 points will be evaluated further under sections V.A.2 through 4.
For the second and third steps, a review panel will consider all applications that are complete and meet the objective in section I.D. and all other requirements in this announcement. The panel will review the merits of the applications. The evaluation of each application will be conducted by a panel of not less than three independent reviewers. The panel will be comprised of representatives from USDA, other federal agencies, and others representing public and private organizations, as needed. The narrative and any appendices provided by each applicant will be used by the review panel to evaluate the merits of the project that is being proposed for funding. The panel will examine and score applications based on the evaluation criteria and weights contained in section V.A. The identities of review panel members will remain confidential throughout the entire
In order to be considered for funding, a proposal must score at least 75 points.
For the last step, those applications meeting the minimum number of points will be listed in initial rank order. Proposals will be funded by rank order according to score. The projects proposed for funding will be presented, along with funding level recommendations, to the Manager of FCIC, who will make the final decision on awarding of a partnership agreement.
If the Manager of FCIC determines that any application is sufficiently similar to a project that has been funded or has been recommended to be funded under this announcement or any other research and development program, then the Manager may elect not to fund that application in whole or in part.
Upon written request, scores from the evaluation panel, not including the identity of reviewers, will be sent to the applicant after the review and awards process has been completed.
Following approval of the applications selected for funding, notice of project approval and authority to draw down funds will be made to the selected applicants in writing. Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the awarding official of RMA shall enter into partnership agreements with those applicants whose applications are judged to be most meritorious under the procedures set forth in this announcement. The partnership agreement provides the amount of Federal funds for use in the project period, the terms and conditions of the award, and the time period for the project.
The effective date of the partnership agreement shall be the date the agreement is executed by both parties. All funds provided to the applicant by FCIC must be expended solely for the purpose for which funds are obligated in accordance with the approved application and budget, the regulations, the terms and conditions of the award, and the applicability of Federal cost principles. No commitment of Federal assistance beyond the project period is made or implied, as a result of any award made pursuant to this announcement.
Notification of denial of funding will be sent to applicants after final funding decisions have been made. Reasons for denial of funding can include incomplete proposals, proposals that did not meet the objective, scored low or were duplicative.
When an application results in a partnership agreement, it becomes a part of the official record of RMA transactions, available to the public upon specific request. Information that the Secretary of Agriculture determines to be of a confidential, privileged, or proprietary nature will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by law. Therefore, any information that the applicant wishes to be considered confidential, privileged, or proprietary should be clearly marked within the application, including the basis for such designation. The original copy of a proposal that does not result in an award will be retained by RMA for a period of one year. Other copies will be destroyed. Such a proposal will be released only with the express written consent of the applicant or to the extent required by law. A proposal may be withdrawn at any time prior to award. The names of applicants, the names of individuals identified in the applications, the content of applications, and the panel evaluations of applications will all be kept confidential, except to those involved in the review process, to the extent permitted by law.
All partnership agreements are subject to 7 CFR part 3015.
Section 1352 of Public Law 101-121, enacted on October 23, 1989, imposes prohibitions and requirements for disclosure and certification related to lobbying on recipients of Federal contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and loans. It provides exemptions for Indian Tribes and tribal organizations. Current and prospective recipients, and any subcontractors, are prohibited from using Federal funds, other than profits from a Federal contract, for lobbying Congress or any Federal agency in connection with the award of a contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or loan. In addition, for each award action in excess of $100,000 ($150,000 for loans) the law requires recipients and any subcontractors: (1) To certify that they have neither used nor will use any appropriated funds for payment of lobbyists; (2) to disclose the name, address, payment details, and purpose of any agreements with lobbyists whom recipients or their subcontractors will pay with profits or other non-appropriated funds on or after December 22, 1989; and (3) to file quarterly up-dates about the use of lobbyists if material changes occur in their use. The law establishes civil penalties for non-compliance. All recipients must provide a copy of the certification and disclosure forms prior to the beginning of the project period.
All partnership agreements funded as a result of this notice will be subject to the requirements contained in all applicable OMB circulars.
Applicants awarded partnership agreements are subject to audit.
Project leaders of all partnership agreements funded as a result of this notice are required to know and abide by Federal civil rights laws and to assure USDA and RMA that the recipient is in compliance with and will continue to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d
Applicants awarded a partnership agreement will be required to submit quarterly written progress and financial reports (SF-269) throughout the project period, as well as a final program and financial report not later than 90 days after the end of the project period. Recipients will be required to submit prior to the award:
• A completed and signed Form RD 400-4, Assurance Agreement (Civil Rights).
• A completed and signed OMB Standard Form LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.”
• A completed and signed AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions.”
• A completed and signed AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace.”
• A completed and signed Faith-Based Survey on EEO.
If applicants have any questions they may contact: Kristin Chow, USDA/RMA, Non-Insurance Programs, 6501 Beacon Drive, Stop 0813, Kansas City, Missouri 64133-4676, phone (816) 926-6343, fax (816) 926-7343, e-mail:
A DUNS number is a unique nine-digit sequence recognized as the universal standard for identifying and keeping track of over 70 million businesses worldwide. The Office of Management and Budget published a notice of final policy issuance in the
The Central Contract Registry (CCR) is a database that serves as the primary Government repository for contractor information required for the conduct of business with the Government. This database will also be used as a central location for maintaining organizational information for organizations seeking and receiving grants from the Government. Such organizations must register in the CCR prior to the submission of applications. A DUNS number is needed for CCR registration. For information about how to register in the CCR, visit “Get Started” at
Pursuant to authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463) and the secure Rural Schools and Community Self determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393), the Black Hills National Forest's Custer County Resource Advisory Committee will meet on Thursday, April 5, 2007 in Custer, South Dakota for a meeting. The meeting is open to the public.
The meeting on April 5, 2007 will begin at 6 p.m. at the Black Hills National Forest Supervisor's office at 25041 North Highway 16, Custer, South Dakota. Agenda topics will be Status of Legislation and 2007 projects.
Mike Lloyd, Hell Canyon District Ranger and Designated Federal Office, at 605-673-4853.
The
In paragraph 2, beginning on the 13th line, the text that reads ``Site 3--Three Way Inc. facilities (1.9 acres; 50,000 sq. ft.)--located at 4009 Commercial Center Drive in Austin'' should be corrected to read ``Site 3--Three Way Logistics facilities (1.9 acres; 50,000 sq. ft.) - located at 8410 Tuscany Way in Austin''.
Notice is hereby given of the withdrawal of the application requesting manufacturing authority on behalf of Panasonic Consumer Electronics Co., and its warehouse/FTZ operator Norvanco International Inc. The application was filed on November 8, 2006 (71 FR 69203, 11/30/06).
The withdrawal was requested because of changed circumstances, and the case has been closed without prejudice.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Sheila E. Forbes, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4697.
Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspension of investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), may request, in accordance with section 351.213(2004) of the Department of Commerce (the Department) Regulations, that the Department conduct an administrative review of that
Not later than the last day of April 2007
In accordance with section 351.213 (b) of the regulations, an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review, and the requesting party must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which were produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.
Please note that, for any party the Department was unable to locate in prior segments, the Department will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).
As explained in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003), the Department has clarified its practice with respect to the collection of final antidumping duties on imports of merchandise where intermediate firms are involved. The public should be aware of this clarification in determining whether to request an administrative review of merchandise subject to antidumping findings and orders. See also the Import Administration web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov.
Six copies of the request should be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. The Department also asks parties to serve a copy of their requests to the Office of Antidumping/Countervailing Operations, Attention: Sheila Forbes, in room 3065 of the main Commerce Building. Further, in accordance with section 351.303(f)(l)(i) of the regulations, a copy of each request must be served on every party on the Department's service list.
The Department will publish in the Federal Register a notice of “Initiation of Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation” for requests received by the last day of April 2007. If the Department does not receive, by the last day of April 2007, a request for review of entries covered by an order, finding, or suspended investigation listed in this notice and for the period identified above, the Department will instruct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping or countervailing duties on those entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or bond for) estimated antidumping or countervailing duties required on those entries at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption and to continue to collect the cash deposit previously ordered.
This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
Notice of Upcoming Sunset Reviews
Every five years, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct a review to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.
The following Sunset Review is scheduled for initiation in May 2007 and will appear in that month's Notice of Initiation of Five-Year Sunset Reviews.
The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of Sunset Reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98.3--Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). The Notice of Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews provides further information regarding what is required of all parties to participate in Sunset Reviews.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the Department will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact the Department in writing within 15 days of the publication of the Notice of Initition.
Please note that if the Department receives a Notice of Intent to Participate from a member of the domestic industry within 15 days of the date of initiation, the review will continue. Thereafter, any interested party wishing to participate in the Sunset Review must provide substantive comments in response to the notice of initiation no later than 30 days after the date of initiation.
This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is automatically initiating a five-year (“Sunset Review”) of the antidumping duty orders listed below. The International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of
April 2, 2007.
The Department official identified in the Initiation of Review(s) section below at AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th & Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230. For information from the Commission contact Mary Messer, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission at (202) 205-3193.
The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset Review of the following antidumping duty order:
As a courtesy, we are making information related to Sunset proceedings, including copies of the Department's regulations regarding Sunset Reviews (19 CFR 351.218) and
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the Department will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact the Department in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties to apply for access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (“APO”) immediately following publication in the
Domestic interested parties (defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) wishing to participate in these Sunset Reviews must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the
For sunset reviews of countervailing duty orders, parties wishing the Department to consider arguments that countervailable subsidy programs have been terminated must include with their substantive responses information and documentation addressing whether the changes to the program were (1) limited to an individual firm or firms and (2) effected by an official act of the government. Further, a party claiming program termination is expected to document that there are no residual benefits under the program and that substitute programs have not been introduced.
If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department's regulations provide that
This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
April 2, 2007.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) has determined that three requests for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”), received on January 31, February 18 and February 28, 2007, respectively, meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation. For reasons discussed below, the Department also determined that a fourth request for a new shipper review does not meet the requirements for
Cindy Lai Robinson and Michael Holton, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3797, and (202) 482-1324, respectively.
The notice announcing the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam was published in the
On March 8, 2007, Catfish Farmers of America and individual U.S. catfish processors (“Petitioners”) submitted comments requesting that the Department reject South Vina's original request because it failed to provide any of the required certifications or documents set forth in 19 CFR 351.214.
On March 22, 2007, South Vina submitted a response to Petitioners' objections of March 15, 2007, comments. Citing several cases in which the Department sent supplemental questionnaires prior to initiation, South Vina argued that the Department should keep South Vina's March 9, 2007, supporting documentation and initiate a new shipper review.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Vinh Quang, Ngoc Thai, and Anvifish certified that they did not export certain frozen fish fillets to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”). In addition, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Vinh Quang, Ngoc Thai, and Anvifish certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, they have never been affiliated with any Vietnamese exporter or producer who exported certain frozen fish fillets to the United States during the POI, including those not individually examined during the investigation. As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Vinh Quang, Ngoc Thai, and Anvifish also certified that their export activities were not controlled by the central government of Vietnam.
In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Vinh Quang, Ngoc Thai, and Anvifish submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) The date on which Vinh Quang, Ngoc Thai, and Anvifish first shipped certain frozen fish fillets for export to the United States and the date on which the frozen fish fillets were first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption; (2) the volume of their first shipment;
The Department conducted CBP database queries to confirm that Vinh Quang, Ngoc Thai, and Anvifish's shipments of subject merchandise had entered the United States for consumption and that liquidation of such entries had been properly suspended for antidumping duties.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), the Department finds that Vinh Quang, Ngoc Thai, and Anvifish's requests meet the threshold requirements for initiation of a new shipper review for the shipment of certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam they produced and exported.
The Department finds that South Vina's original review request dated
As noted above, on March 22, 2007, South Vina submitted a list of cases where the Department sent supplemental questionnaires prior to initiation and therefore, South Vina argues, the Department should accept its March 9, 2007, supporting documentation and initiate a new shipper review. However, in each case cited by South Vina, the requestor included the documents required by section 351.214(b)(2) in its original request, which South Vina did not include in its February 28, 2007, request. Because South Vina did not provide any of the “contents of request” in its original request, and its submission on March 9, 2007, is untimely, the Department has determined that South Vina's request does not meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation. Therefore, the Department has removed South Vina's February 28, 2007, and its March 9, 2007, submissions from the record, and rejected South Vina's new shipper review request, in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) and (II) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214.
The POR for the three new shipper reviews is August 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007. See 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(ii)(A). The Department intends to issue the preliminary results of these reviews no later than 180 days from the date of initiation, and final results of these reviews no later than 270 days from the date of initiation. See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On January 3, 2007, the Department published the Preliminary Results of the fourth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the People's Republic of China (PRC).
In response to a request from the American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association (collectively, petitioners), the Department is expediting the final results of this review for Chengdu, an uncooperative respondent, because of its extraordinary surge of exports and the significant difference between Chengdu's current cash deposit rate of 22.03 percent and Chengdu's preliminary cash deposit rate of 212.39 percent based on total facts available with adverse inference.
April 2, 2007.
Judy Lao or Angelica Mendoza, 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) 482-7924 or (202) 482-3019, respectively.
Since the Preliminary Results the following events have occurred. On January 12 and 29, 2007, counsel to the petitioners met with Department officials to discuss their concerns about
On February 7, 2007, the Department informed counsel to Chengdu of the petitioners' submission and our decision to accept the new information contained therein. We indicated that any comments on the submission were due on February 16, 2007.
On February 28, 2007, the Department issued a Decision Memorandum expediting the final results of review for Chengdu and extending the deadline for case briefs for all parties in this review until March 14, 2007, and for rebuttal briefs until March 21, 2007.
According to section 751(a)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department “shall make . . . a final determination . . . within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary determination is published.”
The products covered by this order are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form.
The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive.
The PRC-wide rate applies to all PRC entities with the exception of those exporters that have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate. While Chengdu failed to demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate on the record of this review, and thus is considered to be part of the PRC entity, the Department has determined that circumstances warrant expedited final results of review solely with respect to Chengdu. As a result, for these expedited final results, the Department is issuing a rate applicable solely to Chengdu.
In its preliminary results, the Department assigned a rate to the PRC-wide entity (including Chengdu) based on adverse facts available (AFA). No party to the proceeding commented on the rate to be assigned to Chengdu for purposes of the final results. Based upon our review of the record, the Department will continue to assign the rate of 212.39 percent to Chengdu, which is the rate assigned to the PRC-wide entity (including Chengdu) in the preliminary results. The final PRC-wide rate will be determined in the final results of review that will cover all entities other than Chengdu. These non-expedited final results of review are currently due for issuance by May 3, 2007.
We determine that the following antidumping duty margin applies:
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.
The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these expedited partial final results for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these partial final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for subject merchandise exported by Chengdu, the cash deposit rate will be 212.39 percent; (2) the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding; (3) for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 212.39 percent; and (4) for
This notice also serves as the final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
April 2, 2007.
On February 20, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) received a request from the exporter and producer Ayecue (Liaocheng) Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (“Ayecue”) to conduct a new shipper review (“NSR”) of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(d), we are initiating a NSR of Ayecue.
Thomas Martin or Mark Manning; AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3936 or (202) 482-5253, respectively.
The Department received a timely request from Ayecue on February 20, 2007, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(c), for a NSR of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC, which has a February anniversary month.
Ayecue identified itself as a producer and exporter of preserved mushrooms. As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i) and (iii)(A), Ayecue certified that it did not export preserved mushrooms to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”), and that it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer which exported preserved mushrooms to the United States during the POI. Furthermore, the company also certified that its export activities are not controlled by the government of the PRC, satisfying the requirements of 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Ayecue submitted documentation establishing the date on which the subject merchandise was first entered for consumption in the United States, the volume of that first shipment and any subsequent shipments, and the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. Based on the information submitted by Ayecue, we have determined that Ayecue has met the statutory and regulatory requirements for the initiation of a NSR. The Department queried the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) entry database to confirm that the shipment made by Ayecue had officially entered the United States via assignment of an entry date in the Customs database by CBP. In addition, the Department confirmed the existence of Ayecue and its U.S. customer.
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), and based on information on the record, we are initiating a NSR for Ayecue. See Memorandum to the File, from Thomas Martin, International Trade Compliance Analyst, through Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, Office 4, AD/CVD Operations, “Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,” dated March 27, 2007. We intend to issue the preliminary results of this review not later than 180 days after the date on which this review was initiated, and the final results of this review within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(A), the period of review (“POR”) for a NSR, initiated in the month immediately following the anniversary month, will be the 12-month period immediately preceding the anniversary month. Therefore, the POR for the NSR of Ayecue is February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007.
In cases involving non-market economies, the Department requires that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate provide evidence of
On August 17, 2006, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 4) was signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4 temporarily suspends the authority of the Department to instruct CBP to collect a bond or other security in lieu of a cash deposit in NSRs. Therefore, the posting of a bond under section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e) in lieu of a cash deposit is not available in this case. Importers of subject merchandise manufactured and exported by Ayecue must continue to pay a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on each entry of subject merchandise at the current PRC-wide rate of 198.63 percent.
Interested parties that require access to proprietary information in this NSR should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.
This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.214(d), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
The President's Council on Service and Civic Participation gives notice of the following meeting:
Monday, April 9, 2:30 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Washington, DC—DCJCC, 1529 16th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
Open.
Anyone who needs an interpreter or other accommodation should notify the Corporation's contact person by Wednesday, April 4.
Brendan Murphy, Corporation for National and Community Service, 10th Floor, Room 10302E, 1201 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20525. Phone (202) 606-6945. Fax (202) 606-3460. TDD: (202) 606-3472. e-mail:
Department of Defense.
Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.
The Defense Science Board Task Force on National Guard and Reserves in the GWOT will meet in closed session on April 17-18, 2007; at the Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.
The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will: Assess the consequences for force structure, morale, and mission capability of deployments of members of the National Guard and the Reserves in the course of the global war on terrorism that are lengthy, frequent, or both.
In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the meetings will be closed to the public.
LCDR Clifton Phillips, USN, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C553, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via e-mail at
Department of Defense.
Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.
The Defense Science Board Summer Study on DSB 2007 Summer Study: Challenges to Military Operations in Support of National Interests meet in closed session on April 25, 2007; at the Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.
The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will: Assess technological, operational, and policy oriented solutions.
In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the meetings will be closed to the public.
LCDR Clifton Phillips, USN, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C553, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via e-mail at
Department of Defense.
Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.
The Defense Science Board Task Force on Nuclear Deterrence Skills will meet in closed session on April 26-27, 2007; at the Strategic Analysis, Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.
The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of
In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the meetings will be closed to the public.
LCDR Clifton Phillips, USN, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C553, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via e-mail at
Department of Defense.
Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.
The Defense Science Board Task Force on Integrating Sensor-Collected Intelligence will meet in closed session on April 17-18, 2007; May 7-8, 2007; May 31-June 1, 2007; and July 19-20, 2007; at the Science Applications International Corporation, 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA.
The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense.
In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the meetings will be closed to the public.
LCDR Charles Lominac, USAF Military Assistant, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C553, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via e-mail at
DoD, Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee.
Notice of revised non-foreign overseas per diem rates.
The Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee is publishing Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 252. This bulletin listed revision in the per diem rates prescribed for U.S. Government employees for official travel in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands and Possessions of the United States. AEA changes announced in Bulletin Number 194 remain in effect. Bulletin Number 252 is being published in the
April 1, 2007.
This document gives notice of revisions in per diem rates prescribed by the Per Diem Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee for non-foreign areas outside the continental United States. It supersedes Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 251. Distribution of Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletins by mail was discontinued. Per Diem Bulletins published periodically in the
Department of Education.
The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 2, 2007.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to
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.
Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
These priorities are:
The applicant must be a “novice applicant” as defined in 34 CFR 75.225(a).
With respect to applicants with an expiring CAMP project, the Secretary will consider the applicant's prior experience in implementing its expiring CAMP project based on information contained in documents previously provided to the Department, such as annual performance reports, project evaluation reports, site visit reports, and the previously approved CAMP application.
Under this competition, we are particularly interested in applications that address the following priority.
This priority is:
Applications that propose to engage faith-based and community organizations in the delivery of services under this program.
20 U.S.C. 1070d-2.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
The application package also can be obtained electronically at the following address:
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 (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section.
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 25 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 (Part III), including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions. However, you may single space all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. Charts, tables, figures, and graphs presented in
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Appendices must be limited to 15 pages and may include the following: Resumes, job descriptions, letters of support, and bibliography.
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract. However, you must include all of the application narrative in Part III.
Our reviewers will not read any pages of your application that—
• Exceed the page limit if you apply these standards; or
• Exceed the equivalent of the page limit if you apply other standards.
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 College Assistance Migrant Program, CFDA Number 84.149A 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 College Assistance Migrant 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 program [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
• 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;
and
• 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: David De Soto, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E344, Washington, DC 20202-6135. Telephone (202) 260-8103. Fax: (202) 205-0089.
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:
or
Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you 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 84.149A), 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
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.
We strongly encourage applicants to demonstrate a sound capacity to provide reliable data on these measures in their responses to selection criteria “Quality of Project Design” and “Quality of the Project Evaluation.”
All grantees will be required to submit, as part of their annual performance report, information with respect to these performance measures.
David De Soto, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Migrant Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E344, Washington, DC 20202-6135. Telephone Number: (202) 260-8103, 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 (
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.
These priorities are:
The applicant must be a “novice applicant” as defined in 34 CFR 75.225(a).
With respect to applicants with an expiring HEP project, the Secretary will consider the applicant's prior experience in implementing its expiring HEP project based on information
Under this competition, we are particularly interested in applications that address the following priority.
This priority is:
Applications that propose to engage faith-based and community organizations in the delivery of services under this program.
20 U.S.C. 1070d-2.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
The application package also can be obtained electronically at the following address:
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 (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section.
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 (Part III), including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions. However, you may single space all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. Charts, tables, figures, and graphs presented in the application narrative count toward the page limit.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Appendices must be limited to 15 pages and may include the following: Resumes, job descriptions, letters of support, and bibliography.
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract. However, you must include all of the application narrative in Part III.
Our reviewers will not read any pages of your application that—
• Exceed the page limit if you apply these standards; or
• Exceed the equivalent of the page limit if you apply other standards.
3.
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 High School Equivalency Program, CFDA Number 84.141A 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 High School Equivalency 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 program [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: David De Soto, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E344, Washington, DC 20202-6135. Telephone (202) 260-8103. Fax: (202) 205-0089.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
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 84.141A), 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.
We strongly encourage applicants to demonstrate a sound capacity to provide reliable data on these measures in their responses to selection criteria “Quality of Project Design” and “Quality of the Project Evaluation.”
All grantees will be required to submit, as part of their annual performance report, information with respect to these performance measures.
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
National Mathematics Advisory Panel, U.S. Department of Education.
Notice of open meeting and public hearing.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of an upcoming meeting, including a public hearing, with members of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. The notice also describes the functions of the Panel. Notice of this meeting is required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and is intended to notify the public of their opportunity to attend.
Friday, April 20, 2007.
The meeting will be held at the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy (IMSA), 1500 W. Sullivan Road, Aurora, Illinois 60506-1067.
Tyrrell Flawn, Executive Director, National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202; telephone: (202) 260-8354.
The Panel was established by Executive Order 13398. The purpose of this Panel is to foster greater knowledge of and improved performance in mathematics among American students, in order to keep America competitive, support American talent and creativity, encourage innovation throughout the American economy, and help State, local, territorial, and tribal governments give the nation's children and youth the education they need to succeed.
The meeting will be hosted by Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab), a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory specializing in high-energy particle physics, and Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy (IMSA), an educational institution created by the state of Illinois to develop talent and leadership in mathematics, science and technology. The meeting begins at 8:45 a.m. with introductory remarks by Dr. Larry Faulkner, Chair of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, and Dr. Janice Krouse, Curriculum & Assessment Leader and Math Faculty Member, IMSA. The Panel will meet from 9 to 10 a.m. to receive public comment on the Executive Order and the Panel's work. Following the public comment session, from 10:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m., the four task groups—Conceptual Knowledge and Skills, Learning Processes, Instructional Practices and Teachers—will present progress reports on their work to date. Individuals interested in attending the meeting are advised to register in advance to ensure space availability. Please contact Jennifer Graban at (202) 260-1491 or by e-mail at
If you are interested in giving testimony during the public session on April 20, please contact Jennifer Graban at (202) 260-1491 or
Given the expected number of individuals interested in providing comments at the meeting, reservations for presenting comments should be made as soon as possible. Reservations will be processed on a first-come, first-served basis. Persons who are unable to obtain reservations to speak during the meeting are encouraged to submit written comments. Written comments will be accepted at the meeting site or via e-mail at
The Panel has submitted its Preliminary Report to the President, through the U.S. Secretary of Education. The Preliminary Report is available at
The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Individuals who will need accommodations in order to attend the meeting such as interpreting services, assistive listening devices, or materials in alternative format, should notify Jennifer Graban at (202) 260-1491 or
Records are kept of all Panel proceedings and are available for public inspection at the staff office for the Panel, from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
Notice of open teleconference meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of an upcoming open meeting of The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory Committee. The notice also describes the functions of the Committee. Notice of this meeting is required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and is intended to notify the public of their opportunity to attend.
Thursday, April 19, 2007.
The Committee will meet by telephone conference call.
Catherine Davis, Executive Director, The
The Committee was established to provide advice to the Secretary on Federal, State, and local programs designed to create safe and drug-free schools, and on issues related to crisis planning. The purpose of this meeting is to continue discussion on the fundings and recommendations on three topics given to the Committee by the Secretary of Education: the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants Program, the Unsafe Schools Choice Option, and data requirements under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act. Further, the Committee will also discuss the format of the final report to the Secretary of Education due June 30, 2007.
There will not be an opportunity for public comment during the April 19th meeting. However, the public may listen to the conference call by calling 800-473-8796, Teleconference Chairperson: Deborah Price. Individuals who need accommodations for a disability in order to listen to the meeting may access a TYY line by calling 800-473-8796, Teleconference Chairperson: Deborah Price.
Submit all comments to the Advisory Committee using one of the following methods: 1.
Records are kept of all Committee proceedings and are available for public inspection at the staff office for the Committee located at the U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 1E110B, Washington, DC 20202 between the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Acacia Energy, Inc. (Acacia Energy) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with accompanying rate schedule. The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy and capacity at market-based rates. Acacia Energy also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, Acacia Energy requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Acacia Energy.
On March 23, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development—West, granted the requests for blanket approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protest is April 23, 2007.
Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above, Acacia Energy are authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Acacia Energy, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of Acacia Energy's issuance of securities or assumptions of liability.
Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on March 9, 2007, Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, (Algonquin) tendered for filing its response in compliance with the Commission's directive in its February 16, 2007 order issued in this proceeding, including proposed tariff revisions reflected on
Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on March 22, 2007, CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company (CEGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to be effective April 1, 2007:
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 20, 2007, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing its Refund Report made to comply with the April 17, 1995 Settlement (Settlement) in Docket No. GP94-2,
Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on March 16, 2007, Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Destin), 200 Westlake Park Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77079-2696, filed in Docket No. CP07-110-000, an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for an order authorizing Destin to abandon by lease 260,000 Mcf/day of capacity (Lease Capacity) to Gulf South Pipeline Company, L.P., with the option to increase the Lease Capacity in excess of 260,000 Mcf/day, but not more than 700,000 Mcf/day, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The instant filing
Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Any questions regarding this application may be directed to Bruce G. Reed, Director, Regulatory Affairs, BP Pipelines (North America), 200 Westlake Park Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77079-2696 or by telephone at 281-366-5062 or telecopy to 281-366-3385.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
Take notice that on March 23, 2007, East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC (East Tennessee) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Original Sheet Nos. 26A and 26B.
East Tennessee states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all affected customers and interested state commissions, as well as all parties on the official service list.
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
Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 1, LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 2, LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 3, LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 4, LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 5, LLC (collectively, “the Applicants”) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with accompanying rate tariffs. The proposed market-based rate tariffs provide for the sale of energy and capacity at market-based rates. The Applicants also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, the Applicants requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by the Applicants.
On March 21, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development—West, granted the requests for blanket approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protest is April 20, 2007.
Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above, the Applicants are authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the Applicants, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of the Applicants' issuances of securities or assumptions of liability.
Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on March 22, 2007, Entergy Services, Inc. (Entergy) acting as agent for Entergy Arkansas, Inc. tendered for filing in compliance with the Commission's February 20, 2007 Order to reclassify certain facilities identified in the Interconnection and Operating Agreement between Entergy Arkansas and Union Power Partners, L.P. as network upgrades eligible for transmission credits and interest on such credits.
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
Flat Earth Energy, LLC (Flat Earth) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying tariff. The proposed market-based rate tariff provides for the sale of energy and capacity at market-based rates. Flat Earth also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, Flat Earth requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Flat Earth.
On March 21, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development—West, granted the requests for blanket approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protest is April 20, 2007.
Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above, Flat Earth is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Flat Earth, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of Flat Earth's issuance of securities or assumptions of liability.
Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on March 16, 2007, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South), 20 East Greenway Plaza, Houston, Texas 77046, filed in Docket No. CP07-105-000, an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for an order authorizing Gulf South to lease 260,000 Mcf/day of capacity (Lease Capacity) from Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C., with the option to increase the Lease Capacity in excess of 260,000 Mcf/day, but not more than 700,000 Mcf/day, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The instant filing may be also viewed on the Web at
Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Any questions regarding this application may be directed to J. Kyle Stephens, Director of Certificates, 20 East Greenway Plaza, Houston, Texas 77046 or by telephone at 713-544-7309 or telecopy to 713-544-3540.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The
Hudson Bay Energy Solutions, LLC (Hudson Bay) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule. The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy, capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. Hudson Bay also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, Hudson Bay requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Hudson Bay.
On March 20, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Rates—West, granted the requests for blanket approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protest is April 20, 2007.
Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above, Hudson Bay is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person, provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Hudson Bay, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of Hudson Bay's issuance of securities or assumptions of liability.
Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on March 22, 2007, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed in Appendix A to its filing. The tariff sheets have a proposed effective date of April 1, 2007.
Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Wayzata California Power Holdings, LLC (California Power Holdings) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff. The proposed market-based rate tariff provides for the sale of energy, capacity and certain ancillary services at market-based rates. California Power Holdings also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, California Power Holdings requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by California Power Holdings.
On March 20, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Rates—West, granted the requests for blanket approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protest is April 20, 2007.
Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above, California Power Holdings is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person, provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of California Power Holdings, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of California Power Holdings' issuance of securities or assumptions of liability.
Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on March 16, 2007, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124, filed in Docket No. CP07-108-000, an application pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) to increase the certificated storage capacity by 8.551 Bcf and deliverability by 140 MMcf/d at the Redfield Storage Field (Redfield) located in Dallas County, Iowa in order to provide additional storage service. The storage service will be provided at market-based rates. The facilities for the expansion project include the installation of new storage wells and recompletion of existing wells to storage wells, as well as abandonment of compression facilities at another Northern location for reinstallation at Redfield, at all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may be also viewed on the Web at
Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify Federal and State agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all Federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Any questions regarding this application may be directed to Michael T. Loeffler, Senior Director of Certificates and External Affairs for Northern, 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124, (402) 398-7103 or Bret Fritch, Senior Regulatory Analyst, at (402) 398-7140.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, before the comment date of this notice, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.
Take notice that on March 23, 2007, Questar Overthrust Pipeline Company (Overthrust) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1-A , the tariff sheets listed on Item 1 to reflect a name change from Overthrust Pipeline Company to Questar Overthrust Pipeline Company to be effective April 25, 2007.
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
Red Shield Environmental, LLC (Red Shield) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule. The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy and capacity at market-based rates. Red Shield also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, Red Shield requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Red Shield.
On March 20, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Rates—West, granted the requests for blanket approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protest is April 20, 2007.
Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above, Red Shield is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person, provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Red Shield, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of Red Shield's issuance of securities or assumptions of liability.
Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on March 23, 2007, BP West Coast Products LLC, tendered for filing a complaint against SFPP, L.P. challenging the justness and reasonableness of SFPP's 205 index rate increases.
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. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
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 26, 2007, Californians for Renewable Energy, Inc. (CARE) submitted a complaint against the California Public Utilities Commission for its action on March 15, 2007, authorizing hearings concerning Southern California Edison Company's (SCE) application to enter into a power purchase agreement with Blythe Energy, LLC (Blythe), in violation of the Federal Power Act pursuant to section 205 of the FPA. CARE alleges that the prices, terms, and conditions of such contract are unjust and unreasonable. CARE further alleges SCE and Blythe failed to file their rates and the rates approved by the California Public Utilities Commission do not serve the “public interest” under the FPA and are in fact unduly preferential and discriminatory against their party customers, and impose an excessive burden on these customers.
CARE states that copies of this filing were served upon Respondents and other interested parties.
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. The Respondent's answer and all interventions or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
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:
Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign utility company status filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) regulations contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (18 CFR part 380 [FERC Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897]), the Office of Energy Projects staff (staff) reviewed a proposal to amend the design authorized by the license for the Cannelton Hydroelectric Project, to be located at the U.S. Corps of Engineers' Cannelton Locks and Dam on the Ohio River in Hancock County, Kentucky, and prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed amendment of the project license. In this EA, staff analyzes the potential environmental effects of replacing the authorized 140 small generator units with three conventional turbine and generator units and concludes that the amendment would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the EA is attached to a Commission order titled “Order Amending License,” issued March 22, 2007 and is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) regulations contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (18 CFR Part 380 [FERC Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897]), the Office of Energy Projects staff (staff) reviewed a proposal to amend the design authorized by the license for the Smithland Hydroelectric Project, to be located the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Smithland Locks and Dam on the Ohio River in Livingston County, Kentucky, and prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed amendment of the project license. In this EA, staff analyzes the potential environmental effects of replacing the authorized 170 small generator units with three conventional turbine and generator units and concludes that the amendment would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the EA is attached to a Commission order titled “Order Amending License”, issued March 22, 2007 and is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. The City of Spearfish filed a request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on February 14, 2007, and provided public notice of this request on February 15, 2007. With this notice, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects approves the City of Spearfish's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with: (a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and (b) the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by Section 106, National Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. By letters dated February 22, 2007, we designated the City of Spearfish as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. The City of Spearfish filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD) with the Commission pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
Register online at
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-2009-094) on any comments or motions filed. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages e-filings.
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
p.
q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers.
p.
q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of Correction to FERC Forms No. 2 and 2-A.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is making corrections to the General Information Instruction for its FERC Form 2-A. to bring them back in accordance with requirements of its regulations and Order No. 581. By this notice, the Commission is requiring the filing of a CPA Certification Statement with the original and each copy of FERC Form No. 2 and 2-A rather than allowing such filings 30 days after the filing of the forms. The Commission is also allowing submittal in a flexible format.
Jeffrey W. Honeycutt, Division of Financial Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20246, (202) 502-6505.
1. In Order No. 581, the Commission revised section 158.11 of the Commission's regulations, Report of Certification,
2. Subsequent to implementing the revisions required by Order No. 581, in the conversion to the current electronic submission format, eForms, the General Information Instruction concerning the CPA Certification Statement requirements was inadvertently changed to allow the certification to be submitted within 30 days after the filing of the FERC Form Nos. 2 or 2-A, and to remove the flexible format.
3. Therefore, to bring the General Information Instruction back into accord with the requirements of the Commission's regulations and Order No. 581, General Information Instruction III to the FERC Form Nos. 2 and 2-A is corrected as follows. The clause allowing for the CPA Certification Statement to be submitted within 30 days after the filing date of the FERC Form Nos. 2 or 2-A is deleted. The clause directing the standardized format of the CPA Certification Statement is also deleted, allowing the independent auditor to use a flexible format as prescribed in Order No. 581. The corrected paragraph, prescribed in Order No. 581, thus will read as follows:
For the CPA certification, submit with the original submission of this form, a letter or report (not applicable to respondents classified as Class C or Class D prior to January 1, 1984) prepared in conformity with current standards of reporting which will: * * *
Finally, we will direct the Secretary to publish this notice in the
By direction of the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 2, 2007.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0418, to (1) EPA online using
Robert C. Marshall, Jr., Office of Compliance, 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-7021; fax number: (202) 564-0050; e-mail address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 21, 2006 (71 FR 35652), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0418, which is available for public viewing online at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
Owners, or operators of miscellaneous coating manufacturing facilities subject to the standard must choose one of the compliance options described in the standard, or install and monitor control systems that reduce HAP emissions to the allowable emission rate. Specifically, owners, or operators are required to install, operate, and maintain a continuous monitoring system (CMS) to demonstrate compliance with the emission limitations, operating limits and equipment operating parameters as specified in the standard. Owners, or operators are required to conduct equipment inspections and equipment leak monitoring to demonstrate compliance.
Miscellaneous coating manufacturing facilities also are subject to the general provisions at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A which apply to all NESHAP subject facilities. These requirements include those associated with the applicability determinations; notifications that the facilities are subject to the rule; notifications of performance tests; notifications of compliance status, including the results of performance tests and design evaluations; and semiannual compliance reports. In addition to the requirements of subpart A, many respondents are required to submit a precompliance report and leak detection and repair reports, and existing facilities that wish to implement emissions averaging provisions must submit an emissions averaging plan.
All reports are to be submitted to the respondent's State, or local agency, or to the EPA regional office, whichever has been delegated enforcement authority by EPA. The information is used to determine whether or not all sources subject to the rule are achieving the emission limitations and work practice standards in the rule.
If the owner, or operator identifies any deviation resulting from a known cause for which no Federally-approved or promulgated exemption from an emission limitation, or work practice standard applies, a compliance report must be submitted that includes all records that the source is required to maintain that pertain to the periods during which such deviation occurred, as well as data regarding: the magnitude of each deviation; the reason for each deviation; a description of the corrective action taken for each deviation, including action taken to minimize each deviation and actions taken to prevent a recurrence; and a copy of all quality assurance activities performed on any monitoring protocol.
Owners, or operators of a miscellaneous coating manufacturing facility must maintain a copy of all monitored equipment operating parameter values that demonstrate compliance with the operating limits in the rule, as well as records of inspections and results of equipment leak monitoring that demonstrate compliance with the work practice standards in the rule. Owners, or operators also are required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of a source, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Those records must be maintained for a minimum of five years. At a minimum, the most recent two years of data must be retained onsite. The remaining three years of data may be retained offsite.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on, or before May 2, 2007.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0444, to (1) EPA online using www.regulation.gov (our preferred method), by e-mail to EPA Docket center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, Mail Code 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
With questions about this ICR, contact Robert Marshall, Air Enforcement Division, Office of Civil Enforcement, Mail Code 2242A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-7021; fax number: (202) 564-0050; e-mail address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 21, 2006, (71
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0444, which is available for public viewing on line at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comments system at
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required under section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to collect data. The information will be used by Agency enforcement personnel to (1) Identify existing sources subject to these standards; (2) ensure that Best Demonstrated Technology is being applied properly; and (3) ensure that the emission control device is being properly operated and maintained on a continuous basis. In addition, records and reports are necessary to enable the EPA to identify those site remediation facilities that may not be in compliance with these standards. Based on reported information, the EPA can decide which facilities should be inspected and what records, or processes should be inspected at the facilities. The records that site remediation facilities maintain would indicate to the EPA whether the personnel are operating and maintaining control equipment properly. The types of data required are principally
An agency may not conduct, or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9. The
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 2, 2007.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0451, to (1) EPA online using
Marcia B. Mia, Office of Compliance, 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-7042; fax number: 202-564-0050; e-mail address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 21, 2006, (See 71 FR 35652) EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0451, which is available for public viewing online at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to NESHAP.
Any owner/operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated State or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional office.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 2, 2007.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0443, to (1) EPA online using
Learia Williams, Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-4113; fax number: (202) 564-0050; e-mail address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 21, 2006 (71
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0443, which is available for online viewing at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements outlined in the rule are similar to those required for other NESHAP regulations. Plants must demonstrate compliance with the emission standards by monitoring their control devices and performing annual emissions testing. This information notifies EPA when a source becomes subject to the regulations, informs the Agency if a source is in compliance, when it begins operation, and informs the Agency if the source remained in compliance during any period of operation.
In the Administrator's judgment, emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from halogenated solvent cleaners may cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, NESHAP standards were promulgated for this source category, as required under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. HAP emissions from halogenated solvent cleaners are the result of inadequate equipment design and work practices.
These standards rely on the proper design and operation of halogenated solvent cleaning machines such as working-mode covers, a freeboard ratio of 1.0, and reduced room draft to reduce solvent emissions from halogenated solvent cleaners. Certain records and reports are necessary to enable EPA to identify sources subject to the standards and to ensure that the standards are being achieved.
Owners/operators of halogenated solvent cleaners must provide EPA with an initial notification of existing or new solvent cleaning machines, initial statements of compliance, and annual control device monitoring report (owners/operators of batch vapor and in-line cleaning machines), an annual solvent emission report (owners/operators of batch vapor and in-line cleaning machines complying with the alternative standard), and exceedance of monitoring parameters or emissions. The records that the facilities maintain indicate to EPA whether they are operating and maintaining the halogenated solvent cleaners properly to control emissions. In order to ensure compliance with the standards promulgated to protect public health, adequate reporting and recordkeeping is necessary. In the absence of such information, enforcement personnel would be unable to determine whether the standards are being met on a continuous basis, as required by the Clean Air Act.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
Since there are no changes in the regulatory requirements and there is no significant industry growth, the labor hours and cost figures in the previous ICR are used in this ICR and there is no change in burden to industry.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is announcing the release of the final brochure entitled,
You may be potentially affected by this action if you conduct automotive repair work. Individuals covered by this action may include those in the professional automotive repair industry, State and local government employees who perform brake and clutch work in States without Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-approved State plans, and people performing do-it-yourself automotive repair. In addition, those involved in the manufacture and/or import of automotive brake and clutch products that may contain asbestos, as well as those involved in regulatory compliance, may be affected by the notice. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit also could be affected. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in 29 CFR 1910.1001, specifically paragraph (f)(3) and Appendix F, or 40 CFR part 763, subpart G. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either technical person listed under
1.
2.
EPA is announcing the release of the final brochure entitled,
Asbestos is the common name given to a number of naturally occurring mineral fibers that are known for their high tensile strength, resistance to heat, and chemical stability. Because of these properties, asbestos has been used in a wide range of manufactured goods, including roofing shingles, ceiling and floor tiles, paper and cement products, textiles, and coatings and friction products such as automobile clutch, brake, and transmission parts. If products containing asbestos are disturbed, thin, lightweight asbestos fibers can be released into the air. Persons breathing the air may then inhale asbestos fibers. Continued exposure can increase the amount of fibers deposited in the lung. Fibers embedded in the lung tissue over time may result in lung diseases such as
During the 60-day comment period beginning on August 24, 2006, EPA received a number of comments on the draft brochure. After considering those comments, EPA has modified the brochure in the following ways:
• EPA has added language to the brochure that explains that asbestos-related disease can take 10 to 40 years or more for symptoms of an asbestos-related condition to appear.
• EPA has incorporated language referring to information resources that are available to consumers, including Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), labels, and information from the product manufacturer, to aid in determining whether brake or clutch components contain asbestos.
• EPA has incorporated information from OSHA’s recent Safety and Health Information Bulletin (SHIB) addressing brake and clutch repair, which notes the difficulty of distinguishing asbestos-containing brake and clutch components from non-asbestos brake and clutch components. A copy of the OSHA SHIB may be found at
• EPA has added a reference to the spray can/solvent method of controlling the spread of brake and clutch dust, since it is an equivalent alternative asbestos control method approved by OSHA under 29 CFR 1910.1001, specifically paragraph (f)(3) and Appendix F.
• EPA included advice similar to OSHA’s advice (in the recent OSHA SHIB) that individuals who perform brake or clutch work change into clean clothes before going inside the home, that they wash soiled clothes separately, and that bystanders, as well as food and drink, be kept out of the work area to minimize exposure to others.
• EPA clarified that employers of professional automotive technicians must ensure that asbestos waste is disposed of properly pursuant to the OSHA regulations and recommended that home mechanics (who are not subject to OSHA regulations) double-bag asbestos waste and dispose of it following appropriate local regulations to minimize exposure.
EPA believes this final brochure provides the public and workers involved in brake and clutch repair work with a simple, easy-to-understand summary of the OSHA work practice standards, which are mandatory for certain professional automotive mechanics, and provides a discussion of the possible health effects associated with asbestos exposure that is sufficient. The brochure is not intended to provide comprehensive technical information regarding work practices, nor is it a comprehensive assessment of the possible health effects that might arise if one is exposed to asbestos in performing brake and clutch repair work. Finally, the brochure is not a substitute for any applicable legal requirements or regulations. Thus, the brochure does not impose legally binding requirements on any party, including EPA, States, or the regulated community. Interested professional mechanics engaged in commercial brake and clutch repair are encouraged to contact OSHA regarding compliance with the mandatory work practice standards highlighted in this brochure (
Environmental protection, Asbestos, Automotive brake and clutch repair, Health.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Background.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act, as per 5 CFR 1320.16, to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board under conditions set forth in 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The following information collections, which are being handled under this delegated authority, have received initial Board approval and are hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collections, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 1, 2007.
You may submit comments, identified by FR 4008, FR 4010, FR 4013, or FR 4014, by any of the following methods:
• Agency Web Site:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• E-mail:
• FAX: 202/452-3819 or 202/452-3102.
• Mail: Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20551.
All public comments are available from the Board's web site at
Additionally, commenters should send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to 202-395-6974.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A copy of the proposed form and instructions, the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statement, and other documents that will be placed into OMB's public docket files once approved may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears below.
Michelle Shore, Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer (202-452-3829), Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202-263-4869), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The FR 4011 is voluntary and is authorized under Sections 4(j) and 4(k) of the BHC Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1843(j) through (k); and sections 225.88, and 225.89, of Regulation Y, 12 CFR 225.88, and 225.89.
The FR 4012 is mandatory and is authorized under Section 4(l)(1) and 4(m) of the BHC Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1843(l)(1) and (m); section 8(a) of the International Banking Act, 12 U.S.C. §
The FR 4017 is required to obtain a benefit and is authorized under Section 9 of the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. § 335; and section 208.76 of Regulation H, 12 CFR 208.76.
The FR 4019 is required to obtain a benefit and is authorized under Section 4(k)(7) of the BHC Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1843(k)(7); and sections 225.171(e)(3), 225.172(b)(4), and 225.173(c)(2) of Regulation Y, 12 CFR 225.171(e)(3), 225.172(b)(4), and 225.173(c)(2).
The FR 4023 is mandatory and is authorized under Section 4(k)(7) of the BHC Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1843(k)(7); and sections 225.171(e)(4) and 225.175 of Regulation Y, 12 CFR 225.171(e)(4) and 225.175.
For the FR 4010, FR 4011, FR 4017, and FR 4019, a company may request confidential treatment of the information contained in these information collections pursuant to section (b)(4) and (b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)(5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(4) and (b)(6)). Since the Federal Reserve does not collect the FR 4023, no issue of confidentiality under the FOIA arises. FOIA will only be implicated if the Board's examiners retained a copy of the records in their examination or supervision of the institution, and would likely be exempt from disclosure pursuant to FOIA (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(8)).
There are no formal reporting forms for these collections of information, which are event generated, though in each case the type of information required to be filed is described in the Board's regulations. These collections of information are required pursuant to amendments made by the GLB Act to the Bank Holding Company Act or the Federal Reserve Act, or Board regulations issued to carry out the GLB Act.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 28, 2007.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 26, 2007.
In connection with this Application, Applicant also has applied to engage in management consulting activities through Banc Support, Inc., Kent, Washington, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(9)(i)(A) of Regulation Y.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 27, 2007.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act
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 27, 2007.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 28, 2007.
Announcement of meeting.
This notice announces the fourth meeting of the American Health Information Community Personalized Healthcare Workgroup in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.)
April 17, 2007, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
Mary C. Switzer, Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20201), Conference Room 4090 (please bring photo ID for entry to a Federal building).
The Workgroup will discuss possible common data standards to incorporate interoperable, clinically useful genetic laboratory test data, family history information, and analytical tooks into Electronic Health Records (EHR) to support clinical decision-making for the health care provider and patient. Instructions to participate via Web cast are posted at
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
Beginning on Thursday, April 12, 2007 (9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) and continuing through Friday, April 13, 2007 (9 a.m.-12:30 p.m.), Dr. Walter Rogan of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences will sponsor a meeting with experts in pediatric endocrinology, psychology, epidemiology, and nutrition to discuss soy estrogens and infant development. The meeting will be held at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
During 2004-05, NIEHS conducted pilot studies to test innovative ethods for studying estrogenic isoflavones in soy formula and their potential ability to act as pharmacologic estrogens in infants by prolonging anatomical and biochemical markers in infants. The results of these studies are becoming available. While the investigators are at the early stage of planning what, if any, steps to take next, they have convened experts in pediatric endocrinology, psychology, epidemiology, nutrition, etc., to offer their individual opinions.
This meeting is open to the public, but is limited by space. Registration is free but required. Please also note that the following security procedures must be followed when visiting the NIEHS:
• The purpose of a visit must be official (registered);
• The visit should be expected and approved by a “host” employee;
• Visitors must show an ID (Driver's license plus one of the following: company ID; government ID or university ID) at the entrance;
• Vehicles may be searched.
Those interested in attending the meeting, or who have questions should contact: Kerry James by e-mail at
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS); National Institutes of Health.
Announcement of a meeting and request for public comment.
CERHR announces the second meeting of the expert panel on bisphenol A on May 21-23, 2007, tentatively planned for the Washington, DC area. The interim draft expert panel report will be posted on the CERHR Web site (
The second CERHR expert panel meeting on bisphenol A will be held May 21-23, 2007. The interim draft expert panel report containing sections 1-4 will be available for public comment by April 20, 2007. Written public comments on the interim draft report must be received by May 14. Time will be set-aside at the expert panel meeting on May 21 for oral public comments. Individuals wishing to make oral public comments are asked to
The location of the second expert panel meeting on bisphenol A is not yet set. Comments on the interim draft expert panel report should be sent to Dr. Michael D. Shelby, CERHR Director, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-32, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 (mail), (919) 316-4511 (fax), or
Dr. Michael D. Shelby, CERHR Director, 919-541-3455,
CERHR convened the first expert panel meeting on March 5-7 in Alexandria, VA to assess the potential reproductive and developmental hazards of bisphenol A. The panel discussed the scientific evidence and made revisions to the draft expert panel report on bisphenol A, but because of the length and complexity of this evaluation, the panel was unable to complete its task (a meeting summary is available at
The expert panel will reconvene on May 21-23, 2007, for a second meeting. The meeting location, which is not yet set, will be posted on the CERHR Web site when finalized along with a schedule for the meeting. The meeting will begin each day at 8:30 a.m. and continue until adjournment. It is expected to adjourn by noon on May 23, although adjournment may occur earlier or later depending upon the time needed for the expert panel to complete its work. The expert panel will (1) continue its review, (2) finalize sections 1-4 of the draft report, (3) reach conclusions regarding whether exposure to bisphenol A is a hazard to human reproduction or development, and (4) write Section 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Critical Data Needs.
At the March meeting, working groups for sections 1-4 of the draft report met periodically to discuss their sections and prepare materials for deliberation by the panel during public plenary sessions. The working groups for Section 3 Developmental Toxicity Data and Section 4 Reproductive Toxicity Data will meet on April 5-6 in Durham, NC to continue discussions not completed at the March meeting. Their edits will be included in the interim draft expert panel report, which will be posted on the CERHR Web site and available for public comment by April 20, and brought before the expert panel during the public plenary sessions at the May 21-23 meeting.
The interim draft report, which will show all edits to date, will be posted on the CERHR Web site by April 20 and serve as the starting point for the panel's discussions at its May meeting.
Bisphenol A (CAS RN: 80-5-07) is a high production volume chemical used in the production of epoxy resins, polyester resins, polysulfone resins, polyacrylate resins, polycarbonate plastics, and flame retardants. Polycarbonate plastics are used in food and drink packaging; resins are used as lacquers to coat metal products such as food cans, bottle tops, and water supply pipes. Some polymers used in dental sealants and tooth coatings contain bisphenol A. Exposure to the general population can occur through direct contact to bisphenol A or by exposure to food or drink that has been in contact with a material containing bisphenol A. CERHR selected this chemical for evaluation because of (1) high production volume, (2) widespread human exposure, (3) evidence of reproductive toxicity in laboratory animal studies, and (4) public concern.
The CERHR invites written public comments on the interim draft expert panel report on bisphenol A. Any comments received will be posted on the CERHR Web site prior to the second meeting and distributed to the expert panel and CERHR staff for their consideration in revising the draft report and/or preparing for the second meeting. Persons submitting written comments are asked to include their name and contact information (affiliation, mailing address, telephone and facsimile numbers, e-mail, and sponsoring organization, if any) and send them to Dr. Shelby (see
Time will be set-aside on May 21, 2007, for the presentation of oral public comments at the expert panel meeting. Seven minutes will be available for each speaker (one speaker per organization). When registering to comment orally, please provide your name, affiliation, mailing address, telephone and facsimile numbers, e-mail and sponsoring organization (if any). If possible, send a copy of the PowerPoint slides, statement, or talking points to Dr. Shelby by May 14. This statement will be provided to the expert panel to assist them in identifying issues for discussion and will be noted in the meeting record. Registration for presentation of oral comments will also be available at the meeting on May 21, 2007, from 7:30-8:30 a.m. Persons registering at the meeting are asked to bring 20 copies of their statement or talking points for distribution to the expert panel and for the record.
NTP established CERHR in June 1998 [
CERHR invites the nomination of agents for review or scientists for its expert registry. Information about CERHR and the nomination process can be obtained from its homepage (
CERHR follows a formal, multi-step process for review and evaluation of selected chemicals. The formal evaluation process was published in the
This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the charter for the Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health (ICSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period through March 20, 2009.
For further information, contact Dana Shelton, Executive Secretary, Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control Prevention, of the Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, NE., M/S K-50, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3717, telephone 770-488-5709 or fax 770-488-5767.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period through March 15, 2009.
For information, contact Kenneth Castro, M.D., Executive Secretary, Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E10, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone 404/639-8000 or fax 404/639-8604.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announces the following meetings of the aforementioned subcommittee and committee.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee.
Requests to make oral presentations should be submitted in writing to the contact person listed below. All requests must contain the name, address, telephone number, and organizational affiliation of the presenter.
Written comments should not exceed five single-spaced typed pages in length and must be received by April 13, 2007.
The agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for KEPIVANCE and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of Patents and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human biological product.
Submit written comments and petitions to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy (HFD-7), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-594-2041.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human biological products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the human biological product becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial complete submission of an application to market the human biological product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human biological product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA recently approved for marketing the human biological product KEPIVANCE (palifermin). KEPIVANCE is indicated to decrease the incidence and duration of severe oral mucositis in patients with hematologic malignancies receiving myelotoxic therapy requiring hematopoietic stem cell support. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for KEPIVANCE (U.S. Patent No. 5,677,278) from Chiron Corp., and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated June 14, 2006, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this human biological product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of KEPIVANCE represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Shortly thereafter, the Patent and Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for KEPIVANCE is 3,303 days. Of this time, 3,119 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 184 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,417 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Comments and petitions should be submitted to the Division of Dockets Management. Three copies of any mailed information are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for RANEXA and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of Patents and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Submit written comments and petitions to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy (HFD-7), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-594-2041.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the human drug product becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA recently approved for marketing the human drug product RANEXA (ranolazine). RANEXA is indicated for treatment of chronic angina. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for RANEXA (U.S. Patent No. 4,567,264) from Roche Palo Alto, L.L.C., and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated September 5, 2006, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of RANEXA represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Shortly thereafter, the Patent and Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for RANEXA is 6,770 days. Of this time, 5,645 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 1,125 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Comments and petitions should be submitted to the Division of Dockets Management. Three copies of any mailed information are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Comments and petitions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following conference: 10th Annual Educational Conference co-sponsored with the Orange County Regulatory Affairs Discussion Group (OCRA). The conference is intended to provide the Drug, Device, and Biologics industries with an opportunity to interact with FDA reviewers and compliance officers from the Centers and District Offices, as well as other industry experts. The main focus of this interactive conference will be product approval, compliance, and risk management in the three medical product areas. Industry speakers, interactive questions and answers, and workshop sessions will also be included to assure open exchange and dialogue on the relevant regulatory issues.
Before May 11, 2007, registrations fees are as follows: $575.00 for members, $625.00 for non-members and $400.00 for FDA/Govt/Students. After May 11, 2007, $625.00 for members, $725.00 for non-members, and $400.00 for FDA/Govt/Students.
OCRA student rate applies to those individuals enrolled in a Regulatory or Quality related academic program at an accredited institution. Proof of enrollment required.
The registration fee will cover actual expenses including refreshments, lunch, materials, parking and speaker expenses. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Linda Hartley at least 10 days in advance.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public hearing; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public hearing to solicit views and information from interested parties concerning the concept of electronic distribution of FDA-approved prescribing information currently contained in the package insert (or PIs) for human prescription drug and biological products. In particular, FDA is seeking views and information on the feasibility of establishing a modern and efficient process for industry to electronically distribute prescribing information to dispensers. We are seeking input on a number of questions regarding the current use of package inserts and those logistical issues associated with electronic distribution of such prescribing information.
Erik Mettler, Office of Policy (HF-11), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-3360,
The procedures governing the hearing are set forth in part 15 (21 CFR part 15) of FDA's regulations. If you wish to make an oral presentation during the hearing, you must submit a written notice of oral presentation with the Division of Dockets Management (see
We will file the hearing schedule indicating the order of presentation and the time allotted to each person with the Division of Dockets Management (see
The PIs with prescribing information accompany prescription drugs to meet the requirement that “labeling on or within the package from which the drug is to be dispensed bears adequate information for its use * * * .” (21 CFR 201.100(c)(1). FDA approves the prescribing information as part of the drug's labeling in the drug application. Currently, the PI containing the prescribing information for the safe and effective use of the product is a paper leaflet. PIs are used in numerous ways by various healthcare entities, including pharmacies that receive and dispense the drug, and provide important drug information for the safe and effective use of the product. Such information includes, among other things, indications, adverse events, warnings and precautions, and dosing instructions. Although the information in the PI is a valuable resource, it is often not readily accessible when a healthcare provider who has not physically received the drug makes a treatment decision or discusses treatments with a patient. Additionally, the PI may not contain the most current information, because the PI accompanying the drug's distribution may have been printed and distributed prior to more recent labeling changes. As the healthcare system advances into the 21st century, we are considering how dissemination of the prescribing information contained in the PI can take advantage of technological advances in the electronic transmission of information.
The purpose of the public hearing is to gain a better understanding of how the prescribing information in a PI is currently used by healthcare entities and what the information needs are as we consider new approaches to disseminating labeling information. We are also interested in getting a better understanding of the logistical processes that are currently in place or that might need to be established in order to electronically disseminate the prescribing information, including the costs of these efforts.
In particular, we would like to hear from manufacturers of drug and biological products, pharmacists and pharmacies, other healthcare providers, wholesalers, consumers, and information providers.
To help achieve the objectives discussed in section III of this document, we are specifically interested in hearing comments on the following questions and any other pertinent information related to the electronic distribution of the prescribing information.
(1) Currently, who uses, and benefits from the prescribing information?
(2) How can electronic distribution and access of the prescribing information be accomplished?
(3) Would electronic distribution and access of the prescribing information improve the public health?
(4) Would electronic distribution and access of prescribing information improve prescribing habits? If so, how?
(5) How might we ensure that changes in the distribution and access of the prescribing information will not negatively affect the current users?
(6) Would an increase in electronic access to prescribing information affect prescribers, pharmacists, and patients? If so, how?
(1) Generally and without focusing on vendor-specific methods, how can electronic distribution of prescribing information be accomplished?
(2) What are the costs associated with the successful implementation of electronic distribution and access to prescribing information, including start-up and maintenance expenses? Please breakdown costs per healthcare sector.
(3) Is the technology and infrastructure currently available to accomplish electronic distribution and access? If so, what is available? If not, what is needed?
(4) What are other potential barriers to accomplishing the electronic prescribing information?
(5) How can we ensure that electronic prescribing information is accessible to those who need the information?
(6) How do we meet the needs of those who do not have electronic capability?
(7) In case of emergency or when a computer system is down, what might be the backup?
(8) How should electronically disseminated prescribing information be regularly updated and remain current?
(9) What are the roles for the involved parties (manufacturers, third-parties, health professionals, FDA, and consumers)?
(10) Should all products have electronic prescribing information or are there some products or classes of products that should continue to have a paper prescribing information accompany the product?
(11) If electronic prescribing information were to be used instead of paper inserts, then how should electronic prescribing information be implemented? Should electronic prescribing information be phased in? If so, over what time period? Which products should use electronic prescribing information first?
The Commissioner of Food and Drugs is announcing that the public hearing will be held in accordance with part 15. The hearing will be conducted by a presiding officer, who will be
Persons who wish to participate in the part 15 hearing must file a written or electronic notice of oral presentation with the Division of Dockets Management (see
Under § 15.30(f), the hearing is informal, and the rules of evidence do not apply. No participant may interrupt the presentation of another participant. Only the presiding officer and panel members may question any person during or at the conclusion of each presentation.
Public hearings under part 15 are subject to FDA's policy and procedures for electronic media coverage of FDA's public administrative proceedings (part 10 (21 CFR part 10, subpart C)). Under § 10.205, representatives of the electronic media may be permitted, subject to certain limitations, to videotape, film, or otherwise record FDA's public administrative proceedings, including presentations by participants.
To the extent that the conditions for the hearing, as described in this document, conflict with any provisions set out in part 15, this document acts as a waiver of those provisions as specified in § 15.30(h).
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
The hearing will be transcribed as stipulated in § 15.30(b). Transcripts of the hearing will be available for review at the Division of Dockets Management (see
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-3804;
1. U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/830,936 filed 14 Jul 2006 (HHS Reference No. E-263-2006/0-US-01).
2. U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/885,101 filed 17 Jan 2007 (HHS Reference No. E-085-2007/0-US-01).
2. PCT Application No. PCT/US2006/044552 filed 20 Nov 2006 (HHS Reference No. E-043-2006/2-PCT-01).
The methods include placing the sample of interest on a surface such as a membrane, and activating the surface at selected sites adjacent to the section of interest. The activated sites become permeable and the cells or cell components adjacent to the permeable sites can then be selectively extracted and their content analyzed by standard biochemical procedures. In addition, the extract may be applied to microarray devices, such as cDNA arrays, for analysis of gene expression etc. The technique presents a convenient alternative to existing methods of tissue microdissection. For further convenience, the technique can be directly combined with a variety of analytical devices such as ELISAs, microarray biochips, or other devices which include multiple regions carrying multiple capture molecules.
2. National Phase Applications in:
a. U.S., Serial No. 10/333,374 filed 10 Jul 2003 (HHS Reference No. E-197-2000/0-US-03).
b. Canada, Serial No. 2415864 filed 14 Mar 2001 (HHS Reference No. E-197-2000/0-CA-04).
c. Europe, Serial No. 01918647.0 filed 14 Mar 2001 (HHS Reference No. E-197-2000/0-EP-05).
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Part M of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority for the Department of Health and Human Services at 71, Number 137, FR 40730-40731, July 18, 2006 is amended to reflect the new functional statements for the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), Division of Services Improvement (DSI), and the Division of State and Community Assistance (DSCA). The restructuring of DSI will ensure that all activities are consolidated within a structure reflective of current Agency priorities, such as health service systems development, program quality improvement, and targeted priority populations. The DSCA role and responsibility will be clarified and made much more relevant to today's performance management environment. This realignment of functions will have a positive impact on organizational effectiveness. The changes are as follows:
The functional statements for the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (MT), Division of Services Improvement (MTB), and the Division of State and Community Assistance (MTE) are replaced with the following:
(1) Develops, plans, implements, and monitors a national treatment capacity expansion and knowledge adoption program designed to improve treatment services for targeted populations served by both the specialty drug treatment system and other systems of care; (2) provides leadership and guidance to CSAT on strategies to improve the quality of drug treatment services delivered nationwide; (3) supports the development and testing of substance abuse performance measures for public and private health plans; (4) collects, analyzes, and disseminates data and information pertaining to public and private financing and expenditures for treatment services; (5) assesses and responds to the identified needs for workforce development among substance abuse treatment and recovery support providers; (6) collaborates on the development of requests for applications and requests for contracts for the national treatment capacity expansion, knowledge adoption, quality and services improvement agenda; (7) monitors grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, interagency agreements, and memoranda of understanding for treatment capacity expansion, knowledge adoption, and quality and services improvement; (8) identifies the need for, develops, and provides technical assistance to grantees, other service providers and systems of care, and others on adoption of evidence-based practices to promote quality and services improvement, capacity expansion, and organization and financing of services; (9) establishes and maintains collaborative relationships with other Federal, State, and local governmental agencies, national organizations, and constituency groups; (10) maintains internal expertise and collaborates with national experts on the science-to-services agenda; and (11) develops funding levels for Division programs and activities.
(1) Administers the Substance Abuse Block Grant Program, including oversight and approval of Block Grant applications and maintenance of effort (MOE) issues; (2) administers the Substance Abuse Treatment National Outcome Measures (NOMs), negotiating quality improvement agreements with States; (3) monitors and ensures State compliance with legislative and regulatory provisions which apply to SAPTBG funds at State and provider levels; (4) provides guidance and technical assistance to States in preparation of State substance abuse plans; (5) conducts performance reviews of State agencies and treatment programs; (6) works closely with data and evaluation to assure proper reporting and data integrity; (7) administers the State Incentive Grant program for co-occurring disorders and the Targeted Capacity Expansion (TCE) grant program for co-occurring disorders and homelessness; (8) works collaboratively with the Division of Services Improvement on performance measurement, GPRA, and HIPAA issues; and (9) serves as focus for State and local performance data analysis and development issues.
All delegations and redelegations of authority to officers and employees of SAMHSA which were in effect immediately prior to the effective date of this reorganization shall continue to be in effect pending further redelegations, providing they are consistent with the reorganization.
These organizational changes are effective:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has submitted the following information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission describes the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (
Comments: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management Budget, Attention: Nathan Lesser, Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/FEMA, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Chief, Records Management, FEMA, 500 C Street, SW., Room 609, Washington, DC 20472, facsimile number (202) 646-3347, or e-mail address
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1687-DR), dated March 3, 2007, and related determinations.
March 26, 2007.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Alabama is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of March 3, 2007: Jefferson County for Individual Assistance.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia (FEMA-1686-DR), dated March 3, 2007, and related determinations.
March 24, 2007.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of March 3, 2007: Dougherty and Worth Counties for Individual Assistance.
Warren County for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance.)
Hancock County for Public Assistance.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa (FEMA-1688-DR), dated March 14, 2007, and related determinations.
March 26, 2007.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of March 14, 2007: Mahaska and Polk Counties for Public Assistance.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (FEMA-1684-DR), dated February 23, 2007, and related determinations.
March 26, 2007.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of February 23, 2007: Schuylkill County for Public Assistance.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces that a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the 39 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges is available. This CCP, prepared pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, describes how the Service intends to manage these 39 Refuges for the next 15 years.
A copy of the CCP may be obtained by writing to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuge Planning, 134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300, Lakewood, CO 80228; or downloaded from
Laura King, Planning Team Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, telephone 701-724-3097; fax 701-724-3683; or e-mail:
The 39 North Dakota Limited-interest National Wildlife Refuges are Appert Lake, Ardoch, Bone Hill, Brumba, Buffalo Lake, Camp Lake, Canfield Lake, Cottonwood Lake, Dakota Lake, Half-way Lake, Hiddenwood, Hobart, Hutchinson Lake, Johnson Lake, Lake George, Lake Otis, Lake Patricia, Lambs Lake, Little Goose, Lords Lake, Lost Lake, Maple River, Pleasant Lake, Pretty Rock, Rabb Lake, Rock Lake, Rose Lake, School Section Lake, Sheyenne Lake, Sibley Lake, Silver Lake, Snyder Lake, Springwater, Stoney Slough, Sunburst Lake, Tomahawk, Willow Lake, Wintering River, and Wood Lake National Wildlife Refuges. Each of these refuges started out in the 1930s as flowage and/or refuge easement lands. This was the era of droughts, depression, and declining waterfowl populations. This flowage and/or refuge easement program (program) was initiated by the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration to address these crises on private lands. Through these easements, the Service acquired the right to control hunting and trapping on the entire easement area, and impound, maintain, and control water levels, and control the uses that occur on that water or other main water bodies (such as rivers and lakes). The landowners of these easement lands retain all other rights including the right to farm, graze, build structures, etc.
An additional status (beyond the existing flowage and/or refuge easements) was added in the late 1930s. Adjoining easement lands were combined and an approved acquisition boundary was designated resulting in 31 new National Wildlife Refuges. These Refuges were established through separate Executive Orders signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt for the purpose of “* * * refuge[s] and breeding ground[s] for migratory birds and other wildlife * * * .” Seven additional Refuges were established in 1948 in the same manner but under the authority of the precursor to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Lake Otis, the remaining refuge, was established in the early 1970s as “* * * an inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds.” Combined, these Refuges encompass 47,296 acres, ranging in size from 160 acres (Half-way Lake) to 5,506 acres (Rock Lake). Although these are National Wildlife Refuges in name, the language in the establishing authorities does not apply unless the lands are acquired by the Service. After 70 years, 99 percent of the lands within the approved acquisition boundaries remain in private ownership; therefore, the original 1930s easement language remains the purpose for the majority of these refuges. Due to this fact, the Service has “limited-interest” in these refuges due to the restrictive management capabilities (as stated above) afforded by the easement.
The Draft CCP and Environmental Assessment (EA) was made available to the public for a 60-day review and comment period following the announcement in the
Under the preferred alternative, the Service will post all boundaries with a unique sign that will identify these refuges as private lands. As part of implementation, compatibility determinations (CD) will be completed for all proposed
The Service is furnishing this notice to advise other agencies and the public of the availability of the Final CCP, to provide information on the desired conditions for the North Dakota Limited-interest Refuges, and to detail how the Service will implement management strategies. Based on the review and evaluation of the information contained in the environmental assessment, the Regional Director has determined that implementation of the Final CCP does not constitute a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Future site-specific proposals discussed in the Final CCP will be addressed in separate planning efforts with full public involvement.
This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on March 27, 2007.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of Reservation Proclamation.
This notice informs the public that the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs proclaimed approximately 63.52 acres, more or less, as the Jena Band of Choctaw Reservation for the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians of Louisiana (Jena Band).
Ben Burshia, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, Mail Stop 4639-MIB, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone (202) 208-7737.
This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by part 209 of the Departmental Manual.
A proclamation was issued, according with section 7 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 986; 25 U.S.C. 467), for the land described below. The land was proclaimed to be the Jena Band of Choctaw Reservation for the exclusive use of Indians on that reservation who are entitled to reside at the reservation by enrollment or tribal membership.
Commencing at a bolt and 3″ iron pipe marking the southeast corner of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter, Section 5, Township 5 North, Range 1 West; said corner also being the POINT OF BEGINNING of the tract to be described; thence proceed North 89 degrees 38 minutes 42 seconds West, bearing assumed, a distance of 1328.33 feet to a
The above described tract contains 40.49 acres, more or less, and is more particularly indicated on Certificate of Survey by William J. Wood, Jr., dated February 8, 2001.
Commencing at a two inch iron pipe at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, Section 10, Township 8 North, Range 3 East, LaSalle Parish, Louisiana, run north 00 degrees 17′40″ west with the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 661.08 feet to a half inch rod and being the POINT OF BEGINNING of the herein described tract; thence continue north 00 degrees 17′40″ west with the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 1058.83 feet to a half inch iron rod; thence run south 83 degrees 30′30″ east a distance of 24.11 feet to a half inch rod; thence run north 00 degrees 15′40″ east a distance of 151.58 feet to the south right-of-way line of U.S. Highway Number 84; thence run with said south right-of-way line of U.S. Highway Number 84, south 83 degrees 30′30″ east a distance of 390.57 feet to a half inch rod in the center line of Andra Drive; thence run with the center line of Andra Drive, south 04 degrees 32′51″ west a distance of 50.82 feet to a half inch iron rod; thence run south 04 degrees 44′11″ west a distance of 50 feet to a half inch iron rod; and thence run south 08 degrees 05′00″ west a distance of 406.97 feet to a half inch iron rod on the north line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence run with the said north line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter south 89 degrees 50′11″ east a distance of 322.95 feet to a half inch iron rod; thence run south 00 degrees 17′42″ east a distance of 659.22 feet to a half inch rod; thence run north 89 degrees 59′43″ west a distance of 668.23 feet back to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Commencing at a railroad steel marking the Southeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 8 North, Range 3 West, LaSalle Parish, Louisiana, run north 01 degrees 54′45″ west with the east line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 469.48 feet a half inch iron rod and the point of beginning of the herein described tract; thence run north 86 degrees 03′09″ west a distance of 477.55 feet to a half inch rod; thence run north 08 degrees 25′31″ east a distance of 309.68 feet to a cotton picker spindle in the center line of U.S. Highway Number 84; thence run with the center line of said Highway Number 84 south 85 degrees 02′38″ east 33.04 feet to a point; thence south 85 degrees 46′04″ east a distance of 89.56 feet to a point; thence south 85 degrees 58′22″ east a distance of 96.08 feet to a point; thence south 86 degrees 06′13″ east a distance of 203.06 feet to a cotton picker spindle on the east line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence run south 01 degrees 54′45″ east with the east line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 309.37 feet back to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Commencing at a cotton picker spindle marking the northwest corner of Section 9, Township 5 North, Range 1 West; thence proceed North 89 degrees 16 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 83.41 feet to a point; thence turn left and proceed South 28 degrees 28 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 789.73 feet to a
The above described tract is more particularly indicated on Certificate of Survey by William J. Wood, Jr., dated September 10, 2003.
From the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 8 North, Range 4 East, run north 00 degrees 17′41″ east a distance of 987.90 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; from the POINT OF BEGINNING run north 00 degrees 37′25″ east a distance of 295.38 feet to a point; thence run south 89 degrees 55′00″ east a distance of 295.11 feet to a point; thence run south 00 degrees 41′34″ west a distance of 294.68 feet to a point; thence run south 89 degrees 56′49″ west a distance of 294.76 feet back to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Commencing at the Northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 8 North, Range 2 East, run south 00 degrees 28′ west a distance of 121.41 feet to a point; thence run south 89 degrees 52′32″ west a distance of 314.66 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; from the POINT OF BEGINNING run south 00 degrees 36′55″ east a distance of 272.90 feet to a point; thence run south 89 degrees 51′08″ west a distance of 205.87 feet to a point; thence run north 00 degrees 38′25″ west a distance of 272.97 feet to a point; thence run north 89 degrees 52′14″ east a distance of 205.99 feet back to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
The above-described lands contain a total of 63.52 acres, more or less, which are subject to all valid rights, reservations, rights-of-way, and easements of record.
This proclamation does not affect title to the land described above, nor does it affect any valid existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities and for railroads and pipelines
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians Liquor Control Ordinance. The Ordinance regulates and controls the possession, sale and consumption of liquor within the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indian's tribal land. The tribal land is located on trust land and this Ordinance allows for the possession and sale of alcoholic beverages within the exterior boundaries. This Ordinance will increase the ability of the tribal government to control the distribution and possession of liquor within their tribal land strengthen the tribal government. At the same time, it will provide an important source of revenue and the improve delivery of tribal services.
Fred Doka Jr., Tribal Operations Officer, Pacific Regional Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825, Telephone (916) 978-6067; or Ralph Gonzales, Office of Tribal Services, 1849 C Street, NW., Mail Stop 4513-MIB, Washington, DC 20240; Telephone (202) 513-7629; Fax (202) 208-5113.
Pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, Public Law 83-277, 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. 1161, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in
This notice is published in accordance with the authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. I certify that this Liquor Control Ordinance of the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians was duly adopted by the Tribal Council on September 13, 2006.
The Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians Liquor Control Ordinance reads as follows:
Section 1.1.
Section 1.2.
Section 1.3.
Section 2.1. As used in this ordinance, the following words shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
Section 2.2. “
Section 2.3. “
Section 2.4. “
Section 2.5. “
Section 2.6. “
Section 2.7. “
Section 2.8. “
Section 2.9. “
Section 2.10. “
Section 2.11. “
Section 2.12. “
Section 2.13. “
Section 2.14. “
Section 2.15. “
Section 2.16. “
Section 2.17. “
Section 2.18. “
Section 2.19. “
Section 3.1.
(a) To publish and enforce the rules and regulations governing the sale, manufacture, and distribution of alcoholic beverages on the Rancheria Land;
(b) To employ managers, accountants, security personnel, inspectors, and such other persons as shall be reasonably necessary to allow the Tribal Council to perform its functions:
(c) To issue licenses permitting the sale or manufacture or distribution of liquor on the Rancheria Land;
(d) To hold hearings on violations of this ordinance or for the issuance or revocation of licenses hereunder;
(e) To bring suit in the appropriate court to enforce this ordinance as necessary;
(f) To determine and seek damages for violation of this ordinance;
(g) To make such reports as it deems necessary to inform Tribal members; and
(h) To collect taxes and fees levied or set by the Tribal Council and to keep accurate records, books, and accounts.
Section 3.2.
Section 3.3.
Section 4.1.
Section 4.2.
Section 4.3.
Section 4.4.
Section 5.1.
(a) Satisfactory proof that the applicant is or will be duly licensed by the State of California.
(b) Satisfactory proof that the applicant is of good character and reputation among the people of the Tribe and that the applicant is financially responsible.
(c) A description of the premises on which the intoxicating beverages are to be sold and proof that the applicant is the owner or lessee of such premises for at least the term of the license.
(d) An agreement by the applicant to accept and abide by all conditions of the Tribal license.
(e) Payment of three hundred fifty dollar ($350.00) fee as prescribed by the Tribal Council.
(f) Satisfactory proof that neither the applicant nor the applicant's spouse has ever been convicted of a felony.
(g) Satisfactory proof that notice of the application has been posted in a prominent, noticeable place on the premises where intoxicating beverages are to be sold for at least thirty (30) days prior to consideration by the Tribal Council, and that the notice has been published at least twice in a local newspaper, authorized by the Tribal Chairperson or Secretary, which serves the community that may be affected by the license. The notice shall state the date, time and place when the application shall be considered by the Tribal Council pursuant to Section 5.2 of this ordinance.
Section 5.2.
(1) Whether the requirements of Section 5.1 have been met; and
(2) Whether the Tribal Council, in its discretion, determines that granting the license is in the best interests of the Tribe.
In the event that the applicant is a member of the Tribal Council, or a member of the immediate family of a
Section 5.3.
Section 5.4.
(a) The license shall be for a term not to exceed one (1) year.
(b) The license shall at all times maintain an orderly, clean and neat establishment, both inside and outside licensed premises.
(c) The State of California shall have jurisdiction over offenses and civil causes of action committed in the licensed premises to the same extent that it has jurisdiction over offenses and civil causes of action committed elsewhere within California, and California criminal laws, and civil laws of general applicability to private persons or private property, shall have the same force and effect on the licensed premises as they have elsewhere in California.
(d) The licensed premises shall be subject to patrol by the Tribal enforcement department, and such other law enforcement officials as may be authorized under federal, California, or Tribal law.
(e) The licensed premises shall be open to inspection by duly authorized Tribal officials at all times during the regular business hours.
(f) Subject to the provisions of subsection (g) of this section, no alcoholic beverages shall be sold, served, disposed of, delivered or consumed on the licensed premises except in conformity with the hours and days prescribed by the laws of the State of California, and the licensed premises shall not operate or open earlier or operate or close later than is permitted by the laws of the State of California.
(g) No liquor shall be sold within two hundred (200) feet of a polling place on Tribal election days or when a referendum is held of the people of the Tribe, or at prescribed locations on special days of observation as designation by the Tribal Council.
(h) All acts and transactions under the authority of the Tribal liquor license shall be in conformity with the laws of the State of California, and shall be in accordance with this ordinance and any Tribal license issued pursuant to this ordinance.
(i) No person under the age permitted under the laws of the State of California shall be sold, served, delivered, given, or allowed to consume alcoholic beverages in the licensed establishment under and/or area.
(j) There shall be no discrimination in any operations under a Tribal license by reason of race, color, or creed.
Section 5.5.
Section 5.6.
Section 6.1.
Section 6.2.
Section 6.3.
Section 6.4.
Section 6.5.
Section 6.6.
Section 6.7.
Section 6.8.
Section 6.9.
Section 6.10.
(1) Driver's license or identification card issued by any state within the United States of America;
(2) United States Active Duty Military Identification card; or
(3) Valid Passport.
Section 6.11.
Section 6.12.
Section 7.1.
Section 7.2.
Section 7.3.
Section 7.4.
Section 7.5.
Section 8.1.
Section 9.1.
Section 9.2.
Section 9.3.
Section 9.4.
Section 10.1. This ordinance may only be amended by a majority vote of the Tribal Council.
Section 11.1. Nothing contained in this ordinance is intended to, nor does it in any way limit, alter, restrict, or waive the Tribe's sovereign immunity from unconsented suit or action.
We, the undersigned duly elected official(s) of the Buena Vista Rancheria, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on September 13, 2006, the foregoing Ordinance was adopted at a duly called meeting of the Tribal Council with a quorum present by a vote of:
Rhonda L. Morningstar Pope, Date: 09/20/2006, Tribal Chairperson.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the Liquor Control Ordinance of the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma (Tribe). The Ordinance regulates and controls the possession, sale and consumption of liquor within the tribal lands of the Tribe. The tribal lands are located in Indian country and this Ordinance allows for possession and sale of alcoholic beverages within their exterior boundaries. This Ordinance will increase the ability of the tribal government to control the community's liquor distribution and possession, and at the same time will provide an important source of revenue for the continued operation and strengthening of the tribal government and the delivery of tribal services.
Charles Head, Tribal Government Services Officer, Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office, 3100 W. Peak Blvd., Muskogee, OK 74402, Telephone: (918) 781-4685, Fax (918) 781-4649; or Ralph Gonzales, Office of Tribal Services, 1849 C Street, NW., Mail Stop 4513-MIB, Washington, DC 20240, Telephone: (202) 513-7629.
Pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, Pub. L. 83-277, 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. 1161, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in
This notice is published in accordance with the authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. I certify that this Liquor Control Ordinance of the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma was duly adopted by the Legislature on October 20, 2006 and properly amended on December 15, 2006.
The Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma Liquor Control Ordinance reads as follows:
Be it enacted by the Tribal Legislature of the Chickasaw Nation assembled, that this Act may be cited as the “Beverage Control Act of 2007” (hereinafter “Act”). This Act is enacted by the Chickasaw Tribal Legislature under the authority of Article VI, Section 1 and Article VII, Section 4 of the Constitution of the Chickasaw Nation, wherein the Legislature is required to prescribe procedures and regulations pertaining to the Chickasaw Nation.
The Legislature finds that:
1. It is necessary to adopt strict controls over the operation of certain beverage sales conducted in Indian Country which is under the jurisdiction of the Chickasaw Nation; and
2. It is necessary to establish legal authority for the Chickasaw Nation, its agents, servants and employees to engage in Alcoholic Beverage sales on tribal lands within the legal boundaries of the Chickasaw Nation, provided that such locations are in compliance with the laws of the State of Oklahoma.
As used in this Act, the following words shall have the following meanings unless the context in which they appear clearly requires otherwise:
1. “
2. “
3. “
4. “
5. “
6. “
7. “
8. “
9. “
10. “
11. “
12. “
13. “
14. “
15. “
16. “
In furtherance of this Act, the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission shall have the following powers and duties:
1. Publish and enforce rules and regulations adopted by the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission governing the sale, distribution and possession of Alcoholic Beverages on Tribal Lands;
2. Employ such persons as shall be reasonably necessary to allow the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission to perform its functions;
3. Issue licenses permitting the sale or distribution of Alcoholic Beverages on Tribal Lands;
4. Hold hearings on violations of this Act or for the issuance of revocation of licenses hereunder;
5. Bring suit in Tribal Court or other appropriate court to enforce this Act as necessary;
6. Determine and seek damages for violation of this Act;
7. Make such reports as may be requested or required by the Governor of the Chickasaw Nation, who may share those reports with the Chickasaw Tribal Legislature;
8. Collect taxes and fees levied or set by the Chickasaw Tribal Legislature and keep accurate records, books and accounts;
9. Adopt procedures which supplement this Act and regulations promulgated by the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission and facilitate their enforcement. Such procedures shall include limitations on sales to minors, places where liquor may be consumed, identity of persons not permitted to purchase alcoholic beverages, hours and days when outlets may be open for business, and other appropriate matters and controls; and
10. Request amendments to this Act to address future changes in the way the Chickasaw Nation sells, distributes or possesses Alcoholic Beverages in order to ensure that this Act remains consistent with state Alcoholic Beverage laws.
The premises on which beverages defined in this Act are sold or distributed shall be open for inspection by the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission and/or its staff at all reasonable times for the purposes of ascertaining compliance with the rules and regulations of the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission and this Act.
A. A person or entity who is licensed by the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission may make retail sales of beverages as defined in this Act in their facility and the patrons of the facility may consume such liquor within any facility, other than a convenience store location. The introduction and possession of beverages as defined in this Act consistent with this Act shall also be allowed. All other purchases and sales of beverages as defined in this Act on Tribal Lands shall be prohibited. Sales of beverages as defined in this Act on Tribal Lands may only be made at businesses that hold a license from the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission.
B. All sales of beverages as defined in this Act on Tribal Lands shall be on a cash only basis and no credit shall be extended to any person, organization or entity, except that this provision does not prevent the payment for purchases with use of credit cards such as Visa, Master Card, American Express, etc.
C. All sales of beverages as defined in this Act shall be for the personal use and consumption of the purchaser. Resale of any beverage as defined in this Act on Tribal Lands is prohibited. Any person who is not licensed pursuant to this Act who purchases beverages as defined in this Act on Tribal Lands and sells it, whether in the original container or not, shall be guilty of a violation of this Act and shall be subjected to paying damages to the Chickasaw Nation as set forth herein.
A. In order to control the proliferation of establishments on Tribal Lands that sell or serve liquor by the bottle or by the drink, all persons or entities that desire to sell beverages as defined in this Act on Tribal Lands must apply to the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission for such a license.
B. Any citizen of the Chickasaw Nation 21 years of age or older, or an enrolled citizen of a federally-recognized tribe 21 years of age or older, other person 21 years of age or older or entity that is owned or controlled by an individual 21 years of age or older may apply to the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission for a license to sell or serve beverages as defined in this Act on Tribal Lands. Any person or entity applying for a license to sell or serve beverages as defined in this Act on Tribal Lands must fill in the application provided for this purpose by the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission and pay such application fee as may be set by the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission. Said application must be filled out completely in order to be considered. A separate application and license will be required for each location where the applicant intends to serve beverages as defined in this Act.
C. The person applying for such license must make a showing once a year, and must satisfy the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission, that he is a person of good character, having never been convicted of violating any of the state Alcoholic Beverage laws or the laws promulgated under this Act; that he has never been convicted of violating any of the gambling laws of Oklahoma, or any other state of the United States, or of this or any other tribe; that he has not had, preceding the date of his application for a license, a felony conviction of any of the laws commonly called prohibition laws; and that he has not had any permit or license to sell any intoxicating liquors revoked in any county of Oklahoma, or any other state, or of any tribe; and that at the time of his application for a license, he is not the holder of a retail liquor dealer's permit or license from the United States government to engage in the sale of beverages as defined in this Act.
D. The Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission shall receive and process applications and related matters. All actions relating to applications by the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission shall be by majority vote. The Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission may, by resolution, authorize one of its members or a member of its staff to issue licenses for the sale of beverages as defined in this Act.
E. Each license shall be issued for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of issuance.
F. A licensee may renew its license if the licensee has complied in full with this Act; provided, however, that the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission may refuse to renew a license if it finds that doing so would not be in the best interests of health and safety of the residents of the Chickasaw Nation.
G. The Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission may suspend or revoke a license due to one or more violations of this Act upon notice and hearing at which the licensee is given an opportunity to respond to any charges against it and to demonstrate why the license should not be suspended or revoked.
H. Within 15 days after a licensee is mailed written notice of a proposed suspension or revocation of the license, of the imposition of fines or of other adverse action proposed by the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission under this Act, the licensee may deliver to the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission a written request for a hearing on whether the proposed action should be taken. A hearing on the issues shall be held before a person or persons appointed by the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission and a written decision will be issued. Such decisions will be considered final unless an appeal is filed in accordance with Title 5, Chapter 2, Article G of the Chickasaw Nation Code. All proceedings conducted under all sections of this Act shall be in accord with due process of law.
I. Licenses issued by the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission shall not be transferable and may only be used by the person or entity in whose name it is issued.
A. As a condition precedent to the conduct of any operations pursuant to a license issued by the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission, the licensee must obtain from the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission such licenses, permits, tax stamps, tags, receipts or other documents or things evidencing receipt of any license or payment of any tax or fee administered by the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission or otherwise showing compliance with the tax laws of the Chickasaw Nation.
B. In addition to any other remedies provided in this Act, the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission may suspend or revoke any licenses issued by it upon the failure of the licensee to comply with the obligations imposed upon the licensee by the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission, by the Chickasaw Nation, or any rule, regulation or order of the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission.
A. In any proceeding under this Act, conviction of one unlawful sale or distribution of beverages as defined in this Act shall establish prima facie intent of unlawfully keeping, selling, or distributing beverages as defined in this Act in violation of this Act.
B. Any person who shall in any manner sell or offer for sale or distribution or transport beverages as defined in this Act in violation of this Act shall be subject to civil damages assessed by the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission.
C. Any person within the boundaries of Tribal Lands who buys beverages as defined in this Act from any person other than a properly licensed facility shall be guilty of a violation of this Act.
D. Any person who keeps or possesses beverages as defined in this Act upon his person or in any place or on premises conducted or maintained by his principal or agent with the intent to sell or distribute it contrary to the provisions of this Act, shall be guilty of a violation of this Act.
E. Any person who knowingly sells beverages as defined in this Act to a person who is obviously intoxicated or appears to be intoxicated shall be guilty of a violation of this Act.
F. Any person engaged wholly or in part in the business of carrying passengers for hire, and every agent, servant or employee of such person, who shall knowingly permit any person to drink beverages as defined in this Act in any public conveyance shall be guilty of an offense. Any person who shall drink beverages as defined in this chapter in a public conveyance shall be guilty of a violation of this Act.
G. No person under the age of twenty-one (21) years shall consume, acquire or have in his possession any beverages as defined in this Act. No person shall permit any other person under the age of twenty-one (21) years to consume beverages as defined in this Act on his premises or any premises under his control. Any person violating this prohibition shall be guilty of a separate violation of this Act for each and every drink so consumed.
H. Any person who shall sell or provide any beverages as defined in this Act to any person under the age of twenty-one (21) years shall be guilty of a violation of this Act for each and every sale or drink provided.
I. Any person who transfers in any manner an identification of age to a person under the age of twenty-one (21) years for the purpose of permitting such person to obtain beverages as defined in this Act shall be guilty of an offense; provided, that corroborative testimony of a witness other than the underage person shall be a requirement of finding a violation of this Act.
J. Any person who attempts to purchase beverages as defined in this Act through the use of false or altered identification that falsely purports to show the individual to be over the age of twenty-one (21) years shall be guilty of violating this Act.
K. Any person who is convicted or pleads guilty to a violation of this Act shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one (1) year, a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) or a combination of both penalties. In addition, if such person holds a license issued by the Chickasaw Tax Commission, the license shall be revoked.
L. When requested by the provider of beverages as defined in this Act any person shall be required to present official documentation of the bearer's age, signature and photograph. Official documentation includes one of the following:
1. Driver's license or identification card issued by any state department of motor vehicles;
2. United States Active Duty Military Identification card;
3. Tribally-issued identification card; or
4. Passport.
M. The consumption of beverages as defined in this Act on premises where such consumption or possession is contrary to the terms of this Act will result in a declaration that such beverages as defined in this Act are contraband. Any tribal agent, employee or officer who is authorized by the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission shall seize all contraband and preserve it in accordance with provisions established for the preservation of impounded property. Upon being found in violation of this Act, the party owning or in control of the premises where contraband is found shall forfeit all right, title and interest in the items seized which shall become the property of the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission.
A. Any room, house, building, vehicle, structure or other place where beverages as defined in this Act are sold, manufactured, bartered, exchanged, given away, furnished or otherwise disposed of in violation of the provisions of this Act or of any other tribal statute or law relating to the manufacture, importation, transportation, possession, distribution and sale of beverages as defined in this Act and all property kept in and used in maintaining such place, is hereby declared a nuisance.
B. The chairman of the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission, or if the chairman fails or refuses to do so, the Chickasaw Nation Tax Commission, by a majority vote, shall institute and maintain an action in the Tribal Court in the name of the Chickasaw Nation to abate and perpetually enjoin any nuisance declared under this Section. In addition to the other remedies at tribal law, the Tribal Court may also order the room, house, building, vehicle, structure or place closed for a period of one year or until the owner, lessee, tenant or occupant thereof shall give bond or sufficient sum from $1,000 to $15,000, depending upon the severity of past offenses, the risk of offenses in the future, and any other appropriate criteria, payable to the Chickasaw Nation and conditioned that beverages as defined in this Act will not be thereafter kept, sold, bartered, exchanged, given away, furnished or otherwise disposed of in violation of the provisions of this Act or of any other applicable tribal laws. If any conditions of the bond are violated, the bond may be applied to satisfy any amounts due to the Chickasaw Nation under this Act.
A. If any provision under this Act is determined by court review to be invalid, such determination shall not be held to render ineffectual the remaining portions of this Act or to render such provisions inapplicable to other persons or circumstances.
B. Once it has been signed into law by the Governor, this Act shall be effective on such date as the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior certifies this Act and publishes the same in the
C. Any and all previous statutes, laws and ordinances of the Chickasaw Nation Code which are inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed and rescinded. Specifically repealed is Title 3, Chapter 2, Sections 3-201 through 3-215 as they existed before passage of this, the Beverage Control Act of 2007.
Nothing in this Act may be construed to diminish or impair in any way the rights or sovereign powers of the Chickasaw Nation or its tribal government other than the due process provision at Section 3-201.7.H which provides that licensees whose licenses have been revoked or suspended may seek review of that decision in Tribal Court.
All definitions relating to the sale, purchase, or consumption of Alcohol found in the Beverage Control Act of 2007 and are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully stated herein.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person under twenty-one (21) years of age to either:
1. Consume or possess with the intent to consume beverages as defined in the Beverage Control Act of 2007; or
2. Purchase or attempt to purchase beverages as defined in the Beverage Control Act of 2007, except under supervision of law enforcement officers.
B. Possession, Purchase, or Consumption by Person Under Twenty-One (21) Years of Age shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00), by imprisonment for not more than three (3) months, or both.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, serve, or otherwise supply, or attempt to sell, serve, or otherwise supply beverages as defined in the Beverage Control Act of 2007 to any person under twenty-one (21) years of age.
B. Any person performing a Prohibited Sale to Person Under Twenty-One (21) Years of Age shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one (1) year, a fine not to exceed Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or a combination of both penalties. In addition, if such person holds a license issued by the Chickasaw Tax Commission, the license may be revoked or other civil action may be taken pursuant to the Beverage Control Act of 2007.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of approved Tribal-State Compact.
This notice publishes approval of the Tribal-State Compact between the State of Oklahoma and Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma.
George T. Skibine, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.
Under Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice; Correction.
The Bureau of Land Management published a document in the
Andrew J. Senti, BLM Colorado State Office, 303-239-3713.
In the
Sec. 4, the sixth and seventh lines should read “a metes and bounds parcel within lot 1 and the NW
Sec. 15, the ninth and tenth lines should read “a metes and bounds parcel within the SW
National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Winter Use Plans, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service announces the availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Winter Use Plans, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway, Wyoming.
The National Park Service will accept comments on the Draft
Information will be available for public review and comment online at
Debbie VanDePolder, P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, WY, 82190, 307-344-2019,
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods. You may mail comments to Winter Use Plan, P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, WY, 82190. You may also comment via the Internet at
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before March 17, 2007.
Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR Part 60 written comments concerning the significance of these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., Room 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, Washington DC, 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by April 17, 2007.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; correction.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture, Laboratory of Anthropology, Museum of New Mexico, New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs, Santa Fe, NM. The human remains were removed from Torrance County, NM.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture, Laboratory of Anthropology and Department of Cultural Affairs professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santo Domingo, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma; Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
This notice is an addition of a minimum of 33 individuals from sites LA 95 (Quarai site) and LA 97 (Abo site), which were previously described in a Notice of Inventory Completion published in the
In 2004, the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture, Laboratory of Anthropology and Department of Cultural Affairs found human remains representing a minimum of five individuals from site LA 97 (Abo site), Torrance County, NM, in their collection. The human remains had been removed in 1944-1945, and 1958, during legally authorized excavations conducted by the Museum of New Mexico. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Based on archeological context, the human remains have been identified as Native American. Based on material culture and architectural features, site LA 97 (Abo site) is dated to the Pueblo IV through the early historic period (1300 A.D.-1680 A.D.).
In 2006, the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture, Laboratory of Anthropology and Department of Cultural Affairs found human remains representing a minimum 28 individuals from site LA 95 (Quarai site), Torrance County, NM, in their collection. The human remains had been removed in 1935-1936 and 1939-1940, during legally authorized excavations conducted as part of a multi-year stabilization project sponsored variously by the Museum of New Mexico, School of American Research, and Works Progress Administration. An additional undetermined number of individuals were recovered during the same time, some of which are curated by the Smithsonian Institution, and some of which are missing. The human remains found in the collections have not been identified as part of those individuals that were previously reported missing. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Based on archeological context, the human remains have been identified as Native American. Based on material culture, architectural features, and documentary evidence, site LA 95 (Quarai site) is dated to the Pueblo III to Pueblo IV and through Spanish Contact/Colonial (1100 A.D.-1680 A.D.).
The determination of material dates is based on archeological context and the cultural chronology for this region. Both sites are classified as Ancestral Puebloan and the human remains from these sites were recovered from cultural deposits containing ceramics that are materially and stylistically consistent with objects known to Southwestern archeologists as Ancestral Puebloan. Historical evidence also records these sites as trade centers, which enjoyed frequent contact with non-Puebloan tribes. Descendants of Ancestral Puebloan are members of the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santo Domingo, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico; as well as the
Officials of the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture, Laboratory of Anthropology, Department of Cultural Affairs have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of 33 individuals of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture, Laboratory of Anthropology, Department of Cultural Affairs also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santo Domingo, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico; as well as the Piro-Manso-Tiwa Indian group, a non-federally recognized Indian group.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Dr. Shelby J. Tisdale, Director, Museum of Indian Arts and Culture, Laboratory of Anthropology, P.O. Box 2087, Santa Fe, NM 87504, telephone (505) 476-1251, before May 2, 2007. Repatriation of the human remains to the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santo Domingo, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
Officials of the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture, Laboratory of Anthropology are responsible for notifying the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santo Domingo, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma; Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas; Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico; and Piro-Manso-Tiwa Indian group, a non-federally recognized Indian group.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; correction.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items in the possession of the Southwest Museum of the American Indian, Autry National Center, Los Angeles, CA, that meet the definitions of “sacred objects” and “objects of cultural patrimony” under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
This notice corrects a previously published Notice of Intent to Repatriate by increasing the number of cultural items listed from 55 to 56 cultural items, as the original notice omitted one
In the
The third paragraph is corrected by substituting the following paragraph:
The 56 cultural items are 42 pieces of
Paragraphs 9 and 10 are corrected by substituting the following paragraphs:
On December 3, 1935, the Southwest Museum purchased four
The first of the four
Paragraphs 20 to 23 are also corrected by substituting the following:
Consultation and physical inspection of the cultural items described above by knowledgeable Western Apache traditional cultural authorities of the San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; and Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona have identified the cultural items as culturally affiliated with Western Apache Indian tribes. According to the traditional cultural authorities, the cultural items have ongoing historical, traditional, and cultural importance to the Western Apache, and today, must be returned to the tribes representing the Western Apache to fully complete the ceremonial cycle into which they were
According to Western Apache traditional cultural authorities, the 56 cultural items are made and handled according to instructions received from the Creator. The Creator is the only One who has the right to possess the cultural items after their use by humans. The cultural items must be put away properly to return them to the Creator; as such, the cultural items are sacred objects. The Western Apache are represented today by the federally recognized San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; and Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona. These four tribes are members of the Western Apache NAGPRA Working Group.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the objects of cultural patrimony/sacred objects should contact Dr. Duane H. King, Executive Director, or LaLena Lewark, Senior NAGPRA Coordinator, Southwest Museum of the American Indian, Autry National Center, 234 Museum Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90065, telephone (323) 221-2164 extension 241, before May 2, 2007. Repatriation of the objects of cultural patrimony/sacred objects to the San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; and Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
Southwest Museum is responsible for notifying the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; and Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum (Burke Museum), University of Washington, Seattle, WA. The human remains were removed from Chelan County, WA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Burke Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington and Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington.
Sometime before 1948, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from Stehekin in Chelan County, WA, by Harold Wheeler. In 1948, the human remains were loaned to the Burke Museum by Mr. Wheeler (Burke Accn. #3512). No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The human remains were previously determined to not be Native American. After further review based on osteological information, the preponderance of the evidence identifies the human remains as Native American.
According to early and late ethnographic documentation, the Stehekin area was occupied by the Chelan tribe and is their aboriginal land (Miller 1998; Ray 1936; Ruby and Brown 1986; and Spier 1936). Information provided during consultation by representatives of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington confirms that the Chelan tribe traditionally occupied the Stehekin area. Descendants of the Chelan Tribe are members of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington.
Officials of the Burke Museum have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Burke Museum also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Dr. Peter Lape, Burke Museum, University of Washington, Box 353010, Seattle, WA 98195-3010, telephone (206) 685-2282, before May 2, 2007. Repatriation of the human remains to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
The Burke Museum is responsible for notifying the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington and Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the University of Colorado Museum, Boulder, CO. The human remains were removed from southeastern Colorado.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by University of Colorado Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma and Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana.
On an unknown date, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from Mud Creek, a branch of the Purgatoire River in southeastern Colorado in or near Bent County, CO, by a soldier named Lance. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Information recorded on the human remains indicates that in 1866 or 1869, a party of Cheyenne Indians was hunting in a small canyon on Mud Creek and they were ambushed by a party of Ute Indians. Several of the Cheyenne Indians were killed. The bodies were buried near the creek, and some years later, flood waters cut back the bank and exposed some of the skeletons. Lance, a soldier stationed nearby, collected a cranium. The cranium was given to his friend, David J. Burnett. On June 17, 1962, Mr. Burnett's daughter, Mrs. Ethel Burnett Zeigler, donated the cranium to the University of Colorado Museum (Catalog number 99410).
Based on the morphology of the teeth and cranium, the human remains represent a Native American adult male. Based on museum records, the human remains are Cheyenne. Descendants of the Cheyenne are members of the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma and Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana.
Officials of the University of Colorado Museum have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry. Officials of the University of Colorado Museum also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma and Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Steve Lekson, Curator of Anthropology, University of Colorado Museum, Henderson Building, Campus Box 218, Boulder, CO 80309-0218, telephone (303) 492-6671, before May 2, 2007. Repatriation of the human remains to the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma and Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
The University of Colorado Museum is responsible for notifying the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma and Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate a cultural item in the possession of the University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS that meets the definitions of “sacred object” and “object of cultural patrimony” under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the cultural item. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
The cultural item is a woven basket. The University of Kansas acquired the basket from an unknown donor in 1917. Representatives of the Yurok Tribe of the Yurok Reservation, California identified the cultural item as a ceremonial basket used in the Wo-neek-wo-ley-go (Jump Dance). Tribal representatives also indicated that Yurok law prohibits the sale of such ceremonial items.
Officials of the University of Kansas have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(C), the cultural item described above is a specific ceremonial object needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents. Officials of the University of Kansas also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(D), the cultural item described above has ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual. Lastly, officials of the University of Kansas have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the sacred object/object of cultural patrimony and the Yurok Tribe of the Yurok Reservation, California.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the sacred object/object of cultural patrimony should contact Thomas Foor, NAGPRA Coordinator, ARCC, University of Kansas, Spooner Hall, 1340 Jayhawk Blvd., Room 5B, Lawrence, KS 66045-7500, telephone (785) 766-5476, before May 2, 2007. Repatriation of the sacred object/object of cultural patrimony to the Yurok Tribe of the Yurok Reservation, California may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
The University of Kansas is responsible for notifying the Yurok Tribe of the Yurok Reservation, California that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains in the possession of the University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA. The human remains were removed from San Joaquin County, CA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the University of the Pacific, Department of Biological Sciences faculty in consultation with a representative of the Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California.
Sometime in the 1950s, human remains representing a minimum of 10 individuals were removed by unknown persons from a site on the north bank of Calaveras Creek on the Stockton campus of the University of the Pacific, Stockton, San Joaquin County, CA. The human remains were given to the faculty of what is now the Department of Biological Sciences. The Department of Biological Sciences has maintained sole possession continuously since that time. The human remains were found in storage in September 2006. No known individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
The human remains are Native American based on dental morphology. During consultation, a tribal representative of the Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California, confirmed that the provenience of the human remains is consistent with that of other discoveries of Native American human remains in the area. The site from which the human remains were removed is known to be the location of Native American burial grounds used by people of both the Miwok and Yokut tribes, and is listed as a burial site in the book
Officials of the University of the Pacific have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001
(9-10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of 10 individuals of Native American ancestry. Officials of the University of the Pacific also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California and Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California.
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Michael Capurso, University of the Pacific, Gladys L. Benerd School of Education, 3601 Pacific Avenue, Stockton, CA 95211, telephone (209) 946-2287, before May 2, 2007. Repatriation of the human remains to the Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California and Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
The University of the Pacific is responsible for notifying the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Table Mountain Rancheria of California; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California; and United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California that this notice has been published.
United States International Trade Commission.
Institution of five-year reviews concerning the antidumping duty orders on silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on silicomanganese from India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission;
April 2, 2007.
Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) The
(6) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are reminded that they are required, pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15, to seek Commission approval if the matter in which they are seeking to appear was pending in any manner or form during their Commission employment. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is the “same particular matter” as the underlying original investigation for purposes of 19 CFR 201.15 and 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees. Former employees may seek informal advice from Commission ethics officials with respect to this and the related issue of whether the employee's participation was “personal and substantial.” However, any informal consultation will not relieve former employees of the obligation to seek approval to appear from the Commission under its rule 201.15. For ethics advice, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202-205-3088.
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address if available) and name, telephone number, fax number, and E-mail address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in these reviews by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping duty orders on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) The quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(c) The quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) The quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(10) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(11) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Tuesday, April 24, 2007, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Central Daylight Time.
Johnson Space Center, 2101 NASA Road 1, Robert H. Gilruth Recreation Center, Lone Star Room (R216), Houston, TX 77058.
Mr. Mark M. Kowaleski, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Executive Director, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-0751.
The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel will hold its Quarterly Meeting. This discussion is pursuant to carrying out its statutory duties for which the Panel reviews, identifies, evaluates, and advises on those program activities, systems, procedures, and management activities that can contribute to program risk. Priority is given to those programs that involve the safety of human flight. The agenda will include Safety Organization and Management; Technical Governance; Major Contractor Safety; Constellation Program Safety; and Commercial Orbital Transportation Services Safety. The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room (50).
Seating will be on a first-come basis. Please contact the ASAP Office at (202) 358-0914 at least 48 hours in advance to reserve a seat. Visitors will be requested to sign a visitor's register. Photographs will only be permitted during the first 10 minutes of the meeting. During the first 30 minutes of the meeting, members of the public may make a 5-minute verbal presentation to the Panel on the subject of safety in NASA. To do so, please contact Ms. Susan Burch on (202) 358-0914 at least 24 hours in advance. Any member of the public is permitted to file a written statement with the Panel at the time of the meeting. Verbal presentations and written comments should be limited to the subject of safety in NASA.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of April 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, May 7, 2007.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of April 2, 2007.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of April 9, 2007.
This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of April 23, 2007.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of April 30, 2007.
This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address—
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)—(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415-1662.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at
This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to
On December 5, 2006, the American Stock Exchange, LLC (“Amex”), the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE”),
Section 19(g)(1) of the Act,
Section 17(d)(1) of the Act was intended, in part, to eliminate unnecessary multiple examinations and regulatory duplication.
To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules: Rule 17d-1 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
Rule 17d-1 deals only with an SRO's obligations to enforce broker-dealers' compliance with the financial responsibility requirements. Rule 17d-1 does not relieve an SRO from its obligation to examine a common member for compliance with its own rules and provisions of the federal securities laws governing matters other than financial responsibility, including sales practices, and trading activities and practices.
To address regulatory duplication in these other areas, on October 28, 1976, the Commission adopted Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
On September 8, 1983, the Commission approved the SRO participants' plan for allocating regulatory responsibilities pursuant to Rule 17d-2.
The plan reduces regulatory duplication for a large number of firms currently members of two or more of the SRO participants by allocating regulatory responsibility for certain options-related sales practice matters to one of the SRO participants. Generally, under the current plan, the SRO participant responsible for conducting options-related sales practice examinations of a firm, and investigating options-related customer complaints and terminations for cause of associated persons of that firm, is known as the firm's “Designated Options Examining Authority” (“DOEA”). Pursuant to the current plan, any other SRO of which the firm is a member is relieved of these responsibilities during the period the firm is assigned to a DOEA.
The purpose of the amended plan is to: (i) Provide that NASD and NYSE will be DOEAs under the plan, (ii) provide that the Designated Examination Authority pursuant to Commission Rule 17d-1 under the Act for a broker-dealer that is a member of more than one SRO participant (but not a member of the NASD or the NYSE) shall perform the regulatory responsibility under the agreement as if such DEA were the DOEA, (iii) to incorporate a more formal procedure for updating the list of common rules, and (iv) make certain other changes to the plan. The amended plan replaces the previous plan in its entirety.
The Commission finds that the amended plan is consistent with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act
This order gives effect to the amended plan submitted to the Commission that is contained in File No. S7-966. The SRO participants shall notify all members affected by the amended plan of their rights and obligations under the amended plan.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Sections 17(d)
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 Exchanges propose to amend their respective rules pertaining to the Intermarket Options Linkage (“Linkage”) to conform such rules to Joint Amendment No. 22
In its filing with the Commission, each Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, its 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 Exchanges have prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchanges propose to reduce certain “turn-around” times in the Linkage to 5 seconds. Specifically, if a member
The Exchanges believe the proposed rule changes are consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to national securities exchanges and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchanges believe that the proposed rule changes would impose no burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchanges have neither solicited nor received comments on these proposals.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule changes are 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 Numbers SR-Amex-2007-21; SR-BSE-2007-07; SR-CBOE-2007-13; SR-ISE-2007-12; SR-NYSEArca-2007-28; SR-Phlx-2007-21. These file numbers 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 consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule changes, as amended, are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, applicable to national securities exchanges.
The Commission also finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the proposed rule changes (SR-Amex-2007-21 and SR-CBOE-2007-13) and proposed rule changes (SR-BSE-2007-07; SR-ISE-2007-12; SR-NYSEArca-2007-28; and SR-Phlx-2007-21), as amended, are hereby approved on an accelerated basis.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 154-AEMI and 154-AEMI One to extend its rule regarding specialist commissions. The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange recently adopted Rule 154(b) setting forth the circumstances under which specialists may charge members and member organizations a commission for executing orders in equities.
The Exchange now proposes to adopt subparagraph (k) to Rule 154-AEMI and to Rule 154-AEMI One to: (1) Extend the application of the prohibitions on specialist commissions to Exchange Traded Fund Shares (“ETFs”) and equities trading on the AEMI System; (2) expand the prohibition on specialist commissions to market at the close orders and limit at the close orders; and (3) specify that specialist commissions can only be charged for orders that are executed and not for orders that are cancelled or expire unexecuted. Thus proposed Rules 154-AEMI (k) and 154-AEMI One (k) would prohibit specialists from charging a commission for orders or portions of orders that have not been executed. This includes but is not limited to, a prohibition on specialists charging for order cancellations and orders that expire due to the passage of time.
In general, “routine” orders are not subject to specialist commissions while orders that require special handling or for which the specialist provides a service may be subject to a commission. Thus, proposed Rules 154-AEMI (k) and 154-AEMI One (k) (consistent with the recently adopted Rule 154(b)) will provide that specialists may (but are not required to) bill for: (i) Limit orders that remain on the book for more than two minutes; (ii) tick sensitive orders (
Specialist commissions increase the cost of doing business on the Exchange. These increased costs weaken the Exchange's competitive position relative to other markets as other markets do not need to compete as aggressively with the Exchange to cut their prices to investors. The Exchange consequently believes that the proposed rule would benefit investors if implemented and would strengthen the Exchange's competitive position.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b)
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve such proposed rule change; or
B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 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 BSE proposes to amend the Boston Equities Exchange (“BeX”) fee schedule to include a smart order routing fee to be charged to BSE Members where a third-party broker-dealer serves as the “give-up” on an away Trading Center when the Member on whose behalf the order is being routed is not also a member of the away Trading Center. The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On November 20, 2006, the BSE filed File No. SR-BSE-2006-44, a rule filing that amended the existing BSE fee schedule and established a fee schedule for the BeX, a facility of the Exchange. File No. SR-BSE-2006-44 resulted in, among other things, the deletion of all Transaction Fees, Electronic File Access and Processing Fees, and Floor Operation Fees from the BSE fee schedule. The Transaction Fees and Electronic File Access and Processing Fees that were deleted from the BSE fee schedule were transferred to the BeX fee schedule. In addition to the transfer of existing fees from the BSE fee schedule
As described in Chapter XXXVIII, Section 3 of the Exchange's Rules, the Exchange will route orders to other Trading Center under certain circumstances (“Routing Services”). The Exchange provides its Routing Services pursuant to the terms of three separate agreements: (1) An agreement between the Exchange and each Member on whose behalf orders will be routed (“Member-Exchange Agreement”); (2) an agreement between the Exchange and each third-party broker-dealer that will serve as a “give-up” on an away Trading Center when the Member on whose behalf an order is routed is not also a member or subscriber of the away Trading Center (“Give-Up Agreement”); and (3) an agreement between the Exchange and a third-party service provider (“Technology Provider”) pursuant to which the Exchange licenses the routing technology used by the Exchange for its Routing Services (“Exchange-Technology Provider Agreement”).
The new smart order routing fee being added to the BeX fee schedule relates to the second scenario set forth above, where a third-party broker-dealer serves as the “give-up” on an away Trading Center when the Member on whose behalf the order is being routed is not also a member of the away Trading Center. The new fee is called the “Smart order routing using BeX provided give-up” fee and the charge is $0.0050 per 100 shares.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change 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.
The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2007-13. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 13, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
CBOE proposes to amend its rules to allow a DPM to operate remotely away from CBOE's trading floor. DPMs are member organizations that function in option classes allocated to them as Market-Makers, and also are subject to the obligations under Rule 8.85 or as otherwise provided in CBOE's Rules. Currently, all DPMs operate on CBOE's trading floor. However, some member organizations have expressed an interest in acting as DPM remotely away from CBOE's trading floor. As discussed below, the proposed rule change is intended to provide DPMs with the flexibility to operate on CBOE's trading floor (“On-Floor DPM”) or remotely away from CBOE's trading floor (“Off-Floor DPM”). A DPM would only be permitted to operate as an Off-Floor DPM in equity option classes traded on the Hybrid Trading System.
CBOE proposes to amend Rule 8.83 to provide that in selecting an applicant for approval as a DPM, the appropriate exchange committee may place one or more conditions on the approval, including, but not limited to, whether the DPM will operate on-floor or off-floor. Additionally, CBOE proposes to amend Rule 8.83 to provide that an On-Floor DPM can request that the appropriate Exchange committee authorize it to operate as an Off-Floor DPM in one or more equity option classes traded on the Hybrid Trading System. The appropriate Exchange committee will consider the factors specified in Rule 8.83(b) in determining whether to permit an On-Floor DPM to operate as an Off-Floor DPM. In the event a DPM is approved to operate as an Off-Floor DPM, Rule 8.83 provides that the Off-Floor DPM can have a DPM Designee trade in open outcry in the option classes allocated to the Off-Floor DPM, but the Off-Floor DPM shall not receive a participation entitlement under Rule 8.87 with respect to orders represented in open outcry. CBOE also proposes to amend Rule 6.45A(a)(C) and Rule 6.74 to make clear that the DPM participation entitlement is only applicable to an On-Floor DPM.
As provided in new Interpretation .01 to Rule 8.83, if an Off-Floor DPM wishes to operate as an On-Floor DPM, the Off-Floor DPM can request that the appropriate Exchange Committee authorize it to do so. In making a determination pursuant to this Interpretation, the appropriate Exchange committee would evaluate whether the change is in the best interests of the Exchange, and the committee may consider any information that it believes will be of assistance to it. Factors to be considered may include, but are not limited to, any one or more of the following: Performance, operational capacity of the Exchange or the DPM, efficiency, number and experience of personnel of the DPM who will be performing functions related to the trading of the applicable securities, number of securities involved, number of Market-Makers affected, and trading volume of the securities.
In connection with this rule change, CBOE proposes to amend certain DPM obligations contained in Rule 8.85. In particular, CBOE proposes to amend the obligation contained in subparagraph (a)(iv), which currently provides that the DPM must assure that the number of DPM Designees and support personnel continuously present at the trading station throughout every business day is not less than the minimum required by the appropriate Exchange committee. CBOE proposes to amend subparagraph (a)(iv) to state that an Off-Floor DPM similarly shall assure that the number of DPM Designees and support personnel continuously overseeing the DPM's activities is not less than the minimum required by the appropriate Exchange committee. Additionally, an Off-Floor DPM shall provide members with telephone access to a DPM Designee at all times during market hours for purposes of resolving problems involving trading on the Exchange.
CBOE also proposes to amend subparagraph (a)(v) of Rule 8.85, which states that a DPM shall trade in all securities allocated to the DPM only in the capacity of a DPM and not in any other capacity. CBOE proposes to allow, as part of an existing pilot program applicable to e-DPMs,
Finally, CBOE proposes to amend Interpretation .02 of Rule 3.8 to allow an Off-Floor DPM to appoint one individual to be the nominee for all memberships utilized by the organization in an Off-Floor DPM capacity. Interpretation .02 of Rule 3.8 currently provides that a member organization can appoint one individual to be the nominee for all memberships utilized by the organization in an RMM capacity or an e-DPM capacity. This is an exception to the general requirement of Rule 3.8(a)(ii) which provides that “if a member organization is the owner or lessee of more than one membership, the organization must designate a different individual to be the nominee for each of the memberships.”
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to
In addition, the Commission believes that a Market Maker must have an affirmative obligation to hold itself out as willing to buy and sell options for its own account on a regular or continuous basis to justify receiving market maker margin. The Commission believes that CBOE's rules impose such affirmative obligations on DPMs that choose to operate remotely and notes that, under the proposal, a DPM acting from a remote location would still be required to meet the obligations of a DPM set forth in CBOE Rule 8.85.
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.
FR Doc. E7-5423, issued on March 26, 2007 on page 14145, regarding Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-55491, incorrectly cited the date of the release as March 19, 2006. The date should read March 19, 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 the securities of Delta Financial Corporation using the three-character symbol “DFC.”
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Historically, securities listed on Nasdaq have traded using four or five character symbols.
Nasdaq believes that the changes to its systems to accommodate one-, two-, and three-character symbols will promote competition among exchanges and enhance the strength of the U.S. capital
Nasdaq now proposes to allow one company, Delta Financial Corporation, to keep its current symbol, DFC, when it transfers from Amex to Nasdaq on March 22, 2007.
Given the foregoing, Nasdaq believes that market participants were provided adequate notice of this change and are prepared to accommodate the trading of this company using the symbol DFC. Further, Nasdaq believes that any change to the symbol will cause confusion among investors and market participants. As such, Nasdaq proposes to begin trading the common stock of Delta Financial Corporation on Nasdaq using the symbol DFC on March 22, 2007. While this filing relates to the transfer of this issuer, Nasdaq states that it remains committed to working with the Commission and other markets to establish an equitable and transparent symbol assignment plan.
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change 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-2007-025. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
NASD proposes to adopt a new NASD Rule 7000E Series relating to fees and credits for the NASD/NYSE Trade Reporting Facility (“NASD/NYSE TRF”). The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On February 1, 2007, NASD filed for immediate effectiveness a proposed rule change relating to the establishment of the NASD/NYSE TRF.
NASD is proposing that under new Rule 7002E there will be no transaction fee for reporting locked-in trades to the NASD/NYSE TRF in securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange (“Tape A”), the American Stock Exchange (“Tape B”), and the Nasdaq Exchange (“Tape C”). Although NASD is not required to file a proposed rule change where no fees are to be assessed, for members' convenience and to avoid potential confusion with the fee structures of other NASD facilities, NASD is proposing Rule 7002E to clarify that there will be no charge for use of the NASD/NYSE TRF to report locked-in transactions in exchange-listed securities effected otherwise than on an exchange. The text of proposed Rule 7002E is identical to the text of current Rule 7002C relating to the NASD/NSX Trade Reporting Facility (“NASD/NSX TRF”) and Rule 7002D relating to the NASD/BSE Trade Reporting Facility (“NASD/BSE TRF”).
In addition, NASD is proposing a transaction credit program under new Rule 7001E that is identical to the existing transaction credit program for the NASD/NSX TRF under Rule 7001C. NASD members reporting trades in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C stocks to the NASD/NYSE TRF will receive a 50% pro rata credit on gross market data revenue earned by the NASD/NYSE TRF with respect to those trade reports. Credits will be paid on a quarterly basis. To the extent that market data revenue is subject to any adjustment, credits may be adjusted accordingly.
Tape A and Tape B revenue is currently distributed to NASD and the exchanges based on number of trades reported, while Tape C revenue is distributed based on an average of the number of trades and number of shares reported. Thus, under the proposed program, the Tape A and Tape B revenue attributable to a member will be based on number of trades reported, while the Tape C revenue attributable to a member would be based on number of trades and number of shares reported. A member will receive 50% of the gross revenue attributable to it in each of the three tapes. “Gross revenue” is the revenue received by the NASD/NYSE TRF from the three tape associations after the tape associations deduct allocated support costs and unincorporated business costs.
NASD filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. NASD proposes to implement the proposed rule change on the first day of operation of the NASD/NYSE TRF, which is currently anticipated to be in April 2007.
NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A of the Act,
NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii) Impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii) Become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
NASD has asked that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay set forth in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under 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)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
NFA, on February 26, 2007, submitted the proposed rule change to the CFTC for approval. The CFTC approved the proposed rule change on March 12, 2007.
Section 15A(k) of the Act
NFA Compliance Rule 2-10 currently requires FCM Members to maintain their books and records in an office located in either the U.S. or a jurisdiction that the CFTC has determined to have a comparable regulatory scheme for purposes of the CFTC's Part 30 regulation.
In its filing with the Commission, NFA has prepared statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change, burdens on competition, and comments received from members, participants, and others. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NFA has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In November 2005, NFA's Board adopted amendments to NFA Compliance Rule 2-10 to require FCMs to maintain their books and records in an office located in either the U.S. or a Part 30 jurisdiction (if the firm is subject to the Part 30 regulatory scheme).
This creates several potential problems. First, the rule allows the firm's principals to supervise the office from a remote location. Without a principal on the premise to oversee the office's day-to-day recordkeeping activities, the firm is less likely to discover potential problems quickly. Second, there may be no one in the office who is subject to NFA's disciplinary jurisdiction. Although the firm's AP principals may ultimately be responsible for the firm's books and records violations, their distance from the office could dilute their sense of accountability as well as the accountability of those in the office.
The lack of a resident principal also means that NFA Compliance staff may not have ready access to someone who can answer questions during an audit or investigation. Although Compliance Rule 2-10 requires all Members to have an individual who is authorized to act on the Member's behalf, is fluent in English, and is knowledgeable about the Member's business and about financial matters, the absence of a resident AP principal can be problematic when NFA is seeking information from an FCM.
Accordingly, NFA amends Compliance Rule 2-10(b) to require that an FCM's books and records be kept in a U.S. or Part 30 office that is under the supervision of an AP principal resident in that office. As is currently the case, a firm could only use an office in a Part 30 jurisdiction if the firm is actually subject to regulation in that jurisdiction.
The rule change is authorized by, and consistent with, Section 15A(k) of the Act.
The rule change will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act and the Commodity Exchange Act.
NFA did not publish the rule change to the membership for comment. NFA did not receive comment letters concerning the rule change.
NFA, on February 26, 2007, submitted the proposed amendments to NFA Compliance Rule 2-10 to the CFTC for approval. The CFTC approved the proposed rule change on March 12, 2007.
Within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the proposed rule change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC, may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change and require that the proposed rule change be refiled in accordance with the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) 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 Exchange is proposing various amendments to its fees for transactions executed through National Securities Trading System (“NSTS”), the Exchange's legacy trading system, so that this fee schedule will correspond more closely to the existing fees for transactions executed through NSX BLADE, the Exchange's new trading platform. These amendments involve proposed changes to old NSX Rule 11.10(A) (which is applicable to NSTS transactions), and the associated NSTS Fee Schedule. The Exchange is also proposing corresponding changes to its Fee Schedule applicable to transactions under the Intermarket Trading System Plan and/or the Plan for the purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Communications Linkage (“ITS Plans”) for transactions executed through the ITS Plans (“ITS Transactions”). The text of the proposed rule change is available at NSX, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
In its filing with the Commission, NSX 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. NSX has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange has created a new state of the art trading platform, known as NSX BLADE, which utilizes a strict price/time priority system as the ultimate replacement for NSTS. The Exchange is in the midst of phasing in NSX BLADE. NSX BLADE was launched on October 23, 2006. As of the date of the initial filing of this proposed rule change, all Tape “C” securities have been phased into NSX BLADE from NSTS, and the Exchange plans to transition all Tape “A” and Tape “B” securities from NSTS to NSX BLADE in the near future.
During this transitional period of phasing in various securities to NSX BLADE, the Exchange will be operating both NSTS and NSX BLADE. Until such securities are phased into NSX BLADE, Tape “A” and “B” securities will continue to be traded via NSTS.
During this transitional period of phasing in various securities to NSX BLADE, the Exchange is operating both NSTS and NSX BLADE. Accordingly, the Exchange is operating under two sets of rules during this phase-in period. All transactions in NSTS are operating under the rules pertaining to NSTS (old Rule 11.9 (National Securities Trading System) and old Rule 11.10 (National Securities Trading System Fees) and any associated Fee Schedule) while all transactions in NSX BLADE are operating under the NSX BLADE trading rules approved in SR-NSX-2006-03 and the new fee rules in Chapter XVI of the Exchange Rules. When the phase-in is complete and NSTS is no longer operational, old Rules 11.9 and 11.10 (and any associated NSTS Fee Schedule) will be extinguished. The Exchange has issued a Notice to ETP Holders to advise them of the different trading systems and rules and fees applicable to each,
In the instant rule filing, the Exchange is proposing amendments to old Rule 11.10(A) and the associated NSTS Fee Schedule relating to transactions in Tape “A” and “B” securities on NSTS, and is proposing corresponding amendments to its Fee Schedule for ITS Transactions. As amended, old Rule 11.10(A) and the associated NSTS Fee Schedule would provide for an execution fee of $0.0030 per share for removing liquidity from NSTS (in other words, a charge for taking liquidity against an order in NSTS), and a rebate of $0.0030 per share executed for adding liquidity into NSTS (in other words, a rebate for the addition of liquidity to NSTS, provided that it results in an execution through NSTS). Thus, ETP Holders taking liquidity against an order in NSTS will be charged a fee of $0.0030 per share executed, and ETP Holders providing liquidity into NSTS will be paid a rebate of $0.0030 per share executed. In connection with this rule change, language is also proposed to be added to the NSTS Fee Schedule stating that with respect to ITS Transactions executed through NSTS, the Exchange will pay the applicable liquidity provider rebate only after it receives payment of the liquidity taker fee applicable to the execution.
This liquidity taker fee and liquidity provider rebate are proposed to replace the current transaction fees applicable to transactions in Tape “A” and “B” securities on NSTS. Currently, old Rule 11.10(A) provides for a variety of fees for executions in Tape “A” securities, and the NSTS Fee Schedule provides for
The liquidity taker fee and liquidity provider rebate described above are contained in the NSTS Fee Schedule. The NSTS Fee Schedule supplements the fees and rebates contained in old NSX Rule 11.10. If the NSTS Fee Schedule does not contravene any fees stated in old NSX Rule 11.10, the ETP Holder effecting a transaction via NSTS will be charged the fees noted in old NSX Rule 11.10.
Changes are also being proposed to the Fee Schedule for ITS Transactions, to provide for a corresponding $0.0030 per share liquidity taker fee for ITS Transactions executed through NSTS. Thus ETP Holders taking liquidity will be charged under the NSTS Fee Schedule, and executions through an ITS Plan will be charged under the Fee Schedule for ITS Transactions (although the rates of the two execution fees are identical). The Exchange bills non-ETP Holders using the facilities of the Exchange for ITS Transactions under the Fee Schedule for ITS Transactions.
Pursuant to NSX Rule 16.1(c), the Exchange will “provide ETP Holders with notice of all relevant dues, fees, assessments and charges of the Exchange.” ETP Holders and others, including self-regulatory organizations that are the subject of exchange-to-exchange billing, using the Exchange will be advised of these fees through the Exchange's Web site. In addition, ETP Holders will, simultaneously with this filing, be notified through the issuance of a Regulatory Circular of the changes to the Fee Schedules applicable to transactions through NSTS and the ITS Plans.
The fees have been designed in this manner in order to ensure that the Exchange can continue to fulfill its obligations under the Act.
NSX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 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 purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change 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.
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 proposing to amend old NSX Rule 11.10(A)(1), which is applicable to transactions through the Exchange's legacy trading system, National Securities Trading System (“NSTS”), to provide for a rebate program for Tape A securities that is equivalent to the Exchange's current Tape A rebate program applicable to transactions executed through the Exchange's new trading system, NSX BLADE. This proposed Tape A rebate program is also equivalent to the Exchange's current Tape B and Tape C rebate programs applicable to NSTS an NSX BLADE transactions.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at NSX,
In its filing with the Commission, NSX 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. NSX has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
NSX proposes to amend old Exchange Rule 11.10(A)(1), which is applicable to transactions through NSTS, to provide for a rebate program for Tape A securities that is equivalent to the Exchange's current Tape A rebate program applicable to transactions executed through NSX BLADE. This proposed Tape A rebate program is also equivalent to the Exchange's current Tape B and Tape C rebate programs applicable to NSTS and NSX BLADE transactions.
The Exchange has created a new trading platform, known as NSX BLADE, which uses a strict price/time priority system as the ultimate replacement for NSTS. The Exchange is in the midst of phasing in NSX BLADE. NSX BLADE was launched on October 23, 2006. As of the date of the initial filing of this proposed rule change, all Tape C securities have been phased into NSX BLADE from NSTS, and the Exchange plans to transition all Tape A and Tape B securities from NSTS to NSX BLADE in the near future.
During this transitional period of phasing in various securities to NSX BLADE, the exchange will be operating both NSTS and NSX BLADE. Until such securities are phased into NSX BLADE, Tape A and Tape B securities will continue to be traded via NSTS.
During this transitional period of phasing in various securities to NSX BLADE, the Exchange is operating both NSTS and NSX BLADE. Accordingly, the Exchange is operating under two sets of rules during the phase-in period. All transactions in the NSTS System are operating under the rules pertaining to NSTS (old Exchange Rule 11.9 (National Securities Trading System) and old Exchange Rule 11.10 (National Securities Trading System Fees) and any associated Fee Schedule) while all transactions in NSX BLADE are operating under the NSX BLADE trading rules approved in SR-NSX-2006-03
Additionally, the Exchange currently offers rebate programs for Tape A, B and C transactions executed through NSX BLADE, each consisting of a 50 percent transaction credit on revenues generated by transactions executed through NSX BLADE in Tape A, B or C securities, respectively. Old Rule 11.10(A)(1), which is applicable to transactions executed through NSTS, currently provides for equivalent 50 percent Tape B and C rebate programs for transactions executed through NSTS. Under each of the Exchange's current rebate programs, the credit is allocable to ETP Holders on a pro rata basis based upon Tape A, B or C revenue generated by an ETP Holder's transactions on NSX BLADE or NSTS, as applicable.
With the instant proposed rule change, the Exchange is proposing to adopt a rebate program for NSTS transactions in Tape A securities that is equivalent to the Exchange's current Tape A rebate program applicable to NSX BLADE transactions. As with the Exchange's other tape rebate programs, this proposed Tape A rebate program will provide a 50 percent transaction credit on revenues generated by transactions executed through NSTS in Tape A securities, and will be allocable to ETP Holders on a pro rata basis based upon the Tape A revenue generated by such ETP Holder's transactions on NSTS. The Exchange believes that there
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it lowers the cost of trading and market data to broker-dealers and the investing public, and because it enhances competition in the trading of Tape A securities.
NSX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Act,
NSX does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any inappropriate burden on competition.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii) Impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii) Become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has asked that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay contained in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under 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 submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2007-02. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is proposing changes to its fees for transactions priced at less than $1.00 per share that are executed through NSX BLADE, the Exchange's new trading platform. These changes are being proposed in order to comply with Rule 610(c) of Regulation NMS under the Act. The Exchange is also proposing corresponding changes to its Fee Schedule applicable to transactions under the Intermarket Trading System Plan and/or the Plan for the purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Communications Linkage (“ITS Plans”) for transactions executed through the ITS Plans (“ITS Transactions”). The text of the proposed rule change is available at NSX, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
In its filing with the Commission, NSX 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. NSX has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange has created a new state of the art trading platform, known as NSX BLADE, which utilizes a strict price/time priority system as the ultimate replacement for the Exchange's legacy system, National Securities Trading System (“NSTS”). Pursuant to Exchange Rule 16.1(a), the Exchange maintains a Fee Schedule that contains its current fees, dues and other charges applicable to transactions in NSX BLADE (“NSX BLADE Fee Schedule”).
Currently, the NSX BLADE Fee Schedule provides for an execution fee of $0.0030 per share for removing liquidity from NSX BLADE (in other words, a charge for taking liquidity against an order in NSX BLADE), and a rebate of $0.0030 per share executed for adding liquidity into NSX BLADE (in other words, a rebate for the addition of liquidity to NSX BLADE, provided that it results in an execution through NSX BLADE). Thus, ETP Holders taking liquidity against an order in NSX BLADE are currently charged a fee of $0.0030 per share executed, and ETP Holders providing liquidity into NSX BLADE are currently paid a rebate of $0.0030 per share executed.
Rule 610(c)(2) of Regulation NMS
In addition, changes are being proposed to the Fee Schedule for ITS Transactions, to provide for a corresponding 0.3% per share liquidity taker fee for ITS Transactions executed through NSX BLADE that are priced at less than $1.00 per share. ETP Holders taking liquidity from NSX BLADE will be charged under the NSX BLADE Fee Schedule, and executions on NSX BLADE through an ITS Plan will be charged under the Fee Schedule for ITS Transactions (although the rates of the two execution fees are identical). The Exchange bills non-ETP Holders using the facilities of the Exchange for ITS Transactions under the Fee Schedule for ITS Transactions.
In connection with this rule change, language is also proposed to be added to the NSX BLADE Fee Schedule stating that with respect to ITS Transactions executed through NSX BLADE, the Exchange will pay the applicable liquidity provider rebate ($0.0030 per share or 0.3% per share, depending on the execution price) only after it receives payment of the liquidity taker fee applicable to the execution.
Pursuant to NSX Rule 16.1(c), the Exchange will “provide ETP Holders with notice of all relevant dues, fees, assessments and charges of the Exchange.” ETP Holders and others, including self-regulatory organizations that are the subject of exchange-to-exchange billing, using the Exchange will be advised of these fees through the Exchange's website. In addition, ETP Holders will, simultaneously with this filing, be notified through the issuance of a Regulatory Circular of the changes to the Fee Schedules applicable to transactions through NSX BLADE and the ITS Plans.
The fees have been designed in this manner in order to ensure that the Exchange can continue to fulfill its obligations under the Act.
NSX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 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 purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change 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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Listed Company Manual (the “Manual”) to exempt limited partnerships from the obligation to obtain shareholder approval under the circumstances set forth in Sections 312.03(b), (c), and (d) for the issuance of common stock and securities convertible into or exchangeable for common stock.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The NYSE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to exempt limited partnerships from the obligation to obtain shareholder approval under the circumstances set forth in Manual Sections 312.03(b), (c), and (d) for the issuance of common stock and securities convertible into or exchangeable for common stock.
Subject to certain exceptions specified therein, Manual Sections 312.03(b), (c), and (d) require listed issuers to obtain shareholder approval prior to the issuance of common stock or securities convertible into or exchangeable for common stock in any transaction or series of related transactions in the following situations:
• Where the potential dilution exceeds either one percent of the number of shares of common stock or one percent of the voting power outstanding before the issuance to: (a) a director, officer or substantial security holder of the company (each a “Related Party”); (b) a subsidiary, affiliate or other closely-related person of a Related Party; or (c) any company or entity in which a Related Party has a substantial direct or indirect interest.
• If the Related Party involved in a transaction covered by the preceding bullet is classified as such solely because such person is a substantial security holder, and if the issuance relates to a sale of stock for cash at a price at least as great as each of the book and market value of the issuer's common stock, then shareholder approval will not be required unless the number of shares of common stock to be issued, or unless the number of shares of common stock into which the securities may be convertible or exercisable, exceeds either five percent of the number of shares of common stock or five percent of the voting power outstanding before the issuance.
• If: (a) the common stock has, or will have upon issuance, voting power equal to or in
• If the issuance will result in a change of control of the issuer.
The policy underlying these requirements is that shareholders should have the right to vote on any issuance of common stock that is materially dilutive of either their voting or economic interest in the company. Nasdaq has similar shareholder approval requirements to those of the NYSE. However, Nasdaq exempts limited partnerships (“LPs”) from those requirements,
The Exchange believes that an analysis of the policies regarding voting and economic dilution underpinning its shareholder approval requirements demonstrates that it is appropriate to exempt LPs from their application. Listed LPs generally provide very limited voting rights to their unit holders. Typically, control of the LP resides with the general partner (“GP”) and the LP's board is that of the GP. The owner of the GP appoints the board and the common unit holders of the LP have no voting rights with respect to the election of directors. LP partnership agreements generally provide that LP unit holders can vote only on a merger or dissolution of the LP or on any amendment to the partnership agreement that is adverse to their interests. As such, the Exchange believes that investors who buy LP units have no expectation that they will be able to vote and, therefore, the policy that shareholders should be able to vote on any stock issuances that are materially dilutive of their voting power is of less relevance to LPs than to regular corporations. Furthermore, because LP unit holders generally do not have the right to elect directors, most LPs do not hold annual meetings. Therefore, it would not be possible for an LP to arrange for shareholder approval to be obtained in conjunction with an annual meeting, as would be possible for a regular company. Rather, an LP would have to call a special meeting every time it needed approval of an issuance pursuant to the shareholder approval rules.
The Exchange also believes that the economic dilution concerns underpinning the shareholder approval rules are also less relevant in the case of LPs. Listed LPs typically are required under their partnership agreements to distribute almost all of their earnings to their unit holders and specify a minimum quarterly distribution that the LP is required to make. As such, LPs will only invest in new assets if they know that those assets will be sufficiently accretive to earnings to pay the minimum quarterly distribution required for the additional units that are sold to raise the capital to pay for those assets. A failure to pay the minimum quarterly distribution, or a reduction in the actual distribution level historically paid, would likely have a negative effect on the trading price of a listed LP, imposing a market discipline on management to ensure that any additional issuances will not be economically dilutive.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
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 were neither solicited nor received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-28. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The NYSE proposes to amend NYSE Rule 123D(3) to establish that any orders received by the NYSE in a security subject to a “Sub-penny Trading” condition will be routed to NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) and handled in accordance with the rules governing that market. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Recently, the Exchange amended NYSE Rule 123D to add subsection (3),
Pursuant to NYSE Rule 123D(3), whenever a security trading on the Exchange is reported on the consolidated tape during normal trading hours as having traded at a price of $1.05 or less, or if a security would open on the Exchange at a price of $1.05 or less, trading in the security on the Exchange shall be immediately halted due to a “Sub-penny Trading” condition. Once halted for such reason, trading shall not resume on the Exchange until the security has traded on another automated trading center as defined in Commission Rule 600(b)(4)
The purpose of this filing is to amend NYSE Rule 123D(3) to reflect that orders entered with the Exchange in a security subject to a “Sub-penny Trading”
In addition, NYSE Rule 123D(3) is amended to reflect that the Exchange will cancel any open limit orders in the Display Book system with respect to securities that become subject to a “Sub-penny Trading” condition halt.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-30. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 24, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Under the proposed rule change, the current flat $5,000 Listing Fee for each series of ICUs will be broadened to also apply to each series of streetTRACKS® Gold Shares and each issue of Currency Trust Shares and Commodity Trust Shares. Further, the Listing and Annual Fees for ICUs, streetTRACKS® Gold
In addition, the annual fee charged for ICUs, Currency Trust Shares, Commodity Trust Shares and streetTRACKS® Gold Shares by the Exchange is currently a flat amount. Under the proposed rule change, this fee will be tiered based on the number of shares outstanding for each issue at the end of the preceding calendar quarter and will be billed on a quarterly basis.
The Commission has reviewed carefully the proposed rule change and finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
NYSE Arca proposes to update and amend its rules concerning order types by incorporating the order type definitions of NYSE Arca Rule 6.62A into a revised NYSE Arca Rule 6.62. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NYSE Arca has substantially prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to incorporate the order definitions contained in NYSE Arca Rule 6.62A into a revised NYSE Arca Rule 6.62. Presently, Rule 6.62 defines certain order types applicable under the PCX Plus System, which is obsolete, while Rule 6.62A defines certain order types applicable under the current OX Trading System. Many of these rules overlap and actually apply to both systems, while some portions are obsolete. Revising the two rules will eliminate obsolete references and redundancies.
In September 2006, NYSE Arca introduced the OX Trading System (“OX”), a new automated options trading platform. OX replaced the Exchange's legacy system, PCX Plus. In conjunction with the introduction of OX, the Exchange filed, and received approval for, a new rule set applicable to the new system.
Order types that are contained in Rule 6.62, designated as PCX Plus rules, may also be applicable under the OX system. Other order types that are presently designated as PCX Plus rules, may also be applicable in open outcry trading. The Exchange proposes to combine all order types from Rule 6.62 and Rule 6.62A into one rule. Revised Rule 6.62 will now contain all defined order types for options that trade on NYSE Arca and Rule 6.62A will be deleted in its entirety. In rule text where either “PCX Plus” or “OX” has been used, the Exchange proposes to replace such designation with “NYSE Arca” or “Exchange.” The Exchange also proposes removing the “PCX Plus” designation from the title of Rule 6.62. A more detailed description of proposed
• Rule 6.62(b) will include text taken from Rule 6.62A(b) related to “marketable” limit orders and will also contain new subsection (1) defining Inside Limit Orders. This definition is presently Rule 6.62A(c).
• Rule 6.62(c) Contingency Orders. This rule will also cover Working Order types, presently defined in Rule 6.62A(e), including definitions for Stop Orders and Stop Limit Orders.
• Rule 6.62(h) Combination Orders. New subsection (1)-(2) will be added defining Stock/option Orders and Single Stock Future (“SSF”)/Option Order. These definitions are presently contained in subsection (j)(1)-(2).
• Rule 6.62(k)-(r) are taken from Rule 6.62A(d) and (f)-(k).
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would 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 written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the 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 after the date of filing (or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest), the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in the 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.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-26. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P., 160 Bovet Road, Suite 300, San Mateo, CA 94402, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection
The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because Emergence Capital Partners, L.P., and Emergence Capital Associates, L.P., all Associates of Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P., own more than ten percent of DVDPlay, and therefore DVDPlay is considered an Associate of Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P., as detailed in § 107.50 of the Regulations.
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces a public meeting of the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to discuss transport airplane and engine (TAE) issues.
The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17, 2007 starting at 11 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Arrange for oral presentations by April 9, 2007.
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW., Room 810 Washington, DC 20591.
Nicanor Davidson, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-207, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267-5174, FAX (202) 267-5075, or e-mail at
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. app. III), notice is given of an ARAC meeting to be held via teleconference on April 17, 2007. The meeting is being held to vote on the Task 3 report from the Airworthiness Assurance Working Group (AAWG). This ad hoc meeting is necessary because this action from the AAWG is a critical part of FAA's effort to develop new guidance to support the Aging Airplane Safety Final Rule (AASFR).
The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
• Opening Remarks
• AAWG Report and Vote
Attendance is open to the public, but will be limited to the availability of phone lines. Please confirm your attendance with the person listed in the
For persons participating, the call-in number is (202) 366-3920; the Passcode is “8489.” To insure that sufficient telephone lines are available, please notify the person listed in the
The public must make arrangements by April 9, 2007, to present oral statements at the meeting. Written statements may be presented to the ARAC at any time by providing 25 copies to the person listed in the
If you need assistance or require a reasonable accommodation for the meeting or meeting documents, please contact the person listed in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice; request for information.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR describes a proposed collection activity and its expected cost and burden. The
Please send your comments by May 2, 2007. OMB must receive your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.
You may submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, Physical Qualifications Division, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone: 202-366-4001, e-mail
FMCSA estimates that there are approximately four to five million active interstate drivers subject to FMCSA's medical standards. Interstate CMV drivers are required to have a medical examination every two years at a minimum or more frequently at the discretion of the medical examiner. A medical certificate is typically valid for two years after the date of examination, so it is estimated that a minimum of two to three million medical examinations are conducted each year. In the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144; August 10, 2005) Congress supports comprehensive improvements in the FMCSA medical program, including improving the quality of the interstate CMV driver physical qualification examination. There has been no research to date that captures the decisionmaking and performance of medical examiners who determine the physical qualifications of CMV drivers operating throughout the United States. In addition, there has been no systematic consideration of medical examiner perceptions of difficulties or uncertainties associated with the examination process.
A Working Integrated Product Team (WIPT) of medical examiner peers experienced in conducting CMV driver physical qualification examinations will review the methodology and materials for the study, and data gained from 150 direct observations of physical examinations of CMV drivers. Results of the Medical Examiner Performance Study would ultimately be used to develop recommendations for improving the overall physical qualification process and achieve FMCSA's goals of reducing crash rates, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses.
This initiative is separate from the earlier National Registry of Certified Medical Examiner survey announced on September 29, 2005 (70 FR 56964), the primary intent of which is to identify those tasks most critical to competent job performance via a role delineation study.
Research & Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) this notice announces that the Information Collection Request, abstracted below, is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget for extension of currently approved Report of Passengers Denied Confirmed Space. Earlier, a
Written comments should be submitted by May 2, 2007.
Bernie Stankus, Office of Airline Information, RTS-42, Room 4125, RITA, BTS, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone Number (202) 366-4387, Fax Number (202) 366-3383 or e-mail
The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires a statistical agency to clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes. BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the information it collects under this OMB approval for non-statistical purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both Respondent's identity and its data, submission of the information to agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in regulatory and other administrative matters.
The Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Company (CNOTP), a wholly owned subsidiary of Norfolk Southern Railway Company, has filed a notice of exemption
CNOTP has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) no overhead traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years and overhead traffic, if there were any, could be rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a State or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (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 May 2, 2007, unless stayed pending reconsideration.
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to CNOTP's representative: James R. Paschall, Senior General Attorney, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Three Commercial Place, Norfolk, VA 23510.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
CNOTP has filed environmental and historic reports which address the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. SEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by April 6, 2007. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to SEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by
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), CNOTP 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 CNOTP's filing of a notice of consummation by April 2, 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, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the names of sixty-five newly-designated individuals and forty-five newly designated entities whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, “Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers.”
The designation by the Secretary of the Treasury of the sixty-five individuals and forty-five entities identified in this notice pursuant to Executive Order 12978 is effective on March 28, 2007.
Assistant Director, Compliance Outreach & Implementation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, tel.: 202/622-2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
On October 21, 1995, the President, invoking the authority,
Section 1 of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, or that hereafter come within the United States or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, of: (1) The persons listed in an Annex to the Order; (2) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and Secretary of State, to play a significant role in international narcotics trafficking centered in Colombia; or (3) to materially assist in, or provide financial or technological support for or goods or services in support of, the narcotics trafficking activities of persons designated in or pursuant to this order; and (4) persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of, persons designated pursuant to this Order.
On March 28, 2007, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and Secretary of State, as well as the Secretary of Homeland Security, designated sixty-five individuals and forty-five entities whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the Order.
The list of designees is as follows:
1. OCHOA VASCO, Fabio Enrique (a.k.a. MARTINEZ PEREZ, Juan Carlos; a.k.a. OCHOA VASCO, Carlos Mario; a.k.a. “CARLOS MARIO”; a.k.a. “KIKO”; a.k.a. “KIKO EL CHIQUITO”); Medellin, Antioquia, Colombia; Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 22 Nov 1960; POB Medellin, Colombia; Cedula Number 79281039 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
2. ALVAREZ DEL RIO, Fredy de Jesus; POB Colombia; Cedula No. 98557177(Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
3. BARAHONA CORDOBEZ, Jaime (a.k.a. BARONA CORDOBES, Jaime; a.k.a. BARONA CORDOBEZ, Jaime), Km. 16.5 El Salvador 169, Andalucia, Guatemala; Avenida Reforma 8-33 Zona 10, Guatemala City, Guatemala; 10 Calle 5-60 Zona 9, Guatemala City, Guatemala; c/o OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY S.A., Guatemala City, Guatemala; DOB 1 Oct 1960; POB Guatemala; NIT # 953243-9 (Guatemala); Passport 16660729 (Guatemala) (individual) [SDNT]
4. BODDEN GALE, Elvert Dowie (a.k.a. “TIO BODDEN”), Roatan, Honduras; DOB 24 Apr 1956; POB Honduras; Passport A046090 (Honduras) (individual) [SDNT]
5. BRISENO MAR, Gloria Elisa (a.k.a. BRISENO, Lizzy; a.k.a. OCHOA, Gloria Elisa), c/o INVERSIONES Y REPRESENTACIONES S.A., Medellin, Colombia; c/o MC OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY S.A. DE C.V., Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; c/o LIZZY MUNDO INTERIOR, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 16 Aug 1965; POB Durango, Mexico; C.U.R.P. BIMG650816MDGRRL05 (Mexico); Passport 99140015920 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNT]
6. CADENAS VIRAMONTES, Porfirio Miguel, Calle Nelson 421-B, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; Calle Justo Sierra 1963, Colonia Ladron de Guevara, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; Calle Mar del Sur No 2075 Int. 1, Colonia Fraccionamiento Country Club, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; c/o MC OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY S.A. DE C.V., Guadalajara, Mexico; c/o OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY S.A., Guatemala City, Guatemala; c/o INMOBILIUM INVESTMENT CORP., Panama City, Panama; DOB 12 Jun 1959; POB Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; C.U.R.P CAUP590612HJCDRR09 (Mexico); R.F.C. # CAVP-590612-AD1 (Mexico); NIT # 2665307-9 (Guatemala); Passport 97140096573 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNT]
7. CAICEDO ROJAS, Jorge Ernesto, Calle 82 No 11-37 Ofc. 504, Bogota, Colombia; c/o PROMOCIONES E INVERSIONES LAS PALMAS S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o HOTEL LA CASCADA S.A., Girardot, Colombia; DOB 21 Oct 1955; POB Bogota, Colombia; Cedula No. 3227987 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
8. CALVO LOMBANA, Gabriel Andres, c/o ORIMAR LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o AQUAMARINA ISLAND INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Panama City, Panama; c/o FISHING ENTERPRISE HOLDING INC., Panama City, Panama; DOB 20 Aug 1935; POB Bogota, Colombia; Cedula No. 2859105 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
9. CASTANEDA GIRALDO, Maria Teresa (a.k.a. CASTANEDA DE PABON, Maria Teresa), c/o INVERSIONES MPS S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o PROYECTOS Y SOLUCIONES INMOBILIARIA LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o GERENCIA DE PROYECTOS Y SOLUCIONES LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 3 Aug 1957; POB Colombia; Cedula No. 35455961 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
10. CASTELLANOS SANCHEZ, Federico Ernesto, Calle Tauro No 4090, Colonia Juan Manuel Vallarte, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; c/o MC OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY S.A. DE C.V., Guadalajara, Mexico; DOB 11 Jan 1947; POB Tototlan, Jalisco, Mexico (individual) [SDNT]
11. CASTRILLON VASCO, Jhon Jairo, c/o HOTEL LA CASCADA S.A., Girardot, Colombia; c/o INVERSIONES Y REPRESENTACIONES S.A., Medellín, Colombia; c/o FLORIDA SOCCER CLUB S.A., Medellín, Colombia; DOB 30 Mar 1960; POB Medellín, Colombia; Cedula No. 71603587 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
12. CASTRO GARZON, Ricardo (a.k.a. LINEROS GARZON, Rodolfo; a.k.a. “CAYO”), c/o CASTRO CURE Y CIA. S.C.S., Barranquilla, Colombia; c/o CURE SABAGH Y CIA. S.C.S., Barranquilla, Colombia; c/o FUDIA LTDA., Barranquilla, Colombia; c/o CABLES NACIONALES S.A., Barranquilla, Colombia; c/o INVERSIONES AGROPECUARIA ARIZONA LTDA., Barranquilla, Colombia; DOB 13 Dec 1960; POB Barranquilla, Colombia; Cedula No. 8715520 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
13. CASTRO GARZON, Victor Hugo (a.k.a. “CABEZON”), Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 10 May 1965; POB Barranquilla, Colombia; Cedula No. 72137257 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
14. CASTRO PAEZ, Gerardo, c/o CABLES NACIONALES CANAL S.A., Barranquilla, Colombia; c/o ORIMAR LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 16 Mar 1974; POB Barranquilla, Colombia; Cedula No. 72196638 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
15. CASTRO PAEZ, Jhon Paul, c/o CABLES NACIONALES CANAL S.A., Barranquilla, Colombia; POB Colombia; Cedula No. 72223501 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
16. CHOW RIOS, Harding Elvis; DOB 2 Apr 1962; POB San Andres, Colombia; Cedula No. 15243752 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
17. CURE SABAGH, Diana Maria, c/o CASTRO CURE Y CIA. S.C.S., Barranquilla, Colombia; c/o CURE SABAGH Y CIA. S.C.S., Barranquilla, Colombia; c/o FUDIA LTDA., Barranquilla, Colombia; c/o CABLES NACIONALES CANAL S.A., Barranquilla, Colombia; DOB 24 Oct 1967; POB Barranquilla, Colombia; Cedula No. 22443685 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
18. DALE DE MOR, Maria Elena, c/o MOR ALFOMBRAS ALFOFIQUE S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o MAYOR COMERCIALIZADORA LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o KARIAN LIMITADA., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 11 May 1945; POB Bogota, Colombia; Cedula No. 41326059 (Colombia); Passport AG035322 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
19. DE MARTINI TAMAYO, Sergio Rene (a.k.a. “CANOSO”); DOB 14 Sep 1962; POB Medellín, Colombia; Cedula No. 71622812 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
20. DURAN ABDELNUR, Jorge Eduardo, c/o DURATEX S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o COMERCIALIZADORA MORDUR S.A., Quito, Ecuador; DOB 21 Nov 1955; POB Colombia; Cedula No. 19309441 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
21. FANDINO ARBELAEZ, Francisco Jose, c/o DURATEX S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o KARIAN LIMITADA, Bogota, Colombia; DOB 6 Jul 1940; POB Colombia; Cedula No. 17032032 (Colombia); Passport AF325976 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
22. FERNANDEZ CASTRO, Fernando Alberto (a.k.a. “FERCHO”), c/o GIMNASIO BODY AND HEALTH, Barranquilla, Colombia; DOB 12 May 1966; POB Colombia; Cedula No. 72137518 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
23. GALLEGO VALENCIA, John Jairo (a.k.a. “DON JOTA”; a.k.a. “FREDERICO”), c/o LAVADERO EL CASTILLO, Medellín, Colombia; DOB 30 Jul 1950; POB Medellín, Colombia; Cedula No. 70126377 (Colombia); Passport AC312064 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
24. GARCIA BUITRAGO, Miyer Alberto (a.k.a. “CHIQUI”); DOB 13 Jul 1970; POB Manzanares, Caldas, Colombia; Cedula No. 10287969 (Colombia); Passport AH132212 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
25. GARCIA RODRIGUEZ, Martha, c/o TRANSPORTES MICHAEL LTDA., Barranquilla, Colombia; c/o COOPERATIVA DE SERVICIO DE TRANSPORTE DE CARGA DE COLOMBIA LTDA., Barranquilla, Colombia; c/o CENTRO DE BELLEZA SHARY VERGARA, Barranquilla, Colombia; POB Colombia; Cedula No. 32761805 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
26. GAVIRIA DE MOR, Liliana, c/o DURATEX S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o MOR ALFOMBRAS ALFOFIQUE S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o MOR GAVIRIA S.C.S., Bogota, Colombia; c/o GAVIRIA MOR Y CIA. LTDA., Girardot, Colombia; c/o CONSTRUCTORA AMERICA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 16 Mar 1965; POB Bogota, Colombia; Cedula No. 20621292 (Colombia); Passport AG443233 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
27. GAVIRIA MEJIA, Luis Fernando, Calle 114 No 0-45 Torre 3 Apt. 303, Bogota, Colombia; c/o DURATEX S.A., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 11 Mar 1947; POB Bogota, Colombia; Cedula No. 17163914 (Colombia); Passport AJ241295 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
28. GAVIRIA RUEDA, Gloria Ines, c/o COMERCIALIZADORA MOR GAVIRIA S.A., Quito, Ecuador; c/o INTERNACIONAL DE PROYECTOS INMOBILIARIOS S.A., Quito, Ecuador; POB Colombia; Cedula No. 1719011601 (Ecuador); alt. Cedula No. 41576358 (Colombia); RUC # 1233779 (Ecuador) (individual) [SDNT]
29. GIL GARZON, Marco Antonio, c/o CONSTRUCTORA AMERICA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 25 May 1947; POB Toca, Boyaca, Colombia; Cedula No. 17176949 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
30. GIL GUIO, Alexandra, c/o DURATEX S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o PROMOCIONES E INVERSIONES LAS PALMAS S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o CONSTRUCTORA IRAKA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o C.I. OTILIA FLOWERS S.A., Cajica, Cundinamarca, Colombia; c/o CONSTRUCTORA AMERICA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 11 Oct 1973; POB Colombia; Cedula No. 52145376 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
31. GONZALEZ BETANCUR, Angel Horacio, c/o FISHING ENTERPRISE HOLDING INC., Panama City, Panama; c/o AQUAMARINA ISLAND INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Panama City, Panama; DOB 3 Feb 1966; POB Colombia; Cedula No. 6465085 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
32. HERNANDEZ ORTEGA, Cesar Alejandro, c/o LIZZY MUNDO INTERIOR, Guadalajara, Mexico; DOB 28 Oct 1975; POB Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; C.U.R.P. HEOC751028HJCRRS09 (Mexico);
33. HODWALKER MARTINEZ, Martin David (a.k.a. “TILO”), c/o VERANILLO DIVE CENTER LTDA., Barranquilla, Colombia; c/o MARTIN HODWALKER M. Y CIA. S. EN C., Barranquilla, Colombia; c/o YAMAHA VERANILLO DISTRIBUIDORES, Barranquilla, Colombia; c/o DESARROLLO GEMMA CORPORATION, Panama City, Panama; DOB 26 Dec 1968; POB Colombia; Cedula No. 8534760 (Colombia); Passport AF465508 Colombia (individual) [SDNT]
34. HOOKER TAYLOR, Javier Arnulfo (a.k.a. HOOKER POMARE, Javier), c/o COOPERATIVA DE SERVICIO DE TRANSPORTE DE CARGA DE COLOMBIA LTDA., Barranquilla, Colombia; c/o ROCK FISH IMPORT EXPORT E.U., San Andres, Colombia; DOB 19 Feb 1971; POB San Andres, Colombia; Cedula No. 18001893 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
35. HYDE, Clive Norman (a.k.a. HYDE SR., Clive Norman; a.k.a. “MR. HYDE”); DOB 8 Apr 1956; POB Belize (individual) [SDNT]
36. INDABURU LUENGAS, Pedro Enrique, c/o COMERCIALIZADORA MOR GAVIRIA S.A., Quito, Ecuador; c/o COMERCIALIZADORA MORDUR S.A., Quito, Ecuador; c/o INTERNACIONAL DE PROYECTOS INMOBILIARIOS S.A., Quito, Ecuador; DOB 29 Jun 1948; POB Bogota, Colombia; Cedula No. 1719011619 (Ecuador); alt. Cedula No. 19074171 (Colombia); RUC # 171901161-9 (Ecuador) (individual) [SDNT]
37. LEAL LOPEZ, Janey Farides, c/o MARTIN HODWALKER M. Y CIA. S. EN C., Barranquilla, Colombia; c/o VERANILLO DIVE CENTER LTDA., Barranquilla, Colombia; DOB 6 Nov 1972; POB Colombia; Cedula No. 32779104 (Colombia); Passport AF665724 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
38. LOGAN MOREY, Elvis Angus (a.k.a. “BURTON BURGESS”); DOB 28 Jul 1963; POB Toledo District, Belize; Passport P0017003 (Belize); SSN 561-77-9011 (United States) (individual) [SDNT]
39. LOZANO OSPINA, Max Abilio, c/o DURATEX S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o PROMOCIONES E INVERSIONES LAS PALMAS S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o C.I. OTILIA FLOWERS S.A., Cajica, Cundinamarca, Colombia; c/o CONSTRUCTORA AMERICA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 23 May 1971; POB Colombia; Cedula No. 79248772 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
40. MALDONADO ESCOBAR, Fernando, c/o MOR GAVIRIA Y CIA. S.C.S., Bogota, Colombia; c/o PROMOCIONES E INVERSIONES LAS PALMAS S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o AUDITORES ESPECIALIZADOS LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o GAVIRIA MOR Y CIA. LTDA., Girardot, Colombia; c/o AQUAMARINA ISLAND INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Panama City, Panama; DOB 16 May 1961; POB Bogota, Colombia; Cedula No. 19445721 (Colombia); Passport AH330349 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
41. MALDONADO ESCOBAR, Mauricio, c/o MAYOR COMERCIALIZADORA LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o MOR GAVIRIA Y CIA. S.C.S., Bogota, Colombia; c/o AUDITORES ESPECIALIZADOS LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 22 Oct 1962; POB Colombia; Cedula No. 79266443 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
42. MAR SEM, Maria Gloria, c/o MC OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY S.A. DE C.V., Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 19 Aug 1944; POB Mexico; Passport 97140093454 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNT]
43. MARKS, Martin Gregory (a.k.a. GORDON, Howard A.); DOB 30 Oct 1958; POB Jamaica; Passport 217720 (Jamaica) (individual) [SDNT]
44. MOLINA MOLINA, Jesus Dagoberto, c/o TRANSPORTES MICHAEL LTDA., Barranquilla, Colombia; c/o COOPERATIVA DE SERVICIO DE TRANSPORTE DE CARGA MULTIMODAL, Barranquilla, Colombia; POB Colombia; Cedula No. 8233532 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
45. MOR DALE, Jaime Enrique, c/o MOR ALFOMBRAS ALFOFIQUE S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o MAYOR COMERCIALIZADORA LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o KARIAN LIMITADA, Bogota, Colombia; DOB 22 Feb 1971; POB Bogota, Colombia; Cedula No. 80420773 (Colombia); Passport AG035370 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
46. MOR DALE, Jorge Dib, c/o MOR ALFOMBRAS ALFOFIQUE S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o MAYOR COMERCIALIZADORA LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o KARIAN LIMITADA, Bogota, Colombia; DOB 20 Mar 1963; POB Bogota, Colombia; Cedula No. 79264955 (Colombia); Passport A1758932 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
47. MOR DALE, Ricardo Alberto, c/o MOR ALFOMBRAS ALFOFIQUE S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o MAYOR COMERCIALIZADORA LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o KARIAN LIMITADA, Bogota, Colombia; DOB 10 Jun 1964; POB Bogota, Colombia; Cedula No. 79301217 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
48. MOR GAVIRIA, Carolina, c/o DURATEX S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o MOR GAVIRIA S.C.S., Bogota, Colombia; c/o SUPER BOYS GAMES LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 17 Aug 1985; POB Colombia; Cedula No. 8715520 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
49. MOR GAVIRIA, Jaime, c/o DURATEX S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o MOR ALFOMBRAS ALFOFIQUE S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o PROMOCIONES E INVERSIONES LAS PALMAS S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o SUPER BOYS GAMES LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o GAVIRIA MOR Y CIA. LTDA., Girardot, Colombia; DOB 27 Sep 1980; POB Colombia; Cedula No. 92700929 (Colombia); Passport AG443304 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
50. MOR GAVIRIA, Maria Liliana (a.k.a. SVIEDRYS, Maria Liliana), Washington, D.C.; c/o DURATEX S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o MOR ALFOMBRAS ALFOFIQUE S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o MOR GAVIRIA S.C.S., Bogota, Colombia; c/o SUPER BOYS GAMES LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o GAVIRIA MOR Y CIA. LTDA., Girardot, Colombia; DOB 21 Feb 1979; POB Bogota, Colombia; Cedula No. 35195932 (Colombia); Passport AG801641 (Colombia); SSN 579-33-4498 (United States) (individual) [SDNT]
51. MOR NASSAR, Jorge, c/o MOR ALFOMBRAS ALFOFIQUE S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o MAYOR COMERCIALIZADORA LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 10 Oct 1939; POB Ubate, Cundinamarca, Colombia; Cedula No. 310935 (Colombia); Passport AG035369 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
52. MOR SAAB, Jaime Dib (a.k.a. MOR, Jaime Div; a.k.a. “JAIME MOORE”), c/o DURATEX S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o MOR ALFOMBRAS ALFOFIQUE S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o MOR GAVIRIA Y CIA. S.C.S., Bogota, Colombia; c/o INVERSIONES MPS S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o MAYOR COMERCIALIZADORA LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o PROYECTOS Y SOLUCIONES S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o GERENCIA DE PROYECTOS Y SOLUCIONES LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o PROMOCIONES E INVERSIONES LAS PALMAS S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o ACUICOLA SANTA CATALINA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o SUPER BOYS GAMES LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o KARIAN LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o GAVIRIA MOR Y CIA. LTDA., Girardot, Colombia; c/o CONSTRUCTORA IRAKA S.A.,
53. MOR SAAB, Soraya, c/o DURATEX S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o MOR GAVIRIA S.C.S., Bogota, Colombia; c/o PROYECTOS Y SOLUCIONES S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o CONSTRUCTORA IRAKA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o ACUICOLA SANTA CATALINA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o PROMOCIONES E INVERSIONES LAS PALMAS S.A., Bogota, Colombia; DOB 10 May 1959; POB Girardot, Cundinamarca, Colombia; Cedula No. 35461535 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
54. OLIVEROS GUZMAN, Henry, c/o INVERSIONES MPS S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o MAYOR COMERCIALIZADORA LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o MOR ALFOMBRAS ALFOFIQUE S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o GERENCIA DE PROYECTOS Y SOLUCIONES LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o HOTEL LA CASCADA S.A., Girardot, Colombia; POB Colombia; Cedula No. 79484051 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
55. PABON ALVARADO, Gustavo Alberto, c/o INVERSIONE MPS S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o PROYECTOS Y SOLUCIONES S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o PROYECTOS Y SOLUCIONES INMOBILIARIA LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o GERENCIA DE PROYECTOS Y SOLUCIONES LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o ACUICOLA SANTA CATALINA S.A., Bogota, Colombia; c/o HOTEL LA CASCADA S.A., Girardot, Colombia; c/o FLORIDA SOCCER CLUB S.A., Medelln, Colombia; DOB 6 May 1955; POB Bogota, Colombia; Cedula No. 79146243 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
56. PACHECO MEJIA, Luis, c/o FLORIDA SOCCER CLUB S.A., Medellín, Colombia; Calle Paseo de Los Virreyes No. 4022, Colonia San Wenceslao, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico; DOB 18 Jun 1951; POB Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico; Passport 03140120376 (Mexico); RFC PAML-510618-ED7 (Mexico) (individual) [SDNT]
57. PALACIO ADARVE, John Ricardo; DOB 11 Mar 1969; POB Itagui, Antioquia, Colombia; Cedula No. 70697538 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
58. RINCONES MENDOZA, Henry Juvenal; DOB 25 Sep 1976; POB Colombia; Cedula No. 79863543 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
59. SABAGH DE CURE, Maria Dunia, c/o CURE SABAGH Y CIA. S.C.S., Barranquilla, Colombia; c/o FUDIA LTDA., Barranquilla, Colombia; DOB 02 Jan 1947; POB Barranquilla, Colombia; Cedula No. 33278803 (Colombia); Passport AE330188 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
60. TRUJILLO MOLINA, Maria Helena (a.k.a. TRUJILLO MOLINA, Maria Elena), c/o HOTEL LA CASCADA S.A., Girardot, Colombia; c/o INVERSIONES Y REPRESENTACIONES S.A., Medelín, Colombia; POB Colombia; Cedula No. 42875026 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
61. VALENCIA MARIN, Libardo Elias; DOB 23 Mar 1946; POB Colombia; Cedula No. 8225623 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
62. VARELA SERNA, Carlos Heneris (a.k.a. “COLITAS”), c/o TRANSPORTES MICHAEL LTDA., Barranquilla, Colombia; c/o COOPERATIVA DE SERVICIO DE TRANSPORTE DE CARGA DE COLOMBIA LTDA., Barranquilla, Colombia; c/o CENTRO DE BELLEZA SHARY VERGARA, Barranquilla, Colombia; DOB 11 Jan 1956; POB Cali, Colombia; Cedula No. 16632290 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
63. VASQUEZ DIAZ, Augusto de Jesus, c/o FLORIDA SOCCER CLUB S.A., Medelíon, Colombia; Cedula No. 3333064 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
64. WORRELL, Gareth Bruce (a.k.a. WORRELL MURRAY, Gareth Bruce; a.k.a. WORRELL MURRAY, Garrett; a.k.a. “GARETH MOREY”); DOB 19 Jun 1971; alt. DOB 19 Jan 1971; POB Belize; Passport 0159817 (Belize) (individual) [SDNT]
65. YEPES VELEZ, Silvio (a.k.a. YEPEZ VELEZ, Silvio), Carrera 30 No 77-26, Bogota, Colombia; c/o HOTEL LA CASCADA S.A., Girardot, Colombia; DOB 9 Nov 1948; POB Manizales, Caldas, Colombia; Cedula No. 19065009 (Colombia); NIT # 19065009-4 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT]
1. ACUICOLA SANTA CATALINA S.A., Avenida 13 No. 100-12 Ofc. 302, Bogota, Colombia; NIT # 830010809-5 (Colombia) [SDNT]
2. AQUAMARINA ISLAND INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Avenida Cuba Calle 38, Edificio Los Cristales Piso 3, Panama City, Panama; Calle 93 No. 14-20 Ofc. 611, Bogota, Colombia; Avenida del Pastelillo 24-46, Edificio Fadia—Manga, Cartagena, Colombia; RUC # 2120851397079 (Panama) [SDNT]
3. AUDITORES ESPECIALIZADOS LTDA., Calle 93 No. 14-20 Ofc. 611, Bogota, Colombia; NIT # 830041980-1 (Colombia) [SDNT]
4. C.I. OTILIA FLOWERS S.A., Carrera 11 No. 94-02 Ofc. 405, Bogota, Colombia; Vereda Las Manas, Finca La Estancia, Cajica, Cundinamarca, Colombia; NIT # 800207350-5 (Colombia) [SDNT]
5. CABLES NACIONALES S.A. (a.k.a. CANAL S.A.), Calle 111 No. 34-139, Barranquilla, Colombia; NIT # 802005017-7 (Colombia) [SDNT]
6. CASTRO CURE Y CIA. S. EN C., Calle 111 No. 34-139, Barranquilla, Colombia; NIT # 802001885-5 (Colombia) [SDNT]
7. CENTRO DE BELLEZA SHARY VERGARA, Carrera 54 No. 72-80 Local 25, Barranquilla, Colombia [SDNT]
8. COMERCIALIZADORA MOR GAVIRIA S.A. (a.k.a. ALFOMBRAS DURATEX DE COLOMBIA; a.k.a. “DURATEX ECUADOR”), Avenida Pedro Vicente Maldonado N229 y Rivas, Edificio Centro Comercial El Recreo, Local 24F, Pichincha, Quito, Ecuador; RUC # 1791813359001 (Ecuador) [SDNT]
9. COMERCIALIZADORA MORDUR S.A., Avenida Pedro Vicente Maldonado 14-205, Edificio Centro Comercial El Recreo, Local 22F, Pichincha, Quito, Ecuador; RUC # 1791315820001 (Ecuador) [SDNT]
10. CONSTRUCTORA AMERICA S.A., Carrera 63 No. 17-07, Bogota, Colombia; NIT # 830125002-3 (Colombia) [SDNT]
11. CONSTRUCTORA IRAKA S.A., Carrera 7 No. 132-82, Bogota, Colombia; NIT # 830111113-1 (Colombia) [SDNT]
12. COOPERATIVA DE SERVICIO DE TRANSPORTE DE CARGA DE COLOMBIA LTDA. (a.k.a. COOPERATIVA DE SERVICIO DE TRANSPORTE DE CARGA MULTIMODAL DE COLOMIBA LTDA.; a.k.a. COOTRANSMULTI H.H. LTDA.), Calle 30 No. 10-50, Barranquilla, Colombia; Calle 35 No. 36-68, Barranquilla, Colombia; NIT # 802019665-0 (Colombia) [SDNT]
13. CURE SABAGH Y CIA. S.C.S., Calle 32 No. 43A-89, Barranquilla, Colombia; NIT # 802000463-6 (Colombia) [SDNT]
14. DESARROLLO GEMMA CORPORATION, Calle 52 Bella Vista, Chalet # 17, Panama City, Panama; RUC # 25544701403775 (Panama) [SDNT]
15. DURATEX S.A. (f.k.a. INVERSIONES JEDA S.A.), Carrera 63 No. 17-07, Bogota, Colombia; Calle 116 No. 19-22, Bogota, Colombia; Avenida
16. FISHING ENTERPRISE HOLDING, INC., Avenida Samuel Lewis, Edificio Comosa, Piso 16, Panama City, Panama; RUC # 2120741397076 (Panama) [SDNT]
17. FLORIDA SOCCER CLUB S.A. (a.k.a. CORPORACION DEPORTIVA FLORIDA SOCCER CLUB; a.k.a. FSC S.A.), Calle 48 No. 70-80 Ofc. 115, Medelín, Colombia; Calle 49B No. 74-31 Sector Estadio, Medelín, Colombia; Itagui, Antioquia, Colombia; NIT # 811046159 (Colombia) [SDNT]
18. FUDIA LTDA., Calle 111 No. 36B-17, Barranquilla, Colombia; NIT # 800230555-4 (Colombia) [SDNT]
19. GAVIRIA MOR Y CIA. LTDA., Calle 16 No. 11-82 Ofc. 302, Girardot, Colombia; NIT # 800212771-2 (Colombia) [SDNT]
20. GERENCIA DE PROYECTOS Y SOLUCIONES LTDA., Avenida 13 No. 100-12 Ofc. 302, Bogota, Colombia; NIT # 800231600-2 (Colombia) [SDNT]
21. GIMNASIO BODY AND HEALTH, Calle 80 No. 75-210, Barranquilla, Colombia [SDNT]
22. HOTEL LA CASCADA S.A. (f.k.a. CENTRO RECREACIONAL LA CASCADA LTDA.), Carrera 12 Avenida 25 Esquina, Girardot, Colombia; NIT # 890601336-8 (Colombia) [SDNT]
23. INMOBILIUM INVESTMENT CORP., Avenida Frederico Boyd y Calle 51, Edificio Torre Universal, Piso 3, Panama City, Panama; RUC # 4055231267286 (Panama) [SDNT]
24. INTERNACIONAL DE PROYECTOS INMOBILIARIA IPI S.A. (a.k.a. IPI S.A.), Avenida Pedro Vicente Maldonado 744, Edificio Centro Comercial El Recreo, Local 24I, Pichincha, Quito, Ecuador; RUC # 1791843436001 (Ecuador) [SDNT]
25. INVERSIONES AGROPECUARIA ARIZONA LTDA., Calle 82 No. 43-21 Ofc. 1C, Barranquilla, Colombia; NIT # 802019694 (Colombia) [SDNT]
26. INVERSIONES MPS S.A. (f.k.a. EQUIPOS MPS S.A.), Avenida 13 No. 100-12 Ofc. 302, Bogota, Colombia; NIT # 800231392-5 (Colombia) [SDNT]
27. INVERSIONES Y REPRESENTACIONES S.A. (a.k.a. IRSA S.A.), Carrera 43A No. 16A Sur—38, Barrio El Poblado, Medelín, Colombia; NIT # 811040270-5 (Colombia) [SDNT]
28. KARIAN LTDA., Calle 23 No. 68A-95, Bogota, Colombia; NIT # 800166692-1 (Colombia) [SDNT]
29. LAVADERO EL CASTILLO, Carrera 84 No. 32B-40, Medelln, Colombia [SDNT]
30. LIZZY MUNDO INTERIOR, Justo Sierra 1963, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico [SDNT]
31. MARTIN HODWALKER M. & CIA. S. EN C., Via 40 No. 67-42, Barranquilla, Colombia; NIT # 802007314-9 (Colombia) [SDNT]
32. MAYOR COMERCIALIZADORA LTDA., Carrera 40 No. 169-30 Barrio Toberin, Bogota, Colombia; NIT # 80008288-4 (Colombia) [SDNT]
33. MC OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY SA DE CV, Justo Sierra 1963, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico [SDNT]
34. MOR ALFOMBRAS ALFOFIQUE S.A. (f.k.a. ALFOFIQUE LTDA.; f.k.a. ALFOFIQUE TRANSPORTES LTDA.), Carrera 40 No. 169-32, Bogota, Colombia; NIT # 830081048-0 (Colombia) [SDNT]
35. MOR GAVIRIA Y CIA. S.C.S. SOCIEDAD DE COMERCIALIZACION INT. C.I. (f.k.a. MOR GAVIRIA Y CIA. S.C.S.), Carrera 63 No. 17-07, Bogota, Colombia; NIT # 860535567-0 (Colombia) [SDNT]
36. ORIMAR LTDA., Carrera 19 No. 57-33, Bogota, Colombia; NIT # 801076804-7 (Colombia) [SDNT]
37. OVERSEAS TRADING COMPANY (a.k.a. “DURATEX GUATEMALA”; a.k.a. “DURATEX S.A.”), 7A Avenida 9-15, Zona 12 Colonia La Reformita, Guatemala City, Guatemala; Barrio del Monte 1 Avenida 2-51, Zona 1 Colonia ViCanales No. 4, Guatemala City, Guatemala; 20 Calle 20-81 Zona 10, Guatemala City, Guatemala; NIT # 2500971-0 (Guatemala) [SDNT]
38. PROMOCIONES E INVERSIONES LAS PALMAS S.A. (a.k.a. PROPALMAS S.A.), Carrera 9 No. 100-97 Ofc. 412, Bogota, Colombia; NIT # 800236023-5 (Colombia) [SDNT]
39. PROYECTOS Y SOLUCIONES INMOBILIARIA LTDA. (f.k.a. PROMOTORA DE PROYECTOS Y SOLUCIONES LTDA.), Avenida 13 No. 100-12 Ofc. 302, Bogota, Colombia; NIT # 800014349-8 (Colombia) [SDNT]
40. PROYECTOS Y SOLUCIONES S.A., Carrera 63 No. 17-07, Bogota, Colombia; NIT # 800231601-1 (Colombia) [SDNT]
41. ROCK FISH IMPORT EXPORT E.U., Avenida Juan XXIII, San Andres, Colombia; NIT # 827000913-1 (Colombia) [SDNT]
42. SUPER BOYS GAMES LTDA., Carrera 40 No. 168-67, Bogota, Colombia; NIT # 830004047-5 (Colombia) [SDNT]
43. TRANSPORTES MICHAEL LTDA. (a.k.a. TRANSMIKE LTDA.), Calle 30 No. 10-50, Barranquilla, Colombia; Sitio Nuevo, Magdalena, Colombia; NIT # 802024118-3 (Colombia) [SDNT]
44. VERANILLO DIVE CENTER LTDA. (a.k.a. CLUB DE PESCA VERANILLO), Via 40 No. 67-42, Barranquilla, Colombia; NIT # 802008393-5 (Colombia) [SDNT]
45. YAMAHA VERANILLO DISTRIBUIDORES, Via 40 No. 67-42, Barranquilla, Colombia [SDNT]
Internal Revenue Service, Department of Treasury.
Notice and request for nominations.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requests nominations of individuals to be considered for selection as Information Reporting Program Advisory Committee (IRPAC) members. Individuals may nominate themselves or be nominated by interested organizations. Nominations will be accepted for current vacancies and should describe and document the applicants qualifications for membership. The IRPAC can be comprised of no more than twenty-three (23) members. There are eight (8) positions open for calendar year 2008. It is important that IRPAC continue to represent a diverse taxpayer and stakeholder base. Accordingly, to maintain membership diversity, selection is based on applicant's qualifications in addition to consideration of the segment or group he/she represents.
The IRPAC advises the IRS on information reporting issues of mutual concern to the private sector and the federal government. The committee works with the Commissioner and other IRS leadership to provide recommendations on a wide range of information reporting administration issues. Membership is balanced to include representation from the tax professional community, businesses, banking, insurance, state tax administration, colleges and universities, securities, payroll and other industries.
Written nominations must be received on or before May 31, 2007.
Nominations should be sent to Ms. Caryl Grant, National Public Liaison, CL:NPL:SRM, Room 7559 IR, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224,
Ms. Caryl Grant, at 202-927-3641 (not a toll-free number) or
The IRPAC was established in 1991 in response to an administrative recommendation in the final Conference Report of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989. Since its inception, IRPAC has worked closely with the IRS to provide recommendations on a wide range of issues intended to improve the information reporting program and achieve fairness to taxpayers. Conveying the public's perception of IRS activities to the Commissioner, the IRPAC is comprised of individuals who bring substantial, disparate experience and diverse backgrounds to the Committee's activities.
The IRPAC members are appointed by the Commissioner and serve a term of three years with approximately one third of the member's terms expiring each year. Working groups address policies and administration issues specific to information reporting. Members are not paid for their services. However, travel expenses for working sessions, public meetings and orientation sessions, such as airfare, per diem, and transportation to and from airports, train stations, etc., are reimbursed within prescribed federal travel limitations.
Receipt of applications will be acknowledged, and all individuals will be notified when selections have been made. In accordance with Department of Treasury Directive 21-03, a clearance process including, pre-appointment and annual tax checks, and a Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal and subversive name check through fingerprinting will be conducted on the final applicants.
Equal opportunity practices will be followed for all appointments to the IRPAC in accordance with the Department of Treasury and IRS policies. To ensure that the recommendations of the IRPAC have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the IRS, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals who demonstrate the ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. The Secretary of Treasury will review the recommended candidates and approve final selections.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 1, 2007.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 1, 2007.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 1, 2007.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 1, 2007.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Mary Stout (202) 273-8664 or FAX (202) 273-9381.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Office of Acquisition and Materiel Management, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Office of Acquisition and Materiel Management (OA&MM), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 1, 2007.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Barbara Latvanas at (202) 273-7808.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, OA&MM invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OA&MM's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of OA&MM's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Office of Acquisition and Materiel Management, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Office of Acquisition and Materiel Management (OA&MM), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 1, 2007.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Barbara Latvanas at (202) 273-7808.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, OA&MM invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OA&MM's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of OA&MM's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Office of Acquisition and Materiel Management, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Office of Acquisition and Materiel Management (OA&MM), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 1, 2007.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Barbara Latvanas at (202) 273-7808.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, OA&MM invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OA&MM's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of OA&MM's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Office of Acquisition and Materiel Management, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Office of Acquisition and Materiel Management (OA&MM), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 1, 2007.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Barbara Latvanas at (202) 273-7808.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, OA&MM invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OA&MM's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of OA&MM's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Office of Acquisition and Materiel Management, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Office of Acquisition and Materiel Management (OA&MM), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 1, 2007.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Barbara Latvanas at (202) 273-7808.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, OA&MM invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OA&MM's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of OA&MM's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Office of Acquisition and Materiel Management, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Office of Acquisition and Materiel Management (OA&MM), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 1, 2007.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Barbara Latvanas at (202) 273-7808.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, OA&MM invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OA&MM's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of OA&MM's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 1, 2007.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 1, 2007.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
a. Notice of Default, VA Form 26-6850.
b. Notice of Default and Intention to Foreclose, VA Form 26-6850a.
c. Notice of Intention to Foreclose, VA Form 26-6851.
VA Forms 26-6850 and 26-6851 require that servicing efforts are fully explained so that VA can determine whether supplemental servicing could develop further information to justify the extension of forbearance to the veterans-borrower as opposed to foreclosure. The information provided is used to coordinate the actions of VA and the holder to ensure that all legal requirements regarding foreclosure and claim payment are met. VA Form 26-6850a is filed by holders when defaults are determined insoluble by holders at the time the notice of default is filed with VA This form provides both notice of default and intent to foreclosure together on one form.
a. VA Form 26-6850—20,166 hours.
b. VA Form 26-6850a—26,000 hours.
c. VA Form 26-6851—20,000 hours.
a. VA Form 26-6850—10 minutes.
b. VA Form 26-6850a—20 minutes.
c. VA Form 26-6851—15 minutes.
a. VA Form 26-6850—121,000 hours.
b. VA Form 26-6850a—78,000 hours.
c. VA Form 26-6851—80,000 hours.
By direction of the Acting Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 1, 2007.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-21), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, has submitted the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 2, 2007.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Denise McLamb, Records Management Service (005G2), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 565-8374, fax (202) 565-7870 or e-mail
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-21), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, has submitted the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 2, 2007.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Denise McLamb, Records Management Service (005G2), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 565-8374, fax (202) 565-7870 or e-mail
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The
By direction of the Secretary:
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary.
To receive consideration, applications must be received by the Office of Grants Management, Office of Public Health and Science (OPHS), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) c/o WilDon Solutions, Office of Grants Management Operations Center, 1515 Wilson Blvd., Third Floor Suite 310, Arlington, VA 22209, Attention Office Population Affairs/Office of Adolescent Pregnancy Programs no later than 5 p.m. eastern time on June 1, 2007. The application due date requirement in this announcement supercedes the instructions in the OPHS-1 form.
In addition, successful applicants will plan on tracking program participants for at least two years, subject to the availability of funds. An appropriate randomized control design or rigorous quasi-experimental design should be proposed.
All AFL prevention demonstration projects must provide “abstinence education” as defined in section 510(b)(2)(A)-(H) of the Title V of the Social Security Act (“the A-H criteria”). Therefore, prevention demonstration projects must clearly and consistently promote premarital abstinence as the only 100% effective way of preventing adolescent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV/AIDS. Funds will be available for approximately 20 projects, which may be located in any State, the District of Columbia, and United States territories, commonwealths and possessions. Faith-based and community-based organizations are encouraged to apply.
These grants are for community-based demonstration projects to find effective means, within the context of the family, to promote premarital abstinence. Abstinence education, delivered through a combination of curricula that conform to the A-H criteria, and supportive activities and services that are proven to motivate youth in healthy decision making, can be an effective way to deliver a clear message that abstinence is the best choice. Supporting parents in their role as the primary educators of their children on issues involving sexuality, particularly the health and social benefits of abstinence, is also an important component of AFL prevention demonstration projects. See headings “Prevention Services” and “Supportive Activities and Services” for additional information.
When explaining the rationale for the proposed demonstration model, successful applicants will describe their experience with other youth prevention programs, including experience with state, local or Federal abstinence education grant programs. In particular, successful program models will base their proposed AFL prevention demonstration project on experiences and “lessons learned” from previous youth oriented activities and services.
In this funding announcement, the OAPP is placing strong emphasis on the evaluation of the demonstration projects it supports. Applications under this announcement are expected to include a clear and fully developed evaluation plan. The proposed evaluation team's experience, specifically related to conducting program evaluation using randomized experimental or quasi-experimental design, should be stated. A strong evaluation plan should include a commitment and description of capacity to track program participants for at least two years; address both capacity and intent to use the AFL prevention core evaluation instrument; and address both capacity and intent to participate in the cross-site evaluation of the AFL program scheduled to begin in August 2008. Capacity to participate in the cross-site evaluation will entail a rigorous evaluation design, high quality data collection procedures, and the ability to deliver data to OAPP for inclusion in cross-site analyses.
Please note, successful applicants will also ensure that program staff are prepared to address issues of sexual coercion and exploitation of young teens. In addition, areas of the country with high incidences of adolescent pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, poverty rates, as well as existing gaps in services for youth, will receive special consideration. Populations and areas of the country not currently receiving Title XX funding for prevention programs will receive special consideration. If there are multiple applicants from one State, agency collaboration is encouraged. Please note, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs (DASPA) may elect to award one grant per State. Under this announcement, former AFL grantees and AFL prevention grantees currently in their fourth and fifth year of funding are eligible to apply; all other current AFL grantees are considered ineligible. See headings “Prevention Services” and “Supportive Activities and Services” for additional information.
Under the Title XX statute, the primary purpose of AFL prevention demonstration programs is to find effective means, within the context of the family, of reaching pre-adolescent and adolescent children before they become sexually active to encourage them to abstain from premarital sexual activity. (The OAPP also encourages reaching out to those adolescents who may have already become sexually active to encourage them to return to abstinence and support them in doing so.) Early initiation of sexual activity brings not only the risk of adolescent pregnancy, but also substantial health risks, primarily STIs, including HIV/AIDS. Adolescent sexual activity is also associated with a host of other problems, such as poor school performance, delinquency, substance use and depression.
Prevention demonstration program activities and services must be consistent with the definition of “abstinence education,” as set out in section 510(b)(2)(A)-(H) of Title V of the Social Security Act, as amended. Proposed program activities and services, whether educational or
(A) Has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
(B) Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children;
(C) Teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
(D) Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
(E) Teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
(F) Teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society;
(G) Teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and
(H) Teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.
Projects must provide services that help pre-adolescents and adolescents acquire knowledge and skills that will instill healthy attitudes, as well as provide services that encourage and support abstinence from premarital sexual activity. Under the statutory requirements of Title XX, applicants for prevention programs are not required to provide any specific array of services. However, OAPP encourages the submission of applications which focus on educational services relating to family life and which teach the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity. The legislation also permits a proposal to include any one or more of the following services as appropriate:
(1) Educational services relating to family life and problems associated with adolescent premarital sexual relations including:
(a) Information about adoption,
(b) Education on the responsibilities of sexuality and parenting,
(c) The development of material to support the role of parents as the providers of sex education, and
(d) Assistance to parents, schools, youth agencies and health providers to educate adolescents and pre-adolescents concerning self-discipline and responsibility in human sexuality;
(2) Appropriate educational and vocational services;
(3) Counseling for the immediate and extended family members of the eligible person;
(4) Transportation;
(5) Outreach services to families of adolescents to discourage sexual relations among unemancipated minors; and
(6) Nutrition information and counseling.
In order to remain abstinent until marriage, pre-adolescents and adolescents need to acquire capacity building, coping, and self-sufficiency skills that enable them to remain abstinent in the present and to continue making healthy decisions as they transition into adulthood. Therefore, effective programs take into account how youth physically and emotionally develop and how this translates into appropriate educational and supportive services. In addition to abstinence education, research shows that building upon positive factors (or assets) in the lives of young people protects youth from many risky behaviors, including sexual activity. Strengthening these factors will help motivate youth to remain abstinent from sexual activity. Therefore, successful applicants will propose approaches that will strengthen youth assets and implement activities and services that address the developmental needs of the target population. Such approaches place considerable emphasis on helping youth to develop their assets and to focus on where youth are going, helping them to develop belief in a positive future and belief in their ability to take actions that will achieve that future—and also to avoid actions that will jeopardize it. Some program components typically employed in this approach include mentoring, tutoring, sports, cultural activities, and community service. All aspects of the proposed prevention demonstration project must motivate youth to remain abstinent until marriage, must support and be consistent with the definition of “abstinence education” as set out in the A-H criteria, and must be within the scope of Title XX prevention services.
Among young people ages 15 to 24 in 2002, 13 percent of females and 5 percent of males reported that their first sexual experience occurred at age 15 or younger with an individual who was three or more years older. More than one in four children born to mothers between the ages of 15 and 17 were fathered by someone five or more years older. Successful AFL prevention demonstration applicants should thoroughly describe current and proposed efforts to prevent sexual coercion and exploitation of teens by older partners, as well as management and reporting that comply with State reporting laws regarding child sexual abuse, sexual assault (including statutory rape), incest, or family violence. These efforts should include staff training on how to handle abuse/coercion disclosures appropriately, the responsibilities as a mandatory reporter, as well as overall sensitivity to the issue (of nonconsensual sexual activity among youth who otherwise would be abstinent) in program activities, services and curricula. For more information, applicants may access the Child Welfare Information Gateway formerly the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information at
Supporting parents in their role as the primary educators of their children on issues involving sexuality, particularly the importance of premarital abstinence, can be an effective way to strengthen a prevention intervention. Research has shown the importance of parental involvement and open communication between parent and child in the prevention of adolescent sexual activity. Parental involvement and communication include monitoring and boundary setting, as well as clearly transmitting values and beliefs.
Targeted services and resources that strengthen parental capacity to help their child avoid sexual activity and other risk behaviors can take many forms: Parent workshops or training sessions; education newsletters; home based videos; or homework assignments for parents and children to complete together. Program content should reflect specific needs of the population to be served and might include information on parenting practices, communication skills, family life and problem solving strategies, or adolescent development. It is essential that programs effectively communicate to parents the benefits of abstinence to the health and well-being of their children. All programming for
Helping young people successfully negotiate adolescence and avoid premarital sexual activity, as well as other health risk behaviors, requires not only educating and motivating them—it also requires ensuring that they have adequate support systems to put what they learn into practice. Stronger families, enhanced competencies and meaningful ties to the community can provide considerable assistance in achieving this. To that end, the OAPP strongly encourages applicants to incorporate activities and services that foster youth assets and motivate youth to remain abstinent, and to include components that emphasize strong and viable parental involvement.
The grantee shall submit all curricula and educational materials for use in the AFL project, whether currently available or to be developed by the grantee, to the OAPP for review and approval prior to use in the project. The review shall ensure that all the information provided to the program participants is medically accurate; consistent with Title XX policies on religion; in compliance with the statutory prohibitions against advocating, promoting, encouraging, or providing abortions; and consistent with the definition of “abstinence education,” as set out in section 510(b)(2) of Title V of the Social Security Act, as amended.
Curricula and educational materials should be identified for this application. Review and approval of curricula and other educational materials are not done until an application is approved for funding. Successful approval of a grant application does not indicate approval of curricula and educational materials for use in a funded project.
The Office of Adolescent Pregnancy Programs (OAPP) has two cross-site performance measures for AFL prevention demonstration programs: (1) Increase the involvement of parents in the lives of their children; and (2) Increase adolescents' understanding of the positive health and emotional benefits of abstaining from premarital sexual activity. All grantees will be responsible for reporting on these two performance measures by using the required AFL prevention core instrument. The applicant should include two program outcome objectives addressing these two performance measures. Please note, up to four additional programmatic outcome objectives can be proposed using additional data collection instruments. Applications that include measures of program effects at 2-year follow-up on sexual activity are preferred. All programmatic outcome objectives should be encompassed by an overarching program goal.
A goal is a general statement of what the project hopes to accomplish. It should reflect the long-term desired impact of the project on the target group(s) as well as reflect the program goals contained in this program announcement. An outcome objective is a statement which defines a measurable result that the project expects to accomplish (e.g., decrease in sexual activity among the treatment group, increase in intent to remain abstinent among the treatment group). All outcome objectives, including the two outcome objectives addressing the above cross-site performance measures, should be described in terms that are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-framed (S.M.A.R.T.).
Section 2006(b)(1) of Title XX requires each grantee to expend at least one percent, but not more than five percent, of the Federal funds received under Title XX on evaluation of the project. In cases in which a more rigorous or comprehensive evaluation effort is proposed, waivers of the five percent limit on evaluation may be granted by OAPP (see sec. 2006(b)(1)). This is the fourth funding cycle in which the OAPP is placing strong emphasis on the evaluation of the demonstration projects it supports. To that end, it is continuing to request applications for evaluation-intensive projects, and
1. Evaluations will be directly tied to program objectives and displayed in a logic model. Research hypotheses will be clearly stated and reflect the outcomes the program intends to achieve.
2. Evaluations will include a process or implementation evaluation. Evaluations in their first year will focus on determining that the intervention is in place, that it is adequately and appropriately staffed and that it is reaching its intended population.
3. Evaluations will have a viable comparison strategy. Ideally, a true experimental design with random assignment will be proposed. For programs targeting schools, applicants are encouraged to select a pool of schools as potential program sites and include data, in the application, describing the characteristics of each school. Applicants are also encouraged to submit letters from each school principal committing to participate in the evaluation if their school is randomly assigned to either the treatment or control group. In cases where an experimental design is not possible, a rigorous quasi-experimental design with matched comparison group(s) would be acceptable.
4. Evaluations will have sufficient sample size to ensure that any observed differences between groups are statistically significant. Inclusion of power analysis to support the sample size is recommended.
5. Evaluations will measure dosage. Youth participation and use of various service components must be carefully tracked so that any differences can be corrected for, or at least taken into account in discussion of evaluation results. Treatment and comparison group respondents who complete baseline data collection should be re-
6. Evaluations will include evaluation training activities for program staff and specific data collection procedures for the research assistant. It is expected that a research assistant will be budgeted as part of the program staff to handle data collection procedures.
7. Evaluations will employ adequate data collection procedures. They will include the assurance of confidentiality, obtaining active parental consent and client assent to participate in the survey, and planning for survey administration that minimizes bias.
8. Evaluations will employ appropriate analytic methods.
9. Evaluations will include a follow-up assessment of program participants at least six months after the intervention being tested ends. Including follow-up at 12 months and 24 months after baseline data collection will greatly strengthen an application. This follow-up assessment should be in the same format as the pre- and post-testing instrumentation.
10. Evaluations will include a plan to disseminate and publish the evaluation findings by the end of the fifth year of funding.
Section 2006(b)(2) of Title XX requires that evaluations of AFL demonstration projects be conducted by an organization or entity independent of the grantee providing services. To accomplish this, applicants should collaborate with an evaluator affiliated with a college or university located in their State. The OAPP expects each AFL demonstration project to establish a strong relationship with its evaluator and that this relationship be clearly established prior to funding. The successful applicant will work with the evaluator as the application is being prepared to ensure that the evaluation plan addresses the proposed project's goals and objectives and meets the evaluation criteria specified above. A letter of commitment from the evaluator along with his or her curriculum vitae should be included in the appendix of the application. Successful applicants will select an evaluator with experience in tracking participants long-term and conducting random assignment.
The AFL Prevention Core evaluation instruments have been developed for use in AFL prevention demonstration project evaluations. The prevention instruments were designed to reflect requirements in the Title XX statute, the A-H criteria for abstinence education, and the two OAPP cross-site performance measures. The Office of Management and Budget has approved these instruments and all AFL demonstration projects funded in fiscal year 2004 and beyond are required to include them in their evaluation design. Prevention demonstration projects funded under this announcement will be included in this requirement. The OAPP recognizes that additional instruments are necessary to measure additional outcome objectives proposed and encourages their use to supplement the core instrument. Copies of the AFL Prevention core instruments required for use in these projects can be found at:
Another important component of OAPP's focus on evaluation is the planning and preparation for a formal cross-site evaluation of AFL demonstration projects. It is anticipated that data collection for the cross-site evaluation, employing the core evaluation instruments discussed above, will begin in August 2008. Projects funded under this announcement will be part of the pool to be included in the cross-site evaluation. Successful applicants will address both capacity and intent to participate in this cross-site evaluation.
All proposed prevention demonstration applicants should provide information regarding the evaluation outcomes of previous programs and should discuss how these findings relate to the currently proposed demonstration model. Previous applicant experience with youth services and “lessons learned” from these programs should be included.
This notice announces the availability of $7.5 million to support an estimated 20 new prevention demonstration grants, funded at $300,000 to $400,000 per budget year (maximum five budget years per grant cycle). Any application that proposes funding over the maximum of $400,000 will not be considered. The OAPP expects that 20-25% of the budget be allotted for evaluation activities. Funding for all approved budget periods beyond the first year of the grant is contingent upon the availability of funds, satisfactory progress of the project, and adequate stewardship of Federal funds.
Please note, in fiscal year (FY) 2004, OAPP issued a similar Request for Applications (RFA) announcing approximately $3.5 million for new abstinence education prevention demonstration projects. In response to that RFA, OAPP received 161 grant applications and was able to fund only 14 new projects.
Any public or private nonprofit organization or agency is eligible to apply for a grant. However, only those organizations or agencies that demonstrate the capability of providing and thoroughly evaluating the proposed services and which meet the statutory requirements will be considered for grant awards. Faith-based and community-based organizations are encouraged to apply for AFL grants. Please note, however, that AFL funds may not be used for inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, and proselytization. If an organization engages in such activities, they must be offered separately in time or location from the program funded under the AFL program and participation must be voluntary for program beneficiaries. An AFL program, in providing services and outreach related to program services, cannot discriminate against current or prospective program beneficiaries on the basis of religion, a religious belief, a refusal to hold a religious belief, or a refusal to actively participate in a religious practice. Please also note that all adolescents, regardless of race or religion, shall be eligible to participate in an AFL program.
Applications will be accepted from organizations which are currently operating AFL prevention demonstration programs that are completing their funding cycle as of September 2007, or June 2008, if modifications are made to enhance services for a new demonstration project according to the guidelines specified in this announcement. Current AFL prevention demonstration grantees that are not ending their grant cycles by these dates are not eligible to apply for these funds.
Applicants funded under this announcement will be required to match Federal funding provided by the OAPP. Section 2005(c)(2) of Title XX states that an AFL grant award may not exceed 70% of the total costs of the project for the first and second years, 60% of the total costs for the third year, 50% for the fourth year and 40% for the fifth year. The AFL non-Federal share of the project costs may be provided in cash expenditures or fairly evaluated in-kind contributions, including facilities, equipment and services.
Note that the HHS Grants Policy Statement provides that: “Recipient contributions may be derived from any non-Federal source; from Federal
Application kits may be obtained by accessing Grants.gov at
In preparing the application, it is important to follow ALL instructions and public policy requirements provided in the application kit. Applications must be submitted on the forms supplied (OPHS-1, Revised 03/2006) and in the manner prescribed in the application kits provided by the OAPP. Applicants are required to submit an application signed by an individual authorized to act for the applicant agency or organization and to assume for the organization the obligations imposed by the terms and conditions of the grant award. The program narrative must be printed on 8
The narrative description of the project must contain the following using the specified page limits:
A Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number is required for all applications for Federal assistance. Organizations should verify that they have a DUNS number or take the steps necessary to obtain one. Instructions for obtaining a DUNS number are included in the application package, and may be downloaded from the OPA Web site (
To be considered for review, applications must be received by the Office of Public Health and Science, Office of Grants Management, c/o WilDon Solutions, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 1, 2007. Applications will be considered as meeting the deadline if they are received on or before the deadline date. The application due date requirement in this announcement supercedes the instructions in the OPHS-1 form.
The Office of Public Health and Science (OPHS) provides multiple mechanisms for the submission of applications, as described in the following sections. Applicants will receive notification via mail from the OPHS Office of Grants Management confirming the receipt of applications submitted using any of these mechanisms. Applications submitted to the OPHS Office of Grants Management after the deadlines described below will not be accepted for review. Applications which do not conform to the requirements of the grant announcement will not be accepted for review and will be returned to the applicant.
While applications are accepted in hard copy, the use of the electronic application submission capabilities provided by the Grants.gov and GrantSolutions.gov systems is encouraged. Applications may only be submitted electronically via the electronic submission mechanisms specified below. Any applications submitted via any other means of electronic communication, including facsimile or electronic mail, will not be accepted for review.
In order to apply for new funding opportunities which are open to the public for competition, you may access the Grants.gov Web site portal. All OPHS funding opportunities and application kits are made available on Grants.gov. If your organization has/had a grantee business relationship with a grant program serviced by the OPHS Office of Grants Management, and you are applying as part of ongoing grantee related activities, please access GrantSolutions.gov.
Electronic grant application submissions must be submitted no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the deadline date specified in the
Applications will not be considered valid until all electronic application components, hardcopy original signatures, and mail-in items are received by the OPHS Office of Grants Management according to the deadlines specified above. Application submissions that do not adhere to the due date requirements will be considered late and will be deemed ineligible.
Applicants are encouraged to initiate electronic applications early in the application development process, and to submit early on the due date or before. This will aid in addressing any problems with submissions prior to the application deadline.
The Grants.gov Web site Portal provides organizations with the ability to submit applications for OPHS grant opportunities. Organizations must successfully complete the necessary registration processes in order to submit an application. Information about this system is available on the Grants.gov Web site,
In addition to electronically submitted materials, applicants may be required to submit hard copy signatures for certain Program related forms, or original materials as required by the announcement. It is imperative that the applicant review both the grant announcement, as well as the application guidance provided within the Grants.gov application package, to determine such requirements. Any required hard copy materials, or documents that require a signature, must be submitted separately via mail to the OPHS Office of Grants Management, c/o WilDon Solutions, and if required, must contain the original signature of an individual authorized to act for the applicant agency and the obligations imposed by the terms and conditions of the grant award. When submitting the required forms, do not send the entire application. Complete hard copy applications submitted after the electronic submission will not be considered for review.
Electronic applications submitted via the Grants.gov Web site Portal must contain all completed online forms required by the application kit, the Program Narrative, Budget Narrative and any appendices or exhibits. All required mail-in items must received by
Upon completion of a successful electronic application submission via the Grants.gov Web site Portal, the applicant will be provided with a confirmation page from Grants.gov indicating the date and time (Eastern Time) of the electronic application submission, as well as the Grants.gov Receipt Number. It is critical that the applicant print and retain this confirmation for their records, as well as a copy of the entire application package.
All applications submitted via the Grants.gov Web site Portal will be validated by Grants.gov. Any applications deemed “Invalid” by the Grants.gov Web site Portal will not be transferred to the GrantSolutions system, and OPHS has no responsibility for any application that is not validated and transferred to OPHS from the Grants.gov Web site Portal. Grants.gov will notify the applicant regarding the application validation status. Once the application is successfully validated by the Grants.gov Web site Portal, applicants should immediately mail all required hard copy materials to the OPHS Office of Grants Management, c/o WilDon Solutions, to be received by the deadlines specified above. It is critical that the applicant clearly identify the Organization name and Grants.gov Application Receipt Number on all hard copy materials.
Once the application is validated by Grants.gov, it will be electronically transferred to the GrantSolutions system for processing. Upon receipt of both the electronic application from the Grants.gov Web site Portal, and the required hardcopy mail-in items, applicants will receive notification via mail from the OPHS Office of Grants Management confirming the receipt of the application submitted using the Grants.gov Web site Portal.
Applicants should contact Grants.gov regarding any questions or concerns regarding the electronic application process conducted through the Grants.gov Web site Portal.
OPHS is a managing partner of the GrantSolutions.gov system. GrantSolutions is a full life-cycle grants management system managed by the Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and is designated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as one of the three Government-wide grants management systems under the Grants Management Line of Business initiative (GMLoB). OPHS uses GrantSolutions for the electronic processing of all grant applications, as well as the electronic management of its entire Grant portfolio.
When submitting applications via the GrantSolutions system, applicants are required to submit a hard copy of the application face page (Standard Form 424) with the original signature of an individual authorized to act for the applicant agency and assume the obligations imposed by the terms and conditions of the grant award. If required, applicants will also need to submit a hard copy of the Standard Form LLL and/or certain Program related forms (e.g., Program Certifications) with the original signature of an individual authorized to act for the applicant agency. When submitting the required forms, do not send the entire application. Complete hard copy applications submitted after the electronic submission will not be considered for review.
Electronic applications submitted via the GrantSolutions system must contain all completed online forms required by the application kit, the Program Narrative, Budget Narrative and any appendices or exhibits. The applicant may identify specific mail-in items to be sent to the Office of Grants Management separate from the electronic submission; however these mail-in items must be entered on the GrantSolutions Application Checklist at the time of electronic submission, and must be received by the due date requirements specified above. Mail-in items may only include publications, resumes, or organizational documentation. When submitting the required forms, do not send the entire application. Complete hard copy applications submitted after the electronic submission will not be considered for review.
Upon completion of a successful electronic application submission, the GrantSolutions system will provide the applicant with a confirmation page indicating the date and time (Eastern Time) of the electronic application submission. This confirmation page will also provide a listing of all items that constitute the final application submission including all electronic application components, required hardcopy original signatures, and mail-in items, as well as the mailing address of the OPHS Office of Grants Management where all required hard copy materials must be submitted.
As items are received by the OPHS Office of Grants Management, the electronic application status will be updated to reflect the receipt of mail-in items. It is recommended that the applicant monitor the status of their application in the GrantSolutions system to ensure that all signatures and mail-in items are received.
Applicants who submit applications in hard copy (via mail or hand-delivered) are required to submit an original and two copies of the application. The original application must be signed by an individual authorized to act for the applicant agency or organization and to assume for the organization the obligations imposed by the terms and conditions of the grant award.
Mailed or hand-delivered applications will be considered as meeting the deadline if they are received by the OPHS Office of Grant Management, c/o WilDon Solutions, on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the deadline date specified in the
Applications for AFL grants must meet both of the following requirements (each year):
Grant funds may be used to cover costs of: Personnel, consultants, equipment, supplies, grant-related travel, and other grant-related costs. Grant funds may not be used for: building alterations or renovations, construction, fund raising activities, and political education and lobbying. Guidance for completing the application can be found in the Program Guidelines, which are included with the complete application kits.
Applicants for discretionary grants are expected to anticipate and justify their funding needs and the activities to be carried out with those funds in preparing the budget and accompanying narrative portions of their applications. The basis for determining the allowability and allocability of costs charged to Public Health Service (PHS) grants is set forth in 45 CFR parts 74 and 92. If applicants are uncertain whether a particular cost is allowable, they should contact the OPHS Office of Grants Management at (240) 453-8822 for further information.
Organizations applying for funds under the AFL Demonstration Projects Program must submit documentation of nonprofit status with their applications. If documentation is not provided, the applicant will be considered non-responsive and will not be entered into the review process. The organization will be notified that the application did not meet the submission requirements.
Any of the following serves as acceptable proof of nonprofit status:
• A reference to the applicant organization's listing in the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) most recent listing of tax-exempt organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code.
• A copy of a currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate.
• A statement from a State taking body, State Attorney General, or other appropriate State official certifying that the applicant organization has a nonprofit status and that none of the net earnings accrue to any private shareholders or individuals.
• A certified copy of the organization's certificate of incorporation or similar document that clearly establishes nonprofit status.
• Any of the above proof for a State or national organization and a statement signed by the parent organization that the applicant organization is a local nonprofit affiliate.
Eligible competing grant applications will be externally reviewed by a multi-disciplinary panel of independent reviewers and subsequently reviewed by Federal staff. All competing grant applications will be assessed according to the following criteria:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Please note, the order of the above criteria is based on the score weight of each criteria and is not indicative of how the program narrative should be arranged. Please see the application kit for instructions on how to arrange the narrative.
Final grant award decisions will be made by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs (DASPA). In making these decisions, the DASPA will take into account the extent to which applications recommended for approval will provide appropriate geographic distribution of resources, the priorities in sec. 2005(a), and other factors including:
(1) Recommendations and scores submitted by the external review panel;
(2) Internal review of application by Federal staff;
(3) The geographic area to be served including the reasonableness of the estimated cost of the project based on factors such as the incidence of adolescent pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) in the geographic area to be served and the availability of services for adolescents in this geographic area; and
(4) The adequacy of the evaluation plan as detailed in the evaluation criteria listed in the “Evaluation” section of this announcement and the demonstrated ability to participate successfully in the AFL cross-site evaluation.
Special consideration may be granted to areas of the country with high need and lack of resources, as well as populations not currently receiving Title XX funding for prevention programs. The DASPA has the discretion not to fund applicants in States or areas of the country that are already funded under the Title XX program. If there are multiple applicants in one State, agency collaboration is encouraged. Please note, the DASPA may elect to award one grant per State.
The OAPP anticipates announcing and awarding grantees under this announcement by September 1, 2007.
The OAPP does not release information about individual applications during the review process until final funding decisions have been made. When these decisions have been made, the applicant's authorized representative will be notified of the outcome of their application by postal mail. The official document notifying an applicant that the application has been approved for funding is the Notice of Grant Award, signed by the Grants Management Officer, which specifies to the grantee the amount of money awarded, the purposes of the grant, the length of the project period, terms and conditions of the grant award, and the amount of funding to be contributed by the grantee to project costs.
The regulations set out at 45 CFR parts 74 and 92 are the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rules and requirements that govern the administration of grants. Part 74 is applicable to all recipients except those covered by Part 92, which governs awards to State and local governments. Applicants funded under this announcement must be aware of and comply with these regulations. The CFR volume that includes parts 74 and 92 may be downloaded from
When issuing statements, press releases, requests for proposals, bid solicitations, and other documents describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part with Federal money, all grantees shall clearly state the percentage and dollar amount of the total costs of the program or project which will be financed with Federal money and the percentage and dollar amount of the total costs of the project or program that will be financed by non-governmental sources.
Applicants funded under this grant announcement will be required to electronically submit an End-of-Year Program, Evaluation and Financial report 90 days after the grant budget period ends. Grantees will report annually on program and evaluation progress using the AFL Prevention Demonstration Project End-of-Year Report template approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB 0990-300), available at
For application kits, submission of applications, and information on budget and business aspects of the application, please contact: WilDon Solutions, Office of Grants Management Operations Center, 1515 Wilson Blvd., Third Floor Suite 310, Arlington, VA 22209 at 1-888-203-6161, e-mail
For information related to the OAPP program requirements, the OAPP staff are available at 240-453-2828 to answer questions and provide technical assistance on the preparation of grant applications. Questions may also be directed to OAPP staff via e-mail at
The applicant must comply with the HHS Protection of Human Subjects regulations (which require obtaining Institutional Review Board approval), set out at 45 CFR part 46, if applicable. General information about Human Subjects regulations can be obtained through the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) at
The OAPP is committed to providing technical assistance to assist prospective applicants at no cost. The OAPP anticipates offering in-person technical assistance workshops at several locations across the country and two interactive on-line/teleconference
With respect to both the in-person and interactive online workshops, applicants should check the OPA Web site at
The OAPP anticipates conducting four in-person technical workshops as well as two live interactive online workshops in April, 2007. If a prospective applicant cannot attend the live or interactive online workshops, the transcripts of the online workshops will be available online at
Each year, the OAPP hosts an annual grantee conference for prevention demonstration grantees. The Terms and Conditions of the Notice of Grant Award specifies that the Project Director and Evaluator are expected to attend the annual conference. In addition, the OAPP offers technical assistance and training to improve the caliber of professionalism of front-line staff. The Project Director, Evaluator and front-line staff are expected to participate in OAPP sponsored technical assistance workshops.
The OAPP anticipates that all Prevention demonstration grantees will disseminate and publish information about their projects, including in peer-reviewed journals, by or shortly after the 5th year. When selecting an evaluator, he/she should have experience publishing and presenting at professional conferences. The evaluator should also have the college/university support to disseminate such findings to the field.
Office of the General Counsel, HUD.
Notice.
Section 106 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (the HUD Reform Act) requires HUD to publish quarterly
For general information about this notice, contact Aaron Santa Anna, Assistant General Counsel for Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone (202) 708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing- or speech-impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
For information concerning a particular waiver that was granted and for which public notice is provided in this document, contact the person whose name and address follow the description of the waiver granted in the accompanying list of waivers that have been granted in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2006.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act added a new section 7(q) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(q)), which provides that:
1. Any waiver of a regulation must be in writing and must specify the grounds for approving the waiver;
2. Authority to approve a waiver of a regulation may be delegated by the Secretary only to an individual of Assistant Secretary or equivalent rank, and the person to whom authority to waive is delegated must also have authority to issue the particular regulation to be waived;
3. Not less than quarterly, the Secretary must notify the public of all waivers of regulations that HUD has approved, by publishing a notice in the
a. Identify the project, activity, or undertaking involved;
b. Describe the nature of the provision waived and the designation of the provision;
c. Indicate the name and title of the person who granted the waiver request;
d. Describe briefly the grounds for approval of the request; and
e. State how additional information about a particular waiver may be obtained.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act also contains requirements applicable to waivers of HUD handbook provisions that are not relevant to the purpose of this notice.
This notice follows procedures provided in HUD's Statement of Policy on Waiver of Regulations and Directives issued on April 22, 1991 (56 FR 16337). In accordance with those procedures and with the requirements of section 106 of the HUD Reform Act, waivers of regulations are granted by the Assistant Secretary with jurisdiction over the regulations for which a waiver was requested. In those cases in which a General Deputy Assistant Secretary granted the waiver, the General Deputy Assistant Secretary was serving in the absence of the Assistant Secretary in accordance with the office's Order of Succession.
This notice covers waivers of regulations granted by HUD from October 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. For ease of reference, the waivers granted by HUD are listed by HUD program office (for example, the Office of Community Panning and Development, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, the Office of Housing, and the Office of Public and Indian Housing, etc.). Within each program office grouping, the waivers are listed sequentially by the regulatory section of title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that is being waived. For example, a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 58 would be listed before a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 570.
Where more than one regulatory provision is involved in the grant of a particular waiver request, the action is listed under the section number of the first regulatory requirement that appears in 24 CFR and that is being waived. For example, a waiver of both § 58.73 and § 58.74 would appear sequentially in the listing under § 58.73.
Waiver of regulations that involve the same initial regulatory citation are in time sequence beginning with the earliest-dated regulatory waiver.
Should HUD receive additional information about waivers granted during the period covered by this report (the fourth quarter of calendar year 2006) before the next report is published (the first quarter of calendar year 2007), HUD will include any additional waivers granted for the fourth quarter in the next report.
Accordingly, information about approved waiver requests pertaining to HUD regulations is provided in the Appendix that follows this notice.
More information about the granting of these waivers, including a copy of the waiver request and approval, may be obtained by contacting the person whose name is listed as the contact person directly after each set of regulatory waivers granted.
The regulatory waivers granted appear in the following order:
I. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Community Planning and Development.
II. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Housing.
III. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Public and Indian Housing.
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 92.500(d)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 127481.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 92.500(d)(1)(C).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 576.21(b), 42 U.S.C. 11374(a)(2)(B).
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 203.43f(c)(i) and 24 CFR 203.43f(d)(ii).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 219.220(b).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 236.725.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 290.30(a).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.100(d).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.100(d).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.100(d).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.100(d).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.100(d).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.100(d).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.100(d).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.100(d).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.100(d) and 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.100(d) and 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.165.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.410(c).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.410(c).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.410(c).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.410(c).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.410(c).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.410(c).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.830(b).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 891.830(c)(4).
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 902.20, 902.30, 902.40, 902.50 and 24 CFR part 985.
The objective of 24 CFR part 985 is to assist eligible families afford decent rental units at the correct subsidy cost, and to measure HA performance in seven key Section 8 performance indicators under the Section 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) through annual certification.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 902.30.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 902.30.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 902.30.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 902.30.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 941.606(n)(l)(ii)(B).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 941.606(n)(l)(ii)(B).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 941.606(n)(l)(ii)(B).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 941.606(n)(l)(ii)(B).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 941.606(n)(l)(ii)(B).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 941.606(n)(l)(ii)(B).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.505(d).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.207(b)(3).
• Regulation: 24 CFR 983.55(b).
• Regulations: 24 CFR part 5 and 24 CFR Chapter IX.
1. 24 CFR 5.216(g)(5) (Disclosure and Verification of Social Security and Employer Identification Numbers);
2. 24 CFR 5.512(c) (Verification of Eligible Immigration Status; Secondary Verification);
3. 24 CFR 5.801(c) and 5.801(d) (Uniform Financial Reporting Standards (UFRS));
4. 24 CFR 902 (Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS));
5. 24 CFR 903.5 (Annual Plan Submission Deadline);
6. 24 CFR 905.10(i) (Capital Fund Formula; Limitation of Replacement Housing Funds to New Development);
7. 24 CFR 941.306 (Maximum Project);
8. 24 CFR 965.302 (Requirement for Energy Audits);
9. 24 CFR 982.54 (Administrative Plan);
10. 24 CFR 982.206 (Waiting List; Opening and Public Notice);
11. 24 CFR 982.401(d) (Housing Quality Standards; Space Requirements);
12. 24 CFR 982.503(b) (Waiver of payment standard; Establishing Payment Standard; Amounts);
13. 24 CFR 984.303 (Contract of Participation; Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program; Extension of Contract) and 24 CFR 984.105 (Minimum Payment Size);
14. 24 CFR part 985 (Section 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP)); and
15. 24 CFR 990.145 (Dwelling Units with Approved Vacancies).
16. 24 CFR 1000.156 and 1000.158 (IHBG Moderate Design Requirements for Housing Development).
17. 24 CFR 1000.214 (Indian Housing Plan (IHP) Submission Deadline).
18. 24 CFR 1003.400(c) and Section I.C. of FY 2005 Indian Community Development Block Grants (ICDBG) Program Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) (Grant Ceilings for ICDBG Imminent Threat Applications).
19. 24 CFR 1003.401 and Section I.C. of FY 2005 ICDBG NOFA (Application Requirements for ICDBG Imminent Threat Funds).
20. 24 CFR 1003.604 (ICDBG Citizen Participation Requirements).
Both
• Requirements 1, 2 and 8—Nicole Faison, Director, Public Housing Programs, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4222, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone (202) 708-0744;
• Requirements 3, 4 and 15—Wanda F. Funk, Senior Advisor, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street, SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone (202) 475-8736;
• Requirement 5—Merrie Nichols-Dixon, Director, Compliance and Coordination Division, Office of Field Operations, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4112, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone (202) 708-4016.
• Requirements 6 and 7—Jeffery Riddel, Director, Capital Fund Division, Public Housing Investments, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4146, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone (202) 401-8812;
• Requirements 9-14—Alfred C. Jurison, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone (202) 708-0477;
• Requirements 16-20—Deborah M. Lalancette, Director, Office of Grants Management, Office of Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1670 Broadway, Denver, CO 80202, telephone (303) 675-1600.