Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
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.
Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
We are adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that amended the Asian longhorned beetle regulations by expanding the boundaries of the quarantined areas in New Jersey and restricting the interstate movement of regulated articles from those areas. The interim rule was necessary to prevent the spread of the Asian longhorned beetle to noninfested areas of the United States.
Effective on November 5, 2007, we are adopting as a final rule the interim rule published at 71 FR 59649-59651 on October 11, 2006.
Mr. Michael B. Stefan, ALB National Coordinator, Emergency and Domestic Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-7338.
The regulations in 7 CFR 301.51-1 through 301.51-9 (referred to below as the regulations) restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from quarantined areas to prevent the artificial spread of the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) to noninfested areas of the United States. Quarantined areas are listed in § 301.51-3(c) of the regulations.
In an interim rule
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before December 11, 2006. We received one comment by that date, from a scientific organization.
Although the commenter acknowledged that the regulations allow us to designate less than an entire State as a quarantined area, the commenter suggested that the spread of ALB within New Jersey was too unpredictable, and the possible damage too substantive, to allow us to quarantine less than the entire State of New Jersey.
We are making no change in response to this comment. Dispersal and flight ability studies for ALB indicate that 99 percent of the beetle's movement occurs within one-half mile of an infested tree. The quarantined area within New Jersey extends approximately 1.5 miles in every direction from each infested tree. In addition, State and Federal plant health authorities have removed high-risk host trees, applied chemical treatments, and conducted extensive ground surveys of the quarantined area, in accordance with guidelines developed by scientists and program managers with experience in pest management and control, and ALB. APHIS believes that these measures effectively preclude the natural spread of ALB from the quarantined area.
In addition, a number of measures have been taken to prevent the artificial spread of ALB from the quarantined area. In the interim rule, we restricted the interstate movement of regulated articles from the area. This measure augmented existing State regulations restricting the intrastate movement of regulated articles from a quarantined area. We have also conducted an extensive outreach campaign in the region around the quarantined area to educate the public to the dangers posed by the artificial spread of ALB.
We believe these interlocking safeguards are adequate to mitigate the risk of the natural or artificial spread of ALB from the quarantined area.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule and in this document, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule without change.
This action also affirms the information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Further, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Prune Marketing Committee (Committee) for the 2007-08 and subsequent crop years from $0.40 to $0.60 per ton of salable dried prunes.
Terry Vawter, Senior Marketing Specialist, or Kurt Kimmel, Regional Manager, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906; or E-mail:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or E-mail:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 110 and Marketing Order No. 993, both as amended (7 CFR part 993), regulating the handling of dried prunes grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The marketing agreement and order are effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, California dried prune handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable dried prunes beginning on August 1, 2007, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2007-08 and subsequent crop years from $0.40 to $0.60 per ton of salable dried prunes handled.
The California dried prune marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers of California dried prunes. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed at a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 2006-07 and subsequent crop years, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from crop year to crop year unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.
The Committee met on June 28, 2007, and unanimously recommended an assessment rate of $0.60 per ton of salable dried prunes and expenditures totaling $102,523 for the 2007-08 crop year. In comparison, last year's approved expenses as amended in April 2007 were $77,722. The assessment rate of $0.60 per ton of salable dried prunes is $0.20 higher than the rate currently in effect.
The Committee recommended a higher assessment rate based on a production estimate of 95,000 tons of salable dried prunes for this year, which is substantially less than the 187,737 tons produced last year. At this assessment rate the assessment income for the 2007-08 crop year is $57,000. The Committee's budget of expenses of $102,523 includes a slight increase in personnel expenses, and a slight decrease in operating expenses. Combined salaries and expenses are almost two percent higher than last year, or about $65,580. The Committee also included $36,943 for contingencies. Most of the Committee's expenses reflect its portion of the joint administrative costs of the Committee and the California Dried Plum Board. Based on the Committee's reduced activities in recent years, it is funding only ten percent of the shared expenses of the two programs. This funding level is similar to that of last year. The Committee believes carryover funds, plus assessment and interest income, is adequate to cover its estimated expenses of $102,523.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2007-08 crop year include $50,505 for salaries and benefits, $15,075 for operating expenses, and $36,943 for contingencies. For the 2006-07 crop year, the Committee's budgeted expenses were $48,662 for salaries and benefits, $15,895 for operating expenses, and $13,165 for contingencies.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by dividing the handler assessment revenue needed to meet anticipated expenses by the estimated salable tons of California dried prunes. Dried prune production for the year is estimated to be 95,000 salable tons, which should provide $57,000 in assessment income at $0.60 per ton of salable dried prunes. Income derived from handler assessments, plus excess funds from the 2006-07 crop year should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.
The Committee is authorized under § 993.81(c) of the order to use excess assessment funds from the 2006-07 crop year (currently estimated at $45,423) for up to 5 months beyond the end of the crop year to meet 2007-08 crop year expenses. At the end of the 5 months, the Committee either refunds or credits excess funds to handlers.
The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 1,100 producers of dried prunes in the production area and approximately 22 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. The Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) defines small agricultural producers as those whose annual receipts are less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms as those whose annual receipts are less than $6,500,000.
An estimated 1,068 of the 1,100 producers (97.1 percent) have incomes of less than $750,000 and are considered small producers. Fourteen of the 22 handlers (63.6 percent) have incomes from handling prunes of less than $6,500,000 and could be considered small handlers. Therefore, the majority of handlers and producers of California dried prunes may be classified as small entities.
This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2007-08 and subsequent crop years from $0.40 to $0.60 per ton of salable dried prunes.
The Committee met on June 28, 2007, and unanimously recommended estimated expenses for 2007-08 of $102,523 and an increased assessment rate of $0.60 per ton of salable dried prunes. The Committee's recommended budget was based on a slight increase in personnel expenses and a slight decrease in operating expenses. Combined salaries and expenses are almost two percent higher than last year, or about $65,580. The Committee also included $36,943 for contingencies. Most of the Committee's expenses reflect its portion of the joint administrative costs of the Committee and the California Dried Plum Board. Based on the Committee's reduced activities in recent years, it is funding only ten percent of the shared expenses of the two programs. This funding level is similar to that of last year. The Committee believes carryover funds, plus assessment and interest income, are adequate to cover its estimated expenses of $102,523.
The assessment rate of $0.60 per ton of salable dried prunes is $0.20 higher than the rate currently in effect. The quantity of salable dried prunes for the 2007-08 crop year is currently estimated at 95,000 tons of salable dried prunes, compared to 187,737 tons of salable dried prunes for the 2006-07 crop year.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2007-08 crop year include $50,505 for salaries and benefits, $15,075 for operating expenses, and $36,943 for contingencies. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2006-07 were $48,662 for salaries and benefits, $15,895 for operating expenses, and $13,165 for contingencies.
The 2007-08 crop year assessment rate was derived after considering the handler assessment rate revenue needed to meet anticipated crop year expenses; estimated production of salable dried prunes; and the estimated income from other sources, such as interest. Therefore, the Committee recommended an assessment rate of $0.60 per ton of salable dried prunes.
Prior to arriving at its budget of $102,523, the Committee considered information from various sources, including the Committee's Executive Subcommittee. Alternative assessment rates, including the rate currently in effect, and different expenditure levels were discussed by the subcommittee and the Committee. An alternative to this action is to continue with the $0.40 per ton assessment rate. However, an assessment rate of $0.60 per ton of salable dried prunes, along with excess funds from the 2006-07 crop year, is needed to provide enough income to fund the Committee's operations.
Therefore, the Committee agreed that $0.60 per ton of salable dried prunes is an acceptable assessment rate. Section 993.81(c) of the order provides the Committee the authority to use excess assessment funds from the 2006-07 crop year (currently estimated at $45,423) for up to 5 months beyond the end of the crop year to meet 2007-08 crop year expenses. At the end of the 5 months, the Committee either refunds or credits excess funds to handlers.
A review of historical information and preliminary data pertaining to the upcoming crop year indicates that the producer price for the 2007-08 crop year is expected to average between $1,500 and $1,600 per ton of salable dried prunes. Based on an estimated 95,000 salable tons of dried prunes, assessment revenue as a percentage of producer prices during the 2006-07 crop year is expected to be between .038 and .040 percent.
This action increases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs are offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California dried prune industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the June 28, 2007, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.
This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California dried prune handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it also found and determined that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Marketing agreements, Plums, Prunes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after August 1, 2007, an assessment rate of $0.60 per ton of salable dried prunes is established for California dried prunes.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date and correction.
This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which revises Class E airspace at Fort Scott, KS and corrects the coordinates of the Fort Scott Nondirectional Beacon (NDB).
Grant Nichols, System Support, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2522.
The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the
Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
In the description of the airspace contained in the direct final rule, the coordinates of the Fort Scott NDB were incorrectly published. This action makes this editorial correction, which does not change the airspace configuration. The FAA is republishing the entire airspace description.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.0-mile radius of Fort Scott Municipal Airport and within 2.6 miles each side of the 350° bearing from Fort Scott NDB extending from the 7.0-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles north of the NDB.
Department of the Navy, DOD.
Final rule.
The Department of the Navy is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS STERETT
This rule is effective November 5, 2007, and is applicable to August 1, 2007.
Commander Gregg A. Cervi, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave., SE., Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone 202-685-5040.
Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the Department of the Navy amends 32 CFR part 706. This amendment provides notice that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS STERETT (DDG 104) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(i), pertaining to the placement of the masthead light or lights above and clear of all other lights and obstructions; Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(ii), pertaining to the vertical placement of task lights; Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the location of the forward masthead light in the forward quarter of the ship, and the horizontal distance between the forward and after masthead lights; and Annex I, paragraph 3(c), pertaining to placement of task lights not less than two meters from the fore and aft centerline of the ship in the athwartship direction. The Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.
Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), and Vessels.
33 U.S.C. 1605.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
EPA published a direct final rule on September 7, 2007, to correct errors in a May 15, 2006, final rule amending five instrumental test methods. We received adverse comment during the comment period on the September 2007 direct final rule and are now withdrawing that direct final rule.
Effective November 5, 2007, EPA withdraws the direct final rule published at 72 FR 51365, September 7, 2007.
Foston Curtis, Air Quality Assessment Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (E143-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-1063; fax number (919) 541-0516; e-mail address:
Because EPA received adverse comment, we are withdrawing the direct final rule entitled “Update of Continuous Instrumental Test Methods: Technical Amendments” published on September 7, 2007 (72 FR 51365). This direct final rule made corrections to a May 15, 2006 final rule (71 FR 28082) which amended five instrumental test methods. The direct final was to correct errors and clarify portions of the amendments that may have been ambiguous. We stated in the September 2007 direct final rule that if we received any adverse comments by October 9, 2007, the direct final would not take effect and we would publish a timely withdrawal in the
We will address those comments in any subsequent final action based on the parallel proposed rule also published on September 7, 2007 (72 FR 51392). As stated in the direct final rule and the parallel proposed rule, we will not institute a second comment period on this action.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of actions denying petitions for reconsideration.
The EPA is providing notice that it has responded to sixteen petitions for reconsideration of the air quality designations for the fine particle (PM
Geoffrey L. Wilcox, U.S. EPA, Office of General Counsel, Mail Code 2344A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 564-5601, e-mail at
This
All documents in the docket are listed on the
This
Section 307(b)(1) of the Act indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions for review of final actions by EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit if: (i) The agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator,” or (ii) such actions are locally or regionally applicable, if “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.”
The EPA has determined that its actions denying the petitions for reconsideration are of nationwide scope and effect for purposes of section 307(b)(1) because EPA previously found that the air quality designations for the PM
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS closes the commercial fishery for king mackerel in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the western zone of the Gulf of Mexico. This closure is necessary to protect the Gulf king mackerel resource.
The closure is effective from 12 noon, local time, November 3, 2007, through June 30, 2008.
Susan Gerhart, 727-824-5305, fax: 727-824-5308, e-mail:
The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish (king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, cero, cobia, little tunny, and, in the Gulf of Mexico only, dolphin and bluefish) is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and is
Based on the Councils' recommended total allowable catch and the allocation ratios in the FMP, NMFS implemented a commercial quota for the Gulf of Mexico migratory group of king mackerel in the western zone of 1.01 million lb (0.46 million kg) (66 FR 17368, March 30, 2001).
Under 50 CFR 622.43(a), NMFS is required to close any segment of the king mackerel commercial fishery when its quota has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification at the Office of the
Except for a person aboard a charter vessel or headboat, during the closure, no person aboard a vessel for which a commercial permit for king mackerel has been issued may fish for or retain Gulf group king mackerel in the EEZ in the closed zones or subzones. A person aboard a vessel that has a valid charter vessel/headboat permit for coastal migratory pelagic fish may continue to retain king mackerel in or from the closed zones or subzones under the bag and possession limits set forth in 50 CFR 622.39(c)(1)(ii) and (c)(2), provided the vessel is operating as a charter vessel or headboat. A charter vessel or headboat that also has a commercial king mackerel permit is considered to be operating as a charter vessel or headboat when it carries a passenger who pays a fee or when there are more than three persons aboard, including operator and crew.
During the closure, king mackerel from the closed zones or subzones taken in the EEZ, including those harvested under the bag and possession limits, may not be purchased or sold. This prohibition does not apply to trade in king mackerel from the closed zones or subzones that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to the closure and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such prior notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures would be unnecessary because the rule itself already has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action in order to protect the fishery since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment will require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the quota.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30 day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.43(a) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the Commonwealth of Virginia is transferring commercial bluefish quota to the State of New York from its 2007 quota. By this action, NMFS adjusts the quotas and announces the revised commercial quota for each state involved.
Effective November 2, 2007 through December 31, 2007.
Emily Bryant, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9244, fax (978) 281-9135.
Regulations governing the Atlantic bluefish fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Florida through Maine. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.160.
Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), can transfer or combine bluefish commercial quota under § 648.160(f). The Regional Administrator is required to consider the criteria set forth in § 648.160(f)(1) in the evaluation of requests for quota transfers or combinations.
Virginia has agreed to transfer 200,000 lb (90,718 kg) of its 2007 commercial quota to New York. The Regional Administrator has determined that the criteria set forth in § 648.160(f)(1) have been met. The revised bluefish quotas for calendar year 2007 are: New York, 1,234,278 lb (559,859 kg); and Virginia, 668,660 lb (303,299 kg).
This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Advance notice on proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is withdrawing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking soliciting comments on possible revisions to the voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Florida Avocados. After reviewing and considering the comments received, the agency has decided not to proceed further with this action.
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking is withdrawn as of November 5, 2007.
Vincent J. Fusaro, Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch, (202) 720-2185. The United States Standards for Grades of Florida Avocados are available either through the address cited above or by accessing the Fresh Products Branch Web site at:
AMS had identified the United States Standards for Grades of Florida Avocados for possible revisions. AMS solicited comments on possible revisions to the standards including deleting “Florida” to allow the standards to apply to all avocados. The standards were published on September 3, 1957.
On March, 29, 2007, AMS published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the
During the initial sixty-day comment period, three opposing comments and one supporting comment were received. The three opposing comments were submitted by a foreign avocado committee, a company representing growers/packers, and a national trade association representing wholesale receivers. The opposing commenters stated that this revision would not be beneficial to their industry as Florida avocados have unique characteristics which differ significantly from other varieties specifically, the Hass variety. They held the view that the revision would directly affect the Florida Marketing Order (7 CFR Part 915) and imports of the Hass variety. The Hass variety of avocados is not regulated currently under the marketing order.
During the extension of the comment period, four opposing comments were received by a foreign government, a foreign avocado committee, a grower/shipper of avocados, and another from an association of packers, producers, and exporters. All expressed concerns regarding the effect this proposed revision might have on the marketing order and import requirements and a comment raised concerns regarding the treatment of California avocados under the proposed standard. The comments are available by accessing the
While deleting the word “Florida” from the title of the standard would not impact the marketing order and/or import requirements, AMS understands the views and concerns expressed by the avocado industry. After considering all of the comments received regarding the proposed revisions, AMS has decided not to proceed further with this action. Therefore, the advance notice of proposed rulemaking, published March 29, 2007 (72 FR 14709), is withdrawn.
7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) proposes to amend its rules under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) primarily to effectuate various provisions under the 1996 Electronic FOIA Amendments. Previously, FMCS had issued a proposed rule on November 3, 1999 (64 FR 59697). FMCS received no comments when the proposed rule was published in 1999. FMCS is withdrawing that proposed rule and issuing a new revised proposed rule. The proposed revisions include a new response time for FOIA requests, procedures for requesting expedited processing, the availability of certain public information on FMCS's Web site, and express inclusion of electronic records and automated searches along with paper records and manual searches. In addition, FMCS's proposed amendments would update its fee schedule. FMCS is also updating the names and addresses of the various offices within the agency responsible for FOIA related activities.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before December 5, 2007.
Submit written comments by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.
Michael J. Bartlett, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, 2100 K Street,
In this rulemaking, FMCS proposes to amend its regulations at 29 CFR part 1401, subpart B under FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552. The primary focus of these proposed amendments is to effectuate for this Agency various provisions under the 1996 Electronic FOIA Amendments, Public Law No. 104-231. Significant new provisions implementing the amendments are found at § 1401.21(a) (electronic reading room), (d) (pamphlets distribution), (e) (records disposition), § 1401.22 (deletion marking), § 1401.34(a), (b), (c), (d) (timing of responses), § 1401.34(d) (volume estimation), § 1401.36(a) (definitions), (b) (fee schedules, lack of fees, fee waivers).
Proposed revisions to the FMCS fee schedule can be found at § 1401.36(b)(1)(i), (ii), (iv), (3)(v). The duplication charge will remain the same at twenty cents per page, while document search and review charges will increase to $4.00 per each quarter hour or portion thereof for clerical time and $10.00 per each quarter hour or portion thereof for professional time. The amount at or below which the Service will not charge a fee will decrease from $50.00 to $14.00.
Sections such as § 1401.32, § 1401.34(d), § 1401.35, § 1401.36(b)(2)(ii) are being revised to reflect minor language or organizational name changes within FMCS. Sections 1401.24 and 1401.37 are being removed because they are neither required by law nor necessary to interpret the law.
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, FMCS proposes to amend 29 CFR part 1401 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 1401 continues to read as follows:
Sec. 202, 61 Stat. 136, as amended; 5 U.S.C. 552.
2. Revise § 1401.20 to read as follows:
This subpart contains the regulations of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service providing for public access to information under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. It is the policy of the FMCS to disseminate information on matters of interest to the public and to disclose upon request information contained in Agency records insofar as such disclosure is compatible with the discharge of its responsibilities and the principle of confidentiality and neutrality of dispute resolution by third party neutrals.
3. Amend § 1401.21 by revising paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to read as follows:
(c) FMCS maintains a public reading room that contains the records required by the FOIA to be made readily available for public inspection and copying. FMCS shall maintain and make available for public inspection and copying a current subject-matter index of its reading room records. Each index shall be updated regularly, at least quarterly, with respect to newly included records. FMCS shall also make reading room records created on or after November 1, 1996, available electronically through FMCS's World Wide Web Site (which can be found at
(d) Records or documents prepared by FMCS for routine public distribution, e.g., pamphlets and brochures, will be furnished upon request to Office of the Director of Public Affairs, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, 2100 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20427, as long as the supply lasts. The provisions of Sec. 1401.36 (fees) are not applicable to such requests except when the supply of such material is exhausted and it is necessary to reproduce individual copies upon specific request.
(e) All existing FMCS records are subject to disposition according to agency record retention schedules and General Records Schedules promulgated by the National Archives and Records Administration.
4. Revise § 1401.22 to read as follows:
(a) If a record contains both disclosable and nondisclosable information, the nondisclosable information will be deleted and the remaining record will be disclosed unless the two are so inextricably intertwined that it is not possible to separate them.
(b) Records disclosed in part shall be marked or annotated to show both the amount and the location of the information deleted and the applicable exemption.
5. Remove § 1401.24
6. Revise § 1401.31 to read as follows:
(a) Any person who desires to inspect or copy an Agency record should submit a written request to the Office of the General Counsel, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, 2100 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20427. The envelope [or cover sheet] should be marked “Freedom of Information Act request.” Electronic mail requests should be sent to
(b) Each request should reasonably describe the records being sought, so that the records requested may be located and identified. If the description is insufficient to locate the requested records, the officer processing the request will notify the requester and ask for additional information.
7. Amend § 1401.32 by removing the words “Legal Services Office” in paragraph (b) and by adding in their place “Office of the General Counsel.”
8. Amend § 1401.34 as follows:
A. Revise paragraph (a) and (b) introductory text.
B. Remove paragraph (b)(3) and (4).
C. Revise paragraph (c).
D. Remove the paragraph designation (b) in the last paragraph of the section and redesignate that paragraph (d).
E. Amend newly redesignated paragraph (d) by removing the term “Deputy Director” and adding the term “Chief of Staff” in its place.
F. Add paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:
(a) All time limitations established pursuant to this section shall begin as of the time a request for records is received by the Office of the General Counsel.
(b) The officer or employee responsible for responding to the request shall, within twenty (20) working days following receipt of the request, respond in writing to the requester, determining whether, or the extent to which, the Agency shall comply with the request.
(c) Where the time limits for processing a request cannot be met because of unusual circumstances and FMCS determines to extend the time limit on that basis, FMCS will, as soon as practicable, notify the requester in writing of the unusual circumstances and the date by which the processing can be expected to be completed. Where the extension is for more than 10 working days, FMCS will provide the requester with an opportunity either to modify the request so that it may be processed within the time limits or to arrange an alternative time period for processing the request or a modified request. If FMCS reasonably believes that multiple requests submitted by a
(e) FMCS offices may use two or more processing tracks by distinguishing between simple and more complex requests based on the amount of work and or time needed to process the request. A person making a request that does not qualify for the fastest multitrack processing should be given an opportunity to limit the scope of the request in order to qualify for faster processing.
(f) Requests and appeals will be taken out of order and given expedited processing in cases where the requester demonstrates a compelling need.
(1) Compelling need means:
(i) Circumstances in which failure to obtain copies of the requested records on an expedited basis could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual; or
(ii) An urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal Government activity, if the request is made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information.
(2) A requester seeking expedited processing should so indicate in the initial request, and should state all the facts supporting the need to obtain the requested records quickly. The requester must also certify in writing that these facts are true and correct to the best of the requester's knowledge and belief.
(3) Within 10 calendar days of its receipt of a request for expedited processing, FMCS will notify the requester of its decision. If a request for expedited treatment is granted, the request shall be given priority and shall be processed as soon as practicable. If a request for expedited processing is denied, any appeal of that decision will be acted on expeditiously.
9. Amend § 1401.35 by removing the term “Deputy Director” wherever it appears in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and by adding the term of “Chief of Staff” in its place.
10. Amend § 1401.36 as follows:
A. Remove the word “the” between “foregoing” and “schedules” and add the words “other than those related to arbitration” between “services” and “which” in paragraph (b)(2)(i).
B. Revise paragraphs (a)(2), (3) and (4), (b)(1)(i), (ii), (iv), (b)(2)(ii), (b)(3)(v) and (b) (4) as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) Search means the process of looking for and retrieving records or information responsive to a request. It includes page-by-page or line-by-line identification of information within records and also includes reasonable efforts to locate and retrieve information from records maintained in electronic form or format.
(3) Duplication refers to the process of making a copy of a document necessary to respond to a FOIA request. Copies may be in various forms including machine-readable documentation (e.g., magnetic tape or disk) among others. A requester's specified preference of form or format of disclosure will be honored if the record is readily reproducible with reasonable efforts in the requested form or format.
(4) Review refers to the process of examining documents located in response to a request that is for commercial use, to determine whether a document or any portion of any document located is permitted to be withheld. It includes processing any documents for disclosure to the requester, e.g., doing all that is necessary to excise them or otherwise prepare them for release. It does not include time spent resolving general legal or policy issues regarding the applicability of particular exemptions or reviewing on appeal exemptions that are applied. However, records or portions withheld in full under an exemption that is subsequently determined not to apply may be reviewed again to determine the applicability of other exemptions not previously considered. The costs for such a subsequent review is assessable.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i)
(ii)
(iv)
(2) * * *
(ii) For those matters coming within the scope of this regulation, the FMCS will look to the provisions of the guidance published by the Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Fee Schedule and Guidelines (available at
(3) * * *
(v) In no event shall fees be charged when the total charges are less than $14.00, which is the Agency cost of collecting and processing the fee itself. If the request is expected to involve an assessed fee in excess of $14.00, the response shall specify or estimate the fee involved before the records are made available.
(4)
11. Remove § 1401.37.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP). This SIP revision addresses the provisions of the Clean Air Act that require each state to submit a SIP to address emissions that may adversely affect another state's air quality through interstate transport. CTDEP has adequately addressed the four distinct elements related to the impact of interstate transport of air pollutants. These include prohibiting significant contribution to downwind nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), interference with maintenance of the NAAQS, interference with plans in another state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality, and interference with efforts of other states to protect visibility. The intended effect of this action is to propose approval of this revision to the Connecticut SIP. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.
Written comments must be received on or before December 5, 2007.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0452 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
In addition to the publicly available docket materials available for inspection electronically in the Federal Docket Management System at
Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone number (617) 918-1664, fax number (617) 918-0664, e-mail
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP). This SIP revision addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This CAA section requires each state to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that could adversely affect another state. The SIP must prevent sources in the state from emitting pollutants in amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to downwind nonattainment of the NAAQS; (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS; (3) interfere with provisions to prevent significant deterioration of air quality; and (4) interfere with efforts to protect visibility. EPA issued guidance on August 15, 2006, relating to SIP submissions to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
On May 12, 2005, EPA promulgated the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). (See 70 FR 25162.) CAIR requires States to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO
Connecticut is a CAIR state for ozone only (70 FR 25162; May 12, 2005). Since Connecticut is in CAIR, EPA has already concluded that Connecticut can meet its 110(a)(2)(D)(i) obligations to address the significant contribution and interference with maintenance requirements by complying with the CAIR requirements. Connecticut has proposed its CAIR SIP and submitted it to EPA for parallel processing on April 26, 2007. EPA proposed approval of Connecticut's CAIR SIP on August 31, 2007 (72 FR 50305). Connecticut submitted its final adopted CAIR SIP on September 12, 2007. Assuming EPA ultimately approves Connecticut's CAIR SIP, EPA will have determined that Connecticut has addressed section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for ozone.
For fine particles (PM
The third element CTDEP addressed was prevention of significant deterioration (PSD). For ozone and particulate matter, the state has met the obligation by confirming that major sources in the state are currently subject to PSD and/or New Source Review (NSR) programs that implement the 8-hour ozone standard and the PM
CTDEP is addressing the fourth element of visibility through its participation in MANE-VU, which is the regional planning organization for addressing visibility in the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic States. MANE-VU has undertaken extensive modeling in support of Regional Haze SIP development. Although it is not possible at this time to make a final assessment whether there is any interference with measures in the applicable SIP for another State designed to “protect visibility” for the 8-hour ozone and PM
A public hearing on Connecticut's section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP was held by the state on January 30, 2007. No adverse comments were received.
EPA is proposing to approve the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP revision submitted by Connecticut on March 13, 2007. EPA has reviewed Connecticut's 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP and has found that it is consistent with EPA's guidance and the relevant CAA requirements as discussed above. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This revision changes completion dates of delayed transit projects, provides interim deadlines for projects, maintains interim emission reduction offsets for delays in projects, modifies the project substitution process, revises the list of required transit projects, and expands public participation and oversight of the transit transportation control measure projects. The intended effect of this action is to propose approval of specific named substitution projects to the State Implementation Plan's transportation control measure projects, and approve modifications to the delay and substitution procedures for transit projects. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.
Written comments must be received on or before December 5, 2007.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-2006—1018 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In addition, copies of the state submittal are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the Bureau of Waste Prevention, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108.
Donald O. Cooke, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone number (617) 918-1668, fax number (617) 918-0668, e-mail
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us” and “our” is used, we mean EPA.
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
EPA approved the Massachusetts Transit System Improvements Regulation (the Regulation), 310 CMR 7.36 (effective December 6, 1991), into the Massachusetts State Implementation Plan (SIP) on October 4, 1994 (59 FR 50495—50498). The transit system improvement projects contained in the Regulation include transportation control measures deemed necessary to mitigate the air quality impacts of the Central Artery and Third Harbor Tunnel Project in Metropolitan Boston.
On December 13, 2006, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) submitted a revision to its SIP amending its Transit System Improvements Regulation. The revision consists of MA DEP's final amendments to 310 CMR 7.36, “Transit System Improvements,” effective December 1, 2006. MA DEP held a hearing on the amendments to the Regulation on December 21, 2005. On June 1, 2007, MA DEP supplemented its SIP revision with a letter determining that Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) had met the requirements of 310 CMR 7.36 (8), Demonstration of Air Quality Emissions Reductions, along with EOT's air quality modeling analysis (“Description of Modeling Assumptions and Analysis Methodology for the State Implementation Plan Transit Commitment Projects Current and Proposed Substitutions,” dated March 15, 2007). EOT held a public comment period on this supplemental material for a 45-day period commencing on January 2, 2007. The document was amended based on comments received and an additional two-week public comment period began on March 21, 2007, following posting in the “Environmental Monitor.” DEP submitted EOT's responses to public comments received as part of the supplemental materials.
On August 22, 2007, we issued our determination that the Massachusetts SIP package is administratively and technically complete. In our completeness determination, we also highlighted EPA's interest in seeing that the transit projects are implemented in a timely manner and requested that MA DEP keep us apprised of the status of the replacement projects as they move forward. In addition, we specifically mentioned hearing recent reports of potential delays in the Green Line extension project and encouraged Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) to address this issue on the record at the upcoming September 6, 2007 public meeting.
On September 6, 2007, the MA DEP held a public meeting to address EOT's annual status report on transit commitments. EOT presented the status of the uncompleted transit projects and took public comment. David Mohler, Acting Deputy Secretary for Planning, EOT, explained the Commonwealth's efforts in seeking Federal funds for the Green Line, which could delay the completion of the Green Line for up to two years. Mohler emphasized EOT's position to make up any time delay, and if a delay occurred, to propose mitigation projects and adequate emission offsets as required by the regulation. EOT also made available at the public meeting a September 4, 2007, letter from David Mohler to MA DEP's Acting Commissioner, Arlene O'Donnell, committing to accelerate the planning, design and environmental review and permitting of the project in order to meet the 2014 completion date.
Listed below are the changes in Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's Air Pollution Control Regulations 310 CMR 7.00, “Statutory Authority; Legend; Preamble; Definitions,” and 310 CMR 7.36, “U Transit System Improvements” which went into effect on December 1, 2006 at the state level. EPA is proposing approval of these changes as a SIP revision.
The following definition of “Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization” (MPO) is added and included in 310 CMR 7.00: “BOSTON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION means the organization designated for maintaining a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive (3C) transportation planning process under Section 134 of the Federal Aid Highway Act and Section 5303 of the Federal Transit Act, as amended, in the Boston metropolitan region.”
The Green Line Arborway Restoration, the Blue Line Connection from Bowdoin Station to the Red Line at Charles Station, and the Green Line extension to Ball Square/Tufts University, will be replaced by the Fairmont Line Project (construction to be completed and opened to full public use by December 31, 2011), 1000 new park and ride parking spaces (construction to be completed and opened to full public use by December 31, 2011) and an enhanced Green Line Extension Project (construction to be completed and opened to full public use by December 31, 2014). The Green Line Arborway Restoration was originally assigned a completion date of December 31, 1997, with an extension to December 31, 2000 previously granted pursuant to the Regulation, and project emission offsets required to mitigate the delay after December 31, 2000 until project completion. The Blue Line connection and the Green Line extension to Ball Square/Tufts University were originally assigned a completion date of December 31, 2011.
“The Fairmount Line Project.” The Fairmount commuter rail line is approximately 9.2 miles long, running from South Station to Readville, passing through the communities of Dorchester, Roxbury and Mattapan. Fairmount Line improvements will consist of: Enhancements of existing stations including, without limitation, platform extensions, improved lighting and improved access; a new Four Corners Station plus a new station in each of the neighborhoods of Dorchester, Mattapan and Roxbury; and bridge upgrades and other measures to improve service and increase ridership.
“1000 new park and ride parking spaces.” These 1000 new park and ride parking spaces are in addition to those required by 310 CMR 7.36(2)(c)3 and 310 CMR 7.36(2)(d), and will serve commuter transit facilities, within the 101 cities and towns constituting the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization.
“The Green Line Extension Project.” The Green Line extension consists of extending the Green Line from Lechmere Station to Medford Hillside and construction of a spur to Union Square.
“The Red Line/Blue Line Connector.” The revision requires final design of the connection from the Blue Line at Government Center to the Red Line at Charles Station before December 31, 2011, but no longer commits to its construction.
Old Colony Commuter Rail Extension Greenbush Line, originally assigned a completion date of December 31, 1996, must now be completed and open to full public use before December 31, 2007. Project emission offsets were required to
Blue Line Platform Lengthening and Modernization, originally assigned a completion date of December 31, 1998, with an extension to December 31, 2008 previously granted pursuant to the Regulation, must now be completed and open to full public use before December 31, 2008. Project emission offsets were required to mitigate the delay after December 31, 2001 until project completion.
MA DEP has added interim project deadlines for the Fairmount Line improvements, the Green Line extension to Medford Hillside, the Green Line Union Square spur, and the 1000 Park and Ride parking spaces. EPA believes these interim milestones, in combination with the EOT's annual reporting on the status of the transit commitments, will help keep the transit system improvements projects construction on schedule.
If the Fairmount Line improvements, the Green Line extension to Medford Hillside, the Green Line Union Square spur, or 1000 Park and Ride spaces are delayed, interim air quality offset projects are required to be implemented. The revised regulation does not place a limit on the amount of time EOT may delay a project, as long as it obtains offsets for the delay.
EOT is required to petition MA DEP to delay a project, and the petition will undergo “public review” before MA DEP acts on the petition.
Projects may be substituted after completion of specified interim project deadlines. The revised Regulation no longer requires a finding that the project to be replaced is “infeasible.”
Substitution determinations require an EOT public meeting and a public comment period.
The proposed substitute project must achieve 110% of the emission reductions that would have been achieved by the original project to be replaced.
EOT must implement interim emission reduction offsets to address any delay in achieving the emission reductions that would have been achieved had all components of the original project been completed on time.
Project substitutions may proceed after MA DEP determines in writing that EOT has met the substitution provisions of the Regulation.
The Green Line Extension may be substituted with transit projects in Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, or Medford.
The Fairmount Line project may be substituted with transit projects in Dorchester, Hyde Park, Mattapan, or Roxbury.
EOT is required to conduct an annual public meeting to provide a thorough update and status report on each project and to disclose any need for potential or actual project delays and/or substitutions.
EOT is required to submit an annual certification to MA DEP with a commitment to complete and fund projects and disclose project delays/substitutions/interim offset measures to be implemented.
MA DEP added a new Subsection 8 to provide substantive public comment on the air quality modeling for the Regulation and EOT's remodeling of the revised transit projects.
EOT must calculate baseline emission reductions by modeling the original three projects, the Green Line Arborway Restoration, the Blue Line-Red Line Connection, and the Green Line extension to Ball Square, and adding 10% to the total.
EOT is required to demonstrate that new projects will deliver the required baseline emission reductions. If the new projects do not deliver the baseline emission reductions, EOT is required to implement additional projects in the same geographic areas.
EOT is required to take public comment on the results of the emission analysis and respond to those comments.
When all projects required by 310 CMR 7.36 are substantially complete, EOT shall complete an analysis of the total air quality benefits of such projects. EOT shall perform such analysis in accordance with EPA requirements in effect at the time of the analysis.
MA DEP's supplemental SIP revision submitted to EPA on June 1, 2007, contained MA DEP's determination that EOT had met the requirements of 310 CMR 7.36(8)(d) and (e) and that the “administrative record reasonably supports the results and conclusions of the report required pursuant to 310 CMR 7.36(8)(c).” Thus, MA DEP agreed that EOT has demonstrated that the new projects achieve at least 110% of the emissions reductions that would have been achieved by the projects being replaced.
In addition, the supplement included EOT's air quality modeling demonstration mandated by 310 CMR 7.36(8)(a) through (8)(e) entitled,
EOT's air quality analysis modeled the emissions reductions of: (1) The original SIP-approved package of projects; (2) the replacement/substitution package of projects; and (3) the no-build or baseline scenario. This analysis concluded that the substitution projects (Green Line to Union Square and Medford Hillside, Fairmont Line Improvements, and Additional Parking) results in reductions of 435 kilograms per day of Carbon Monoxide (CO), 11 kilograms per day of Nitrogen Oxides (NO
EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. An adequate SIP revision is one that meets the Clean Air Act's requirement under section 110(l) that a SIP revision must not interfere with attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQSs). The Commonwealth has flexibility to revise SIP-approved transportation control measures (TCMs), provided the revisions are consistent with attaining and maintaining compliance with the NAAQSs. In addition, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users (SAFETEA-LU) section 6011(d) amended the Clean Air Act by adding a new section 176(c)(8) that establishes specific criteria and procedures for replacing TCMs in an existing approved SIP with new TCMs and adding TCMs to an approved SIP. As discussed below, MA DEP's Regulation does not need to comply with all elements of section 176(c)(8) to be approvable as a SIP revision, but it must not conflict with any of those elements.
The Federal executive policy on environmental justice is established by Executive Order (EO) 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)). Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. Here the Clean Air Act directs EPA to approve a SIP revision unless it does not meet the Act's requirements. Although the Act does not provide EPA the authority to modify the Commonwealths' regulatory decision solely on the basis of environmental justice considerations, EPA continues to encourage EOT to consider environmental justice concerns when deciding the location of the additional Park and Ride spaces and the new stations along the Fairmount commuter rail line and the Green Line extension project. EPA also urges EOT and DEP to consider environmental justice concerns when deciding whether to meet project deadlines, to approve proposals for project delays, and to approve offset or substitute projects.
Clean Air Act section 176(c)(8), added by SAFETEA-LU, establishes the procedures for ensuring that substitute TCMs provide equal or greater emissions reductions than the TCMs that are being replaced. It also establishes the process for EPA and state air agency concurrence on the substitution or addition of TCM projects. Finally, it ensures that the state and EPA maintain up-to-date information on the TCMs in approved SIPs so that the public is aware of the TCMs that are to be implemented. EPA and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) issued joint guidance on February 14, 2006, on the implementation of all of the Clean Air Act amendments made by SAFETEA-LU. This guidance clarified EPA and DOT expectations for how TCM substitutions and additions are to be carried out by state and local agencies. The guidance is available at
As explained in the guidance, section 176(c)(8) applies directly to any TCM substitution made in a SIP, whether or not the SIP already includes a substitution mechanism designed by a state and approved by EPA. The section does not eliminate the requirement to comply with any such substitution procedures in a SIP, even if the state includes requirements that go beyond the minimum elements required under section 176(c)(8). Correspondingly, complying with the substitution process in the SIP does not eliminate the requirement to meet all the elements of the process laid out in section 176(c)(8). In the unlikely event there is a conflict between section 176(c)(8) and the SIP substitution process, the substitution must comply with section 176(c)(8). See EPA/DOT Guidance at pages 20-21, section 5.2.
Therefore, for the purposes of this SIP approval, EPA must determine whether any element of the MA DEP Transit System Improvements Regulation conflicts with section 176(c)(8). EPA sees no conflict between the requirements of the MA DEP Regulation and section 176(c)(8). There are provisions in the MA DEP Regulation that go beyond the requirements of section 176(c)(8), such as the requirement to demonstrate that the substitution achieves an extra 10% emissions reduction beyond that achieved by the projects being replaced or the specific geographic limits on substitute projects. But EPA has found no instance in which complying with the MA DEP regulation would result in a conflict with or violate any corresponding requirement of section 176(c)(8).
In addition, EPA must work with MA DEP to ensure that any requirements in section 176(c)(8) that are not addressed in its Regulation will be met. There appear to be two requirements in
First, in addition to the state air pollution control agency, section 176(c)(8)(A)(v) specifically requires both the MPO and EPA to concur with the equivalency of the substitute TCM before the substitution can take effect. On May 3, 2007, Massachusetts Secretary of Transportation, Bernard Cohen, submitted EOT's air quality modeling analysis for the substitution projects to MA DEP. This analysis demonstrates that the required emission reductions set forth in section 7.36(8) of the Regulation will be achieved by the new projects. All that remains is for the MPO to submit evidence to EPA that the MPO concurs in that analysis. For EPA's concurrence on the substitutions included in this SIP revision, the Agency will send a letter, contemporaneous with our final action on this SIP revision, to document EPA's concurrence on the substitutions being approved with the revisions to MA DEP's regulation.
Second, section 176(c)(8) now requires all substitutions of TCM's to be submitted to EPA for incorporation into the codification of the SIP. For the purposes of the substitutions provided for in the revisions of the Regulation, EPA is proposing that any codification that results from our final action on this SIP revision will address this requirement. For future substitutions, although the Regulation does not specifically require MA DEP to forward to EPA the results of MA DEP's substitution determinations, it should be a routine matter for MA DEP to submit any substitution it approves under section 7.36(5)(h) so that the federally approved SIP can accurately reflect the current requirements under the Regulation.
EPA's review of Massachusetts' SIP Revision indicates the amendments to the SIP-approved Massachusetts Transit System Improvements, with substitution projects and changes to projects timelines, adequately demonstrate continued emission reductions and do not relax current provisions in the SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the Massachusetts SIP revision for Transit System Improvements, which was submitted on December 13, 2006, and supplemented on June 1, 2007.
EPA is proposing to approve Massachusetts' amendments to Transit System Improvements Regulation, 310 CMR 7.36, and Definition Regulation, 310 CMR 7.00 (which were filed with the Massachusetts Secretary of State on November 16, 2006 and were effective on December 1, 2006,) as a revision to the Massachusetts SIP. EPA finds that the transit measures in the revised transit system improvements regulation remain directionally sound and that all proposed substitution projects identified in the Regulation will collectively contribute to achieving the national ambient air quality standard for ozone and maintaining the carbon monoxide standard, thereby satisfying requirements set forth in Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), or Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is making efforts to reduce the paperwork burden. USAID invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act for 1995. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed or continuing collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Submit comments on or before January 4, 2008.
Beverly Johnson, Bureau for Management, Office of Administrative Services, Information and Records Division, U.S. Agency for International Development, Room 2.07-106, RRB, Washington, DC, 20523, (202) 712-1365 or via e-
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Forest Service proposes to revise Rangeland Allotment Management Plans (RAMP) for ten allotments comprising approximately 92,800 acres within two Ranger Districts of the Black Hills National Forest and analyze continuation of grazing within the constraints of the Revised Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (BHNF LRMP).
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by December 3, 2007. The draft environmental impact statement is expected April 2008 and the final environmental impact statement is expected August 2008.
Send written comments to Rhonda O'Byrne, Northern Hills Ranger District, 2014 N. Main, Spearfish, SD 57783. Comment may also be submitted by e-mail to:
Tom Smith at Northern Hills Ranger District, 2014 N. Main, Spearfish, SD 57783, phone (605) 642-4622; or Julie Wheeler at Bearlodge Ranger District, P.O. Box 680, Sundance, WY 82729, phone (307) 283-1361.
The purpose of the project is to authorize livestock grazing in an environmentally acceptable manner. The EIS will determine current conditions, analyze environmental consequences of grazing management actions on those conditions, and assist the decision maker in selecting management/monitoring strategies consistent with meeting desired conditions in the BHNF LRMP, including Goals 1, 2 and 3. The need for the action is to revise allotment management plans, reverse any existing undesirable conditions, and ensure that authorized uses and associated management activities move them towards desired BHNF LRMP conditions. There is also a need to respond to requests for grazing permits on lands not currently being grazed.
The Northern Hills and Bearlodge Ranger Districts propose to implement best management practices and activities with adaptive management and monitoring strategies to allow livestock grazing consistent with Forest Plan desired conditions, standards and guidelines.
The Current Management Alternative would not change current permitted livestock grazing. The No Grazing Alternative would eliminate any livestock grazing on the project area.
The Responsible Official for the allotments on the Bearlodge Ranger District is Steve Kozel, District Ranger, Black Hills National Forest, Bearlodge Ranger District, 121 S. 21st Street, Sundance, Wyoming 82729. The Responsible Official for the allotments on the Northern Hills Ranger District is Rhonda O'Byrne, District Ranger, Black Hills National Forest, Northern Hills Ranger District, 2014 N. Main St., Spearfish, South Dakota 57783.
The decision to be made is whether to continue to permit livestock grazing on all, part, or none of these allotments and, if so, under what terms and
Comments and input regarding the proposal are currently being requested from the public, other groups and agencies via direct mailing. Comments are due by December 3, 2007. Response to the draft EIS will be sought from the interested public in May and June 2008.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. It is the District's desire to involve interested parties in identifying the issues related to grazing management. Comments will help the planning team identify key issues used to develop adaptive management tools, monitoring strategies, and alternatives. Persons who submitted comments previously need not resubmit those same comments in response to this request. Comments submitted previously will continue to be considered.
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.
United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Correction to notice of briefing.
Friday, November 9, 2007; 9:30 a.m.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Rm. 540, Washington, DC 20425.
Discrimination Against Native Americans in Border Towns (On November 1, 2007, a notice was placed in the
Sock Foon MacDougall, Press and Communications, (202) 376-8582.
An application has been submitted to the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the South Carolina State Ports Authority, grantee of FTZ 38, requesting temporary/interim manufacturing (T/IM) authority within FTZ 38 at the Kittel Supplier USA, Inc. (KSU) facility in Duncan, South Carolina. The application was filed on October 26, 2007.
The KSU facility (25 employees) is located at 201 Commerce Court within the Highway 290 Commerce Park in Duncan (Site 3). Under T/IM procedures, KSU would assemble automotive roof/luggage racks (HTSUS 8708.29) for the U.S. market and export. Foreign components that would be used in the assembly activity (up to 100%% of total purchases) include: aluminum rails and support legs (8708.29), plastic support legs (8708.99), brackets (8708.29), fasteners (7318.15, 7318.19, 7318.29) and rubber seals (4016.93) (duty rates: free - 5.7%%).
FTZ procedures could exempt KSU from Customs duty payments on the foreign components used in production for export. On domestic shipments transferred in-bond to U.S. automobile assembly plants with subzone status, no duties would be paid on the foreign components within the roof/luggage racks until the finished vehicles are subsequently entered for consumption, at which time the finished automobile duty rate (2.5%%) could be applied to the foreign components. For the finished roof/luggage racks withdrawn directly by KSU for customs entry, the finished automotive part rate (2.5%%) could be applied to the foreign inputs noted above.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the following address: Office of the Executive Secretary, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002. For further information, contact Pierre Duy at pierre_duy@ita.doc.gov, or (202) 482-1378. The closing period for receipt of comments is December 5, 2007.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at the address listed above.
On September 21, 2007, the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board published in the
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
November 5, 2007.
Frances Veith, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4295.
On July 2, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).
In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act, the Department may extend the period of time for making its determination by not more than 90 days, if it determines that a review is extraordinarily complicated. As set forth in section 751(c)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, the Department may treat a sunset review as extraordinarily complicated if there are a large number of issues, as is the case in this proceeding. In particular, this sunset review involves complicated issues pertaining to adequacy of responses, related party status, and interested party status. Therefore, the Department has determined, pursuant to section 751(c)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, that the second sunset review of brake rotors from the PRC is extraordinarily complicated, as the Department must consider numerous arguments presented in the domestic interested party's and a domestic importer's August 1, 2007, substantive response and each parties' August 6, 2007, rebuttals to the substantive responses. Based on the timing of the case, the final results of this expedited sunset review cannot be completed within the statutory time limit of 120 days. Accordingly, the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of the final results by 30 days from the original October 30, 2007, deadline, to November 29, 2007, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act. This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
November 5, 2007.
Dmitry Vladimirov at (202) 482-0665 (Republic of Korea), Blanche Ziv at (202) 482-4207 or Hallie Zink at (202) 482-6907 (People's Republic of China), Victoria Cho at (202) 482-5075 or Christopher Hargett at (202) 482-4161 (Germany), Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14
On September 19, 2007, the Department of Commerce (Department) received an antidumping petition concerning lightweight thermal paper from Germany, the Republic of Korea (Korea), and the People's Republic of China (PRC), filed by Appleton Papers, Inc. (the petitioner) on behalf of the domestic industry producing
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of LWTP from Germany, Korea, and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. The petitioner also alleges that sales of LWTP from Germany and Korea have been made at prices below the cost of production (COP).
The Department finds that the petitioner filed this Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the antidumping duty investigations that the petitioner is requesting.
Because the Petition was filed on September 19, 2007, the anticipated period of investigation (POI) for Germany and Korea is July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007. The anticipated POI for the PRC is January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2007.
The merchandise covered by each of these investigations includes certain lightweight thermal paper, which is thermal paper with a basis weight of 70 grams per square meter (g/m
We are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed by or on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like,
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that lightweight thermal paper, both jumbo rolls and converted slit rolls, constitute a single domestic like product, which is defined further in the “Scope of the Investigations” section above, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see the Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany (Germany Initiation Checklist) at Attachment II, Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Lightweight Thermal Paper from Korea (Korea Initiation Checklist) at Attachment II, and the Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China (PRC Initiation Checklist) at Attachment II, on file in the CRU, Room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building.
On October 9, 2007, the Department extended the initiation deadline by 20 days to poll the domestic industry in accordance with section 702(c)(4)D) of the Act, because it was “not clear from the petitions whether the industry support criteria have been met...”
On October 12 and 15, 2007, we issued polling questionnaires to all known producers of jumbo rolls and converted slit rolls of lightweight thermal paper identified in the petitions, submissions from other interested parties, and by the ITC. The questionnaires are on file in the CRU in room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. We requested that each company complete the polling questionnaire and certify their responses by faxing their responses to the Department by the due date. For a detailed discussion of the responses received see the Germany Initiation Checklist, Korea Initiation Checklist, and PRC Initiation Checklist (collectively, “Initiation Checklists”) at Attachment II.
Our analysis of the data indicates that the domestic producers of lightweight thermal paper who support the petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and more than 50 percent of the production (by quantity and U.S. dollar sales value) of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petitions.
The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the individual and cumulated imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share, increased inventories, lost sales, reduced production, reduced capacity and capacity utilization rate, reduced shipments, underselling and price depression or suppression, lost revenue, and a decline in financial performance. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate these investigations on imports of LWTP from Germany, Korea, and the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to the U.S. price as well as NV for Germany and Korea are discussed in greater detail in the Initiation Checklists. We corrected certain information in the petitioner's margin calculations for the PRC. The corrections are provided in detail in the PRC Initiation Checklist. Should the need arise to use any of this information as facts available under section 776 of the Act in our preliminary or final determinations, we will re-examine the information and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate.
The petitioner calculated export price (EP) using information from Koehler and Mitsubishi Hi-Tec, two manufacturers of LWTP in Germany. The price data are based on the same products used as the basis for the cost model, as well as the basis for NV. The petitioner's calculation of EP starts with the gross price. The petitioner then calculated net price by deducting the amount for U.S. inland freight, ocean freight and insurance to arrive at an ex-factory price.
The petitioner was able to determine domestic German prices for LWTP by obtaining pricing data for Mitsubishi Hitec, through a market researcher.
The petitioner has provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of thermal paper in the home market were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP, within the meaning of
Based upon a comparison of the prices of the foreign-like product in the home market to the calculated COP of the product, we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product were made below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating a country-wide cost investigation. If we determine during the course of the investigation that the home market (
Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioner calculated NV based on constructed value (CV). The petitioner calculated CV using the same average COM, SG&A, financial and packing figures used to compute the COP. The petitioner then added profit based on the profit rate calculated based on the 2006 financial statements of Koehler Holding GmbH & Co., KG.
The petitioner calculated export price using pricing data in the United States provided by a Korean manufacturer of the subject merchandise. The petitioner adjusted U.S. prices for international freight and insurance and U.S. inland freight.
The petitioner was able to determine domestic Korean prices for lightweight thermal paper by obtaining pricing data, through an economic consultant, from a Korean manufacturer of lightweight thermal paper.
The petitioner has provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of thermal paper in the home market were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct a sales-below-cost investigation. Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the COM, SG&A expenses, financial expenses, and packing expenses. The petitioner calculated COM and packing expenses using input quantities based on the production experience of a U.S. LWTP producer during the POI, multiplied by the costs incurred to manufacture LWTP in Korea using publicly available data. To calculate average factory overhead, SG&A, and financial expense rates, the petitioner relied on the most current financial statements of Hansol, a thermal paper producer in Korea.
Based upon a comparison of the prices of the foreign-like product in the home market to the calculated COP of the product, we find reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product were made below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(I) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating a country-wide cost investigation.
Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioner calculated NV based on CV. The petitioner calculated CV using the same average COM, SG&A, financial and packing figures used to compute the COP. The petitioner did not include profit because Hansol incurred a loss during 2006.
The petitioner calculated EP based upon an affidavit describing an actual offer for sale to the U.S. market of converted jumbo rolls from Shanghai Hanhong Paper Co., Ltd. (Hanhong), a non-integrated converter of jumbo rolls in the PRC. The petitioner then demonstrated, using Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS) data, that the overwhelming percentage of the imports of subject LWTP into the United States from the PRC were made by Hanhong. The petitioner notes that while approximately half of all shipments reported in the PIERS data set do not identify the producer or exporter of the merchandise, of the data set observations that do identify the exporters, almost 97 percent of such shipments were made by Hanhong.
Because the Department considers the PRC to be a non-market economy (NME) country, the petitioner constructed NV based on the factors-of-production methodology pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act. Recently, the Department examined the PRC's market status and determined that NME status should continue for the PRC.
The petitioner asserts that India is the most appropriate surrogate country for the PRC because India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise and at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC.
The petitioner provided dumping margin calculations using the Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. The petitioner bases its estimates of antidumping margins from the PRC on the CV and offers for sale to the U.S. market by Hanghong, a non-integrated converter of jumbo rolls. Therefore, the petitioner calculated NV based on a cost model specific to a non-integrated converter of subject LWTP. Specifically, the petitioner relied upon the consumption rates, for the period covering July 1, through December 31, 2006, of one of the largest non-integrated U.S. converters of subject LWTP, which the petitioner stated should be similar to the consumption rates of Hanhong.
With respect to the calculation of NV, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the petitioner valued all direct materials using Indian import data obtained from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India (MSFTI), as published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India and used in the World Trade Atlas (WTA), available at: <http://www.gtis.com/wta.htm>, for August 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007. Because the Department was able to obtain more contemporaneous information from the WTA for the same inputs provided by the petitioner,
In regard to the NV calculations, the petitioner derived the figures for factory overhead (FOH), SG&A, and profit for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006, from the financial statements of Parag Copigraph Pvt. Ltd. (Parag), a non-integrated Indian converter of subject LWTP.
Based on the data provided by petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of LWTP from Germany, Korea, and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of export price to NV that we revised with respect to the PRC, as discussed above, and calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, these are the estimated dumping margins for LWTP: 1) the estimated dumping margin for Germany based on a price-to-price comparison is 29.79 percent; the estimated dumping margins for Germany based on a price-to-CV comparison range from 59.80 percent to 75.36 percent; 2) the estimated dumping margin for Korea based on a price-to-price comparison is 40.30 percent; the estimated dumping margin for Korea based on a price-to-CV comparison is 65.63 percent; and 3) the estimated dumping margin for the PRC is 108.25 percent.
Based upon the examination of the Petition on LWTP from Germany, Korea, and the PRC, we find that the Petition meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether imports of LWTP from Germany, Korea, and the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205((b)(1),
The Department modified the process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations.
For this investigation, the Department intends to select respondents based on CBP data for U.S. imports during the POI. We intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this
The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. The “Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin” at page 6 explains that, while continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the POI. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the POI. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the POI.
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to representatives of the governments of Germany, Korea, and the PRC. We will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to all exporters named in the Petition, as provided for in 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine no later than November 23, 2007, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of LWTP from Germany, Korea, and the PRC are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country; otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) that revocation of the antidumping duty order on certain welded large diameter line pipe (“welded large diameter pipe”) from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and of material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing this notice of continuation of this antidumping duty order.
November 5, 2007.
Dena Crossland or Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3362 or (202) 482-1391, respectively.
On November 1, 2006, the Department initiated and the ITC instituted sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on welded large diameter pipe from Japan and Mexico, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).
On October 16, 2007, the ITC determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on welded large diameter pipe from Japan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably
The product covered by this antidumping duty order is certain welded carbon and alloy line pipe, of circular cross section and with an outside diameter greater than 16 inches, but less than 64 inches, in diameter, whether or not stencilled. This product is normally produced according to American Petroleum Institute (“API”) specifications, including Grades A25, A, B, and X grades ranging from X42 to X80, but can also be produced to other specifications. Specifically not included within the scope of this investigation is American Water Works Association (“AWWA”) specification water and sewage pipe and the following size/grade combinations; of line pipe:
The product currently is classified under U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTSUS”) item numbers 7305.11.10.30, 7305.11.10.60, 7305.11.50.00, 7305.12.10.30, 7305.12.10.60, 7305.12.50.00, 7305.19.10.30. 7305.19.10.60, and 7305.19.50.00. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of this antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty order on welded large diameter pipe from Japan. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect antidumping duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of continuation of this order will be the date of publication in the
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 which may be subject to sanctions.
This five-year (sunset) review and notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determination by the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) that revocation of the antidumping duty order on certain welded large diameter line pipe (“welded large diameter pipe”) from Mexico would not be likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is publishing this notice of revocation of this antidumping duty order pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). EFFECTIVE DATE: February 27, 2007
FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: Dena Crossland or Dana Mermelstein, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3362 or (202) 482-1391, respectively.
On November 1, 2006, the Department initiated and the ITC instituted sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on welded large diameter pipe from Japan and Mexico, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act.
On October 16, 2007, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty order on welded large diameter pipe from Mexico would not be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. The ITC notified the Department on October 16, 2007, and published its decision on October 22, 2007.
The product covered by this investigation is certain welded carbon and alloy line pipe, of circular cross section and with an outside diameter greater than 16 inches, but less than 64 inches, in diameter, whether or not stenciled. This product is normally produced according to American Petroleum Institute (API) specifications, including Grades A25, A, B, and X grades ranging from X42 to X80, but can also be produced to other specifications.
Specifically not included within the scope of this investigation is American Water Works Association (“AWWA”) specification water and sewage pipe, and the following size/grade combinations of line pipe:
The product currently is classified under U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTSUS”) item numbers 7305.11.10.30, 7305.11.10.60, 7305.11.50.00, 7305.12.10.30, 7305.12.10.60, 7305.12.50.00, 7305.19.10.30, 7305.19.10.60, and 7305.19.50.00. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
As a result of the determination by the ITC that revocation of this antidumping duty order is not likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, the Department is revoking the antidumping duty order on welded large diameter pipe from Mexico, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 751(d) of the Act. Pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the effective date of revocation is February 27, 2007 (
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 which may be subject to sanctions.
This revocation pursuant to five-year (sunset) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
In response to a request made on July 31, 2007, by Valdigrano Di Flavio Pagani SrL (“Valdigrano”), the Department of Commerce initiated an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain pasta from Italy covering the period January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006.
November 5, 2007.
Audrey Twyman or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3534 and (202) 482-0182, respectively.
On July 24, 1996, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”)
Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds four ounces or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastasis, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags of varying dimensions.
Excluded from the scope of the order are refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white. Also excluded are imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by the Instituto Mediterraneo Di Certificazione, Bioagricoop S.r.l., QC&I International Services, Ecocert Italia, Consorzio per il Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, Associazione Italiana per l'Agricoltura Biologica, or Codex S.r.l. In addition, based on publicly available information, the Department has determined that, as of August 4, 2004, imports of organic pasta from Italy that are accompanied by the appropriate certificate issued by Bioagricert S.r.l. are also excluded from this order.
The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the
The Department has issued the following scope rulings to date:
(1) On August 25, 1997, the Department issued a scope ruling that multicolored pasta, imported in kitchen display bottles of decorative glass that are sealed with cork or paraffin and bound with raffia, is excluded from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders.
(2) On July 30, 1998, the Department issued a scope ruling finding that multipacks consisting of six one-pound packages of pasta that are shrink-wrapped into a single package are within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders.
(3) On October 26, 1998, the Department self-initiated a scope inquiry to determine whether a package weighing over five pounds as a result of allowable industry tolerances is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders. On May 24, 1999, we issued a final scope ruling finding that, effective October 26, 1998, pasta in packages weighing or labeled up to (and including) five pounds four ounces is within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders.
(4) On April 27, 2000, the Department self-initiated an anti-circumvention inquiry to determine whether Pastificio Fratelli Pagani S.p.A.'s importation of pasta in bulk and subsequent repackaging in the United States into packages of five pounds or less constitutes circumvention with respect to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on pasta from Italy pursuant to section 781(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(b).
The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) provide that the Department will rescind an administrative review, in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Valdigrano withdrew its request for an administrative review on October 16, 2007, which is within the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested a review with respect to this company. Therefore, the Department is rescinding this administrative review with regard to Valdigrano.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 771(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
November 5, 2007.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) hereby publishes a list of scope rulings completed between July 1, 2007, and September 30, 2007. In conjunction with this list, the Department is also publishing a list of requests for scope rulings and anticircumvention determinations pending as of September 30, 2007. We
Juanita H. Chen, AD/CVD Operations, SEC Office, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-1904.
The Department's regulations provide that the Secretary will publish in the
Requestor: Lakeshore Learning Materials; whether certain printed educational materials, product numbers RR973 and RR974 (Reader's Book Log); GG185 and GG186 (Reader's Response Notebook); GG181 and GG182 (The Writer's Notebook); RR673 and RR674 (My Word Journal); AA185 and AA186 (Mi Diario de Palabras); RR630 and RR631 (Draw & Write Journal); AA786 and AA787 (My First Draw & Write Journal); AA181 and AA182 (My Picture Word Journal); GG324 and GG325 (Writing Prompts Journal); EE441 and
Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this list of pending scope and anticircumvention inquiries. Any comments should be submitted to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for D/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 1870, Washington, DC 20230.
This notice is published in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 351.225(o).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
NMFS announces the availability of an Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing the impacts of conducting research with pelagic longline (PLL) vessels in portions of the East Florida Coast (EFC) and Charleston Bump closed areas. Given the nearly rebuilt status of north Atlantic swordfish and recent bycatch reduction measures implemented throughout the U.S. PLL fishery, NMFS is proposing to collect baseline PLL fishery data in the closed areas to evaluate the effectiveness of existing bycatch reduction measures. The EA analyzes monthly and annual PLL logbook and pelagic observer program (POP) data on catch and bycatch rates of all species in the proposed research area from 1995-2000 to determine potential impacts of the research fishery on target and non-target species. NMFS invites comments from interested parties on the EA.
Written comments on the EA must be received by 5 p.m. on November 20, 2007.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
• Email:
• Mail: Margo Schulze-Haugen, Highly Migratory Species Management Division (F/SF1), NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on PLL Research EA.”
• Fax: (301)713-1917
Russell Dunn, 727-824-5399; fax: 727-824-5398, or Chris Rilling 301-713-2347; fax: 301-713-1917.
NMFS proposes to conduct research with a limited number of vessels (two are proposed, but backup vessels may be used if breakdowns occur) in portions of the EFC and Charleston Bump closed areas (Figure 1). The latitude and longitude coordinates of the proposed research area are provided in Table 1. In the EFC closed area, the proposed research area would be north of Fort Pierce, FL, beginning at 28 degrees north latitude and proceeding north, seaward of the axis of the Gulf Stream, to the northern boundary of the EFC closed area at 31 degrees north latitude. In the Charleston Bump, the proposed research area would be north of 31 degrees north latitude and following the 200 meter isobath ( ~100 fathom contour) to the northern and eastern boundaries of the Charleston Bump closed area. The two areas are hereafter referred to collectively as the proposed research area. NMFS closed the EFC and Charleston Bump closed areas to PLL gear in early 2001 to reduce bycatch of juvenile swordfish, billfish, and other HMS (65 FR 47214, August 1, 2000). The Charleston Bump closed area is a seasonal closure from February through April every year, whereas the EFC closed area is closed year-round to PLL gear. Since that time, the swordfish stock has been nearly rebuilt (B=0.99B
NMFS proposes to make a total of 289 sets distributed inside and outside the proposed research area over a 12 month period beginning in late 2007 or early 2008. Each set would consist of 500 18/0 circle hooks with an offset not to exceed 10 degrees with whole dead finfish bait and/or squid bait. Vessels would be subject to 100 percent observer coverage, and observers or research staff would collect data that includes, but is not limited to, catch per unit effort (CPUE) for target and bycatch species; discard rates; interaction rates with protected species; size of target species; hooking location; mortality at haul back; bycatch mortality; and if possible, an evaluation of the condition of fish at haul back to allow post-release mortality estimates.
All targeted catch (tunas, swordfish, and sharks) that can be legally landed could be harvested and sold by the vessel owners. No other compensation would be provided to the vessels. All bycatch would be released using NMFS-approved dehooking equipment and appropriate safe handling and release protocols. Incidental catch of bluefin tuna would be landed consistent with existing regulations. Any mortalities of Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA) regulated species (i.e., tunas and swordfish) and sharks would be counted against the appropriate quotas. Non-target species and protected resources would be tagged and released alive, consistent with requirements of the Terms and Conditions of the 2004 Biological Opinion issued for the fishery, and research objectives.
The EA analyzed the status quo and two alternatives on different proposed research areas within the EFC and Charleston Bump areas. A fourth alternative to conduct research throughout the entire EFC and Charleston Bump closed areas was considered but not further analyzed. Based on analysis in the EA of PLL and POP data from 1995-2000 and prior to the closures and circle hook requirements going into effect, a limited number of interactions with leatherback sea turtles (four based on PLL data and six based on POP data over six years) and loggerhead sea turtles (five based on PLL data and 12 based on POP data over six years) occurred in the proposed research area. Under a worst case scenario using estimates from the POP data, and applying anticipated fishing effort in the research fishery to pre-closure J-hook catch rates, two leatherback and six loggerhead sea turtle interactions may occur as a result of the research fishery. Given the significantly lower interaction and mortality rates of Atlantic sea turtles with circle hooks, this action is not expected to significantly increase fishery interactions with, or mortalities of, sea turtles. The predicted interactions would not cause the Incidental Take Statement in the 2004 Biological Opinion for the PLL fishery to be exceeded, and would not be expected to jeopardize the continued existence of sea turtles. Incidental takes of, or interactions with, protected species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act taking place under the research fishery would be counted against the authorized incidental take levels specified in the 2004 Biological Opinion for the PLL fishery.
The EA includes similar analyses of PLL and POP data from 1995-2000 on catch rates, live and dead discard rates, and retained numbers of swordfish, bluefin, yellowfin, and bigeye tunas, large coastal sharks, and pelagic sharks. Based on the worst case scenario from the POP data, and applying anticipated fishing effort in the research fishery to pre-closure J-hook catch rates, an estimated 1,083 swordfish are predicted to be retained, 973 discarded alive, and 360 discarded dead; zero (0) bluefin tuna are predicted to be caught or discarded; nine white marlin are predicted to be discarded alive and 13 dead; 10 blue marlin are predicted to be discarded alive and 14 dead; 113 large coastal sharks are predicted to be kept; 124 discarded alive, and 50 discarded dead (depending upon available quota); and 21 pelagic sharks are predicted to be kept, 81 discarded alive, and 11 discarded dead (depending upon available quota). Given the known and anticipated mortality reduction benefits of circle hooks for Atlantic HMS relative to J-hooks, the estimates above are likely over-estimates. As a result, this action is not expected to significantly increase the retention or bycatch of HMS.
All fishing activities would be monitored by Federal fisheries observers or trained research staff to provide data on longline gear configuration; target and incidental catch; bycatch of billfish, juvenile swordfish, and bluefin tuna; and sea turtle interactions. NMFS currently collects this information on selected PLL vessels through the POP.
Even though fishing effort will increase in the proposed research area, fishing effort across the entire fishery is not anticipated to increase because vessels participating in the research fishery would have otherwise been fishing commercially for HMS in open areas.
The regulations that prohibit the proposed activities absent issuance of an EFP, include requirements for vessel reporting (50 CFR 635.4) and fishing in a closed area (50 CFR 635.21(c)(2)). All other relevant regulations concerning HMS at 50 CFR Part 635 would apply.
NMFS is requesting public comment on the EA because the fishing activities are proposed to occur in closed areas, specifically the EFC and Charleston Bump. If NMFS proceeds with the proposed research as described in the EA, then NMFS would issue the necessary exempted fishing permits to authorize the research activity.
16 U.S.C. 971
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of Availability of Proposed Findings Document, Environmental Assessment, and Finding of No Significant Impact on Approval of the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program for Indiana.
Notice is hereby given of the availability of the Proposed Findings Document, Environmental Assessment, and Finding of No Significant Impact for Indiana's Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. Coastal states and territories are required to submit their coastal nonpoint programs to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. The Findings Document was prepared by NOAA and EPA to provide the rationale for the agencies' decision to approve the state coastal nonpoint pollution control program. Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA), 16 U.S.C. 1455b, requires states and territories with coastal zone management programs that have received approval under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act to develop and implement coastal nonpoint programs. The Environmental Assessment was prepared by NOAA, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. sections 4321
NOAA and EPA have proposed to approve, with conditions, the coastal nonpoint program submitted by Indiana. The requirements of 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 (Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations to implement the National Environmental Policy Act) apply to the preparation of these Environmental Assessments. Specifically, 40 CFR section 1506.6 requires agencies to provide public notice of the availability of environmental documents. This notice is part of NOAA's action to comply with this requirement.
Copies of the proposed Findings Document, Environmental Assessment, and Finding of No Significant Impact may be found on the NOAA Web site at
Individuals or organizations wishing to submit comments on the proposed Findings or Environmental Assessment should do so by December 5, 2007.
Comments should be made to: John King, Chief, Coastal Programs Division (N/ORM3), Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOS, NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, phone (301) 713-3155 extension 188, e-mail
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Submit comments on or before January 4, 2008.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VIR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405.
Cecelia Davis, Contract Policy Division, GSA (202) 219-0202.
Presolicitation notices are used by the Government for several reasons, one of which is to aid prospective contractors in submitting proposals without undue expenditure of effort, time, and money. The Government also uses the presolicitation notices to control printing and mailing costs. The presolicitation notice response is used to determine the number of solicitation documents needed and to assure that interested offerors receive the solicitation documents. The responses are placed in the contract file and referred to when solicitation documents are ready for mailing. After mailing, the responses remain in the contract file and become a matter of record.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning value engineering requirements. The clearance currently expires on February 29, 2008.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Submit comments on or before January 4, 2008.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VIR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405.
Cecelia Davis, Contract Policy Division, GSA (202) 219-0202.
Value engineering is the technique by which contractors (1) voluntarily suggest methods for performing more economically and share in any resulting savings or (2) are required to establish a program to identify and submit to the Government methods for performing more economically. These recommendations are submitted to the Government as value engineering change proposals (VECP’s) and they must include specific information. This information is needed to enable the Government to evaluate the VECP and, if accepted, to arrange for an equitable sharing plan.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
This notice provides information on the surplus property at Naval Air Station Alameda, Alameda, California.
Ms. Kimberly Kesler, Director, Base
In 1993, the Naval Air Station Alameda, Alameda, CA, was designated for closure pursuant to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, as amended (the Act). Pursuant to this designation, the majority of the land and facilities at this installation were declared surplus to the needs of the federal government on May 20, 1994. Naval Air Station Alameda was operationally closed in 1997. The property described herein was originally planned as a Federal Agency transfer to the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and was therefore not included in the May 20, 1994 surplus determination. The USCG subsequently withdrew its request to acquire title to the property.
Notice of Surplus Property. Pursuant to paragraph (7)(B) of Section 2905(b) of the Act, as amended by the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994, the following information regarding the redevelopment authority for surplus property at Naval Air Station Alameda, Alameda, CA, is published in the
Redevelopment Authority. The redevelopment authority for the Naval Air Station Alameda, Alameda, CA, for purposes of implementing the provisions of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as amended, is the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), which was formed through a joint powers agreement, as amended, between the City of Alameda and the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda. For further information contact Ms. Irma Glidden, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Alameda Point/NAS Alameda, 950 W. Mall Square—Bldg. 1, Alameda, CA 94501-5012, telephone 510-749-5829.
Surplus Property Description. The following is a list of the land and facilities at Naval Air Station, Alameda, Alameda, CA that are surplus to the needs of the Federal Government. a. Land. Approximately 42+/-acres of improved and unimproved fee simple land at the U.S. Naval Air Station Alameda, City of Alameda, Alameda County, California.
b. Buildings. The following is a summary of the buildings and other improvements located on the above-described land that will be available. Property numbers are available on request.
(1) Family Housing (multi-family structures with 282 individual housing units). Comments: Approximately 440,010 square feet. Built around 1969.
(2) Paved areas (roads and surface areas) and other surface areas (sidewalks, parking lots, etc.).
(3) Recreational facilities, outdoor. Comments: Playing fields and a basketball court.
(4) Utility facilities. Comments: Measuring systems vary: includes telephone, electric, storm drainage, water, sewer, etc.
Redevelopment Planning. Pursuant to Section 2905(b)(7)(F) of the Act, the ARRA will conduct a community outreach effort with respect to the surplus property, and will publish in a newspaper of general circulation in the communities within the vicinity of Naval Air Station Alameda, Alameda, CA, the time period during which the ARRA will receive notices of interest from State and local governments, representatives of the homeless, and other interested parties. This publication shall include the name, address, telephone number, and the point of contact for the ARRA who can provide information on the prescribed form and contents of the notices of interest.
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 December 5, 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
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 December 5, 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
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 December 5, 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
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
Department of Education.
The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 4, 2008.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.
The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
These priorities are:
The Secretary will review the results of this invitational priority (including the number of applicants who include information responsive to this priority and whether any grantees develop and administer an assessment), and may propose to modify the regulations in 34 CFR 694 for GEAR UP to require that grantees conduct an assessment of this kind of the students receiving services through GEAR UP partnership or State grants.
20 U.S.C. 1070a-21.
(b) The regulations for this program in 34 CFR part 694.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except Federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2009 from the list of unfunded applicants from these competitions.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
For State grants, the fiscal agent/applicant must be a single State agency as designated by the State's Governor. For partnership grants, the fiscal agent/applicant must be either an IHE or a local educational agency.
2.
3.
1.
You also can request a copy of the application package from the following: Angela Oliphant, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., Room 6133, Washington, DC 20006-8524. Telephone: (202) 502-7676 or by e-mail:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman and Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
• Use a font that is either 12-point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
The page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit.
3.
Applications for grants under this program 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 in paper format 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 GEAR UP State and Partnership Competitions, CFDA Numbers 84.334S and CFDA 84.334A, 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 GEAR UP 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
• 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 packages for these competitions 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 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: Angela Oliphant, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., Room 6133, Washington, DC 20006-8524. Fax: (202) 502-7675.
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
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 application in paper format 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 84.334A or 84.334S), 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.
The effectiveness of this program depends on the rate at which program participants complete high school and enroll in and complete a postsecondary education. We developed the following performance measures to track progress toward achieving the program's goals:
1. The percentage of GEAR UP students who passed Algebra 1 by the end of the 9th grade.
2. The percentage of GEAR UP students who have knowledge of necessary academic preparation for college.
3. The percentage of GEAR UP students who graduated from high school.
4. The percentage of former GEAR UP students who are enrolled in college.
In addition, to assess the efficiency of the program, we track the average cost in federal funds, of achieving a successful outcome, where success is defined as enrollment in postsecondary education of GEAR UP students immediately after high school graduation. These performance measures constitute GEAR UP's indicators of the success of the program. Grant recipients must collect and report data on steps they have taken toward achieving these goals. Accordingly, we request that applicants include these performance measures in conceptualizing the design, implementation, and evaluation of their proposed projects.
If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
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
These priorities are:
20 U.S.C. 1130-1130b.
(b) The regulations in 34 CFR parts 655 and 661.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille,
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Page numbers and an identifier may be outside of the 1″ margin.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative,
• Use a font that is either 12-point or larger or no smaller than 10-point (characters per inch). However, you may use a 10-point font in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman and Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the Application for Federal Assistance face sheet (SF 424); the supplemental information required by the Department of Education; Part II, the budget information summary form (ED Form 524); and Part IV, the assurances and certifications. The page limit also does not apply to a table of contents. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section (Part III). If you include any attachments or appendices not specifically requested, these items will be counted as part of the application narrative (Part III) for purposes of the page limit requirement. You must include your complete response to the selection criteria in the application narrative.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit.
3.
Applications for grants under this program 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 in paper format 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 Business and International Education Program, CFDA Number 84.153A, 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 Business and International Education Program at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not consider your application if it is date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this program 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 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: Tanyelle Richardson, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., Room 6017, Washington, DC 20006-8521. Fax: (202) 502-7859.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address:
Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.153A), 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.
(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.
2.
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.
The Department will use the following measures to evaluate its success in meeting this objective.
BIE Performance Measures: (1) The number of outreach activities that are adopted or disseminated within a year, divided by the total number of BIE outreach activities conducted in the reporting period. (2) Percentage of BIE projects judged to be successful by the program officer, based on a review of information provided in annual performance reports.
The information provided by grantees in their performance reports submitted via IRIS will be the source of data for this measure. Reporting screens for institutions can be viewed at:
Ms. Tanyelle Richardson, International Education Programs Service, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K. Street, NW., Room 6017, Washington, DC 20006-8521. Telephone: (202) 502-7626 or by e-mail:
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
Department of Education, National Assessment Governing Board.
Notice of open meeting and partially closed meetings.
The notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the National Assessment Governing Board. This notice also describes the functions of the Board. Notice of this meeting is required under Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This document is intended to notify members of the general public of their opportunity to attend. Individuals who will need special accommodations in order to attend the meeting (i.e.; interpreting services, assistive listening devices, materials in alternative format) should notify Munira Mwalimu at 202-357-6938 or at
November 15-17, 2007.
Committee on Standards, Design and Methodology: Open Session—9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.;
Reporting and Dissemination Committee: Open Session—9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.;
Munira Mwalimu, Operations Officer, National Assessment Governing Board, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 825, Washington, DC, 20002-4233, Telephone: (202) 357-6938.
The National Assessment Governing Board is established under section 412 of the National Education Statistics Act of 1994, as amended.
The Board is established to formulate policy guidelines for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The Board's responsibilities include selecting subject areas to be assessed, developing assessment objectives, developing appropriate student achievement levels for each grade and subject tested, developing guidelines for reporting and disseminating results, and developing standards and procedures for interstate and national comparisons.
On November 15, the Executive Committee will meet in closed session from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. to receive a briefing from the National Center for Education Statistics on contractor costs and contract options under National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) contracts awarded in Fiscal Year 2007, covering the 2008-2012 assessment years. The discussion of contractor costs and contract options will address the implications for congressionally mandated goals and adherence to Board policies on NAEP assessments. This part of the meeting must be conducted in closed session because public discussion of this information would disclose proprietary information submitted by the successful contractors and have an adverse effect on the confidentiality of the contracting process. The meeting must therefore be conducted in closed session as disclosure of technical and cost data would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP contract awards, and is therefore protected by exemption 9(B) of section 552b(c) of Title 5 U.S.C.
On November 16, the full Board will meet in open session from 8:30 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. The Board will approve the agenda and new Board members will be administered the Oath of Office. The Governing Board will receive a report from the Executive Director and hear an update on the work of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).
The Assessment Development Committee will meet in closed session on November 16 from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. to review secure science pilot items for grades 4, 8, and 12 for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The meeting must be conducted in closed session as disclosure of proposed test items for the science pilot would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP program, and is therefore protected by exemption 9(B) of section 552b(c) of Title 5 U.S.C. From 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., the Committee will meet in open session.
On November 16, the Committee on Standards, Design and Methodology, and the Reporting and Dissemination Committee will meet in open session from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
On November 16, the full Board will meet in closed session from 12:45 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. to receive a briefing on results of the 2007 NAEP Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) Reading and Mathematics Report Card. The Governing Board will be provided with embargoed data on the report that cannot be discussed in an open meeting prior to their official release. The meeting must therefore be conducted in closed session as premature disclosure of data would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP program, and is therefore protected by exemption 9(B) of section 552b(c) of Title 5 U.S.C.
On November 16 from 2:15 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. the Board will receive an update from the Chair of the Technical Panel on 12th Grade Preparedness Research. Thereafter, Board members will receive a closed session briefing on Ethics from the Office of General Counsel from 3:30 p.m. to 4 p.m.
On November 17, the Nominations Committee will meet in closed session from 7:45 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. to review and discuss confidential information regarding nominees received for Board vacancies for terms beginning on October 1, 2008. These discussions pertain solely to internal personnel rules and practices of an agency and will disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As such, the discussions are protected by exemptions 2 and 6 of section 552b(c) of Title 5 U.S.C.
The full Board will meet in open session on November 17 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. From 9 a.m. to 10 a.m., the Board will receive a briefing on developing NAEP Frameworks and Test Questions. Board actions on policies and Committee reports are scheduled to take place between 10:15 a.m. and 12 p.m., upon which the November 17, 2007 session of the Board meeting will adjourn.
Detailed minutes of the meeting, including summaries of the activities of the closed sessions and related matters that are informative to the public and consistent with the policy of section 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) will be available to the public within 14 days of the meeting. Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for public inspection at the U.S. Department of Education, National Assessment
Electronic Access to This Document: You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, Education.
Notice of an Opening Meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming symposium of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance (The Advisory Committee). This notice also describes the functions of the Advisory Committee. Notice of this symposium is required under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This document is intended to notify the general public.
Holiday Inn on the Hill, Federal Ballroom, Lobby Level, 415 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20001.
Dr. Michelle Asha Cooper, Deputy Director, Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, Capitol Place, 80 F Street, NW., Suite 413, Washington, DC 20202-7582, (202) 219-2099.
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-8339.
The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance is established under section 491 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 as amended by Public Law 100-50 (20 U.S.C. 1098). The Advisory Committee serves as an independent source of advice and counsel to the Congress and the Secretary of Education on student financial aid policy. Since its inception, the congressional mandate requires the Advisory Committee to conduct objective, nonpartisan, and independent analyses on important aspects of the student assistance programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, and to make recommendations that will result in the maintenance of access to postsecondary education for low- and middle-income students. In addition, Congress expanded the Advisory Committee's mission in the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 to include several important areas: Access, Title IV modernization, distance education, and early information and needs assessment. Specifically, the Advisory Committee is to review, monitor and evaluate the Department of Education's progress in these areas and report recommended improvements to Congress and the Secretary.
The Advisory Committee has scheduled this one-day symposium to discuss issues affecting community colleges, particularly as they relate to enrollment, persistence, and transfer between two- and four-year institutions.
The proposed agenda will include testimony and discussion by community college leaders, policymakers, researchers and practitioners on (a) best practices used to inform students about college and help students prepare to enroll in community colleges; (b) the types of programs and efforts needed to better ensure the persistence and degree completion of community college students; and (c) innovative programs that facilitate the transfer process from two-year to four-year institutions. The Advisory Committee will also conduct a public comment and discussion session.
Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the Symposium (i.e., interpreting services, assistive listening devices, and/or materials in alternative format) should notify the Advisory Committee no later than Thursday, November 29, 2007 by contacting Ms. Hope Gray at (202) 219-2099 or via e-mail at
The Advisory Committee invites the public to submit written comments on the agenda topics to the following e-mail address:
Space for the symposium is limited and you are encouraged to register early if you plan to attend. You may register by sending an e-mail to the following address:
Records are kept for Advisory Committee proceedings, and are available for inspection at the Office of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, Capitol Place, 80 F Street, NW., Suite 413, Washington, DC from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Information regarding the Advisory Committee is available on the Committee's Web site,
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Take notice that on October 18, 2007, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee), 180 East 100 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, filed in Docket No. CP08-11-000, an application, pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), for an order authorizing or approving a Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes transaction (PILOT Transaction) between Tennessee and the Schoharie County Industrial Development Agency (Agency) that would involve the lease and lease-back of certain property, including certificated facilities located in Schoharie County, New York. As described further in the application, the PILOT Transaction would give the Agency a passive interest in Tennessee's Schoharie County property and facilities solely for the purpose of effectuating a tax exemption for Tennessee. Approval and execution of PILOT Transaction would not effect jurisdictional services performed by Tennessee; would not allow the Agency to administer jurisdictional services; and would not require the addition, replacement, construction, or abandonment of any certificated facilities or capacity. Tennessee will retain complete ownership and operational control of its property and facilities, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Kevin Erwin, Associate General Counsel, 1001 Louisiana, Houston Texas 77002, at (713) 420-1212
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on October 18, 2007, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation (ExxonMobil) tendered for filing its First Amended Complaint against Calnev Pipe Line LLC, Kinder Morgan GP, Inc., and Kinder Morgan Inc.
ExxonMobil states that copies of the complaint were served on all respondents.
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 Complainant.
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 has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Docket Numbers: RP99-518-103.
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
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other 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 docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report 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
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 electric securities filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following open access transmission tariff 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 docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
An environmental assessment (EA) is available for public review. The EA was prepared for an application filed by Portland General Electric Company (licensee) on December 29, 2006, and supplemented on February 26, 2007, requesting Commission approval of an amendment of license to increase the height of temporary flashboards on the concrete dam along the crest of Willamette Falls from 2.0 feet to 3.5 feet, in addition to other modifications, at the Willamette Falls Hydroelectric Project. The project is located on the Willamette River near the cities of West Linn and Oregon City in Clackamas County, Oregon. The project does not occupy any federal lands.
The EA evaluates the environmental impacts that would result from approving the licensee's proposed increase in flashboard height and installation of temporary adult lamprey passage structures. The EA finds that approval of the amendment application, combined with Commission modifications, 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 October 29, 2007, and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room. A copy of the EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) is in the process of preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the environmental impacts of the Palomar Gas Transmission Project involving the construction and operation of a new underground natural gas pipeline proposed by Palomar Gas Transmission, LLC (PGT). This Notice of Intent (NOI) explains the scoping process that will be used to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will help determine which issues will be evaluated in the EIS. Please note that the scoping period for this project will close on November 28, 2007.
Comments on the project may be submitted in written form or verbally. In lieu of or in addition to sending written comments, we
The FERC will be the lead federal agency in the preparation of an EIS that will satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will be used by the FERC to consider the environmental impacts that could result if the Commission issues PGT a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
This NOI is being sent to Federal, State, and local government agencies; elected officials; affected landowners; environmental and public interest groups; Indian tribes and regional Native American organizations; commentors and other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. We encourage government representatives to notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted by a PGT representative about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The pipeline would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the project is approved by the FERC, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with state law.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (
PGT has announced its proposal to construct and operate a new natural gas pipeline and associated structures with a bi-directional flow capacity of 1.4 billion cubic feet per day. The project would be located in northwest Oregon and consist of a 211-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter pipeline running from near Shaniko, Wasco County, Oregon to near Wauna, Clatsop County, Oregon. The pipeline would travel across Wasco,
More specifically, PGT proposes the following primary project components:
□ A 211-mile-long, 36-inch diameter underground natural gas mainline consisting of two segments:
□ Segment 1: a 108.5-miles of mainline from TransCanada's GTN pipeline system northwest of Madras in Wasco County to a location southwest of Molalla in Clackamas County; and a 3.8-mile, 36-inch diameter accessory lateral pipeline, the Molalla Lateral, which will connect the main pipeline to NW Natural's distribution system;
□ Segment 2: a 102.5-mile segment commencing at the Molalla Lateral interconnect and terminating at the proposed connection to the Bradwood Landing pipeline near Wauna, Clatsop County; there is potential for additional interconnections with NW Natural along this route;
□ two meter stations, eight mainline valves, and two pig launchers/receivers on Segment I; one pig launcher/receiver on the Molalla Lateral; and one meter station, eight mainline valves, and one pig launcher/receiver on section II;
□ temporary pipe storage and contractor yards at various locations along the pipeline for office trailers, parking, and pipe and equipment storage during construction; and
□ temporary construction roadways and short permanent roads from existing roads to meter station sites and other aboveground facilities.
A location map depicting PGT's proposed facilities is attached to this NOI as Appendix 1.
NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action when it considers whether or not a natural gas pipeline should be approved. FERC will use the EIS to consider the environmental impacts that could result if it issues project authorizations to PGT under sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of scoping is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the important environmental issues. With this NOI, the Commission staff is requesting public comments on the scope of the issues to be addressed in the EIS. All comments received will be considered during preparation of the EIS.
In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils.
• Water resources.
• Aquatic resources.
• Vegetation and wildlife.
• Threatened and endangered species.
• Land use, recreation, and visual resources.
• Cultural resources.
• Socioeconomics.
• Air quality and noise.
• Reliability and safety.
• Cumulative impacts.
In the EIS, we will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on affected resources.
Our independent analysis of the issues will be included in a draft EIS. The draft EIS will be mailed to federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; affected landowners; environmental and public interest groups; Indian tribes and regional Native American organizations; commentors; other interested parties; local libraries and newspapers; and FERC's official service list for this proceeding. There will be at minimum a 45 day comment period allotted for review of the draft EIS. We will consider all comments on the draft EIS and revise the document, if necessary, before issuing a final EIS. We will consider all comments on the final EIS before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure that your comments are considered, please follow the instructions in the Public Participation section of this NOI.
Although no formal application has been filed, FERC has already initiated its NEPA review under its pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before an application is filed with FERC.
With this NOI, we are asking Federal, State, and local agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EIS. These agencies may choose to participate once they have evaluated the proposal relative to their responsibilities. Additional agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this NOI.
The EIS will examine the proposed action and alternatives that require administrative or other actions by other Federal agencies. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service has identified the possible need to amend the existing Mt. Hood National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans. The U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management has identified the possible need to amend the existing Resource Management Plans of the Salem and Prineville Districts.
We have already identified issues that we think deserve attention based on our previous experience with similar projects in the region. This preliminary list of issues, which is presented below, may be revised based on your comments and our continuing analyses specific to the Palomar Gas Transmission Project.
• Potential for disturbance to residents along pipeline construction route, including noise and aesthetics;
• Potential for geological hazards, including seismic activity, to have impacts on the pipeline;
• Potential impacts of the pipeline on water bodies and wetlands, including issues of erosion control;
• Potential impacts of the pipeline on vegetation, including the clearing of forested areas;
• Potential impacts of the pipeline on threatened and endangered species and wildlife habitat;
• Potential impacts of the pipeline on cultural resources; and
• Potential impacts of the pipeline on recreation and scenic resources.
You are encouraged to become involved in this process and provide your specific comments or concerns about PGT's proposal. By becoming a commentor, your concerns will be addressed in the EIS and considered by the Commission. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives (including alternative facility sites and pipeline routes), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To expedite the FERC Staff's receipt and consideration of your comments, electronic submission of comments is strongly encouraged. For information on electronically filing comments, please see the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
If you wish to mail comments, please mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before November 28, 2007 and carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded:
• Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
• Label one copy of your comments for the attention of OEP/DG2E/Gas Branch 2, PJ-11.2.
• Reference Docket No. PF07-13-000 on the original and both copies.
• Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before November 28, 2007.
The public scoping meetings (dates, times, and locations listed below) are designed to provide another opportunity to offer comments on the proposed project. Interested groups and individuals are encouraged to attend the meetings and to present comments on the environmental issues that they believe should be addressed in the EIS. A transcript of the meetings will be generated so that your comments can be accurately recorded. All meetings will begin at 7 p.m., and are scheduled as follows:
Once PGT formally files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor,” which is an official party to the proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in a Commission proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Please note that you may
Everyone who responds to this notice or provides comments throughout the EIS process will be retained on the mailing list. If you do not want to send comments at this time but want to stay informed and receive copies of the draft and final EISs, you must return the Mailing List Retention Form (Appendix 2). If you do not send comments or return the Mailing List Retention Form asking to remain on the mailing list, you will be taken off the mailing list.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208-FERC (3372), or on the FERC Internet Web site (
In addition, FERC now offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. To register for this service, go to
Public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Finally, PGT has established a Web site for this project at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 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 electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-12915-000) on any comments or motions filed.
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 in 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.
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. Competing Preliminary Permit—Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36). Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
o. Competing Development Application—Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
p. Notice of Intent—A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
q. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit—A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project.
r. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
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
s. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “PROTEST”, and “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
t. Agency Comments—Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
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: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 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 electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-12931-000) on any comments or motions filed.
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 in 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.
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.
r.
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 “e-filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
s.
t.
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: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 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 electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-12936-000) on any comments or motions filed.
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 in 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.
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.
r.
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 “e-filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
t.
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: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 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 electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-12937-000) on any comments or motions filed.
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 in 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.
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.
r.
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 “e-filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
s.
t.
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: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 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 electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-12938-000) on any comments or motions filed.
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 in 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.
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. Competing Preliminary Permit—Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice
o. Competing Development Application—Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
p. Notice of Intent—A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
q. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit—A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project.
r. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
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 “e-filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
s. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
t. Agency Comments—Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
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: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 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 electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-12942-000) on any comments or motions filed.
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 in 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.
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.
r.
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 “e-filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
s.
t.
As announced in an October 5, 2007 Notice of Commission Conference, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will hold a conference on November 6, 2007, from 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. (EST) (change in the closing time from 12:30 p.m. listed in the previous notice), in the Commission Meeting Room on the second floor of the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC.
All interested persons may attend; there is no registration and no fee.
The conference is designed to discuss current issues affecting the natural gas industry including: supply, demand, and their impact on the market; the role of liquefied natural gas in U.S. gas supply; and infrastructure needs and construction impediments. Attached is the agenda for the conference.
As mentioned in the earlier notice, transcripts of the conference will be immediately available from Ace Reporting Company (202-347-3700 or 1-800-336-6646) for a fee. Additionally, a free Web cast of the meeting is available through
FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an e-mail to
For more information about the conference, please contact John Schnagl
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before December 5, 2007.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0019, to (1) EPA online using
Michael Plastino, Municipal Support Division, Office of Wastewater Management (4204M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; phone number: 202-564-0682; fax number: 202-501-2397; 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 July 23, 2007 (72
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0019, which is available for online viewing at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of teleconference meetings.
The Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Laboratory Advisory Board (ELAB), as previously announced, will have teleconference meetings on November 29, 2007 at 1 p.m. ET; December 19, 2007 at 1 p.m. ET; February 20, 2008 at 1 p.m. ET; March 19, 2007 at 1 p.m. ET; and April 16, 2007 at 1 p.m. ET to discuss the ideas and views presented at the previous ELAB meetings, as well as new business. Items to be discussed by ELAB over these coming meetings include: (1) Expanding the number of laboratories seeking National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) accreditation; (2) homeland security issues affecting the laboratory community; (3) ELAB support to the Agency's Forum on Environmental Measurements (FEM); (4) implementing the performance approach; and (5) follow-up on some of ELAB's past recommendations and issues. In addition to these teleconferences, ELAB will be hosting their next face-to-face meeting on January 16, 2008 at the Hyatt Regency in Newport Beach, CA at 8:30 a.m. (PT).
Written comments on laboratory accreditation issues and/or environmental monitoring issues are encouraged and should be sent to Ms. Lara P. Autry, DFO, U.S. EPA (E243-05), 109 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, faxed to (919) 541-4261, or e-mailed to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability.
This notice announces the availability of EPA's final action identifying water quality limited segments and associated pollutants in
On October 19, 2007, EPA partially approved and partially disapproved Louisiana's 2006 Section 303(d) submittal. Specifically, EPA approved Louisiana's listing of 347 waterbody pollutant combinations, and associated priority rankings. EPA disapproved Louisiana's decisions not to list 136 waterbody pollutant combinations. EPA identified these additional waterbodies and pollutants along with priority rankings for inclusion on the 2006 Section 303(d) List.
EPA is providing the public the opportunity to review its final decisions to add waters and pollutants to Louisiana's 2006 Section 303(d) List, as required by EPA's Public Participation regulations (40 CFR part 25). EPA will consider public comments and if necessary amend its final action on the additional waterbodies and pollutants identified for inclusion on Louisiana's Final 2006 Section 303(d) List.
Comments must be submitted in writing to EPA on or before December 5, 2007.
Comments on the decisions should be sent to Diane Smith, Environmental Protection Specialist, Water Quality Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, TX 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-2145, facsimile (214) 665-7373, or e-mail:
Diane Smith at (214) 665-2145.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that each state identify those waters for which existing technology-based pollution controls are not stringent enough to attain or maintain state water quality standards. For those waters, states are required to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) according to a priority ranking.
EPA's Water Quality Planning and Management regulations include requirements related to the implementation of Section 303(d) of the CWA (40 CFR 130.7). The regulations require states to identify water quality limited waters still requiring TMDLs every two years. The list of waters still needing TMDLs must also include priority rankings and must identify the waters targeted for TMDL development during the next two years (40 CFR 130.7). On March 31, 2000, EPA promulgated a revision to this regulation that waived the requirement for states to submit Section 303(d) lists in 2000 except in cases where a court order, consent decree, or settlement agreement required EPA to take action on a list in 2000 (65 FR 17170).
Consistent with EPA's regulations, Louisiana submitted to EPA its listing decisions under Section 303(d) on February 12, 2007 with subsequent corrections submitted on September 20, 2007. On October 19, 2007, EPA approved Louisiana's listing of 347 water body-pollutant combinations and associated priority rankings. EPA disapproved Louisiana's decisions not to list 136 water waterbody pollutant combinations. EPA identified these additional waters and pollutants along with priority rankings for inclusion on the 2006 Section 303(d) List. EPA solicits public comment on its identification of 136 additional waters and associated pollutants for inclusion on Louisiana's 2006 Section 303(d) List.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The Enforcement Bureau (the “Bureau”) gives notice of Mrs. Evelyn Myers Scott's (“Myers Scott”) suspension from the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (or “E-Rate Program”). Additionally, the Bureau gives notice that debarment proceedings are commencing against her. Mrs. Myers Scott, or any person who has an existing contract with or intends to contract with her to provide or receive services in matters arising out of activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support, may respond by filing an opposition request, supported by documentation to Diana Lee, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 4-C330, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Opposition requests must be received by December 5, 2007. However, an opposition request by the party to be suspended must be received 30 days from the receipt of the suspension letter or December 5, 2007, whichever comes first. The Bureau will decide any opposition request for reversal or modification of suspension or debarment within 90 days of its receipt of such requests.
Diana Lee, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 4-C330, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Diana Lee may be contacted by phone at (202) 418-0843 or e-mail at
The Bureau has suspension and debarment authority pursuant to 47 CFR 54.521 and 47 CFR 0.111(a)(14). Suspension will help to ensure that the party to be suspended cannot continue to benefit from the schools and libraries mechanism pending resolution of the debarment process. Attached is the suspension letter, DA 07-4335, which was mailed to Mrs. Myers Scott and released on October 18, 2007. The complete text of the notice of debarment is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portal II, 445 12 Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, In addition, the complete text is available on the FCC's Web site at
The suspension letter follows:
The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC” or “Commission”) has received notice of your conviction for conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 in connection with your participation in the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (“E-Rate program”).
The Commission has established procedures to prevent persons who have “defrauded the government or engaged in similar acts through activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism” from receiving the benefits associated with that program.
Pursuant to section 54.521(a)(4) of the Commission's rules,
Suspension is immediate pending the Bureau's final debarment determination. In accordance with the Commission's debarment rules, you may contest this suspension or the scope of this suspension by filing arguments in opposition to the suspension, with any relevant documentation. Your request must be received within 30 days after you receive this letter or after notice is published in the
Your guilty plea to criminal conduct in connection with the E-Rate program, in addition to serving as a basis for immediate suspension from the program, also serves as a basis for the initiation of debarment proceedings against you. Your conviction falls within the categories of causes for debarment defined in section 54.521(c) of the Commission's rules.
As with your suspension, you may contest debarment or the scope of the proposed debarment by filing arguments and any relevant documentation within 30 calendar days of the earlier of the receipt of this letter or of publication in the
If and when your debarment becomes effective, you will be prohibited from participating in activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism for three years from the date of debarment.
Please direct any response, if by messenger or hand delivery, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002, to the attention of Diana Lee, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-C330, with a copy to Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-C330, Federal Communications Commission. If sent by commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail), the response should be sent to the Federal Communications Commission, 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, Maryland 20743. If sent by first-class, Express, or Priority mail, the response should be sent to Diana Lee, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 4-C330, Washington, DC 20554, with a copy to Vickie Robinson, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 4-C330, Washington, DC 20554. You shall also transmit a copy of the response via e-mail to
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Lee via mail, by telephone at (202) 418-1420 or by e-mail at
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Health and Science.
Notice.
42 U.S.C. 300aa-5, Section 2105 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. The Committee is governed by the provisions of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees.
The National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO), a program office within the Office of Public Health and Science, DHHS, is soliciting nominations of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment as members to the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC). The activities of this Committee are governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
Consistent with the National Vaccine Plan, the Committee advises and makes recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for Health in his/her capacity as the Director of the National Vaccine Program, on matters related to the Program's responsibilities. Specifically, the Committee studies and recommends ways to encourage the availability of an adequate supply of safe and effective vaccination products in the United States; recommends research priorities and other measures to enhance the safety and efficacy of vaccines. The Committee also advises the Assistant Secretary for Health in the implementation of Sections 2102 and 2103 of the PHS Act; and identifies annually the most important areas of government and non-government cooperation that should be considered in implementing Sections 2102 and 2103 of the PHS Act.
Nominations for membership on the Committee must be received no later than 5 p.m. EST on December 11, 2007, at the address below.
All nominations should be mailed or delivered to: Bruce G. Gellin, M.D., M.P.H., Executive Secretary, NVAC, Office of Public Health and Science, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 443-H, Hubert H. Humphrey Building; Washington, DC 20201.
Ms. Emma English, Program Analyst, National Vaccine Program Office, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 443-H, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Washington, DC 20201; (202) 690-5566;
A copy of the Committee charter and list of the current membership can be obtained by contacting Ms. English or by accessing the NVAC Web site at:
Nominations should be typewritten. The following information should be included in the package of material submitted for each individual being nominated for consideration: (1) A letter of nomination that clearly states the name and affiliation of the nominee, the basis for the nomination (i.e., specific attributes which qualify the nominee for service in this capacity), and a statement that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Committee; (2) the nominator's name, address and daytime telephone number, and the home and/or work address, telephone number, and email address of the individual being nominated; and (3) a current copy of the nominee's curriculum vitae. Applications cannot be submitted by facsimile. The names of Federal employees should not be nominated for consideration of appointment to this Committee.
The Department makes every effort to ensure that the membership of HHS Federal advisory committees is fairly balanced in terms of points of view
The Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch are applicable to individuals who are appointed as public members of Federal advisory committees. Individuals appointed to serve as public members of Federal advisory committees are classified as special Government employees (SGEs). SGEs are Government employees for purposes of the conflict of interest laws. Therefore, individuals appointed to serve as public members of NVAC are subject to an ethics review. The ethics review is conducted to determine if the individual has any interests and/or activities in the private sector that may conflict with performance of their official duties as a member of the Committee. Individuals appointed to serve as public members of the Committee will be required to disclose information regarding financial holdings, consultancies, and research grants and/or contracts.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call 404-639-5960 or send an e-mail to
Evaluation of the Successful Business Strategies to Prevent Heart Disease and Stroke Toolkit—NEW—Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention (DHDSP), National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The previous 30-day
Under Part C (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the Statement of Organization Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (45 FR 67772-76, dated October 14, 1980, and corrected at 45 FR 69296, October 20, 1980, as amended most recently at 70 FR 72842-72843, dated December 7, 2005), the Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was established. This Division plans, directs, and coordinates programs to reduce morbidity, risk factors, costs, disability, mortality, and disparities associated with heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular disease outcomes. Under this Division, formative research was conducted to identify effective interventions and promising practices for preventing heart disease and stroke at the work site. In 2005, this research resulted in the development of a
As part of the Toolkit evaluation, the CDC has employed contractor support to design and conduct a Web-based survey of State Health Departments to gather information on their experiences with the Toolkit. The contractor will collect and analyze all data from this survey. The CDC has also contracted to make revisions to the toolkit based on results of this survey, ongoing feedback from the States, and feedback from employers through interviews. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is seeking a 6-month Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for implementing the Web-based survey.
There are no costs to respondents except for their time to complete the survey. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 13.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Consumer Healthcare Product Association (CHPA) are announcing a public workshop entitled “Adolescent Over-the-Counter (OTC) Drug Product Use.” The purpose of the workshop is to gain an understanding of current use of OTC drug products by adolescents, including adolescent decisionmaking skills (compared with adult skills) and other factors influencing adolescent OTC drug product use. Information gathered at the workshop and from submitted comments will be used to identify when it would be most appropriate for consumer studies on OTC drugs to enroll adolescents, and to define the type of consumer research and study designs needed to support OTC drug product approval in the adolescent population. The workshop is intended to help inform FDA in its effort to assure the safe and effective use of OTC drug products by adolescents.
The public workshop will be held on December 6, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and on December 7, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Register to make an oral presentation during the open public session by November 21, 2007. Submit written or electronic comments by January 31, 2008.
The public workshop will be held at the Natcher Conference Center, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Dr., Bethesda, MD 20892.
Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
Faith Dugan, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-6), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-594-6779, FAX: 301-827-4312, e-mail:
We are announcing a public workshop on adolescent use of OTC drug products. OTC drugs are FDA-regulated drug products that are available without a prescription. Other health care products (e.g., dietary supplements) are beyond the scope of the workshop. Adolescents use OTC drug products from a wide range of therapeutic categories (including fluoride toothpastes, acne drug products, and pain relievers) and with varying degrees of parental oversight. While clinical and consumer behavior studies for OTC drugs have enrolled various populations, few studies have included adolescents. Therefore, limited information on adolescents' use of OTC drug products has been collected regarding the magnitude of their use, the types of products they use, factors that influence their use, or their ability to understand and follow directions provided on OTC labels.
The desire to learn more about adolescent decisionmaking skills as they relate to the use of OTC drug products has generated interest in holding a public workshop that would convene a group of scientific experts and solicit input from the public. Information gathered at the workshop would help identify methods for assessing adolescent OTC drug use and identify information useful to regulatory decisionmaking.
This workshop has been developed to further our understanding of the physiological and psychological differences and similarities between adolescents and adults, which may have an impact on adolescents' decisions about OTC drug use and also may define research priorities for assessing the differences in drug use decisions. The workshop is also aimed at designing efforts to encourage appropriate OTC drug product use by adolescents. It is hoped that such efforts will foster appropriate use when adolescents become adults.
We will address the following topics at the workshop:
• OTC drug product use by adolescents;
• Discussion of adolescent neurocognitive development and decisionmaking skills;
• Discussion of how best to communicate product information directed toward adolescents;
• Discussion of future actions and research agendas, including studies regarding consumer behavioral issues; and
• Discussion of mechanisms to promote appropriate and optimal use of OTC drugs by adolescents.
We are interested in hearing comments at the public workshop or receiving written or electronic comments (see section V of this document) on the following questions:
• Magnitude of current use of OTC drugs by adolescents;
• Product categories commonly used by adolescents;
• Market use data for such drugs;
• Consumer behavior studies that have enrolled adolescents; and
• Factors that influence adolescent's use of OTC products, such as drug class, age, parental involvement and influence, household dynamics, social circumstances, and gender.
• Identify known factors that contribute to how adolescents make health-related decisions;
• Discuss adolescent behavior patterns, decisionmaking skills, and predictors of risk-taking behavior as they relate to purchase and use of OTC drugs; and
• Discuss differences between adolescent and adult risk perceptions and decisionmaking and discuss the ages at which identifiable developmental transitions generally occur.
• Discuss drug categories (e.g., analgesics, acne drugs) for which it would be appropriate to enroll adolescents in clinical and behavioral studies and identify related study design issues (e.g., design, age, informed consent, parental assent, compliance);
• Assess the need for consumer behavior studies targeted toward adolescents;
• Explore alternate and effective means of communicating with adolescents, including need for labels
• Discuss other potential future actions to promote safe and effective use of OTC drugs by adolescents.
The Natcher Conference Center is a Federal facility with security procedures for entrance. Workshop attendees will be required to show proper identification and are asked to allow ample time to enter the NIH campus.
There is no fee to attend the workshop, and attendees who do not wish to make an oral presentation do not need to register. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis.
If you would like to make an oral presentation during the workshop, you must register by close of business on November 21, 2007. You must provide your name, title, business affiliation (if applicable), address, and type of organization you represent (e.g., industry, consumer organization) to Lee Lemley or Faith Dugan at 301-594-6779 (see
If you need special accommodations because of disability, please contact Lee Lemley (see
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
We will prepare a transcript of the workshop. The transcript will be available for review approximately 30 days after the workshop at the Division of Dockets Management (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At least one portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), HHS.
Notice of Single Source Award.
HRSA will be enhancing the partnership with the Home Safety Council (HSC) to collaborate on reaching America's low literacy population. Through this project, additional poison prevention training materials targeting the low literacy population will be developed and distributed to the public, poison centers, safety and injury prevention professionals, health educators, and first responders. HRSA first announced the partnership with the HSC in the
Lori Roche, Director, Poison Control Program, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Room 11C-06, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; Telephone: 301-443-0652; E-mail:
Section 1271
This project will be implemented through a single source cooperative agreement because the HSC is uniquely positioned to immediately undertake and complete the activities within the seven month time frame. HSC is currently developing low literacy poison prevention materials, and this project will enhance the existing package of materials. The HSC has existing organizational knowledge and experience in developing materials for the low literacy population through its Home Safety Literacy Project, of which this project will be a component. The HSC has an existing relationship with key stakeholders in place for reaching this vulnerable population, and the HSC project director has extensive expertise in poison prevention education.
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), formerly the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA), is a survey of the civilian, non-institutionalized population of the United States 12 years old and older. The data are used to determine the prevalence of use of tobacco products, alcohol, illicit substances, and illicit use of prescription drugs. The results are used by SAMHSA, ONDCP, Federal government agencies, and other organizations and researchers to establish policy, direct program activities, and better allocate resources.
This will be a request for generic approval for information collection for NSDUH methodological field tests designed to examine the feasibility, quality, and efficiency of new procedures of revisions to the existing survey protocol. These field tests will examine ways to increase data quality, lower operating costs, and gain a better understanding of various sources of nonsampling error. If these tests provide successful results, current procedures may be revised and incorporated into the main study (e.g., questionnaire changes). Particular attention will be given to minimizing the impact of design changes so that survey data continue to remain comparable over time.
Field test activities are expected to include improving response rates among persons residing in controlled access communities (locked apartment buildings, gated communities, college dormitories, etc.), and conducting a nonresponse follow-up study. Cognitive laboratory testing will be conducted prior to the implementation of significant questionnaire modifications. These questionnaire modifications will also be pre-tested and the feasibility of text-to-speech software determined. To understand the effectiveness of current monetary incentive, a new incentive study will be conducted with varying incentive amounts. The relationship between incentives and veracity of reporting will also be examined. Tests will also be designed to determine the feasibility of alternative sample designs and modes of data collection. Lastly, a customer satisfaction survey of NSDUH data users will be conducted to improve the utility of the NSDUH data. Some of the above studies may be combined to introduce survey efficiencies.
The average annual burden associated with these activities over a three-year period is summarized below:
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by December 5, 2007 to: SAMHSA Desk Officer, Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503; due to potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, respondents are encouraged to submit comments by fax to: 202-395-6974.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species.
Written data, comments or requests must be received by December 5, 2007.
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281.
Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to import various biological samples collected from wild free-ranging African wild dog (
The applicant requests renewal of their permits to export, import, and re-import live captive-born specimens, biological samples, and salvaged material of black-footed ferret (
The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples from dwarf crocodile (
The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; receipt of application.
The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) has submitted an application to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for an incidental take permit (permit) pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). As required by section 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA, OPRD has prepared a Habitat Conservation Plan (Plan) that describes proposed actions and measures they will implement to minimize and mitigate take of the threatened western snowy plover (
We request comments from the public on the permit application, the Plan, the IA, and the DEIS, all of which are available for review. The Service is furnishing this notice to allow other agencies and the public an opportunity to review and comment on these documents. All comments received will become part of the public record and will be available for review pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. For locations to review the documents, please see the
Comments must be received from interested parties on or before January 4, 2008. Written comments may be sent by mail, facsimile, or e-mail to the addresses listed below.
All written comments should be addressed to: Laura Todd, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newport Field Office, 2127 SE OSU Drive, Newport, OR, 97365-5258; facsimile (541) 867-4551. Submit comments by e-mail to
You may view or download the draft Plan, draft IA, and DEIS on the Internet at
For further information, or to receive copies of the documents on CD ROM, please contact Laura Todd at (541) 867-4558.
The OPRD has management responsibility on all Oregon coastal beaches, which extend approximately 230 miles, for such activities as public use and recreation, beach management conducted by OPRD staff, and natural resource management. These activities may result in the incidental take of the threatened western snowy plover (
Activities that the OPRD is proposing for permit coverage, and for which minimization and mitigation measures are described in the Plan, include:
1. Public Use/Recreation Management.
a. Dog-exercising.
b. Driving.
c. Kite-flying.
d. Non-motorized Vehicle Use.
e. Other Dry Sand Activities.
2. Beach Management.
a. Public Safety.
b. Law Enforcement.
c. Boat and Marine Mammal Strandings.
3. Natural Resource Management.
a. Snowy Plover Management.
b. Other Habitat Restoration.
The Service formally initiated an environmental review of the proposed
Utilizing the public scoping comments, the Service prepared a DEIS to analyze the effects of alternatives on the human environment. Alternative 2 in the DEIS is implementation of OPRD's Plan, including issuance of a permit by the Service, and was developed in collaboration with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Two other alternatives are analyzed in the DEIS: Alternative 1, No-Action, under which the OPRD would continue their ocean shore management activities with no issuance of a permit by the Service; and, Alternative 3, Management of Additional OPRD Sites, which would include management of three additional western snowy plover management areas than are included in Alternative 2.
The Service invites the public to comment on the Plan, DEIS, and draft IA during a 60-day comment period beginning on the date of this notice. The Service will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of the ESA, and to prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Application requirements and issuance criteria for incidental take permits are found in 50 CFR 17.22(b). The Service decision regarding issuance of an incidental take permit will be made no sooner than 30 days after completion of the FEIS and the associated Record of Decision.
All comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and will be available for review pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. Anonymous comments will not be considered. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, are available for public inspection in their entirety.
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will honor your request to withhold your personal information to the extent allowable by law.
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA and Service regulations for implementing NEPA, as amended (40 CFR 1506.6). If we determine that all requirements are met, we will issue an incidental take permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA to the OPRD for take of the western snowy plover, incidental to otherwise lawful activities, in accordance with the Plan, the IA, and the permit.
Bureau of Indian Education, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is planning to reinstate the Home-living Programs and School Closure and Consolidation, OMB Control Number 1076-0164 as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. This collection expired during the renewal process because the 30-day notice was not published before the expiration date. The reinstatement will ensure we can continue to operate the residential program of the No Child Left Behind Act. This notice replaces the notice published Wednesday, October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56373).
Written comments must be submitted on or before December 5, 2007.
You may submit comments on the information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at the Office of Management and Budget, by facsimile to (202) 395-6566 or you may send an e-mail to
Dr. James Martin, (202) 208-6123.
Public Law 107-110, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of January 8, 2001, requires all schools including Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) funded boarding/residential schools to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging academic achievement standards and assessments. In addition, the BIE is required by NCLB to implement national standards for home-living situations in all BIE funded residential schools. The BIE is required to assess each residential school and submit a plan to the Congress, Tribes and schools which will bring all BIE funded residential schools up to the national standards. Information from all BIE funded residential schools must be collected in order to assess each school's progress in meeting the national standards. Finally, the BIE is required to monitor programs, gather data, and complete reports for the U.S. Department of Education. To achieve these results, residential schools must prepare reports, develop curriculum, prepare financial planning documents, and establish standards to measure student progress. The BIE uses the Annual Report to the Department of Education and three other information collections for the BIE to collect data, measuring each school's performance. When there is a lack of progress, the residential schools must show that they have developed school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring plans to address the problems of all students. Additional information collection requirements have been developed to implement the No Child Left Behind Act.
A 60-day notice requesting comments was published on May 7, 2007 (Vol. 72, FR 25773). There were no comments received regarding that notice.
You are invited to comment on the following items to the Desk Officer at OMB at the citation in
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper
(b) The accuracy of the agencies' estimate of the burden (including the hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumption 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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and become a matter of public record.
OMB has up to 60 days to make a decision, but may decide after 30 days; therefore your comments will receive maximum consideration if received during the 30-day period. We will not request nor sponsor a collection of information, and you need not respond to such a request, if there is no valid Office of Management and Budget Control Number.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Emergency Closure of Selected Public Lands in Eastern San Diego County, California.
The Bureau of Land Management, El Centro Field Office (BLM), is providing notice pursuant to Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 8364.1 (Closure and Restriction Orders), which provides, in part, for the Authorized Officer to close or restrict use of designated public lands for the protection of persons, property, and public lands and resources.
Notice is hereby given that the El Centro Field Office (BLM) will immediately close selected public lands to public access in Eastern San Diego County, CA.
Due to extreme fire conditions currently in this area and in the interest of public safety, the following areas will be temporarily closed until the end of the current fire emergency.
(1) McCain Valley Conservation Area (22,852 acres) to include Cottonwood Campground, Lark Canyon Campground and Lark Canyon Day Use OHV Area, Boulevard, CA.
(2) Buck Canyon (2,763 acres), Ranchita, CA.
(3) Chariot Canyon/Rodriguez Canyon (6,870 acres), Julian, CA.
(4) San Felipe Hills (5,278 acres), Ranchita, CA.
The emergency closure is effective October 26, 2007 and will remain in effect until the end of the fire emergency and until rescinded or modified by the Authorized Officer. The restriction prohibiting public entry and use within the affected areas will help protect public health and safety.
Maps of the closure area may be obtained from the El Centro Field Office, 1661 S. 4th Street, El Centro, CA 92243, Phone 760-337-4400.
Stephen M. Razo, BLM California Desert District Director of External Affairs, (951) 697-5217.
The affected areas described herein will be subject to the following use restrictions:
1. Unless otherwise authorized, no person shall access the described restricted area.
2. Persons who are exempt from the restriction include:
a. Any Federal, State or local officers engaged in fire, emergency, or law enforcement activities;
b. BLM employees, contractors, or agents engaged in official duties;
c. Individuals operating within the scope of their official and legitimate governmental duties; and
d. Additional persons may be allowed, but must have advanced written approval from the BLM Authorized Officer, El Centro Field Office.
Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office.
Notice of Minor Amendments to the Charter and Call for Nominations.
This notice is published in accordance with section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, Public Law 92-463. Notice is hereby given that the Charter for the Science Technical Advisory Panel for the North Slope Science Initiative is amended to reflect the implementing legislative language in section 348(d), Energy Policy Act of 2005, establishing the Science Technical Advisory Panel. This amendment is a minor technical change in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.80(1). The North Slope Science Initiative is also seeking nominations for five, three-year appointments to the North Slope Science Technical Advisory Panel. Any individual or organization may nominate one or more persons to serve on the Science Technical Advisory Panel. Individuals may nominate themselves for Science Technical Advisory Panel membership.
The purpose of the Science Technical Advisory Panel is to provide advice on proposed inventory, monitoring and research functions related to the North Slope Science Initiative.
Submit nomination packets for positions to the address listed below no later than 30 days after date of publication of this notice in the
John Payne, Executive Director, North Slope Science Initiative, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West 7th Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513; phone (907) 271-3431, or e-mail:
The duties of the Science Technical Advisory Panel are solely advisory to the North Slope Science Initiative Oversight Group, which will give direction to the Science Technical Advisory Panel regarding priorities for decisions needed for the Department of the Interior's management. Duties could include the following:
a. Advise the Oversight Group on science planning and relevant research and monitoring projects;
b. Advise the Oversight Group on scientific information relevant to the Oversight Group's mission;
c. Review selected reports to advise the Oversight Group on their content and relevance;
d. Review ongoing scientific programs of North Slope Science member organizations on the North Slope at the request of the member organizations to promote compatibility in methodologies and complication of data;
e. Advise the Oversight Group on how to ensure that scientific products generated through the North Slope Science Initiative activities are of the highest technical quality;
f. Periodically review the North Slope Science Plan and provide recommendations for changes to the Oversight Group;
g. Provide recommendations for proposed North Slope Science Initiative funded inventory, monitoring and research activities to the Oversight Group;
h. Provide other scientific advice as requested by the Oversight Group; and,
i. Coordinate with groups and committees appointed or requested by the Oversight Group to provide science advice, as needed.
Any individual or organization may nominate one or more persons to serve on the Science Technical Advisory Panel. Individuals may nominate themselves for Science Technical Advisory Panel membership. You may obtain nomination forms from John Payne, Executive Director, North Slope Science Initiative, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West 7th Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513, or at
Appointees will serve with monetary compensation, but may be reimbursed for travel and per diem expenses at current rates for Federal Government employees. The appointment term will be for three years.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Correction.
The following corrections are made: Comments should be sent to the Richfield Field Office. Comments and information submitted on the Richfield Field Office DRMP/DEIS, including names, e-mail addresses, and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review and disclosure at the Richfield Field Office address listed below. Or, you may contact Cornell Christensen, RMP Project Manager, Richfield BLM Field Office, 150 East 900 North, Richfield, Utah 84701, phone 435-896-1561.
All other information within the Notice of Availability (10/26/07) remains unchanged.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Correction notice.
The following corrections are made: Three scoping meetings (West Jordan, Tooele, and Nephi, Utah) will be held during the scoping period. The Mona to Oquirrh Transmission Line project Web site is
All other information within the Notice of Intent (10/16/07) remains unchanged.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
Notice and request for comments.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5 CFR part 1320, Reporting and Record Keeping Requirements, the National Park Service (NPS) invites public comments on a proposed new collection of information (1024-xxxx).
Public comments on the proposed Information Collection Request (ICR) will be accepted on or before January 4, 2007.
Dr. James Gramann, National Park Service Social Science Program, 1201 “Eye” St., Washington, DC 20005; via phone 202-513-7189; or via e-mail at
The Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vessel Quotas and Operating Requirements, and the resulting Record of Decision signed November 21, 2003, currently guide vessel management in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve (GLBA). The Record of Decision (Record of Decision for Vessel Quotas and Operating Requirements in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, 2003) adopted an alternative that maintains the current daily maximum of two cruise ships in the park and sets seasonal use days for the June-August season at 139 ships. The Record of Decision also provides for possible increases in cruise ship use. Specifically, use in the June-August season could be increased to two ships per day, every day for a seasonal use total of 184 ships. The Record of Decision for Vessel Quotas and Operating Requirements in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve (2003) provided the following direction for the role of research in the process of changing quotas for cruise ships.
The determination of whether to increase seasonal-use day quotas for cruise ships will rely on criteria that define the environmental and social conditions to be met before any additional seasonal-use days are approved. These criteria will be based on the results of and guidance provided through studies that examine the effects of vessels on all park resources and visitor experience. (p.18).
The Record of Decision also specified that the studies examining the effects of cruise ships would be identified with the assistance of a Glacier Bay Vessel Management Science Advisory Board (SAB). The SAB was established and a final report of their findings and recommendations was published in September 2005 (
1.
The purpose of the proposed study is to provide park managers with information about a variety of potential impacts of cruise ships on all visitor groups that have potential to encounter a cruise ship in Glacier Bay proper. Information about impacts of other mechanized transport, if any, on the quality of visitor experience will also be collected (1) to provide a context for understanding the role of cruise ships on the quality of visitor experience and (2) to examine aggregate effects of
2.
Discussions with experience providers indicate that these individuals may adjust itineraries in an effort to provide visitors with a particular experience. Often that experience is one where few other vessels are encountered. Understanding these practices and how the increase in 2-cruise-ship days may affect them are the primary objectives of this research component. This information will be integral when estimating population impacts under the 2-cruise-ships every day scenario. Gatekeepers identified include charter and tour boat captains, kayak guides, and VIS staff who issue permits and provide guidance to kayakers and captains of private vessels. Interviews, to be conducted during the summer 2008 use season, will rely on an open-ended, in-depth process.
Comments are invited on: (1) The practical utility of the information being gathered; (2) the accuracy of the burden hour estimate; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden to respondents, including use of automated information collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
Notice and request for comments.
Under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5 CFR Part 1320, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, the National Park Service (NPS) invites public comments on a proposed new collection of information (OMB #1024-XXXX).
Public comments on this Information Collection Request (ICR) will be accepted on or before December 5, 2007.
You may submit comments directly to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior (OMB #1024-XXXX), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, by fax at 202/395-6566, or by electronic mail at
Dr. James Gramann, NPS Social Science Program, 1201 Eye St., Washington, DC 20005; or via phone 202/513-7189; or via e-mail
We received on public comment on the proposed visitor study in Yellowstone National Park (YNP). The comment, from a representative of the Wyoming State Snowmobile Association, raised concerns related to four aspects of the research design: (1) The possible disruption of visitor experiences through asking them to respond to an on-site survey, (2) the adequacy of the sample size, (3) the appropriateness/practical utility of gathering information on visitor perceptions about their experiences and park management, and (4) the appropriateness of gathering information on guides' perspectives about the snowcoach/snowmobile guide-only policy.
The comments were addressed in a reply letter. The following is a synopsis of the response to each of the proposed concerns: (1) The methods used in this study are well-established in the research community and every effort has been made to ensure that visitors are not disrupted in any significant way. (2) The sample sizes are large enough to address the research needs and will allow for a small standard error of ±5%. (3) The goal of the proposed study is to
Yellowstone National Park (YNP) has requested research into visitor experiences of natural sounds. The recent changes in winter use motorized access in YNP require snowmobiles in the park to use clean and quiet technology. These changes have led to the need to better understand the role of natural sounds in the winter visitor experience. The purpose of this study is to provide park managers with specific information on visitor perceptions of the experience of the natural soundscape and on visitor willingness to support management actions that affect the natural soundscape in Yellowstone National Park. The purpose of the interview approach for soundscape research is to obtain an in depth understanding of visitor experiences of the natural soundscape and to better understand the context within which soundscape policies affect the visitor experience.
Previous research in Yellowstone National Park has documented the existence of differing values held among visitors for the park itself. Strong relationships between perceived park values and visitor willingness to support park management activities have been previously documented. The research proposed for the next winter use season will build on this knowledge, expanding it to include the natural soundscape resource, providing the park with information on the status of visitor perceptions of park values, visitor perceptions of the importance of natural sounds to their experience, and visitors' willingness to support management actions affecting the natural soundscape. In addition to the in-depth interviews, an on-site questionnaire will be utilized for this portion of the soundscape research.
This study seeks to provide park managers with specific information on visitor perceptions of wildlife interactions that occur in Yellowstone National Park. The recent changes in winter use policy require the snowmobile experience to be guided, which leads to different types of visitor wildlife interactions. YNP has requested research exploring how winter visitors appraise the human-bison interactions they observe during their visit. The primary goals are to explore snowcoach and snowmobile passengers' appraisals of the human-bison interactions they witness during their visits, to analyze situational and visitor characteristics that might influence those appraisals, and to explore visitors' judgments about when consequences of winter use for bison are serious enough to warrant management intervention regulating these interactions.
Recent winter use plans at Yellowstone National Park have required that each snowmobile comply with best available technology, that all groups be guided, and that the total number of daily winter visitors be capped. These restrictions were implemented to reduce impacts to wildlife, improve compliance with winter use rules, reduce visitor conflict, and address visitor carrying capacity. This study will look at the effectiveness of these managerial interventions through the eyes of the professional guides. Many guides have been working in the park on a daily basis for year; thus, they offer a unique perspective on how the conditions in the park have changed and what seems to be working best within the new winter use system. Interviews, to be conducted during the winter use season, will rely on an open ended, in-depth process.
The National Park Service is seeking public comments and suggestions on the planning of the 2007 Lighting of the National Christmas Tree and the subsequent 26-day event.
The National Park Service is seeking public comments and suggestions on the planning of the 2007 Lighting of the National Christmas Tree and the subsequent 26-day event, which opens on December 6, 2007, on the Ellipse (President's Park), south of the White House. The meeting will be held at 9 a.m. on November 27, 2007 in Room 234 of the National Capital Region Headquarters Building, at 1100 Ohio Drive, SW., Washington, DC (East Potomac Park).
Persons who would like to comment at the meeting should notify the National Park Service by November 23, 2007 by calling the White House Visitor Center weekdays between 9 a.m., and 4 p.m., at (202) 208-1631. Written comments may be sent to the Park Manager, White House Visitor Center, 1100 Ohio Drive, SW., Washington, DC 20242, and will be accepted until November 27, 2007.
The meeting will be held on November 27, 2007. Written comments will be accepted until November 27, 2007.
The meeting will be held at 9 a.m. on November 27, 2007, in Room 234 of the National Capital Region Headquarters Building, at 1100 Ohio Drive, SW., Washington, DC (East Potomac Park). Written comments may be sent to the Park Manager, White House Visitor Center, 1100 Ohio Drive, SW., Washington, DC 20242. Due to delays in mail delivery, it is recommended that comments be provided by telefax at 202-208-1643 or by e-mail to
John Stanwich at the White House Visitor Center weekdays between 9 a.m., and 4 p.m., at (202) 208-1631.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, ORV Advisory Committee.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770, 5 U.S.C. App 1, 10), notice is hereby given of the first meeting of the Big Cypress National Preserve ORV Advisory Committee.
The Committee will meet on Thursday, November 29, 2007, beginning at 3:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held in the cafetorium of Everglades City School, 415 School Drive, Everglades City, FL. Written comments may be sent to: Superintendent, Big Cypress National Preserve, 33100 Tamiami Trail East, Ochopee, FL 34141-1000, Attn: ORV Advisory Committee.
Karen Gustin, Superintendent, Big Cypress National Preserve, 33100 Tamiami Trail East, Ochopee, Florida 34141-1000; 239-695-1103, or go to the Web site
The Committee was established (
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area.
Notice of meeting.
Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area Advisory Council will be held on Wednesday, December 5, 2007, at 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. at the Boston Harbor Islands Partnership Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue, 2nd Floor Conference Room, Boston, MA.
The purpose of the meeting will be to review the summer season, discuss the report card project, and plan for the annual meeting of the council.
The meeting will be open to the public. Any person may file with the Superintendent a written statement concerning the matters to be discussed. Persons who wish to file a written statement at the meeting or who want further information concerning the meeting may contact Superintendent Bruce Jacobson at (617) 223-8667.
December 5, 2007 at 4 p.m.
Boston Harbor Islands NRA, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 228, Boston, MA 02110.
Superintendent Bruce Jacobson, (617) 223-8667.
The Advisory Council was appointed by the Director of National Park Service pursuant to Public Law 104-333. The 28 members represent business, educational/cultural, community and environmental entities; municipalities surrounding Boston Harbor; Boston Harbor advocates; and Native American
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Meeting notice.
The purpose of this notice is to announce the meeting of the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Advisory Policy Board (APB). The CJIS APB is a federal advisory committee established pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This meeting announcement is being published as required by Section 10 of the FACA.
The CJIS APB is responsible for reviewing policy issues and appropriate technical and operational issues related to the programs administered by the FBI's CJIS Division, and thereafter, making appropriate recommendations to the FBI Director. The programs administered by the CJIS Division are the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, the Interstate Identification Index, Law Enforcement Online, National Crime Information Center, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the National Incident-Based reporting System, Law Enforcement national Data Exchange, and Uniform Crime Reporting.
The meeting will be open to the public on a first-come, first-seated basis. Any member of the public wishing to file a written statement concerning the CJIS Division programs or wishing to address this session should notify senior CJIS Advisory Roy g. Weise at (304) 625-2730 at least 24 hours prior to the start of the session. The notification should contain the requestor's name, corporate designation, and consumer affiliation or government designation along with a short statement describing the topic to be addressed and the time needed for the presentation. A requestor will ordinarily be allowed no more than 15 minutes to present a topic.
The APB will meet in open session from 8:30 a.m.until 5 p.m., on December 5-6, 2007.
The meeting will take place at the Renaissance Glendale Hotel and Spa, Glendale, Arizona, (623) 937-3700.
Inquiries may be addressed to Mrs. Rebecca S. Durrett; Management and Program Analyst; Adivsory Groups Management Unit, Liaison, Advisory, Training and Statistics Section; FBI CJIS Division; Module C3; 1000 Custer Hollow Road; Clarksburg; West Virginia 26306-0149; telephone (304) 625-2617; facsimile (304) 625-5090.
National Endowment for the Humanities.
Final guidance.
The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) is publishing final policy guidance on Title VI's prohibition against national origin discrimination as it affects limited English proficient persons.
This policy guidance is effective immediately.
Heather Gottry, Office of the General Counsel, National Endowment for the Humanities, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 529, Washington, DC 20506 or by telephone at 202-606-8322 or TDD 1-866-372-2930, by facsimile at 202-606-8600, or by e-mail at
On August 17, 2006, NEH published in the
Under NEH regulations implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d,
On March 14, 2002, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a report to Congress titled “Assessment of the Total Benefits and Costs of Implementing Executive Order No. 13166: Improving Access to Services for Persons With Limited English Proficiency.” Among other things, the report recommended the adoption of uniform guidance across all federal agencies, with flexibility to permit tailoring to each agency's specific recipients. Consistent with this OMB recommendation, the Department of Justice (DOJ) published LEP Guidance for DOJ recipients which was drafted and organized to also function as a model for similar guidance by other Federal grant agencies. See 67 FR 41455 (June 18, 2002). This guidance is based upon and incorporates the legal analysis and compliance standards of the model June 18, 2002, DOJ LEP Guidance for Recipients.
It has been determined that the guidance does not constitute a regulation subject to the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. It has also been determined that this guidance is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
The text of the complete final guidance document appears below.
Most individuals living in the United States read, write, speak and understand English. There are many individuals, however, for whom English is not their primary language. For instance, based
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d,
In certain circumstances, failure to ensure that LEP persons can effectively participate in or benefit from federally assisted programs and activities may violate the prohibition under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d and Title VI regulations against national origin discrimination.
The purpose of this policy guidance is to clarify the responsibilities of recipients of federal financial assistance from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and assist them in fulfilling their responsibilities to limited English proficient (LEP) persons pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the NEH implementing regulations. The policy guidance reiterates NEH's longstanding position that, in order to avoid discrimination against LEP persons on the grounds of national origin, recipients must take reasonable steps to ensure that such persons have meaningful access to the programs, services, and information those recipients provide.
This policy guidance is modeled on and incorporates the legal analysis and compliance standards and framework set out in Section I through Section VIII of Department of Justice (DOJ) Policy Guidance titled “Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons,” published at 67 FR 41455, 41457-41465 (June 18, 2002) (DOJ Recipient LEP Guidance). To the extent additional clarification is desired on the obligation under Title VI to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons and how recipients can satisfy that obligation, a recipient should consult the more detailed discussion of the applicable compliance standards and relevant factors set out in DOJ Recipient LEP Guidance. The DOJ Guidance may be viewed and downloaded at
Many commentators have noted that some have interpreted the case of
This policy guidance provides a legal framework to assist recipients in developing appropriate and reasonable language assistance measures designed to address the needs of LEP individuals. The NEH Title VI implementing regulations prohibit both intentional discrimination and policies and practices that appear neutral but have a discriminatory effect. Thus, a recipient entity's policies or practices regarding the provision of benefits and services to LEP persons need not be intentional to be discriminatory, but may constitute a violation of Title VI if they have an adverse effect on the ability of national origin minorities to meaningfully access programs and services.
Recipient entities have considerable flexibility in determining how to comply with their legal obligation in the LEP setting and are not required to use the suggested methods and options that follow. However, recipient entities must establish and implement policies and procedures for providing language assistance sufficient to fulfill their Title VI responsibilities and provide LEP persons with meaningful access to services.
All entities that receive Federal financial assistance from NEH, either directly or indirectly, through a grant, cooperative agreement, contract or subcontract, are covered by this policy guidance. Title VI applies to all Federal financial assistance, which includes but is not limited to awards and loans of Federal funds, awards or donations of Federal property, details of Federal personnel, or any agreement, arrangement or other contract that has as one of its purposes the provision of assistance.
Title VI prohibits discrimination in any program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance. In most cases, when a recipient receives Federal financial assistance for a particular program or activity, all operations of the recipient are covered by Title VI, not just the part of the program that uses the Federal assistance. Thus, all parts of the recipient's operations would be covered by Title VI, even if the Federal assistance were used only by one part.
Finally, some recipients operate in jurisdictions in which English has been declared the official language. Nonetheless, these recipients continue to be subject to federal non-discrimination requirements, including those applicable to the provision of federally assisted services to persons with limited English proficiency.
Title VI and the NEH implementing regulations require that recipients take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to the information, programs, and services they provide. Recipients of federal assistance have considerable flexibility in determining precisely how to fulfill this obligation.
It is also important to emphasize that academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, museums and libraries are in the business of maintaining, sharing, and disseminating vast amounts of information and items, most of which are created or generated by third parties. In large measure, the common service provided by these recipients is access to information, whether maintained on-site or elsewhere, not the generation of the source information itself. This distinction is critical in properly applying Title VI to academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, museums, libraries, and similar programs. For example, in the context of library and museum services, recipients
What constitute reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access in the context of federally assisted programs and activities in the area of academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, museums and library services will be contingent upon a balancing of four factors: (1) The number and proportion of eligible LEP constituents; (2) the frequency of LEP individuals' contact with the program; (3) the nature and importance of the program; and (4) the resources available, including costs. Each of these factors is summarized below. In addition, recipients should consult Section V of the June 18, 2002 DOJ LEP Guidance for Recipients, 67 FR at 41459-41460 or
The appropriateness of any action will depend on the size and proportion of the LEP population that the recipient serves and the prevalence of particular languages. Programs that serve a few or even one LEP person are still subject to the Title VI obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful opportunities for access. The first factor in determining the reasonableness of a recipient's efforts is the number or proportion of people who will be effectively excluded from meaningful access to the benefits or services if efforts are not made to remove language barriers. The steps that are reasonable for a recipient who serves one LEP person a year may be different than those expected from a recipient that serves several LEP persons each day.
Frequency of contact between the program or activity and LEP individuals is another factor to be weighed. If LEP individuals must access the recipient's program or activity on a daily basis, a recipient has greater duties than if such contact is unpredictable and infrequent. Recipients should take into account local or regional conditions when determining frequency of contact with the program, and should have the flexibility to tailor their services to those needs.
The importance of the recipient's program to beneficiaries will affect the determination of what reasonable steps are required. More affirmative steps must be taken in programs where the denial or delay of access may have serious, or even life or death implications than in programs that are not crucial to one's day-to-day existence, economic livelihood, safety, or education. For example, the obligations of a federally assisted school or hospital differ from those of a federally assisted nonprofit organization, museum or library. This factor implies that the obligation to provide translation services will be highest in programs providing education, job training, medical/health services, social welfare services, and similar services. As a general matter, it is less likely that nonprofit organizations, museums and libraries receiving assistance from the NEH will provide services having a similar immediate and direct impact on a person's life or livelihood. Thus, in large measure, it is the first factor (number or proportion of LEP individuals) that will have the greatest impact in determining the initial need for language assistance services.
In assessing the effect on individuals of failure to provide language services, recipients must consider the importance of the benefit to individuals both immediately and in the long-term. Another aspect of this factor is the nature of the program itself. Some museum content may be extremely accessible regardless of language. In these instances, little translation might be required.
NEH is aware that its recipients may experience difficulties with resource allocation. Many of the organizations' overall budgets, and awards involved are quite small. The resources available to a recipient of federal assistance may have an impact on the nature of the steps that recipient must take to ensure meaningful access. For example, a small recipient with limited resources may not have to take the same steps as a larger recipient to provide LEP assistance in programs that have a limited number of eligible LEP individuals, where contact is infrequent, where the total cost of providing language services is relatively high, and/or where the program is not providing an important service or benefit from, for instance, a health, education, economic, or safety perspective. Translation and interpretation costs are appropriately included in award budget requests.
This four-factor analysis necessarily implicates the “mix” of LEP services required. The correct mix should be based on what is both necessary and reasonable in light of the four-factor analysis. Even those award recipients who serve very few LEP persons on an infrequent basis should use a balancing analysis to determine whether the importance of the service(s) provided and minimal costs make language assistance measures reasonable even in the case of limited and infrequent interactions with LEP persons. Recipients have substantial flexibility in determining the appropriate mix.
Academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, museums and libraries have a long history of interacting with people with varying language backgrounds and capabilities within the communities where they are located. The agency's goal is to continue to encourage these efforts and share practices so that other academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, museums and libraries can benefit from other institutions' experiences.
The following are examples of language assistance strategies that are potentially useful for all recipients. These strategies incorporate a variety of options and methods for providing meaningful access to LEP beneficiaries and provide examples of how recipients should take each of the four factors discussed above into account when developing an LEP strategy. Not every option is necessary or appropriate for every recipient with respect to all of its programs and activities. Indeed, a
Finally, the examples below are not intended to suggest that if services to LEP populations aren't legally required under Title VI and Title VI regulations, they should not be undertaken. Part of the way in which academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, museums and libraries build communities is by cutting across barriers like language. A small investment in outreach to a linguistically diverse community may well result in a rich cultural exchange that benefits not only the LEP population, but also the academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, museums and libraries and the community as a whole.
• Identification of the languages that are likely to be encountered in, and the number of LEP persons that are likely to be affected by, the program. This information may be gathered through review of census and constituent data as well as data from school systems and community agencies and organizations;
• Posting signs in public areas in several languages, informing the public of its right to free interpreter services and inviting members of the public to identify themselves as persons needing language assistance;
• Use of “I speak” cards for public-contact personnel so that the public can easily identify staff language abilities;
• Employment of staff, bilingual in appropriate languages, in public contact positions;
• Contracts with interpreting services that can provide competent interpreters in a wide variety of languages in a timely manner;
• Formal arrangements with community groups for competent and timely interpreter services by community volunteers;
• An arrangement with a telephone language interpreter line for on-demand service;
• Translations of application forms, instructional, informational and other key documents into appropriate non-English languages and provide oral interpreter assistance with documents for those persons whose language does not exist in written form;
• Procedures for effective telephone communication between staff and LEP persons, including instructions for English-speaking employees to obtain assistance from bilingual staff or interpreters when initiating or receiving calls to or from LEP persons;
• Notice to and training of all staff, particularly public contact staff, with respect to the recipient's Title VI obligation to provide language assistance to LEP persons, and on the language assistance policies and the procedures to be followed in securing such assistance in a timely manner;
• Insertion of notices, in appropriate languages, about access to free interpreters and other language assistance, in brochures, pamphlets, manuals, and other materials disseminated to the public and to staff; and
• Notice to and consultation with community organizations that represent LEP language groups, regarding problems and solutions, including standards and procedures for using their members as interpreters.
In identifying language assistance measures, recipients should avoid relying on an LEP person's family members, friends, or other informal interpreters to provide meaningful access to important programs and activities. However, where LEP persons so desire, they should be permitted to use, at their own expense, an interpreter of their own choosing (whether a professional interpreter, family member, or friend) in place of or as a supplement to the free language services expressly offered by the recipient. But where a balancing of the four factors indicate that recipient-provided language assistance is warranted, the recipient should take care to ensure that the LEP person's choice is voluntary, that the LEP person is aware of the possible problems if the preferred interpreter is a minor child, and that the LEP person knows that a competent interpreter could be provided by the recipient at no cost.
The use of family and friends as interpreters may be an appropriate option where proper application of the four factors would lead to a conclusion that recipient-provided language assistance is not necessary. An example of this might be a bookstore or cafeteria associated with a museum. There, the importance and nature of the activity may be relatively low and unlikely to implicate issues of confidentiality, conflict of interest, or the need for technical accuracy. In addition, the resources needed and costs of providing language services may be high. In such a setting, an LEP person's use of family, friends, or other informal ad hoc interpreters may be appropriate.
As noted throughout this guidance, NEH award recipients have a great deal of flexibility in addressing the needs of their constituents with limited English skills. That flexibility does not diminish, and should not be used to minimize, the obligation that those needs be addressed. NEH recipients should apply the four factors outlined above to the various kinds of contacts that they have with the public to assess language needs and decide what reasonable steps they should take to ensure meaningful access for LEP persons. By balancing the number or proportion of people with limited English skills served, the frequency of their contact with the program, the importance and nature of the program, and the resources available, NEH awardees' Title VI obligations in many cases will be satisfied by making available oral language assistance or commissioning translations on an as-requested and as-needed basis. There are many circumstances where, after an application and balancing of the four factors noted above, Title VI would not require translation. For example, Title VI does not require a library to translate its collections, but it does require the implementation of appropriate language assistance measures to permit an otherwise eligible LEP person to apply for a library card and potentially to access appropriate-language materials through inter-library loans or other reasonable methods. The NEH views this policy guidance as providing sufficient flexibility to allow the NEH to continue to fund language-dependent programs in both English and other languages without requiring translation that would be inconsistent with the nature of the program. Recipients should consult Section VI of the June 18, 2002 DOJ LEP Guidance for Recipients, 67 FR at 41461-41464 or
The key to ensuring meaningful access for people with limited English skills is effective communication. Academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, museums and libraries can ensure effective communication by developing and implementing a comprehensive language assistance
Each recipient should, based on its own volume and frequency of contact with LEP clients and its own available resources, adopt a procedure for the resolution of complaints regarding the provision of language assistance and for notifying the public of their right to and how to file a complaint under Title VI. State recipients, who will frequently serve large numbers of LEP individuals, may consider appointing a senior level employee to coordinate the language assistance program and to ensure that there is regular monitoring of the program.
Executive Order 13166 requires that each federal department or agency extending federal financial assistance subject to Title VI issue separate guidance implementing uniform Title VI compliance standards with respect to LEP persons. Where recipients of federal financial assistance from NEH also receive assistance from one or more other federal departments or agencies, there is no obligation to conduct and document separate but identical analyses and language assistance plans for NEH. NEH, in discharging its compliance and enforcement obligations under Title VI, looks to analyses performed and plans developed in response to similar detailed LEP guidance issued by other federal agencies. Recipients may rely upon guidance issued by those agencies.
NEH's regulations implementing Title VI contain compliance and enforcement provisions to ensure that a recipient's policies and practices overcome barriers resulting from language differences that would deny LEP persons an equal opportunity to participate in and access to programs, services and benefits offered by NEH. See 45 CFR, Part 1110. The agency will ensure that its recipient entities fulfill their responsibilities to LEP persons through the procedures provided for in the Title VI regulations.
The Title VI regulations provide that NEH will investigate (or contact its State recipient of funds to investigate, if appropriate) whenever it receives a complaint, report or other information that alleges or indicates possible noncompliance with Title VI. If the investigation results in a finding of compliance, NEH will inform the recipient in writing of this determination, including the basis for the determination. If the investigation results in a finding of noncompliance, NEH must inform the recipient of the noncompliance through a Letter of Findings that sets out the areas of noncompliance and the steps that must be taken to correct the noncompliance, and must attempt to secure voluntary compliance through informal means. If the matter cannot be resolved informally, the NEH will secure compliance through (a) the suspension or termination of Federal assistance after the recipient has been given an opportunity for an administrative hearing, (b) referral to the Department of Justice for injunctive relief or other enforcement proceedings, or (c) any other means authorized by federal, state, or local law.
Under the Title VI regulations, the NEH has a legal obligation to seek voluntary compliance in resolving cases and cannot seek the termination of funds until it has engaged in voluntary compliance efforts and has determined that compliance cannot be secured voluntarily. NEH will engage in voluntary compliance efforts and will provide technical assistance to recipients at all stages of its investigation. During these efforts to secure voluntary compliance, NEH will propose reasonable timetables for achieving compliance and will consult with and assist recipients in exploring cost effective ways of coming into compliance.
In determining a recipient's compliance with Title VI, the NEH's primary concern is to ensure that the recipient's policies and procedures overcome barriers resulting from language differences that would deny LEP persons a meaningful opportunity to participate in and access programs, services, and benefits. A recipient's appropriate use of the methods and options discussed in this policy guidance will be viewed by the NEH as evidence of a recipient's willingness to comply voluntarily with its Title VI obligations. If implementation of one or more of these options would be so financially burdensome as to defeat the legitimate objectives of a recipient/covered entity's program, or if there are equally effective alternatives for ensuring that LEP persons have meaningful access to programs and services (such as timely effective oral interpretation of vital documents), NEH will not find the recipient/covered entity in noncompliance.
If you have any questions related to this policy, please contact the NEH Office of the General Counsel.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) has submitted an application for renewal of Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73, for an additional 20 years of operation at Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2. Beaver Valley Power Station is located in Shippingport, Pennsylvania.
The current operating licenses for Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2, expire on January 29, 2016 and May 27, 2027, respectively. The application for renewal, dated August 27, 2007, was submitted pursuant to Title 10 of the
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c) and 10 CFR 54.23, FENOC submitted the ER as part of the application. The ER was prepared pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51 and is publicly available at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555
This notice advises the public that the NRC intends to gather the information necessary to prepare a plant-specific supplement to the Commission's “Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants” (NUREG-1437), related to the review of the application for renewal of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2, operating licenses for an additional 20 years. Possible alternatives to the proposed action (license renewal) include no action and reasonable alternative energy sources. The NRC is required by 10 CFR 51.95 to prepare a supplement to the GEIS in connection with the renewal of an operating license. This notice is being published in accordance with NEPA and the NRC's regulations found in 10 CFR Part 51.
The NRC will first conduct a scoping process for the supplement to the GEIS and, as soon as practicable thereafter, will prepare a draft supplement to the GEIS for public comment. Participation in the scoping process by members of the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal government agencies is encouraged. The scoping process for the supplement to the GEIS will be used to accomplish the following:
a. Define the proposed action which is to be the subject of the supplement to the GEIS.
b. Determine the scope of the supplement to the GEIS and identify the significant issues to be analyzed in depth.
c. Identify and eliminate from detailed study those issues that are peripheral or that are not significant.
d. Identify any environmental assessments and other ElSs that are being or will be prepared that are related to, but are not part of, the scope of the supplement to the GEIS being considered.
e. Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements related to the proposed action.
f. Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of the environmental analyses and the Commission's tentative planning and decision-making schedule.
g. Identify any cooperating agencies and, as appropriate, allocate assignments for preparation and schedules for completing the supplement to the GEIS to the NRC and any cooperating agencies.
h. Describe how the supplement to the GEIS will be prepared, and include any contractor assistance to be used.
The NRC invites the following entities to participate in scoping:
a. The applicant, FENOC.
b. Any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved, or that is authorized to develop and enforce relevant environmental standards.
c. Affected State and local government agencies, including those authorized to develop and enforce relevant environmental standards.
d. Any affected Indian tribe.
e. Any person who requests or has requested an opportunity to participate in the scoping process.
f. Any person who has petitioned or intends to petition for leave to intervene.
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.26, the scoping process for an EIS may include a public scoping meeting to help identify significant issues related to a proposed activity and to determine the scope of issues to be addressed in an EIS. The NRC has decided to hold public scoping meetings for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2, license renewal supplement to the GEIS. The scoping meetings will be held at the Embassy Suites Pittsburgh-International Airport, 550 Cherrington Parkway, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15108, on Tuesday, November 27, 2007. There will be two sessions to accommodate interested parties. The first session will convene at 1:30 p.m. and will continue until 4:30 p.m., as necessary. The second session will convene at 7 p.m. with a repeat of the overview portions of the meeting and will continue until 10 p.m., as necessary. Both meetings will be transcribed and will include:
(1) An overview by the NRC staff of the NEPA environmental review process, the proposed scope of the supplement to the GEIS, and the proposed review schedule; and (2) the opportunity for interested government agencies, organizations, and individuals to submit comments or suggestions on the environmental issues or the proposed scope of the supplement to the GEIS. Additionally, the NRC staff will host informal discussions one hour before the start of each session at the Embassy Suites Pittsburgh-International Airport in Pittsburgh. No formal comments on the proposed scope of the supplement to the GEIS will be accepted during the informal discussions. To be considered, comments must be provided either at the transcribed public meetings or in writing, as discussed below. Persons may register to attend or present oral comments at the meetings on the scope of the NEPA review by contacting NRC's Project Manager, Mr. Kent L. Howard, at 1-800-368-5642, extension 2989, or via e-mail to the NRC at
Members of the public may send written comments on the environmental scope of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2 license renewal review to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mailstop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this
Participation in the scoping process for the supplement to the GEIS does not entitle participants to become parties to the proceeding to which the supplement to the GEIS relates. Notice of opportunity for a hearing regarding the renewal application was the subject of the aforementioned
At the conclusion of the scoping process, the NRC will prepare a concise summary of the determination and conclusions reached; including the significant issues identified, and will send a copy of the summary to each participant in the scoping process. The summary will also be available for inspection in ADAMS at
Information about the proposed action, the supplement to the GEIS, and the scoping process may be obtained from Mr. Howard at the aforementioned telephone number or e-mail address.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The title for the collection of information is “Rule 204A-1 (17 CFR 275.204A-1) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940” (15 U.S.C. 80b-1
The purposes of the information collection requirements are: (i) To ensure that advisers maintain codes of ethics applicable to their supervised persons; (ii) to provide advisers with information about the personal securities transactions of their access persons for purposes of monitoring such transactions; (iii) to provide advisory clients with information with which to evaluate advisers' codes of ethics; and (iv) to assist the Commission's examination staff in assessing the adequacy of advisers' codes of ethics and assessing personal trading activity by advisers' supervised persons.
The respondents to this information collection are investment advisers registered with the Commission. The Commission has estimated that compliance with rule 204A-1 imposes a burden of approximately 117 hours per adviser annually for an estimated total annual burden of 1,265,865 hours.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-mail to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15b11-1 (17 CFR 240.15b11-1) and Form BD-N (17 CFR 249.501b) serve as the form of notice for futures commission merchants and introducing brokers that register as broker-dealers by notice pursuant to section 15(b)(11)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
The total annual burden imposed by Rule 15b11-1 and Form BD-N is approximately 8 hours, based on approximately 16 responses (16 initial filings + 0 amendments). Each initial filing requires approximately 30 minutes to complete and each amendment requires approximately 15 minutes to complete. There is no annual cost burden.
The Commission will use the information collected pursuant to Rule 15b11-1 to elicit basic identification information as well as information that will allow the Commission to ensure that the futures commission merchants and introducing brokers meet the statutory conditions to register by notice pursuant to section 15(b)(11) of the Exchange Act. This information will assist the Commission in fulfilling its regulatory obligations.
Completing and filing Form BD-N is mandatory in order for an eligible futures commission merchant or introducing broker to engage in notice-registered broker-dealer activity. Compliance with Rule 15b11-1 does not involve the collection of confidential information. Please note that 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 control number.
Comments should be directed to (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail to:
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of November 5, 2007:
A Closed Meeting will be held on Thursday, November 8, 2007 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matter of the closed meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 8, 2007 will be:
Formal orders of investigation;
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature;
Adjudicatory matters;
Resolution of litigation claims;
Collection matter;
Regulatory matter regarding a financial institution; and
Other matters related to enforcement actions.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of BIMS Renewable Energy, Inc. (n/k/a Tung Ding Resources, Inc.), because it has not filed a periodic report since the period ended June 30, 2004.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company.
Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on November 1, 2007 through 11:59 p.m. EST on November 14, 2007.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to adopt changes to sections 1 and 2 of Article V of the Exchange's Constitution; Rule 345 of the Exchange's “Office Rules”; and Rules 2(a), 2(b) and 8 of the Exchange's “Rules of Procedure in Disciplinary Matters” in order to enable settlements of disciplinary matters to be considered for approval or rejection by Exchange hearing officers without the need to convene a formal hearing.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, Amex included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing amendments to sections 1 and 2 of Article V of the Exchange's Constitution; Rule 345 of the Exchange's Office Rules; and Rules 2(a), 2(b) and 8 of the Exchange's Rules of Procedure in Disciplinary Matters in order to streamline the handling of settlements of disciplinary matters by permitting such matters to be addressed by a single Exchange hearing officer, who shall either approve or reject the settlement, without being required to convene a formal hearing.
Under current Amex rules, settlements of disciplinary proceedings are handled as follows: Should a member, member organization, approved person, or a registered or non-registered employee or prospective employee of a member or member organization (each a “respondent”), on one side, and enforcement staff of the Exchange, on the other side, enter into a stipulation of facts and consent to a specified penalty (a “Stipulation”), a formal hearing before an Exchange Disciplinary Panel (“Panel”), which may act solely through its Chair, must be convened to consider the Stipulation. Prior to that hearing, the Chair is provided with an enforcement staff memorandum outlining the Stipulation and analyzing how the agreed upon sanctions in the Stipulation are consistent with the Exchange Sanctions Guidelines and relevant precedent.
The above process has proven more time consuming than the Exchange believes necessary. It typically takes several months to schedule the hearing as a result of various scheduling conflicts among the parties involved, yet the hearing itself only takes a few minutes and is more formal than substantive, given the negotiated settlement and submission of the detailed enforcement staff memorandum in advance of the hearing. Therefore, in order to streamline the process, the Exchange is proposing to modify its rules to allow a Stipulation to be accepted or rejected by a hearing officer without conducting a formal hearing. Further, the Exchange is also proposing that the Chair's power to impose a lesser penalty than that contained in a Stipulation be eliminated as unnecessary, in view of the fact that the Amex Adjudicatory Counsel, in any event, still retains the right to impose a lower sanction if it exercises its right to call the Chair's acceptance or rejection of the Stipulation for review.
In summary, the new proposed Stipulation consideration procedure will differ from current practice in only two substantive respects: (i) No formal hearing will now take place before the Chair, as a single hearing officer can consider the Stipulation without a formal hearing; and (ii) if a hearing officer deems a penalty in a Stipulation to be too severe, he will now reject the Stipulation, rather than propose a lesser penalty. The Exchange anticipates that these changes will provide a more efficient and expedient process for resolution of Exchange disciplinary matters, without compromising the quality of the process.
In addition, Amex proposes certain non-substantive “housekeeping” changes, including elimination of repetitive or unnecessary phrasing; creation of certain defined terms for ease of reference (
The proposed rule change is consistent with sections 6(b)(6), 6(b)(7) and 6(d) of the Act
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.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after
The Commission believes that the proposed amendments should allow the Exchange to settle disciplinary matters more efficiently, without affecting the rights of respondents in any significant manner. In addition, the Exchange's non-substantive changes should help make Amex rules clearer and easier for readers to understand. The Commission believes that for these reasons, waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing with the Commission.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
ISE proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees regarding the Exchange's API or login fees. 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, ISE included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ISE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
ISE charges its market makers a fee for each login that a member utilizes for quoting or order entry, with a lesser charge for logins used for the limited purpose of “listening” to system broadcasts.
An ISE market maker currently receives an allocation of 1,000,000 quotes per day per user. If a firm submits more quotes than those allocated,
The Exchange also previously adopted an additional category, a “High Throughput User,” that permits a market maker to quote up to 2,000,000 quotes per day in a month.
ISE currently charges market makers $950 per month for each quoting session for up to 1,000,000 quotes per day, on average for a month. Market makers are charged an additional user fee of $950 for each incremental usage of up to 1,000,000 quotes per day per user. For High Throughput Users, ISE charges a fee of $1,900 per month. High Throughput User market makers are charged an additional user fee of $1,900 for each incremental usage of up to 2,000,000 quotes per day per user.
The Exchange now proposes to increase the allocation of quotes per day per user from 1,000,000 to 1,300,000 for non-High Throughput Users and from 2,000,000 to 2,600,000 for High Throughput Users. As a result, under this proposed rule change, market makers will continue to be charged $950 per month for each quoting session for up to 1,300,000 quotes per day, with an additional user fee of $950 for each incremental usage of up to 1,300,000 quotes per day per user. For High Throughput Users, the fee will continue to be $1,900 per month for each quoting session for up to 2,600,000 quotes per day, with an additional user fee of $1,900 for each incremental usage of up to 2,600,000 quotes per day per user. Finally, ISE represents that the proposed increase in the allocation of quotes per day per user will not have an adverse effect on capacity on the Exchange.
The basis under section 6(b) of the Act
ISE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to 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 elegated authority.
On September 14, 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”),
NYSE Rule 104 governs specialist dealings and includes, among other things, restrictions upon specialists' ability to trade as dealer in the stocks in which he or she is registered. Under NYSE Rule 104(a), specialists are not permitted to effect transactions on the Exchange for their proprietary accounts in any security in which the specialist is registered, “unless such dealings are reasonably necessary to permit such specialist to maintain a fair and orderly market * * *.” This restriction is known as the “negative obligation.” In particular, NYSE Rules 104.10(5) and (6) expand upon the negative obligation with respect to specific types of proprietary transactions.
In December 2006, as part of extensive amendments to its specialist stabilization rules, the Exchange implemented a pilot program allowing specialists to execute transactions in active securities that establish or increase a position and reach across the market to trade as the contra-side to the Exchange published bid or offer (Conditional Transactions) without restriction as to price or Floor Official approval, provided that the specialist appropriately re-enters on the opposite side of the market in a size commensurate with the specialist's Conditional Transaction.
Specialists currently are not permitted to establish or increase a position in “inactive securities”
The Exchange is now proposing to extend its pilot program applicable to Conditional Transactions to March 31, 2008 and remove the “active securities” restriction included in the pilot, enabling specialists to execute Conditional Transactions in all securities traded on the NYSE.
After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange
Specialists' dealer activities are governed, in part, by the negative and affirmative trading obligations. Rule 11b-1 under the Act requires exchanges that permit members to register as specialists to have rules governing specialists' dealer transactions so that their proprietary trades conform to the negative and affirmative obligations. The negative obligations as set forth in Rule 11b-1 under the Act require that a specialist's dealings be restricted, so far as practicable, to those reasonably necessary to permit a fair and orderly market.
In connection with the Commission's approval of amendments to the Exchange's stabilization rules, including the implementation of Exchange's current pilot program for Conditional Transactions, the Commission eliminated the trade-by-trade standard previously applied to specialist trades for the purpose of determining whether such trade was “reasonably necessary” in accordance with the negative obligation.
NYSE is now proposing to (i) extend the duration of its pilot program applicable to Conditional Transactions to March 31, 2008; (ii) remove the “active securities” limitation on Conditional Transactions that establish or increase a specialist's position and reach across the market to transact with the NYSE's published quote; and (iii) make certain conforming changes to NYSE Rule 104.10(5). NYSE specialists would remain subject to the negative obligation and would be required to appropriately re-enter the market after a Conditional Transaction is executed and, for certain Conditional Transactions, the specialist must re-enter immediately following the trade. In addition, the Exchange's PPP guidelines would continue to apply.
NYSE believes that the specialists are critical to its market structure, and that they perform an important function in the marketplace. Specifically, NYSE believes that, by committing capital, specialists provide market depth, lower market volatility, and reduce overall execution costs for investors. NYSE also believes that specialists bridge gaps between supply and demand, and help to maintain a fair and orderly market. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that advances in technology have virtually obviated the specialists' time and place advantage, and states that the rate of trading participation by specialists in specialist stocks has been significantly reduced. As a result, the Exchange believes that the basis for concern over specialist conflicts of interest (and the consequent ability of specialists to trade to the detriment of the public) is also diminished. NYSE highlights that the proposal does not in any way reduce the obligations imposed on its specialists pursuant to NYSE Rule 104 to re-enter a transaction on the opposite side of the market or alter their negative obligation. The Exchange believes that these factors support their proposal to extend the ability of the specialist to effect Conditional Transactions to all securities, and that providing specialists such ability would allow them to more effectively meet their affirmative and negative obligations by giving them the tools to better manage the inventory of their account.
NYSE has committed to provide the Commission with statistics related to market quality, specialist trading activity, and sample statistics on an ongoing monthly basis.
The Commission continues to believe that the provisions governing Conditional Transactions may reflect an appropriate balance between the needs of specialists and other market participants in today's fast moving markets.
The Commission emphasizes that the extension of the pilot to all securities in no way relieves specialists of their obligations under federal securities laws or NYSE rules. A specialist's ability to effect proprietary transactions remains limited under the Act and the Exchange's rules and specialists must still determine whether their transactions are reasonably necessary. The Commission notes that the Exchange is obligated to surveil its specialists to ensure their compliance with the Act and NYSE rules, and the Exchange has stated that NYSE Regulation believes that it has appropriate surveillance procedures in place to surveil for compliance with the negative obligations.
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is proposing to amend Exchange Rule 18 to reduce the dollar amount required in order for a member organization to seek compensation in the event of an Exchange System failure. The Exchange is further seeking to make technical amendments to the rule text.
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.
Through this filing, the NYSE seeks to amend Exchange Rule 18 to reduce the dollar amount required for a member organization to seek compensation in the event of an Exchange system failure. Pursuant to the proposal, the Exchange seeks to reduce the current requirement that a net loss be in the amount of $5,000 or higher in order for a member organization to be eligible to make a claim for compensation. Rather, the Exchange seeks to lower the net loss requirement to $500.
Today, Exchange Rule 18 sets forth that member organizations that sustain a loss in relation to an Exchange system failure
Exchange Rule 18 was put into effect on July 17, 2007.
In establishing Exchange Rule 18, the NYSE sought to provide a mechanism for member organizations to receive compensation for losses sustained in relation to an Exchange system failure. The Exchange seeks to have the rule be more inclusive of its member organizations that may sustain a loss in the event of an Exchange system failure. In practice the requirement that the net loss equal at least $5,000 has resulted in the exclusion of approximately half the member organizations that have sustained losses in relation to an Exchange system failure from qualifying to receive compensation. Accordingly, the Exchange seeks to lower the net loss amount to $500. The Exchange believes that $500 is a more appropriate threshold. The Exchange believes that this threshold amount will be more inclusive and give more member organizations opportunities to seek compensation for losses sustained in relation to an Exchange system failure.
The Exchange further proposes to make technical,l non-substantive amendments to subparagraphs (d), (e), and (f) of Exchange Rule 18. Specifically, subparagraph (d) provides that an “Exchange-designated panel” will be responsible for determining the eligibility of claim for payment. The Exchange seeks to amend the rule to state that the name of the Exchange-designated panel is the “Compensation Review Panel” for the sake of specificity and clarity. As such, references to this panel have been changed to read “Compensation Review Panel” in subparagraphs (d), (e), and (f) of the Rule.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose any significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30 days after 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
NYSE has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Phlx proposes to amend Phlx Rule 1009 to enable it to list and trade equity options that are otherwise ineligible for listing and trading on the Exchange if such options are listed and traded on another national securities exchange and the security or securities underlying such options meet Phlx's continued listing requirements.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on Phlx's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. The Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise the options listing standards in Phlx Rule 1009 so that as long as the options maintenance listing standards set forth in Phlx Rule 1010 are met and the option is listed and traded on another national securities exchange, Phlx would be able to list and trade the option. Phlx Rule 1009 sets forth the requirements that an underlying equity security must meet before the Exchange may initially list options on that security. Phlx notes that these requirements are uniform among the options exchanges.
Commentary .01(4) to Phlx Rule 1009 relates to the minimum market price at which an underlying security must trade for an option to be listed on it, and applies to the listing of individual equity options on both “covered” and “uncovered” underlying securities. In the case of an underlying security that is a “covered security” as defined under section 18(b)(1)(A) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”),
When Phlx first commenced operations, if an option failed to meet the Exchange's original listing requirements, Phlx could not list that option, even if the option met the continued listing requirements of one or more other exchanges and traded on those exchanges. In order to somewhat remedy this situation, in 2002, the Exchange proposed, and the Commission approved, amendments to Phlx's original listing criteria that permitted Phlx to list options where the underlying “uncovered” security did not meet the $7.50 share price requirement so long as (i) the underlying security met Phlx's continued listing criteria, (ii) such options were traded on at least one other exchange, and (iii) during the three preceding calendar months, the
The Exchange notes that the 2002 Filing, while permitting the Phlx to list some of the more actively-traded options, does not permit the listing of non-active options that are currently trading at other options exchanges. The options exchange (or exchanges) that may be fortunate enough to list an option that at first met the original listing criteria, but subsequently fails to do so, is provided a trading monopoly inconsistent with the multiple trading of options, fostering competition and the maintenance of a national market system. Under this proposed rule change, an option may be multiply-listed and traded as long as one other options exchange is trading the particular option and such underlying security of the option meets the Exchange's continued listing requirements.
Phlx notes that the requirements for listing additional series of an existing listed option (
Phlx believes that although the continued listing requirements are uniform among the other options exchanges, the application of both the original and continued listing standard in the current market environment have had an anti-competitive effect. Specifically, the Exchange notes that on several occasions it has been unable to list and trade options classes that trade elsewhere because the underlying security of such option did not at that time meet original listing standards. However, the other options exchange(s) may continue to trade such options (and list additional series) based on the lower maintenance listing standards, while Phlx may not list any options on such underlying security. The Exchange believes this clearly is anti-competitive and inconsistent with the aims and goals of a national market system in options.
To address this situation, the Exchange proposes to add new Commentary .01(6) to Phlx Rule 1009 and amend the current listing requirement adopted by the 2002 Filing. Specifically, proposed Commentary .01(6) provides that notwithstanding that a particular underlying security may not meet the requirements set forth in Paragraphs (1) through (4) of Commentary .01, the Exchange nonetheless could list and trade an option on such underlying security if (i) the underlying security meets continued listing requirements under Phlx Rule 1010; and (ii) options on such underlying security are listed and traded on at least one other registered national securities exchange. Consequently, the second half of Commentary .01(4)(ii) to Phlx Rule 1009, which references an alternative original listing requirement for “uncovered securities,” would be deleted. In connection with the proposed changes, the Exchange represents that the procedures currently employed to determine whether a particular underlying security meets the initial listing criteria will similarly be applied to the continued listing criteria.
Phlx believes that this proposal is narrowly tailored to address the circumstances where an options class is currently ineligible for listing on the Exchange while at the same time, such option is trading on another options exchange(s). The Exchange submits that the adoption of the proposal is essential for competitive purposes and to promote a free and open market for the benefit of investors.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
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-Phlx-2007-73. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages that will require clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. The information collection packages that may be included in this notice are for new information collections, approval of existing information collections, revisions to OMB-approved information collections, and extensions (no change) of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and on ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments and recommendations regarding the information collection(s) should be submitted to the OMB Desk Officer and the SSA Reports Clearance Officer. The information can be mailed, faxed or emailed to the individuals at the addresses and fax numbers listed below:
(OMB)
Office of Management and Budget,
Attn: Desk Officer for SSA,
(SSA)
Social Security Administration, DCBFM,
Attn: Reports Clearance Officer,
1333 Annex Building,
6401 Security Blvd.,
Baltimore, MD 21235,
Fax: 410-965-6400,
I. The information collections listed below are pending at SSA and will be submitted to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. Therefore, your comments should be submitted to SSA within 60 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain copies of the collection instruments by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454 or by writing to the address listed above.
1. Development for Participation in a Vocational Rehabilitation or Similar Program—20 CFR 404.316(c), 404.337(c), 404.352(d), 404.1586(g), 404.1596, 404.1597(a), 404.327, 404.328, and 416.1338(c) and (d) 416.1320(d), 416.1331(a)-(b), and 416.1338—0960-0282. SSA State Disability Determination Services (DDS) must determine if a recipient of disability benefits whose disability has ceased but who is enrolled in a vocational rehabilitation program can continue to receive SSA benefits. To do this, information is needed about the beneficiary, the type of program he/she is enrolled in, and the types of services the beneficiary is receiving under the auspices of that program. Form SSA-4290 is used to collect this information. The respondents are State Employment Networks, Vocational Rehabilitation agencies, or other providers of education/job training services.
2. State Mental Institution Policy Review Booklet—20 CFR 404.2035, 404.2065, 416.635, & 416.665—0960-0110. The information collected by Form SSA-9584-BK is used by SSA to determine whether an institution's policies and practices conform with SSA's regulations in the use of benefits and whether the institution is performing other duties and responsibilities required of a representative payee. The information also provides a basis for conducting an onsite review of the institution and is used in the preparation of the subsequent report of findings. The respondents are State mental institutions which serve as representative payees for Social Security beneficiaries and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) claimants.
3. RS/DI Quality Review Case Analysis: Sampled Number Holder, Auxiliaries/Survivors, Parents, and Stewardship Annual Earnings Test Workbook—0960-0189. The information on Forms SSA-2930, SSA-2931 and SSA-2932 is used by the SSA to establish a national payment accuracy rate for all cases in payment status and to serve as a source of information regarding problem areas in the Retirement and Survivors Insurance (RSI) and Disability Insurance (DI) programs. The information is also used to measure the accuracy rate for newly adjudicated RSI/DI cases. SSA uses the information on form SSA-4659 to evaluate and determine the effectiveness of the annual earnings test and to use the results in developing ongoing improvements in the process.
4. Employee Identification Statement—20 CFR 404.702—0960-0473. The information collected by Form SSA-4156 is used in scrambled earnings situations when two or more individuals have used the same Social Security Number (SSN), or when an employer (or employers) has reported earnings for two or more employees under the same SSN. The information on the form is used to help identify the individual (and the SSN) to whom the earnings belong. The respondents are employers involved in erroneous wage reporting.
5. Modified Benefit Formula Questionnaire-Employer—20 CFR 401 & 402—0960-0477. The information collected on Form SSA-58 is used by SSA to verify the claimant's allegations on Form SSA-150 (OMB No. 0960-0395). SSA must make a determination regarding whether the modified benefit formula is applicable and when to first apply it to a person's benefit. This form will be sent to an employer for pension related information if the claimant is unable to provide it. The respondents are people who are eligible after 1985 for both Social Security benefits and a pension based on work not covered by SSA.
6. Contact with Representative Payee; Contact with Beneficiary—20 CFR 401 & 402—0960-0639. The Form SSA-L4945 is used to notify the representative payee that the case, for which they receive payment, has been randomly selected as part of the quality review procedure. The SSA-L4947 is used by SSA to notify the beneficiary that their case has been randomly selected as part of the quality review procedure. Both form letters give information relating to the claims record that should be verified and returned by mail in a self-addressed envelope. Respondents are a statistically valid sample of all RSI/DI beneficiaries in current pay status.
7. Modified Benefit Formula Questionnaire —20 CFR 404.1615-20, CFR 404.1512-20 & CFR 404.1588-1599—0960-0395. The purpose of the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) of the Social Security Act is to remove an unintended advantage in the computation of Social Security benefits for persons who have substantial pensions from non-covered employment. The SSA-150 collects the information needed to determine the correct formula to use in computing Social Security benefits. The respondents are claimants for Social Security benefits who are entitled to both benefits.
8. Disability Determination and Transmittal—20 CFR 404.1615(e), 416.1015(f)—0960-0437. The information collected on Form SSA-831-C3/U3 is used by SSA to document the State agency determination as to whether an individual who applies for disability benefits is eligible for those benefits based on his/her alleged disability. SSA also uses the information for program management and evaluation. The respondents are State DDS adjudicating Title II and Title XVI disability determinations for SSA.
9. Cessation or Continuance of Disability or Blindness Determination—20 CFR 404.1615—0960-0443. The information on Form SSA-832-U3/C3 is used by SSA to document determinations as to whether an individual's disability benefits should be terminated or continued on the basis of his/her impairment. The respondents are State disability determination service employees adjudicating Title XVI Disability claims.
10. Authorization to Disclose Information to Social Security Administration—20 CFR 404.1512 & 20
11. Request for Social Security Earnings Information—20 CFR 404.810 & 401.100—0960-0525. The Social Security Act provides that a wage earner, or someone authorized by a wage earner, may request Social Security earnings information from SSA using form SSA-7050. SSA uses the information collected on the form to verify that the requestor is authorized to access the earnings record and to produce the earnings statement. The respondents are wage earners and organizations and legal representatives authorized by the wage earner.
12. Employer Report of Special Wage Payments—20 CFR 404.428-404.429—0960-0565. SSA gathers the information on Form SSA-131 to prevent earnings-related overpayments to employees, and to avoid erroneous withholding of benefits. The respondents are employers who provide special wage payment verification.
13. Interim Assistance Reimbursement Matching Agreements—20 CFR 416-525—0960-NEW. SSA enters into Interim Assistance Reimbursement (IAR) agreements with states/counties/townships, to submit daily IAR reports either manually or electronically to SSA. The interim assistance (IA) agency provides the individual general assistance for meeting basic needs while an SSI claim is pending or SSI benefits were suspended or terminated. The IAR reports are used to reimburse participating State or local IA agency from an individual's initial retroactive SSI payment for funds it advanced to eligible individuals. These reports are compared against SSA's files to identify individuals who may become eligible to receive SSI payments, and the SSA record is updated to memorialize the agreement. If the claim is approved, SSA reimburses the state/county/township IA agency for funds it advanced to the eligible individuals. The respondents are State or local IA agencies who provide IAR reports either manually or electronically to SSA.
14. Social Security Statement Survey—0960-NEW.
As per 42 U.S.C. 1320b-13, SSA is required to provide benefits and earnings statements to Social Security numberholders age 25 and over who earn wages. This document, which is provided annually, is called the
Taking the evaluation process one step further, we are now planning to conduct a national survey to monitor and improve customer satisfaction with the messages in the 2007
II. The information collections listed below have been submitted to OMB for clearance. Your comments on the information collections would be most useful if received by OMB and SSA within 30 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain a copy of the OMB clearance packages by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454, or by writing to the address listed above.
1. Sheltered Workshop Wage Reporting—0960-NEW.
Section 1612(1)(C) of the Social Security Act (the Act) and 42 U.S.C. 1382a define remuneration received for services performed in a sheltered workshop as earned income for the SSI program. The amount of monthly wages determines an individual's SSI benefit amount.
SSA has maintained a working relationship with sheltered workshops since the inception of the SSI program. Most workshops report monthly wage totals to the local SSA office so that the client's SSI check is adjusted timely and overpayments are prevented. While participation of the workshop is strictly voluntary, they are highly motivated to report the wages because it provides a service to their clients. Sheltered Workshop reporting reduces the number of overpayments to SSI recipients. Processing these wage reports electronically reduces the cost of administering the program. SSA uses the information collected to verify and post monthly wages to the SSI recipient's record. Respondents are sheltered workshops that report monthly wages for services performed in the workshop.
2. Request for Waiver of Special Veterans Benefits (SVB) Overpayment Recovery or Change in Repayment Rate—20 CFR 408.900-408.950, 408.923(b), 408.931(b), 408.932(c), (d) and (e), 408.941(b) and 408.942—0960-0698. Title VIII allows the payment of a monthly benefit by the Commissioner of Social Security to a qualified World War II veteran who resides outside the United States. When an overpayment in SVB occurs, the beneficiary can use this form to request waiver of recovery of the overpayment or a change in the repayment rate. The SSA-2032-BK will be used to obtain the information necessary to determine whether the provisions of the Act regarding waiver of recovery of the overpayment are met. The information on the form is needed to determine a repayment rate if repayment cannot be waived. The respondents are beneficiaries who have overpayments on their Title VIII record and wish to file a claim for waiver of recovery or change in repayment rate.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Richard Lahne, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8058). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT), City of Council Bluffs and Pottawattamie County.
Notice of intent.
The FHWA and the Iowa DOT are issuing this notice to advise the public that an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared for a proposed transportation project in Council Bluffs, Pottawattamie County, Iowa.
Michael LaPietra, Environment and Realty Manager, FHWA Iowa Division Office, 105 Sixth Street, Ames, IA 50010, Phone 515-233-7302; or James
An electronic copy of this document is available for free download from the Federal Bulletin Board (FBB). The FBB is a free electronic bulletin board service of the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO).
The FBB may be accessed in four ways: (1) Via telephone in dial-up mode or via the Internet through (2) telnet, (3) FTP, and (4) the World Wide Web.
For dial-in mode a user needs a personal computer, modem, telecommunications software package and telephone line. A hard disk is recommended for file transfers.
For Internet access a user needs Internet connectivity. Users can telnet or FTP to:
User assistance for the FBB is available from 7 a.m. until 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday (except federal holidays) by calling the GPO Office of Electronic Information Dissemination Services at 202-512-1530, toll-free at 888-293-6498; sending an e-mail to
Access to this notice is also available to Internet users through the
The FHWA, in cooperation with the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT), the City of Council Bluffs, and Pottawattamie County, will be preparing an EIS for the proposed East Beltway. The proposed project includes roadway improvements between US 6/225th Street and IA 92/Orchard Road, and improvements on the connecting roadways of Steven Lane and Greenview Road.
Council Bluffs and Pottawattamie County have developed a joint plan (“Two Mile Limit Study”) for development and infrastructure needs east of Council Bluffs to accommodate projected development growth in the metropolitan area. From the Two Mile Limit Study, the East Beltway was identified as an infrastructure need for the development area. The proposed East Beltway will provide a north/south route east of I-80 and provide access to existing and future development within the Little Pony Creek drainage basin and parts of unincorporated Pottawattamie County. The proposed project would also provide system continuity for the Council Bluffs/Omaha area by providing a connection between US 6 and IA 92. The proposed East Beltway would relieve congestion on I-80 and the southeast I-29/I-80 systems interchange.
Potential alternatives and combinations thereof will include but are not limited to: (1) Taking no action,
The build alternative will include consideration of various alignments and grades in order to minimize potential environmental impacts. Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and to private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have interest in the proposed project.
The EIS will be initiated with a scoping process. The scoping process will include a program of public outreach and agency coordination that will be conducted over the next several months in order to elicit input on the project purpose and need, potential alternatives, significant and insignificant issues, and collaborative methods for analyzing transportation alternatives and environmental impacts.
As part of the scoping process, several public meetings will be held in Council Bluffs or unincorporated Pottawattamie County, to meet with federal, state, and local agencies, as well as private individuals and organizations concerned with the project. In addition, a public hearing will be held in connection with the circulation of the draft EIS (DEIS). Public notice will be given concerning the date and location of the public meeting(s) and public hearing.
The information gained during the scoping process will be widely disseminated and used to guide the development of the EIS. All comments and input received during the scoping and subsequent steps of the EIS process will be considered and documented. Beginning with scoping, continuous and regularly public involvement and agency coordination will continue throughout the preparation of the EIS.
To ensure that a full range of issues are addressed in relation to the proposed action and that all significant issues are identified, all interested parties are invited to submit comments and suggestions. Comments or questions concerning the proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA or Iowa Department of Transportation at the address provided on page one in the section titled
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
Notice of applications for exemptions from the diabetes standard; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 48 individuals for exemptions from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before December 5, 2007.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2007-29035 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket ID for this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Chief, Physical Qualifications Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statutes also allow the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 48 individuals listed in this notice have recently requested an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by the statutes.
Mr. Abelson, age 69, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Abelson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A Commercial Driver's License (CDL) from Illinois.
Mr. Baumgartner, 45, has had ITDM since 1994. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Baumgartner meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.
Mr. Bayne, 64, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bayne meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A operator's license from Kansas.
Mr. Beasley, 45, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Beasley meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia.
Mr. Brown, 54, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brown meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.
Ms. Brown, 35, has had ITDM since 1976. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2007 and certified that she has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Brown meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her ophthalmologist examined her in 2007 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class B CDL from Arkansas.
Mr. Burkett, 47, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no
Mr. Charette, 41, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Charette meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from South Carolina.
Mr. Clark, 44, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Clark meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Maryland.
Ms. Clevidence, 33, has had ITDM since 1983. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2007 and certified that she has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Clevidence meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her ophthalmologist examined her in 2007 and certified that she has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class D operator's license from Ohio.
Mr. Combs, 54, has had ITDM since 1969. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Combs meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Ohio.
Mr. Craven, 69, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Craven meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from South Carolina.
Mr. DeLuna, 51, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. DeLuna meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2006 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wyoming.
Mr. Demesmin, 45, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Demesmin meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from New Jersey.
Mr. Dowling, 43, has had ITDM since 1977. His endocrinologist examined him in 2006 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dowling meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2006 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Dupke, 52, has had ITDM since 1984. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dupke meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a chauffeur's license from Indiana.
Mr. Dyer, 49, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dyer meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Massachusetts.
Mr. Easter, 54, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Easter meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee.
Mr. Freeman, 50, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Freeman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from Maine.
Mr. Gladd, 53, has had ITDM since 1997. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gladd meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from Ohio.
Mr. Holmberg, 45, has had ITDM since 1976. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Holmberg meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.
Mr. Jordan, 54, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jordan meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Dakota.
Mr. Knabe, 53, has had ITDM since 1969. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Knabe meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Nebraska.
Mr. Kreider, 29, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kreider meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from Alabama.
Mr. Leslie, 51, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Leslie meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Idaho.
Mr. Lorenz, 57, has had ITDM since 1956. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lorenz meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic
Mr. Love, 40, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Love meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Kentucky.
Mr. Lowery, 33, has had ITDM since 1995. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lowery meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Ohio.
Mr. Madeira, 24, has had ITDM since 1989. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Madeira meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Virginia.
Mr. Malone, 37, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Malone meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from New Jersey.
Mr. Milberger, 40, has had ITDM since 1994. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Milberger meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from Wisconsin.
Mr. Millard, 52, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Millard meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.
Mr. Nickel, 39, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Nickel meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Kansas.
Mr. Powers, 26, has had ITDM since 1993. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Powers meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B operator's license from Nevada.
Mr. Rafferty, 52, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2006 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rafferty meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from California.
Mr. Sato, 52, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sato meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does
Mr. Schauer, 54, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schauer meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Dakota.
Mr. Sejnoha, 61, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist examined him in 2006 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sejnoha meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from Arizona.
Mr. Sharp, 28, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sharp meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Sponberg, 74, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sponberg meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Sullivan, 37, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sullivan meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Texas.
Mr. Tuggle, 61, has had ITDM since 1988. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tuggle meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Walker, 56, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Walker meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Watts, 53, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Watts meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana, which allows him to drive any vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 16,000 pounds or more.
Mr. Weiss, 52, has had ITDM since 1991. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Weiss meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Michigan.
Mr. Wild, 46, has had ITDM since 1974. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wild meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
Mr. Wilkerson, 40, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wilkerson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Wyant, 47, has had ITDM since 1969. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wyant meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable proliferative and nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated earlier in the dates section of the Notice.
FMCSA notes that Section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).
Section 4129 requires: (1) The elimination of the requirement for three years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) the establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 Notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e).
Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary. FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 Notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 Notice, except as modified by the Notice in the
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the names of 17 newly-designated entities and eight newly-designated individuals whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13382 of June 28, 2005, “Blocking Property of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators and Their Supporters.”
The designation by the Director of OFAC of the 17 entities and eight individuals identified in this notice pursuant to Executive Order 13382 is effective on October 25, 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 June 28, 2005, 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 State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, and other relevant agencies, to have engaged, or attempted to engage, in activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a risk of materially contributing to, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery (including missiles capable of delivering such weapons), including any efforts to manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport, transfer or use such items, by any person or foreign country of
On October 25, 2007, the Director of OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State, Justice, and other relevant agencies, designated 17 entities and eight individuals whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13382.
Entities:
1. BANK MELLI, Ferdowsi Avenue, P.O. Box 11365-171, Tehran, Iran; all offices worldwide [NPWMD]
2. BANK KARGOSHAEE (a.k.a. Kargosa'i Bank), 587 Mohammadiye Square, Mowlavi St., Tehran 11986, Iran [NPWMD]
3. BANK MELLI IRAN ZAO, Number 9/1, Ulitsa Mashkova, Moscow 103064, Russia [NPWMD]
4. MELLI BANK PLC, 1 London Wall, London EC2Y 5EA, United Kingdom [NPWMD]
5. ARIAN BANK (a.k.a. Aryan Bank), House 2, Street Number 13, Wazir Akbar Khan, Kabul, Afghanistan [NPWMD]
6. BANK MELLAT, 327 Taleghani Avenue, Tehran 15817, Iran; P.O. Box 11365-5964, Tehran 15817, Iran; all offices worldwide [NPWMD]
7. MELLAT BANK SB CJSC (a.k.a. Mellat Bank DB AOZT), P.O. Box 24, Yerevan 0010, Armenia [NPWMD]
8. PERSIA INTERNATIONAL BANK PLC, #6 Lothbury, London EC2R 7HH, United Kingdom [NPWMD]
9. KHATAM OL ANBIA GHARARGAH SAZANDEGI NOOH (a.k.a. GHORB KHATAM; a.k.a. KHATAM AL-ANBYA; a.k.a. KHATAM OL AMBIA), No. 221, Phase 4, North Falamak-Zarafshan Intersection, Shahrak-E-Ghods, Tehran 14678, Iran [NPWMD]
10. ORIENTAL OIL KISH, Second Floor, 96/98 East Atefi St., Africa Blvd., Tehran, Iran; Dubai, United Arab Emirates [NPWMD]
11. GHORB KARBALA (a.k.a Gharargah Karbala; a.k.a. Gharargah Sazandegi Karbala-Moasseseh Taha), No. 2 Firouzeh Alley, Shahid Hadjipour St., Resalat Highway, Tehran, Iran [NPWMD]
12. SEPASAD ENGINEERING COMPANY, No. 4 Corner of Shad St., Mollasadra Ave., Vanak Square, Tehran, Iran [NPWMD]
13. GHORB NOOH, P.O. Box 16765-3476, Tehran, Iran [NPWMD]
14. OMRAN SAHEL, Tehran, Iran [NPWMD]
15. SAHEL CONSULTANT ENGINEERS, P.O. Box 16765-34, Tehran, Iran; No. 57, Eftekhar St., Larestan St., Motahhari Ave., Tehran, Iran [NPWMD]
16. HARA COMPANY (a.k.a HARA INSTITUTE), Tehran, Iran [NPWMD]
17. GHARARGAHE SAZANDEGI GHAEM (a.k.a. GHARARGAH GHAEM), No. 25, Valiasr St., Azadi Sq., Tehran, Iran [NPWMD]
1. BAHMANYAR, Bahmanyar Morteza; DOB 31 Dec 1952; POB Tehran, Iran; Passport I0005159 (Iran); alt Passport 10005159 (Iran) (individual) [NPWMD]
2. DASTJERDI, Ahmad Vahid (a.k.a. VAHID, Ahmed Dastjerdi); DOB 15 Jan 1954; Diplomatic Passport A0002987 (Iran) (individual) [NPWMD]
3. ESMAELI, REZA-GHOLI; DOB 3 Apr 1961; POB Tehran, Iran; Passport A0002302 (Iran) (individual) [NPWMD]
4. AHMADIAN, ALI AKBAR (a.k.a. AHMADIYAN, Ali Akbar); DOB circa 1961; POB Kerman, Iran; citizen Iran; nationality Iran (individual) [NPWMD]
5. HEJAZI, MOHAMMAD; DOB circa 1959; citizen Iran; nationality Iran (individual) [NPWMD]
6. REZAIE, MORTEZA (a.k.a. REZAI, Morteza); DOB circa 1956; citizen Iran; nationality Iran (individual) [NPWMD]
7. SALIMI, HOSEIN (a.k.a. SALAMI, Hoseyn; a.k.a SALAMI, Hossein; a.k.a SALAMI, Hussayn); citizen Iran; nationality Iran; Passport D08531177 (Iran) (individual) [NPWMD]
8. SOLEIMANI, QASEM (a.k.a. SALIMANI, Qasem; a.k.a SOLAIMANI, Qasem; a.k.a SOLEMANI, Qasem; a.k.a SOLEYMANI Ghasem; a.k.a SOLEYMANI, Qasem; a.k.a. SULAIMANI, Qasem; a.k.a. SULAYMAN, Qasmi; a.k.a. SULEMANI, Qasem); DOB 11 Mar 1957; POB Qom, Iran; citizen Iran; nationality Iran; Diplomatic Passport 008827 (Iran) issued 1999 (individual) [NPWMD]
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) maintains the Commerce Control List (CCL), which identifies items subject to Department of Commerce export controls. This final rule revises the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to implement changes made to the Wassenaar Arrangement's List of Dual Use Goods and Technologies (Wassenaar List), and Statements of Understanding maintained and agreed to by governments participating in the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual Use Goods and Technologies (Wassenaar Arrangement, or WA). The Wassenaar Arrangement advocates implementation of effective export controls on strategic items with the objective of improving regional and international security and stability. To harmonize with the changes to the Wassenaar List, this rule revises the EAR by amending certain entries that are controlled for national security reasons in Categories 1, 2, 3, 5 Part I (telecommunications), 6, 7, 8, and 9; and adding new entries to the Commerce Control List (CCL), amending EAR Definitions, as well as adding new definitions to the EAR, and adding a new Statement of Understanding on source code.
The purpose of this final rule is to make the necessary changes to the CCL, definitions of terms used in the EAR, and Wassenaar reporting requirements to implement Wassenaar List revisions that were agreed upon in the December 2006 Wassenaar Arrangement Plenary Meeting.
This rule also adds and expands unilateral U.S. export controls and national security export controls on certain items to make them consistent with the amendments made to implement the Wassenaar Arrangement's decisions. In addition, this rule removes the remaining references to “Composite Theoretical Performance (CTP)” and “Millions of Theoretical Operations Per Second (MTOPS)” in the EAR, which is consistent with agreements made by the Wassenaar Arrangement with regard to microprocessors.
For questions of a general nature contact Sharron Cook, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 482-2440 or E-Mail:
Comments regarding the collections of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, should be sent to OMB Desk Officer, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Attention: David Rostker; and to the Office of Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, 14th St. and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 6883, Washington, DC 20230.
In July 1996, the United States and thirty-three other countries gave final approval to the establishment of a new multilateral export control arrangement, called the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual Use Goods and Technologies (Wassenaar Arrangement or WA). The Wassenaar Arrangement contributes to regional and international security and stability by promoting transparency and greater responsibility in transfers of conventional arms and dual use goods and technologies, thus preventing destabilizing accumulations of such items. Participating states have committed to exchange information on exports of dual use goods and technologies to non-participating states for the purposes of enhancing transparency and assisting in developing common understandings of the risks associated with the transfers of these items.
This rule imposes new controls and expands NS Column 1 controls. This rule imposes a license requirement under section 742.4(a) of the EAR for exports and reexports to all destinations, except Canada, of certain commodities (and related software and technology) described in ECCNs 1E002.g, 3E001, 7A001, 7A002.a and .c, 7A003.d, 7D001, 7D003, 7E001, 7E002, 7E004.a.7, 9D004.f and .g. These destinations have an “X” indicated in NS column 1 on the Commerce Country Chart of Supplement No. 1 to Part 738. The purpose of the controls is to ensure that these items do not make a contribution to the military potential of any other country or combination of countries that would prove detrimental to the national security of the United States. For designated terrorism supporting countries or embargoed countries, the applicable licensing policies are found in Parts 742 and 746 of the EAR, and Supplement No. 1 to Part 736 of the EAR for Syria.
This rule also imposes new controls and expands NS Column 2 controls. This rule imposes a license requirement under section 742.4(a) of the EAR for exports and reexports of commodities (and related software and technology) described in 1C005.a, 1C005.b.1, 1C005.b.2, 1C005.c, 1D003, 2B002.c, 2B002.d, 3A001.b.9, 3A001.e.4, 3A001.g, 3B001.f.2, 3B001.i, 3C005, 5A001.g, 6A008.a, 7A008, 8A002.a, 8A002.a.4 (components) to destinations that are not Country Group A:1 destinations, or that are not cooperating countries (see Supplement No. 1 to Part 740 of the EAR). These destinations have an “X” indicated in NS column 2 on the Commerce Country Chart of Supplement No. 1 to Part 738 of the EAR. The purpose of the controls is to ensure that these items do not make a contribution to the military potential of such destination countries that would prove detrimental to the national security of the United States. For designated terrorism supporting countries or embargoed countries, the applicable licensing policies are found in Parts 742 and 746 of the EAR, and Supplement No. 1 to Part 736 of the EAR for Syria.
The licensing policy for national security controlled items exported or reexported to any country except a country in Country Group D:1 (see Supplement No. 1 to Part 740 of the EAR) is to approve license applications unless there is a significant risk that the
This rule imposes new controls and expands antiterrorism (AT) controls. This rule imposes a unilateral U.S. license requirement to export and reexport commodities (and related software and technology) controlled under 1C005.a, 1C005.b.1, 1C005.b.2, 1C005.c, 1D003, 1E002.g, 2B002.d.2, 2B002.d.3, 3A001.b.9, 3A001.e.4, 3A001.g, 3B001.f.2, 3B001.i, 3C005, 3E001, 5A001.g, 6A008.a, 7A001, 7A002.a and .c, 7A003.d, 7A008, 7D001, 7D003.a and .b, 7E001, 7E002, 7E004.a.7, 8A002.a, 8A002.a.4 (components), and 9D004.f and .g for AT reasons to Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria, in addition to the national security controls imposed to implement the Wassenaar Arrangement's decisions. These unilateral export controls are necessary because under Section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 a license is required for items that could make a significant contribution to the military potential of such country or that could enhance the ability of such country to support acts of international terrorism. There is a general policy of denial for applications to terrorism supporting countries, as set forth in Part 742 of the EAR. In addition, certain of these countries are also subject to embargoes, as set forth in Part 746 of the EAR and Supplement No. 1 to Part 736 of the EAR for Syria. A license is also required for the export and reexport of these items to specially designated terrorists and foreign terrorist organizations, as set forth in Part 744 of the EAR; license applications to these parties are reviewed under a general policy of denial.
This rule revises a number of entries on the Commerce Control List (CCL) to implement the December 2006 agreed revisions to the Wassenaar List of Dual Use Goods and Technologies. This rule also revises language to provide a complete and more accurate description of controls. A description of the specific amendments to the CCL pursuant to the December 2006 Wassenaar Agreement is provided below. Newly added ECCNS, as described below, are as follows: 1D003, 3C005, and 7A008. The affected ECCNS, as described below, are 1A002, 1B001, 1C005, 1C008, 1C010, 1C998, 1E002, 2B001, 2B002, 3A001, 3A002, 3A991, 3B001, 3B991, 3C002, 3C992, 3E001, 3E002, 5A001, 5A991, 5E001, 6A002, 6A004, 6A005, 6A006, 6A008, 6A995, 6D003, 6E201, 7A001, 7A002, 7A003, 7A101, 7B003, 7D001, 7D003, 7E001, 7E002, 7E004, 8A002, 8C001, 9D004, 9E001, and 9E002.
ECCN 1A002 (Composite structures or laminates) is amended by:
a. Clarifying 1A002.a by adding `consisting of' in front of the parameter and deleting `made from';
b. Clarifying 1A002.b by adding `consisting of' to the front and replacing `made from' with `any of the following' to the end of the subparagraph';
c. Clarifying the term `aircraft' to read `civil aircraft' in the Note to 1A002;
d. Clarifying the size of fabric made from “fibrous or filamentary materials” not controlled for repair of civil aircraft structures from ′1 m
ECCN 1A004 (Protective and detection equipment and components not specially designed for military use) is amended by revising the Related Controls paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section by redesignating note 2 as note 3 and adding a new note 2 to read “See ECCN 1D003 for “software” specially designed or modified to enable equipment to perform the functions of equipment controlled under section 1A004.c (Nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) detection systems). See ECCN 1E002.g for control libraries (parametric technical databases) specially designed or modified to enable equipment to perform the functions of equipment controlled under 1A004.c (Nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) detection systems).”
ECCN 1B001 (Equipment for the production of fibers) is amended by:
a. Adding a note to the License Requirement section under the MT control that reads “Note: MT applies to equipment in 1B001.d that meets or exceeds the parameters of 1B101.” to clarify the MT license requirement, as this requirement has been particularly confusing to the public; and
b. Clarifying the text of 1B001.f., because attempts have been made to export ultrasonic equipment without license due to interpretation that the 3-D and ultrasonic tomography parameters make an empty box. The control text therefore is clarified to ensure systems with critical capability are controlled for export.
ECCN 1C005 (superconductive composite conductors) is amended by:
a. Removing the term `multifilamentary' from 1C005.a.;
b. Replacing the `or' with an `and' in 1C005.a.1.;
c. Removing part of the parameter `but less than 25 K (249.16°C)′ from 1C005.b.1.;
d. Replacing 1C005.b.2 which stated, “A cross-section area less than 0.28 × 10-
e. Removing 1C005.b.3; and
f. Adding 1C005.c and a new technical note, to read as follows ““Superconductive” “composite” conductors consisting of one or more “superconductive” filaments which remain “superconductive” above 115 K (-158.16 °C).
For the purpose of 1C005, filaments may be in wire, cylinder, film, tape or ribbon form.; and”
ECCN 1C008 (Non-fluorinated polymeric substances) is amended by:
a. Redesignating Note 1 as Note 2 and adding a new Note 1 to clarify the term polymeric substances;
b. Revising the test method of determination of a heat distortion temperature in 1C008.b. from `ISO 75-3 (2004)' to `ISO 75-2 (2004), method A'; and
c. Revising the load parameter in 1C008.b from ′1.82 N/mm2′ to ′1.80 N/mm2′;
d. Delete 1C008.c, which are polyarylene ether ketones, including polyether ketone ketone (PEKK), polyether ketone (PEK), and Polyether ketone ether ketone ketone (PEKEKK).
ECCN 1C010 (fibrous or filamentary materials) is amended by:
a. Clarifying the term `aircraft' to read `civil aircraft' in the Notes to 1C010.b and 1C010.e;
b. Increasing the size of fabric made from “fibrous or filamentary materials” not controlled for repair of civil aircraft structures in the Notes to 1C010.b and 1C010.e from ′50 cm × 90 cm′ to ′100 cm × 100 cm′; and
c. Adding the Celsius equivalent (2 °C) to 2K in the Technical Note that describes glass transition temperature.
ECCN 1C998 (Non-fluorinated polymeric substances) is amended by:
a. Redesignating 1C998.a to 1C998.a.1; and
b. Revising paragraph 1C998.a to add the polyarylene ether ketones deleted from 1C008.c.
For equipment no longer controlled under ECCN 1C008 and related technology controlled under 1E001, there remains a license requirement under ECCNs1C998 and 1E998 respectively, for exports and reexports to designated terrorism supporting countries, as set forth in Parts 742 and 746 of the EAR and as indicated in AT Column 1 of the Commerce Country Chart.
ECCN 1D003 is added to control “software” specially designed or modified to enable equipment to perform the functions of equipment controlled under section 1A004.c (Nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) detection systems).
ECCN 1E001 is amended by revising the Related Controls paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section by redesignating notes 2 and 3 as notes 3 and 4, and adding a new note 2 to read “See ECCN 1E002.g for control libraries (parametric technical databases) specially designed or modified to enable equipment to perform the functions of equipment controlled under 1A004.c (Nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) detection systems).”
ECCN 1E002 is amended to add a new paragraph 1E002.g to control libraries (parametric technical databases) specially designed or modified to enable equipment to perform the functions of equipment controlled under 1A004.c (Nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) detection systems).
ECCN 2B001 (Machine tools) is amended by revising the Unit paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section to remove “parts and accessories”, and adding additional parameters to the contact lens machine exception in Note to 2B001.a in order to prevent general purpose diamond turning machines from being exported as contact lens machines.
ECCN 2B002 (Numerically controlled machine tools using a magnetorheological finishing (MRF) process) is amended by:
a. Revising the heading to clarify the scope of controls from ‘numerically controlled machine tools’ to ‘numerically controlled optical finishing machine tools’; and to revise the way the parameters are applied from “having any of the following” to ‘having
b. Adding a new definition for ‘Electrorheological finishing (ERF)’ to the Related Definitions paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section;
c. Removing the ‘or’ at the end of 2B002.a;
d. Adding new paragraphs 2B002.c to add a new parameter (Three or more axes which can be coordinated simultaneously for ‘contouring control’); and
e. Adding a new paragraphs 2B002.d.1 through d.3 to list specific optical finishing processes (Magnetorheological finishing (‘MRF’); Electrorheological finishing (‘ERF’); and ‘Energetic particle beam finishing’).
ECCN 3A001 (Electronic components) is amended by:
a. Adding 3A001.b.9 to the License Exception LVS eligibility paragraph for $3,000, and adding 3A001.b.9 and 3A001.g to the License Exception GBS eligibility paragraph;
b. Correcting 3A001.a.5.a.1 by adding the word “with” to be consistent with the Wassenaar Dual-Use List (A resolution of 8 bit or more, but less than 10 bit, with an output rate greater than 500 million words per second);
c. Revising the output rate for analog-to-digital converter integrated circuits in 3A001.a.5.a.3 from ‘greater than 50 million words per second’ to “greater than 105 million words per second”;
d. Revising the output rate for analog-to-digital converter integrated circuits in 3A001.a.5.a.4 from ‘greater than 5 million words per second’ to ‘greater than 10 million words per second’;
e. Revising the output rate for analog-to-digital converter integrated circuits in 3A001.a.5.a.5 from ‘greater than 1 million words per second’ to ‘greater than 2.5 million words per second’;
For analog-to-digital converter integrated circuits no longer controlled under ECCN 3A001.a.5.a and related technology controlled under ECCN 3E001, there remains a license requirement under ECCNs 3A991.c and 3E991 respectively, as well as a software control under ECCN 3D991 for exports and reexports to designated terrorism supporting countries, as set forth in Parts 742 and 746 of the EAR and as indicated in AT Column 1 of the Commerce Country Chart.
f. 3A001.b.9 is amended by adding microwave power modules (MPM), consisting of, at least, a traveling wave tube, a microwave monolithic integrated circuit and an integrated electronic power conditioner having specified parameters;
g. 3A001.e.1 is amended by replacing the term “batteries” with the term “cells”;
h. 3A001.e.1.a and 3A001.e.1.b are amended by removing the phrase “and batteries”, replacing the term “rechargeable cells” with the term “secondary cells”, and changing the energy density parameter to “550 Wh/kg at 293K (20° C)”;
i. The technical note for 3A001.e.1 is replaced with 4 new technical notes that describe “energy density”, “cell”, “primary cell”, and “secondary cell”, as well as a note that explains that “3A001.e. does not control batteries, including single cell batteries;” and
j. 3A001.g is added to control solid-state pulsed power switching thyristor devices and thyristor modules.
ECCN 3A002 (General purpose electronic equipment) is amended by:
a. Revising the eligibility paragraphs for License Exceptions GBS and CIV to remove 3A002.d, because all signal generators that were eligible for these license exceptions are no longer controlled under ECCN 3A002, but are now controlled under ECCN 3A992.a;
b. Removing a comma between “Frequency synthesizer” and “electronic assemblies” in 3A002.b to harmonize with the Wassenaar Dual-Use List;
c. Adding a note after 3A002.b stating “The control status of signal analyzers, signal generators, network analyzers, and microwave test receivers as stand-alone instruments is determined by 3A002.c., 3A002.d., 3A002.e., and 3A002.f., respectively.”;
d. Revising 3A002.d (Frequency synthesized signal generators) by replacing the term “master frequency” with “master reference oscillator”;
e. Revising 3A002.d.3 (“frequency switching time”) by modifying the text and adding new subparagraphs 3A002.d.3.a through 3A002.d.3.e that specify various frequency switching time parameters;
f. Redesignating Note 1 (definition of `pulse duration' ) as Note 2 and adding a new Note 1 following 3A002.d.4 to clarify the term `frequency synthesized signal generators'; and
g. Redesignating Technical Note 1 as Technical Note 2, and adding a new Technical Note 1 to explain that arbitrary waveform and function generators are normally specified by sample rate.
ECCN 3A991 (Electronic devices and components not controlled by 3A001) is amended by:
a. Revising 3A991.a.1 from “A composite theoretical performance (CTP) of 6,500 million theoretical operations per second (MTOPS) or more and an arithmetic logic unit with an access width of 32 bit or more” to read “A performance speed of 5 GFLOPS or more and an arithmetic logic unit with an access width of 32 bit or more” to harmonize with revisions to ECCN 3E002; and
b. Revising 3A991.j (batteries/cells) to harmonize with revisions to 3A001.e.1.
ECCN 3B001 (Equipment for the manufacturing of semiconductor devices or materials) is amended by:
a. Correcting the phrase “3B001.a.2 and a.3, or .f” to read “3B001.a.2, a.3, or .f” in the License Exception GBS eligibility paragraph in the License Exception section;
b. Redesignating 3B001.f.2 as 3B001.f.3;
c. Adding a new paragraph 3B001.f.2 to control imprint lithography equipment capable of producing features of 180 nm or less; and
d. Adding a new paragraph 3B001.i to control lithograph templates designed for integrated circuits controlled by 3A001.
ECCN 3B991 (Equipment not controlled by 3B001 for the manufacture of electronic components and materials) is amended by adding ECCN 3C005 to the list of ECCNs referenced in 3B991.b.1.b in order to harmonize with the addition of this new ECCN.
ECCN 3C002 (Resist materials) is amended by revising the heading to conform to the Wassenaar Dual-Use List and the wavelength for positive resists designed for semiconductor lithography from `below 350 nm' to `below 245 nm' in order to match the wavelength threshold in ECCN 3B001.a (lithography equipment), which was changed in 2004.
ECCN 3C005 (Silicone carbide wafers) is added to the Commerce Control List to control silicon carbide (SiC) wafers having a resistivity of more than 10,000 ohm-cm, because it is emerging as the material of choice for high temperature devices, such as power switches, which are used in both military (e.g., military ships, vehicles, radar, communications, electromagnetic warfare and weapons systems) and commercial applications (e.g., communication systems, electric power, utilities industry, civil radar systems, cell phone base stations, and high definition television transmitters).
ECCN 3C005 is controlled for NS:2 and AT:1 reasons. In addition, ECCN 3E001 controls for NS:1 and AT:1 reasons related technology for the development or production of silicon carbide (SiC) wafers classified as ECCN 3C005, and ECCN 3B991.b.1.b controls for AT:1 reasons related equipment specially designed for purifying or processing III/V and II/VI semiconductor materials controlled by ECCN 3C005.
ECCN 3C992 (positive resists) is amended by revising the heading to adjust the wavelength from `between 370 and 350 nm' to 'between 370 and 245 nm' to harmonize with the revision to 3C002.
ECCN 3E001 is amended by:
a. Revising the NS control text in the License Requirements section to add the new ECCN 3C005;
b. Revising the Related Controls paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section to remove outdated note 2 and redesignating note 3 as note 2, because updated version of this note is already reflected in the Items paragraph of the List of Items Controlled section.
c. Redesignating Note 1 as Note 2 and Note 2 as Note 1 in the Items paragraph; and
d. Revising the citation in the technical note from `Note b' to `Note 2' in the Items paragraph.
ECCN 3E002 is amended by:
a. Revising the heading to remove references to `composite theoretical performance (CTP)' and `million theoretical operations per second (MTOPS)';
b. Revising License Exception CIV eligibility text from “Composite Theoretical Performance (CTP) less than or equal to 40,000 MTOPS (regardless of word length or access width)” to read “vector processor unit with operand length of 64-bit or less, 64-bit floating operations not exceeding 32 GFLOPS, or 16-bit or more floating-point operations not exceeding 32 GMACS” to conform to the revisions in 3A001 regarding microprocessors;
The new parameter for measuring vector processor units is GMACS, which
c. Adding subparagraphs 3E002.a, 3E002.b, and 3E002.c to specify new parameters for microprocessor technology controls related to the vector processor unit, floating-point vectors, and fixed-point multiply-accumulate results, including adding a technical note to describe “vector processing unit”
ECCN 5A001 (Telecommunications systems, equipment, and components) is amended by:
a. Revising the phrase `telecommunication transmission equipment and systems' to read `telecommunication systems and equipment' in 5A001.b, because 5A001.b controls transmission equipment, but also receivers, transmitters, and transceivers.
b. Revising the scope of parameters from `any' to `all' in 5A001.b.2 for radio equipment, because these features are more commonly found in radio equipment today as a result of technological advances;
c. Removing the parameter in 5A001.b.2.a `incorporating adaptive techniques providing more than 15 dB suppression of an interfering signal';
d. Adding 5A001.g to the NS:2 control paragraph in the License Requirements section; and
e. Adding a new paragraph 5A001.g to control specially designed Passive Coherent Location systems or equipment.
Adding 5A001.g (specially designed Passive Coherent Location systems or equipment) to ECCN 5A001 consequently adds a license requirement for related development and production software in ECCN 5D001 and development, production, and use technology in ECCN 5E001, for the exports and reexports to all destinations, except Canada, under NS Column 1 of the Commerce Country Chart and for exports and reexports to designated terrorism supporting countries, as set forth in Parts 742 and 746 of the EAR and as indicated in AT Column 1 of the Commerce Country Chart.
ECCN 5A991 is amended by adding 5A991.b.7.d to maintain anti-terrorism controls on radio equipment operating in the 1.5 MHz to 87.5 MHz band and incorporating adaptive techniques providing more than 15 dB suppression of an interfering signal, which this rule removed from 5A001.b.2.a.
Adding 5A991.b.7.d to ECCN 5A991 consequently maintains a license requirement for related development, production, and use software in ECCN 5D991, for the exports and reexports to designated terrorism supporting countries, as set forth in Parts 742 and 746 of the EAR and as indicated in AT Column 1 of the Commerce Country Chart. However, the Wassenaar Arrangement agreed to maintain national security controls for the related technology for this equipment in ECCN 5E001 by adding a new paragraph 5E001.c.4.c.
ECCN 5E001 is amended by adding a new paragraph 5E001.c.4.c to maintain national security and anti-terrorism controls on the technology for the development or production of certain shortwave radios employing adaptive interference suppression techniques, which this rule is removing from 5A001.b.2.a.
ECCN 6A002 (Optical Sensors) is amended by:
a. Revising the License Requirement section to add an exception note under the RS controls to exclude 6A002.a.3.d.a.2 and 6A002.a.3.e for lead selenide focal plane arrays, because these devices are not suitable for imaging applications, and no longer merit regional stability controls;
b. Revising the Unit paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to remove the term “accessories”;
c. Revising the peak response in wavelength range in 6A002.a.3.d.1 from `exceeding 1,200 nm but not exceeding 2,500 nm' to `exceeding 1,200 nm but not exceeding 3,000 nm'; and
d. Revising the peak response in wavelength range for non-“space-qualified” linear (1-dimensional) “focal plane arrays” in 6A002.a.3.e from ‘exceeding 2,500 nm but not exceeding 30,000 nm’ to ‘exceeding 3,000 nm but not exceeding 30,000 nm’.
ECCN 6A004 (Optics) is amended by:
a. Revising the Unit paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section to remove the reference to cable;
b. Revising the Related Controls paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section to add a reference to ECCN 3B001 for optical mirrors or aspheric optical elements specially designed for lithography equipment; and by enumerating the notes in the Related Controls paragraph;
c. Moving the definition of ‘aspheric optical element’ from the technical note to the Related Definitions paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section; and
d. Adding single quotes around the term ‘aspheric optical elements’ in 6A004.e to indicate that the definition may be found in the Related Definitions paragraph of the List of Items Controlled section of the ECCN.
ECCN 6A005 (Lasers) is amended by:
a. Revising the NP controls in the License Requirements section to conform with the revisions in the ECCN 6A005 items paragraph and the revisions to ECCN 6A205;
b. Revising the License Requirements Notes to conform to the revisions related to nuclear controls and revisions in 6A005;
c. Revising the License Exception GBS and CIV eligibility paragraphs to conform to the revisions in the items paragraph and the license requirement note that outlines NP controls;
d. Revising the Note 6 in the Related Controls paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section to add “and “lasers” specifically designed, modified, or configured for military application are subject to the export licensing authority of the U.S. Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls”;
e. Moving paragraph 1 in the Related Definitions paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section to Note 1 at the top of the items paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, and removing paragraph 2 in the Related Definitions paragraph;
f. Adding a definition for ‘Wall-plug efficiency’ in the Related Definitions paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section;
g. Adding Notes 2 through 4 to the top of the items paragraph of the List of
h. Moving 6A005.a.1 (Excimer lasers) to 6A005.d.4;
i. Deleting 6A005.a.2 (Metal vapor lasers), as they are now controlled under 6A005.b, although they are not specifically cited as before;
j. Moving 6A005.a.3 (Carbon monoxide (CO) lasers) to 6A005.d.2;
k. Moving 6A005.a.4 (Carbon dioxide (CO
l. Moving 6A005.a.5 (Chemical lasers) to 6A005.d.5;
m. Deleting 6A005.a.6 (Krypton ion or argon ion lasers), as pursuant to Note 5.a, Krypton lasers are no longer controlled, and Argon lasers are now controlled under 6A005.a, with the exception of Argon lasers below 50W, pursuant to the Note to 6A005.a.2;
n. Moving 6A005.b (Semiconductor lasers) to 6A005.d.1;
o. Moving 6A005.c.2 (non-tunable lasers) to 6A005.a and .b, with the exception of Neodymium glass lasers, and modifying the parameters;
p. Moving 6A005.c.2.a (Neodymium glass lasers) to 6A005.d.6; and
q. Moving 6A005.d (dye and other liquid lasers) to 6A005.c (tunable lasers), see Note to 6A005.c.
ECCN 6A006 is amended by adding quotes around the term “compensation systems” in the heading and in 6A006.d, because it has become a defined term in Part 772.
ECCN 6A008 (Radar) is amended by:
a. Adding a Note to explain that 6A008 does not control: secondary surveillance radar (SSR), car radar designed for collision prevention, displays or monitors used for air traffic control (ATC), and meteorological (weather) radar.
b. Revising the parameters in 6A008.a to avoid overlapping controls between 6A008.a and 6A008.m.1.
ECCN 6A205 is amended by:
a. Revising the heading to simplify it and place the referenced ECCNs in order;
b. Removing the reference to “parts and accessories” in the unit paragraph of the List of Items Controlled section, because these are not controlled by this entry;
c. Adding a reference to 6A005.a.2 for additional controls on argon ion lasers and a reference to 6A005.b.6.b for additional neodymium-doped lasers in the Related Controls paragraph of the List of Items Controlled section;
d. Revising 6A005.b.1 for “operating at wavelengths for tunable pulsed single-mode dye laser oscillators” from “Operating at wavelengths between 300 nm and 800 nm” to “Operating at wavelengths between 600 nm and 800 nm”;
e. Removing 6A205.c (Tunable pulsed dye laser amplifiers and oscillators), because these paragraphs are entirely controlled by ECCN 6A005.c.1.b;
f. Revising 6A205.f to maintain NP controls on Neodymium-doped (other than glass) lasers that are not controlled by ECCN 6A005.
ECCN 6A995 is amended by:
a. Revising 6A995.c, so that it controls “Ruby ‘lasers’ having an output energy exceeding 20 J per pulse”;
b. Redesignating paragraph 6A995.d (Free electron lasers) as paragraph g., and adding three new paragraphs to maintain anti-terrorism (AT) controls for certain lasers no longer controlled by ECCN 6A005: 6A995.d (Non-“tunable” “pulsed lasers”), 6A995.e (Non-“tunable” continuous wave “(CW) lasers”), and 6A995.f (Non-“tunable” “lasers”).
ECCN 6D003 is amended by adding quotes around the term “compensation systems” in the in 6D003.f.1, because it has become a defined term in Part 772.
6E201 is amended by revising the heading to harmonize with revisions made to ECCNs 6A005 and 6A205, and adding the phrase “not controlled by 6E001 or 6E002”.
ECCN 7A001 (Accelerometers) is amended by:
a. Revising the heading from “Linear accelerometers designed for use in inertial navigation or guidance systems and having any of the following characteristics (see List of Items Controlled), and specially designed components therefor.” to read “Accelerometers as follows (see List of Items Controlled), and specially designed components therefor” in order to change the scope of control from including end-use and type to a strictly technical control, as set forth in the List of Items Controlled section;
b. Revising the MT controls in the License Requirements section from “MT applies to entire entry” to “MT applies to commodities that meet or exceed the parameters of 7A101” to clarify items controlled for MT reasons based on the Missile Technology Control Regime Annex;
c. Differentiating between linear accelerometers designed to operate at high g values and linear accelerometers designed to operate at low g levels; and
d. Moving the controls for angular and rotational accelerometers from the gyro controls in 7A002 to the accelerometer controls in 7A001.
ECCN 7A002 (Gyros or angular rate sensors) is amended by:
a. Revising text in the heading from ‘and angular or rotational accelerometers’ to read ‘or angular rate sensors’;
b. Revising the Missile Technology (MT) reason for control in the License Requirements section to read “MT applies to 7A002 items that meet or exceed the parameters of 7A102” because some items identified in 7A002.a and 7A002.b are national security controlled items and not MT controlled items;
c. Adding a License Requirement Note to the License Requirements section to add the Missile Technology Control Regime's definition for ‘stability’, which should only be used for the purposes of MT controls. (The Wassenaar Arrangement definition for ‘stability’ is found in Part 772);
d. Revising the drift rate in from ‘less (better) than 0.1 degree per hour when specified to function at acceleration levels below 12 g’ to read ‘ less (better) than 0.5 degree per hour when specified to function at linear acceleration levels up to and including 100.g’ combining paragraphs 7A002.a, 7A002.a.1 and 7A002.a.2;
e. Adding double quotes around the term “angle random walk” in 7A002.b;
f. Removing the technical note defining “angle random walk”, as the definition was moved to Part 772;
g. Redesignating paragraph 7A002.c as paragraph 7A002.d; and
h. Adding a new paragraph 7A002.c to incorporate three critical parameters for controlling gyros.
ECCN 7A003 (Inertial systems) is amended by:
a. Adding 7A003.d to control Inertial measurement equipment, including Inertial Measurement Units (IMU) and Inertial Reference Systems (IRS), which was added to clarify 7A003.c; and
b. Replacing a reference in Note 2 that stated “civil authorities of a country in Country Group A:1” with “civil authorities of a Wassenaar Arrangement Participating State, see Supplement No. 1 to Part 743 for a list of these countries.”
ECCN 7A008 is added to control underwater sonar navigation systems for NS:2 and AT:1 reasons, because underwater navigation systems pose significant military and terrorism concerns because of their potential use for coastal reconnaissance and infiltration.
ECCN 7A101 is amended by revising the Heading and the Items paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section to add a new paragraph 7A101.b for “continuous output accelerometers of any type, specified to function at acceleration levels greater than 100 g, and specially designed components therefor” and to expand the scope of the heading to include this new paragraph.
ECCN 7B003 is amended by revising the Related Controls paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section to clarify that 7B003 controls include fiber optic gyro coil winding machines.
ECCN 7D003 is amended by:
a. Adding software controls for ECCN 7A008 in 7D003.a and .b;
b. Replacing the term ‘inertial data’ with ‘heading data’ in 7D003.b; and
c. Revising 7D003.b.1 by adding ‘or sonar’.
ECCNs 7D001, 7E001, and 7E002 are amended to revise the License Requirement section to include ECCN 7A008 in the NS:1 control and to exclude ECCN 7A008 from the MT:1 control.
ECCN 7E004 is amended by adding 7E004.a.7 to control development and production technology for Data Based Referenced Navigation (DBRN) systems designed to navigate underwater using sonar or gravity databases that provide a positioning accuracy equal to or less (better) than 0.4 nautical miles.
ECCN 8A002 (Systems, equipment and components for submersible vehicles) is amended by:
a. Adding ‘and components’ to the heading;
b. Revising the unit paragraph to add ‘systems’ and ‘components in $ value’;
c. Adding ‘and components’ to 8A002.a;
d. Adding a new paragraph 8A002.a.4 to control ‘Components manufactured from material specified in ECCN 8C001.’ and adding a technical note to explain that this control includes components in any stage of manufacture, i.e., not in final form.
ECCN 8C001 (Syntactic foam designed for underwater use) is amended to add a reference to 8A002.a.4 in the Related Control paragraph of the List of Items Controlled section.
Category 9 is amended by revising the title of Category 9 to read “Aerospace and Propulsion,” because this Category contains a significant amount of aerospace items.
ECCN 9D004 is amended by:
a. Revising the License Requirement section to exclude the newly added paragraphs 9D004.f and .g;
b. Adding a new paragraph 9D004.f to control software specially designed to design the internal cooling passages of aero gas turbine engine blades, vanes, and tip shrouds; and
c. Adding a new paragraph 9D004.g to control software having all of the following characteristics: Being specially designed to predict aero thermal, aeromechanical and combustion conditions in gas turbine engines; and having theoretical modeling predictions of the aero thermal, aeromechanical and combustion conditions, which have been validated with actual turbine engine (experimental or production) performance data.
ECCN 9E001 is amended by revising the heading and the national security controls to correct the citation 9A001.c to read 9A001.b.
ECCN 9E002 is amended by revising the heading to correct the citation 9A001.c to read 9A001.b.
This rule amends section 742.19 by revising paragraph (b)(1)(xix) from stating “Microprocessors with a CTP of 550 or above” to read “Microprocessors with a processing speed of 0.5 GFLOPS or above” In addition, this rule amends Supplement No. 2 “Anti-terrorism Controls: Iran, North Korea, Syria and Sudan Contract Sanctity Dates and Related Policies” by revising paragraph (26)(ii) from stating “With a CTP of 550 MTOPS or above” to read “With a processing speed of 0.5 GFLOPS or above.”
The CTP/MTOPS metric was used in measuring computer and microprocessor performance. The usefulness of the CTP/MTOPS metric in defining computer and microprocessor performance has been overtaken by advances in technology. The U.S. Government, in a final rule published in April 2006 (71 FR 20876), replaced the CTP/MTOPS metric with the APP/WT metric for measuring computer performance. The CTP/MTOPS reference was retained in certain parts of the EAR for measuring microprocessor performance because it was still used by the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) in defining the control level for microprocessor technology. In the WA 2006 list review, the WA revised its microprocessor technology control and discontinued all uses of the CTP/MTOPS metric in the WA List of Dual-use Goods and Technologies. The U.S. Government is also discontinuing all uses of CTP/MTOPS in the EAR with this implementation of the results of the WA 2006 list review.
With the use of the APP/WT metric for measuring computer performance, there is the temptation, following tradition, to use the APP/WT metric to measure microprocessor performance. However, the GFLOPS metric (billions of 64-bit floating-point operations per second) is preferable to the APP/WT metric because:
(a) The GFLOPS value is published by the manufacturer in its product literature.
(b) The additional complexities introduced by the APP/WT metric are unnecessary because there is a direct linear relationship between the proposed GFLOPS metric and the APP/WT metric (1 GFLOPS = 0.001*0.3 WT = 0.0003 WT).
(c) The translation from GFLOPS to WT provides no additional value.
(d) In the 1990s, the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) controlled microprocessors with a wide range of operand lengths (8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit, 64-bit). Today, the WA is only interested in processors with 32- and 64-bit operands. GFLOPS standardizes the measurement on 64-bit floating-point multiply and add. In short, technology has moved forward.
(e) A large part of the CTP formula deals with computer architecture and the rules of aggregation that have absolutely no meaning for microprocessors. Exporters have expressed concern about the need to deal with a complex formula when all they really need is a small part of the CTP formula to calculate the speed of a microprocessor, i.e., GFLOPS.
Section 743.1 is amended by:
• Inserting “6A001” before “a.2.d” for clarification in paragraph (c)(1)(vi);
• Adding ECCN 6A006.a.1 to paragraph (c)(1)(vi);
• Adding clarification notes in parentheticals after: 6A002.c, 6A003.b.3, and 6A003.b.4 in paragraph (c)(1)(vi);
• Replacing the text in the parentheticals after 6A006.d in paragraph (c)(1)(vi) with the reference “certain items only; see Note to this paragraph”; and
• Revising the Notes to paragraph (c)(1)(vi) to add another type of focal plane array excluded from reporting under 6A002.a.3, namely, microbolometer focal plane arrays having less than 8,000 elements. Also, adding a new Note 2 to describe which items in 6A006.d are subject to the Wassenaar special reporting requirement.
Section 744.17 “Restrictions on certain exports and reexports of general purpose microprocessors for `military end-uses' and to `military end-users' ” is amended by revising the parameter in the first sentence of paragraph (a) that stated “a composite theoretical performance” (“CTP”) of 6,500 million theoretical operations per second (MTOPS)” to read “a processing speed of 5 GFLOPS”.
Section 772.1 is amended by:
a. Removing the terms “Composite theoretical performance (CTP)” and “CTP”;
b. Revising the definition of the terms “Drift rate” and “Peak power”; and
c. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions for “Angle random walk”, “Average Output Power”, “Compensation Systems”, “CW Laser”, “Pulsed Laser”, and “Repeatability”.
This rule adds a Statement of Understanding (SOU) addressing source code. The SOU explains that source code may be controlled in either a software or technology entry. The rationale for adding this SOU was to allow flexibility to control source code in either a software or a technology entry, where the definitions for “software” and “technology” didn't seem to allow for such flexibility. This SOU only applies to national security controlled items, as no such SOU has been agreed to in other multinational regimes. However, this does not preclude other regimes or BIS from controlling source code in whatever manner is best suited for the situation. For the purposes of applying this SOU to source code subject to the EAR, source code should be considered “software,” unless otherwise stated.
Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as extended by the Notice of August 15, 2007, 72 FR 46137 (August 16, 2007), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in
Shipments of items removed from license exception eligibility or eligibility for export without a license as a result of this regulatory action that were on dock for loading, on lighter, laden aboard an exporting carrier, or en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, on November 5, 2007, pursuant to actual orders for export to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous license exception eligibility or without a license so long as they have been exported from the United States before December 5, 2007. Any such items not actually exported before midnight, on December 5, 2007, require a license in accordance with this regulation.
1. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military and foreign affairs function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Exports, Terrorism.
Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.
Exports.
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
(c) * * *
(26) * * *
(ii) With a processing speed of 0.5 GFLOPS or above.”
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi)
Reports for 6A002.a.3 exclude the following “focal plane arrays”:
a. Platinum Silicide having less than 10,000 elements;
b. Iridium Silicide;
c. Indium Antimonide or Lead Selenide having less than 256 elements;
d. Indium Arsenide;
e. Lead Sulphide;
f. Indium Gallium Arsenide;
g. Mercury Cadmium Telluride, as follows:
1. `Scanning Arrays' having any of the following:
a. 30 elements or less; or
b. Incorporating time delay-and-integration within the element and having 2 elements or less;
2. `Staring Arrays' less than 256 elements;
`Scanning Arrays' are defined as “focal plane arrays” designed for use with a scanning optical system that images a scene in a sequential manner to produce an image.
`Staring Arrays' are defined as “focal plane arrays” unfortunately designed for use with a non-scanning optical system that images a scene.
h. Gallium Arsenide or Gallium Aluminum Arsenide quantum well having less than 256 elements; and
i. Microbolometer having less than 8,000 elements.
a. Magnetic sensors controlled in 6A006.a.2. using optically pumped or nuclear precession (proton/Overhauser) “technology” that will permit these sensors to realize a “noise level” (sensitivity) lower (better) than 2 pT rms per square root Hz.
b. Underwater electric field sensors controlled in 6A006.b.
c. Magnetic gradiometers controlled in 6A006.c. that will permit these sensors to realize a “noise level” (sensitivity) lower (better) than 3 pT/m rms per square root Hz.
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
(a)
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
a. Consisting of an organic “matrix” and materials controlled by 1C010.c 1C010.d, or 1C010.e or
1A002.a does not control finished or semifinished items specially designed for purely civilian applications as follows:
a. Sporting goods;
b. Automotive industry;
c. Machine tool industry; and
d. Medical applications.
b. Consisting of a metal or carbon “matrix” and any of the following:
b.1. Carbon “fibrous or filamentary materials” with:
b.1.a. A “specific modulus” exceeding 10.15 × 10
b.1.b. A “specific tensile strength” exceeding 17.7 × 10
b.2. Materials controlled by 1C010.c.
1A002.b does not control finished or semifinished items specially designed for purely civilian applications as follows:
a. Sporting goods;
b. Automotive industry;
c. Machine tool industry; and
d. Medical applications.
1. Specific modulus: Young's modulus in pascals, equivalent to N/m
2. Specific tensile strength: ultimate tensile strength in pascals, equivalent to N/m
1A002 does not control composite structures or laminates made from epoxy resin impregnated carbon “fibrous or filamentary materials” for the repair of “civil aircraft” structures of laminates, provided that the size does not exceed 100 cm × 100 cm.
f. Non-destructive inspection equipment specially designed for “composite” materials, as follows:
f.1. X-ray tomography systems for three dimensional defect inspection;
f.2. Numerically controlled ultrasonic testing machines of which the motions for positioning transmitters and/or receivers are simultaneously coordinated and programmed in four or more axes to follow the three dimensional contours of the component under inspection.
a. “Superconductive” “composite” conductors containing one or more niobium-titanium filaments, having all of the following:
a.1. Embedded in a “matrix” other than a copper or copper-based mixed “matrix”; and
a.2. Having a cross-section area less than 0.28 × 10
b. “Superconductive” “composite” conductors consisting of one or more “superconductive” filaments other than niobium-titanium, having all of the following:
b.1. A “critical temperature” at zero magnetic induction exceeding 9.85 K (−263.31 °C); and
b.2. Remaining in the “superconductive” state at a temperature of 4.2 K (−268.96 °C) when exposed to a magnetic field oriented in any direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of conductor and corresponding to a magnetic induction of 12 T with critical current density exceeding 1750 A/mm
c. “Superconductive” “composite” conductors consisting of one or more “superconductive” filaments which remain “superconductive” above 115 K (−158.16 °C).
a. Non-fluorinated polymeric substances, as follows:
a.1. Bismaleimides;
a.2. Aromatic polyamide-imides;
a.3. Aromatic polyimides;
a.4. Aromatic polyetherimides having a glass transition temperature (Tg) exceeding 513K (240 °C).
1. 1C008.a controls the substances in liquid or solid form, including resin, powder, pellet, film, sheet, tape, or ribbon.
2. 1C008.a does not control non-fusible compression molding powders or molded forms.
b. Thermoplastic liquid crystal copolymers having a heat distortion temperature exceeding 523 K (250 °C) measured according to ISO 75-2 (2004), method A, or national equivalents, with a load of 1.80 N/mm
b.1. Any of the following:
b.1.a. Phenylene, biphenylene or naphthalene; or
b.1.b. Methyl, tertiary-butyl or phenyl substituted phenylene, biphenylene or naphthalene; and
b.2. Any of the following acids:
b.2.a. Terephthalic acid;
b.2.b. 6-hydroxy-2 naphthoic acid; or
b.2.c. 4-hydroxybenzoic acid;
c. [RESERVED]
d. Polyarylene ketones;
e. Polyarylene sulphides, where the arylene group is biphenylene, triphenylene or combinations thereof;
f. Polybiphenylenethersulphone having a glass transition temperature (Tg) exceeding 513 K (240 °C).
b. * * *
b.2. * * *
1C010.b does not control fabric made from “fibrous or filamentary materials” for the repair of “civil aircraft” structures or laminates, in which the size of individual sheets does not exceed 100 cm x 100 cm.
e. * * *
e.2. * * *
e.2.d. * * *
1C010.e does not control:
1. Epoxy resin “matrix” impregnated carbon “fibrous or filamentary materials” (prepregs) for the repair of “civil aircraft” structures or laminates, in which the size of individual sheets of prepreg does not exceed 100 cm x 100 cm;
2. Prepregs when impregnated with phenolic or epoxy resins having a glass transition temperature (T
a. Polyarylene ether ketones, as follows:
a.1 Polyether ether ketone (PEEK);
a.2. Polyether ketone ketone (PEKK);
a.3. Polyether ketone (PEK);
a.4. Polyether ketone ether ketone ketone (PEKEKK);
b. [RESERVED].
CIV: N/A
TSR: N/A
The list of items controlled is contained in the ECCN heading.
g. Libraries (parametric technical databases) specially designed or modified to enable equipment to perform the functions of equipment controlled under 1A004.c.
a. * * *
a.2. * * *
2B001.a does not control turning machines specially designed for the production of contact lenses, having all of the following characteristics:
1. Machine controller limited to using ophthalmic based software for part programming data input;
2. No vacuum chucking.
a. Finishing the form to less (better) than 1.0 μm;
b. Finishing to a roughness less (better) than 100 nm rms;
c. Three or more axes which can be coordinated simultaneously for “contouring control”; and
d. Using any of the following processes;
d.1. Magnetorheological finishing (‘MRF’);
d.2. Electrorheological finishing (‘ERF’); or
d.3. ‘Energetic particle beam finishing’.
a. General purpose integrated circuits, as follows:
The control status of wafers (finished or unfinished), in which the function has been determined, is to be evaluated against the parameters of 3A001.a.
Integrated circuits include the following types:
• “Monolithic integrated circuits”;
• “Hybrid integrated circuits”;
• “Multichip integrated circuits”;
• “Film type integrated circuits”, including silicon-on-sapphire integrated circuits;
• “Optical integrated circuits”.
a.1. Integrated circuits, designed or rated as radiation hardened to withstand any of the following:
a.1.a. A total dose of 5 × 10
a.1.b. A dose rate upset of 5 × 10
a.1.c. A fluence (integrated flux) of neutrons (1 MeV equivalent) of 5 × 10
3A001.a.1.c does not apply to Metal Insulator Semiconductors (MIS).
a.2. “Microprocessor microcircuits”, “microcomputer microcircuits”, microcontroller microcircuits, storage integrated circuits manufactured from a compound semiconductor, analog-to-digital converters, digital-to-analog converters, electro-optical or “optical integrated circuits” designed for “signal processing”, field programmable logic devices, neural network integrated circuits, custom integrated circuits for which either the function is unknown or the control status of the equipment in which the integrated circuit will be used in unknown, Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) processors, electrical erasable programmable read-only memories (EEPROMs), flash memories or static random-access memories (SRAMs), having any of the following:
a.2.a. Rated for operation at an ambient temperature above 398 K (125 °C);
a.2.b. Rated for operation at an ambient temperature below 218 K(-55 °C); or
a.2.c. Rated for operation over the entire ambient temperature range from 218 K (-55 °C) to 398 K (125 °C);
3A001.a.2 does not apply to integrated circuits for civil automobile or railway train applications.
a.3. “Microprocessor microcircuits”, “micro-computer microcircuits” and microcontroller microcircuits, manufactured from a compound semiconductor and operating at a clock frequency exceeding 40 MHz;
3A001.a.3 includes digital signal processors, digital array processors and digital coprocessors.
a.4. Storage integrated circuits manufactured from a compound semiconductor;
a.5. Analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog converter integrated circuits, as follows:
a.5.a. Analog-to-digital converters having any of the following:
a.5.a.1. A resolution of 8 bit or more, but less than 10 bit, with an output rate greater than 500 million words per second;
a.5.a.2 A resolution of 10 bit or more, but less than 12 bit, with an output rate greater than 200 million words per second;
a.5.a.3. A resolution of 12 bit with an output rate greater than 105 million words per second;
a.5.a.4. A resolution of more than 12 bit but equal to or less than 14 bit with an output rate greater than 10 million words per second; or
a.5.a.5. A resolution of more than 14 bit with an output rate greater than 2.5 million words per second.
a.5.b. Digital-to-analog converters with a resolution of 12 bit or more, and a “settling time” of less than 10 ns;
1. A resolution of n bit corresponds to a quantization of 2n levels.
2. The number of bits in the output word is equal to the resolution of the analogue-to-digital converter.
3. The output rate is the maximum output rate of the converter, regardless of architecture or oversampling. Vendors may also refer to the output rate as sampling rate, conversion rate or throughput rate. It is often specified in megahertz (MHz) or mega samples per second (MSPS).
4. For the purpose of measuring output rate, one output word per second is equivalent to one Hertz or one sample per second.
a.6. Electro-optical and “optical integrated circuits” designed for “signal processing” having all of the following:
a.6.a. One or more than one internal “laser” diode;
a.6.b. One or more than one internal light detecting element; and
a.6.c. Optical waveguides;
a.7. Field programmable logic devices having any of the following:
a.7.a. An equivalent usable gate count of more than 30,000 (2 input gates);
a.7.b. A typical “basic gate propagation delay time” of less than 0.1 ns; or
a.7.c. A toggle frequency exceeding 133 MHz;
Note: 3A001.a.7 includes: Simple Programmable Logic Devices (SPLDs), Complex Programmable Logic Devices (CPLDs), Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs), Field Programmable Logic Arrays (FPLAs), and Field Programmable Interconnects (FPICs).
N.B.: Field programmable logic devices are also known as field programmable gate or field programmable logic arrays.
a.8. [RESERVED]
a.9. Neural network integrated circuits;
a.10. Custom integrated circuits for which the function is unknown, or the control status of the equipment in which the integrated circuits will be used is unknown to the manufacturer, having any of the following:
a.10.a. More than 1,000 terminals;
a.10.b. A typical “basic gate propagation delay time” of less than 0.1 ns; or
a.10.c. An operating frequency exceeding 3 GHz;
a.11. Digital integrated circuits, other than those described in 3A001.a.3 to 3A001.a.10 and 3A001.a.12, based upon any compound semiconductor and having any of the following:
a.11.a. An equivalent gate count of more than 3,000 (2 input gates); or
a.11.b. A toggle frequency exceeding 1.2 GHz;
a.12. Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) processors having a rated execution time for an N-point complex FFT of less than (N log
b. Microwave or millimeter wave components, as follows:
b.1. Electronic vacuum tubes and cathodes, as follows:
3A001.b.1 does not control tubes designed or rated for operation in any frequency band which meets all of the following characteristics:
(a) Does not exceed 31.8 GHz; and
(b) Is “allocated by the ITU” for radio-communications services, but not for radio-determination.
3A001.b.1 does not control non-“space-qualified” tubes which meet all the following characteristics:
(a) An average output power equal to or less than 50 W; and
(b) Designed or rated for operation in any frequency band which meets all of the following characteristics:
(1) Exceeds 31.8 GHz but does not exceed 43.5 GHz; and
(2) Is “allocated by the ITU” for radio-communications services, but not for radio-determination.
b.1.a. Traveling wave tubes, pulsed or continuous wave, as follows:
b.1.a.1. Operating at frequencies exceeding 31.8 GHz;
b.1.a.2. Having a cathode heater element with a turn on time to rated RF power of less than 3 seconds;
b.1.a.3. Coupled cavity tubes, or derivatives thereof, with a “fractional bandwidth” of more than 7% or a peak power exceeding 2.5 kW;
b.1.a.4. Helix tubes, or derivatives thereof, with any of the following characteristics:
b.1.a.4.a. An “instantaneous bandwidth” of more than one octave, and average power (expressed in kW) times frequency (expressed in GHz) of more than 0.5;
b.1.a.4.b. An “instantaneous bandwidth” of one octave or less, and average power (expressed in kW) times frequency (expressed in GHz) of more than 1; or
b.1.a.4.c. Being “space qualified”;
b.1.b. Crossed-field amplifier tubes with a gain of more than 17 dB;
b.1.c. Impregnated cathodes designed for electronic tubes producing a continuous emission current density at rated operating conditions exceeding 5 A/cm
b.2. Microwave monolithic integrated circuits (MMIC) power amplifiers having any of the following:
b.2.a. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 3.2 GHz up to and including 6 GHz and with an average output power greater than 4W (36 dBm) with a “fractional bandwidth” greater than 15%;
b.2.b. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 6 GHz up to and including 16 GHz and with an average output power greater than 1W (30 dBm) with a “fractional bandwidth” greater than 10%;
b.2.c. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 16 GHz up to and including 31.8 GHz and with an average output power greater than 0.8W (29 dBm) with a “fractional bandwidth” greater than 10%;
b.2.d. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 31.8 GHz up to and including 37.5 GHz;
b.2.e. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 37.5 GHz up to and including 43.5 GHz and with an average output power greater than 0.25W (24 dBm) with a “fractional bandwidth” greater than 10%; or
b.2.f. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 43.5 GHz.
3A001.b.2 does not control broadcast satellite equipment designed or rated to operate in the frequency range of 40.5 to 42.5 GHz.
The control status of the MMIC whose rated operating frequency includes frequencies listed in more than one frequency range, as defined by 3A001.b.2.a through 3A001.b.2.f, is determined by the lowest average output power control threshold.
Notes 1 and 2 following the Category 3 heading for A. Systems, Equipment, and Components mean that 3A001.b.2. does not control MMICs if they are specially designed for other applications, e.g., telecommunications, radar, automobiles.
b.3. Discrete microwave transistors having any of the following:
b.3.a. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 3.2 GHz up to and including 6 GHz and having an average output power greater than 60W (47.8 dBm);
b.3.b. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 6 GHz up to and including 31.8 GHz and having an average output power greater than 20W (43 dBm);
b.3.c. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 31.8 GHz up to and including 37.5 GHz and having an average output power greater than 0.5W (27 dBm);
b.3.d. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 37.5 GHz up to and including 43.5 GHz and having an average output power greater than 1W (30 dBm); or
b.3.e. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 43.5 GHz.
The control status of a transistor whose rated operating frequency includes frequencies listed in more than one frequency range, as defined by 3A001.b.3.a through 3A001.b.3.e, is determined by the lowest average output power control threshold.
b.4. Microwave solid state amplifiers and microwave assemblies/modules containing microwave amplifiers having any of the following:
b.4.a. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 3.2 GHz up to and including 6 GHz and with an average output power greater than 60W (47.8 dBm) with a “fractional bandwidth” greater than 15%;
b.4.b. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 6 GHz up to and including 31.8 GHz and with an average output power greater than 15W (42 dBm) with a “fractional bandwidth” greater than 10%;
b.4.c. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 31.8 GHz up to and including 37.5 GHz;
b.4.d. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 37.5 GHz up to and including 43.5 GHz and with an average output power greater than 1W (30 dBm) with a “fractional bandwidth” greater than 10%;
b.4.e. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 43.5 GHz; or
b.4.f. Rated for operation at frequencies above 3.2 GHz and all of the following:
b.4.f.1. An average output power (in watts), P, greater than 150 divided by the maximum operating frequency (in GHz) squared [P > 150 W*GHz
b.4.f.2. A fractional bandwidth of 5% or greater; and
b.4.f.3. Any two sides perpendicular to one another with length d (in cm) equal to or less than 15 divided by the lowest operating frequency in GHz [d ≤ 15 cm*GHz/ f
N.B.: MMIC power amplifiers should be evaluated against the criteria in 3A001.b.2.
3A001.b.4. does not control broadcast satellite equipment designed or rated to operate in the frequency range of 40.5 to 42.5 GHz.
The control status of an item whose rated operating frequency includes frequencies listed in more than one frequency range, as defined by 3A001.b.4.a through 3A001.b.4.e, is determined by the lowest average output power control threshold.
b.5. Electronically or magnetically tunable band-pass or band-stop filters having more than 5 tunable resonators capable of tuning across a 1.5:1 frequency band (f
b.5.a. A band-pass bandwidth of more than 0.5% of center frequency; or
b.5.b. A band-stop bandwidth of less than 0.5% of center frequency;
b.6. [RESERVED]
b.7. Mixers and converters designed to extend the frequency range of equipment described in 3A002.c, 3A002.e or 3A002.f beyond the limits stated therein;
b.8. Microwave power amplifiers containing tubes controlled by 3A001.b and having all of the following:
b.8.a. Operating frequencies above 3 GHz;
b.8.b. An average output power density exceeding 80 W/kg; and
b.8.c. A volume of less than 400 cm
3A001.b.8 does not control equipment designed or rated for operation in any frequency band which is “allocated by the ITU” for radio-communications services, but not for radio-determination.
b.9. Microwave power modules (MPM), consisting of, at least, a traveling wave tube, a microwave monolithic integrated circuit and an integrated electronic power conditioner, having all of the following characteristics:
b.9.a. A turn-on time from off to fully operational in less than 10 seconds;
b.9.b. A volume less than the maximum rated power in Watts multiplied by 10 cm
b.9.c. An “instantaneous bandwidth” greater than 1 octave (f
b.9.c.1. For frequencies equal to or less than 18 GHz, an RF output power greater than 100 W; or
b.9.c.2. Having a frequency greater than 18 GHz.
1. To calculate the control volume in 3A001.b.9.b., the following example is provided: for a maximum rated power of 20 W, the volume would be: 20 W × 10 cm
2. The turn-on time in 3A001.b.9.a. refers to the time from fully-off to fully operational; i.e., it includes the warm-up time of the MPM.
c. Acoustic wave devices, as follows, and specially designed components therefor:
c.1. Surface acoustic wave and surface skimming (shallow bulk) acoustic wave devices (i.e., “signal processing” devices employing elastic waves in materials), having any of the following:
c.1.a. A carrier frequency exceeding 2.5 GHz;
c.1.b. A carrier frequency exceeding 1 GHz, but not exceeding 2.5 GHz, and having any of the following:
c.1.b.1. A frequency side-lobe rejection exceeding 55 dB;
c.1.b.2. A product of the maximum delay time and the bandwidth (time in μs and bandwidth in MHz) of more than 100;
c.1.b.3. A bandwidth greater than 250 MHz; or
c.1.b.4. A dispersive delay of more than 10 μs; or
c.1.c. A carrier frequency of 1 GHz or less, having any of the following:
c.1.c.1. A product of the maximum delay time and the bandwidth (time in μs and bandwidth in MHz) of more than 100;
c.1.c.2. A dispersive delay of more than 10 μs; or
c.1.c.3. A frequency side-lobe rejection exceeding 55 dB and a bandwidth greater than 50 MHz;
c.2. Bulk (volume) acoustic wave devices (i.e., “signal processing” devices employing elastic waves) that permit the direct processing of signals at frequencies exceeding 1 GHz;
c.3. Acoustic-optic “signal processing” devices employing interaction between acoustic waves (bulk wave or surface wave) and light waves that permit the direct processing of signals or images, including spectral analysis, correlation or convolution;
d. Electronic devices and circuits containing components, manufactured from “superconductive” materials specially designed for operation at temperatures below the “critical temperature” of at least one of
d.1. Current switching for digital circuits using “superconductive” gates with a product of delay time per gate (in seconds) and power dissipation per gate (in watts) of less than 10-14 J; or
d.2. Frequency selection at all frequencies using resonant circuits with Q-values exceeding 10,000;
e. High energy devices, as follows:
e.1. Cells and photovoltaic arrays, as follows:
e.1.a. Primary cells having an energy density exceeding 550 Wh/kg at 293 K (20 °C); e.1.b. Secondary cells having an energy density exceeding 250 Wh/kg at 293 K (20 °C);
1. For the purpose of 3A001.e.1., energy density (Wh/kg) is calculated from the nominal voltage multiplied by the nominal capacity in ampere-hours divided by the mass in kilograms. If the nominal capacity is not stated, energy density is calculated from the nominal voltage squared then multiplied by the discharge duration in hours divided by the discharge load in Ohms and the mass in kilograms.
2. For the purpose of 3A001.e.1., a ‘cell' is defined as an electrochemical device, which has positive and negative electrodes, and electrolyte, and is a source of electrical energy. It is the basic building block of a battery.
3. For the purpose of 3A001.e.1.a., a ‘primary cell' is a ‘cell' that is not designed to be charged by any other source.
4. For the purpose of 3A001.e.1.b., a ‘secondary cell' is a ‘cell' that is designed to be charged by an external electrical source.
3A001.e. does not control batteries, including single cell batteries.
e.1.c. “Space qualified” and radiation hardened photovoltaic arrays with a specific power exceeding 160 W/m
e.2. High energy storage capacitors, as follows:
e.2.a. Capacitors with a repetition rate of less than 10 Hz (single shot capacitors) having all of the following:
e.2.a.1. A voltage rating equal to or more than 5 kV;
e.2.a.2. An energy density equal to or more than 250 J/kg; and
e.2.a.3. A total energy equal to or more than 25 kJ;
e.2.b. Capacitors with a repetition rate of 10 Hz or more (repetition rated capacitors) having all of the following:
e.2.b.1. A voltage rating equal to or more than 5 kV;
e.2.b.2. An energy density equal to or more than 50 J/kg;
e.2.b.3. A total energy equal to or more than 100 J; and
e.2.b.4. A charge/discharge cycle life equal to or more than 10,000;
e.3. “Superconductive” electromagnets and solenoids specially designed to be fully charged or discharged in less than one second, having all of the following:
3A001.e.3 does not control “superconductive” electromagnets or solenoids specially designed for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) medical equipment.
e.3.a. Energy delivered during the discharge exceeding 10 kJ in the first second;
e.3.b. Inner diameter of the current carrying windings of more than 250 mm; and
e.3.c. Rated for a magnetic induction of more than 8 T or “overall current density” in the winding of more than 300 A/mm
f. Rotary input type shaft absolute position encoders having any of the following:
f.1. A resolution of better than 1 part in 265,000 (18 bit resolution) of full scale; or
f.2. An accuracy better than ±2.5 seconds of arc.
g. Solid-state pulsed power switching thyristor devices and thyristor modules using either electrically, optically, or electron radiation controlled switch methods, having any of the following:
1. A maximum turn-on current rate of rise (di/dt) greater than 30,000 A/μs and off-state voltage greater than 1,100 V; or
2. A maximum turn-on current rate of rise (di/dt) greater than 2,000 A/μs and all of the following:
a. An off-state peak voltage equal to or greater than 3,000 V; and
b. A peak (surge) current equal to or greater than 3,000 A.
3A001.g. includes:
3A001.g. does not control thyristor devices and thyristor modules incorporated into equipment designed for civil railway or “civil aircraft” applications.
LVS: * * *
GBS: Yes for 3A002.a.1.; and 3A002.b (synthesized output frequency of 2.6 GHz or less and a “frequency switching time” of 0.3 ms or more).
CIV: Yes for 3A002.a.1 (provided all of the following conditions are met: (1) Bandwidths do not exceed: 4 MHz per track and have up to 28 tracks or 2 MHz per track and have up to 42 tracks; (2) Tape speed does not exceed 6.1 m/s; (3) They are not designed for underwater use; (4) They are not ruggedized for military use; and (5) Recording density does not exceed 653.2 magnetic flux sine waves per mm); and 3A002.b (synthesized output frequency of 2.6 GHz or less; and a “frequency switching time” of 0.3 ms or more).
a. Recording equipment, as follows, and specially designed test tape therefor:
a.1. Analog instrumentation magnetic tape recorders, including those permitting the recording of digital signals (e.g., using a high density digital recording (HDDR) module), having any of the following:
a.1.a. A bandwidth exceeding 4 MHz per electronic channel or track;
a.1.b. A bandwidth exceeding 2 MHz per electronic channel or track and having more than 42 tracks; or
a.1.c. A time displacement (base) error, measured in accordance with applicable IRIG or EIA documents, of less than ±0.1 μs;
Analog magnetic tape recorders specially designed for civilian video purposes are not considered to be instrumentation tape recorders.
a.2. Digital video magnetic tape recorders having a maximum digital interface transfer rate exceeding 360 Mbit/s;
3A002.a.2 does not control digital video magnetic tape recorders specially designed for television recording using a signal format, which may include a compressed signal format, standardized or recommended by the ITU, the IEC, the SMPTE, the EBU, the ETSI, or the IEEE for civil television applications.
a.3. Digital instrumentation magnetic tape data recorders employing helical scan techniques or fixed head techniques, having any of the following:
a.3.a. A maximum digital interface transfer rate exceeding 175 Mbit/s; or
a.3.b. Being “space qualified”;
3A002.a.3 does not control analog magnetic tape recorders equipped with HDDR conversion electronics and configured to record only digital data.
a.4. Equipment, having a maximum digital interface transfer rate exceeding 175 Mbit/s, designed to convert digital video magnetic tape recorders for use as digital instrumentation data recorders;
a.5. Waveform digitizers and transient recorders having all of the following:
a.5.a. Digitizing rates equal to or more than 200 million samples per second and a resolution of 10 bits or more; and
a.5.b. A continuous throughput of 2 Gbit/s or more;
a.6. Digital instrumentation data recorders, using magnetic disk storage technique, having all of the following:
a.6.a. Digitizing rate equal to or more than 100 million samples per second and a resolution of 8 bits or more; and
a.6.b. A continuous throughput of 1 Gbit/s or more;
b. “Frequency synthesizer” “electronic assemblies” having a “frequency switching time” from one selected frequency to another of less than 1 ms;
The control status of signal analyzers, signal generators, network analyzers, and microwave test receivers as stand-alone instruments is determined by 3A002.c., 3A002.d., 3A002.e., and 3A002.f., respectively.
c. Radio frequency “signal analyzers”, as follows:
c.1. “Signal analyzers” capable of analyzing any frequencies exceeding 31.8 GHz but not exceeding 37.5 GHz and having a 3 dB resolution bandwidth (RBW) exceeding 10 MHz;
c.2. “Signal analyzers” capable of analyzing frequencies exceeding 43.5 GHz;
c.3. “Dynamic signal analyzers” having a “real-time bandwidth” exceeding 500 kHz;
3A002.c.3 does not control those “dynamic signal analyzers” using only constant percentage bandwidth filters (also known as octave or fractional octave filters).
d. Frequency synthesized signal generators producing output frequencies, the accuracy and short term and long term stability of which are controlled, derived from or disciplined by the internal master reference oscillator, and having any of the following:
d.1. A maximum synthesized frequency exceeding 31.8 GHz, but not exceeding 43.5 GHz and rated to generate a pulse duration of less than 100 ns;
d.2. A maximum synthesized frequency exceeding 43.5 GHz;
d.3. A “frequency switching time” from one selected frequency to another as specified by any of the following:
d.3.a. Less than 10 ns;
d.3.b. Less than 100 μs for any frequency change exceeding 1.6 GHz within the synthesized frequency range exceeding 3.2 GHz but not exceeding 10.6 GHz;
d.3.c. Less than 250 μs for any frequency change exceeding 550 MHz within the synthesized frequency range exceeding 10.6 GHz but not exceeding 31.8 GHz;
d.3.d. Less than 500 μs for any frequency change exceeding 550 MHz within the synthesized frequency range exceeding 31.8 GHz but not exceeding 43.5 GHz; or
d.3.e. Less than 1 ms within the synthesized frequency range exceeding 43.5 GHz; or
d.4. A single sideband (SSB) phase noise better than −(126 + 20 log
For the purpose of 3A002.d., the term frequency synthesized signal generators includes arbitrary waveform and function generators.
3A002.d. does not control equipment in which the output frequency is either produced by the addition or subtraction of two or more crystal oscillator frequencies, or by an addition or subtraction followed by a multiplication of the result.
2. For the purposes of 3A002.d.1., ‘pulse duration' is defined as the time interval between the leading edge of the pulse achieving 90% of the peak and the trailing edge of the pulse achieving 10% of the peak.
3A002.d does not control equipment in which the output frequency is either produced by the addition or subtraction of two or more crystal oscillator frequencies, or by an addition or subtraction followed by a multiplication of the result.
e. Network analyzers with a maximum operating frequency exceeding 43.5 GHz;
f. Microwave test receivers having all of the following:
f.1. A maximum operating frequency exceeding 43.5 GHz; and
f.2. Being capable of measuring amplitude and phase simultaneously;
g. Atomic frequency standards having any of the following:
g.1. Long-term stability (aging) less (better) than 1 x 10
g.2. Being “space qualified”.
3A002.g.1 does not control non-“space qualified” rubidium standards.
a. * * *
a.1. A performance speed of 5 GFLOPS or more and an arithmetic logic unit with an access width of 32 bit or more;
j. Cells as follows:
j.1. Primary cells having an energy density of 550 Wh/kg or less at 293 K (20°C);
j.2. Secondary cells having an energy density of 250 Wh/kg or less at 293 K (20°C).
3A991.j. does not control batteries, including single cell batteries.
1. For the purpose of 3A991.j energy density (Wh/kg) is calculated from the nominal voltage multiplied by the nominal capacity in ampere-hours divided by the mass in kilograms. If the nominal capacity is not stated, energy density is calculated from the nominal voltage squared then multiplied by the discharge duration in hours divided by the discharge load in Ohms and the mass in kilograms.
2. For the purpose of 3A991.j, a ‘cell’ is defined as an electrochemical device, which has positive and negative electrodes, and electrolyte, and is a source of electrical energy. It is the basic building block of a battery.
3. For the purpose of 3A991.j.1, a ‘primary cell’ is a ‘cell’ that is not designed to be charged by any other source.
4. For the purpose of 3A991.j.2., a ‘secondary cell’ is a ‘cell’ that is designed to be charged by an external electrical source.
LVS: * * *
GBS: Yes, except 3B001.a.2 (metal organic chemical vapor deposition reactors), a.3 (molecular beam epitaxial growth equipment using gas sources), .e (automatic loading multi-chamber central wafer handling systems only if connected to equipment controlled by 3B001.a.2, a.3, or .f), and .f (lithography equipment).
CIV: * * *
f. Lithography equipment, as follows:
f.1. Align and expose step and repeat (direct step on wafer) or step and scan (scanner) equipment for wafer processing using photo-optical or X-ray methods, having any of the following:
f.1.a. A light source wavelength shorter than 245 nm; or
f.1.b. Capable of producing a pattern with a minimum resolvable feature size of 180 nm or less;
f.2 Imprint lithography equipment capable of production features of 180 nm or less.
3B001.f.2 includes:
f.3. Equipment specially designed for mask making or semiconductor device processing using deflected focused electron beam, ion beam or “laser” beam, having any of the following:
f.3.a. A spot size smaller than 0.2 μm;
f.3.b. Being capable of producing a pattern with a feature size of less than 1 μm; or
f.3.c. An overlay accuracy of better than ± 0.20 μm (3 sigma);
i. Imprint lithography templates designed for integrated circuits by 3A001.
b. * * *
b.1. * * *
b.1.b. Equipment specially designed for purifying or processing III/V and II/VI semiconductor materials controlled by 3C001, 3C002, 3C003, 3C004, or 3C005 except crystal pullers, for which see 3B991.b.1.c below;
a. Positive resists designed for semiconductor lithography specially adjusted (optimized) for use at wavelengths below 245 nm;
LVS: $3000
GBS: Yes
CIV: Yes
The list of items controlled is contained in the ECCN heading.
License Requirement Note: See § 743.1 of the EAR for reporting requirements for exports under License Exceptions.
The list of items controlled is contained in the ECCN heading.
3E001 does not control “technology” for the “production” of equipment or components controlled by 3A003.
3E001 does not control “technology” for the “development” or “production” of integrated circuits controlled by 3A001.a.3 to a.12, having all of the following:
(a) Using “technology” of 0.5 μm or more; and
(b) Not incorporating multi-layer structures.
CIV: Yes, for deemed exports, as described in § 734.2(b)(2)(ii) of the EAR, of “technology” for the “development” or “production” of general purpose microprocessors with a vector processor unit with operand length of 64-bit or less, 64-bit floating operations not exceeding 32 GFLOPS, or 16-bit or more floating-point operations not exceeding 32 GMACS (billions of 16-bit fixed-point multiply-accumulate operations per second). Deemed exports under License Exception CIV are subject to a Foreign National Review (FNR) requirement, see § 740.5 of the EAR for more information about the FNR. License Exception CIV does not apply to ECCN 3E002 technology also required for the development or production of items controlled under ECCNs beginning with 3A, 3B, or 3C, or to ECCN 3E002 technology also controlled under ECCN 3E003.
TSR: Yes
a. A vector processor unit designed to perform more than two calculations on floating-point vectors (one dimensional arrays of 32-bit or larger numbers) simultaneously;
b. Designed to perform more than two 64-bit or larger floating-point operation results per cycle; or
c. Designed to perform more than four 16-bit fixed-point multiply-accumulate results per cycle (e.g., digital manipulation of analog information that has been previously converted into digital form, also known as digital signal processing).
3E002.c does not control technology for multimedia extensions.
1. 3E002 does not control “technology” for the “development” or “production” of microprocessor cores, having all of the following:
a. Using “technology” at or above 0.130 μm;
b. Incorporating multi-layer structures with five or fewer metal layers.
2. 3E002 includes “technology” for digital signal processors and digital array processors.
b. Telecommunication systems and equipment, and specially designed components and accessories therefor, having any of the following characteristics, functions or features:
b.1 * * *
b.2. Being radio equipment operating in the 1.5 MHz to 87.5 MHz band and having all of the following characteristics:
b.2.a. Automatically predicting and selecting frequencies and “total digital transfer rates” per channel to optimize the transmission; and
b.2.b. Incorporating a linear power amplifier configuration having a capability to support multiple signals simultaneously at an output power of 1 kW or more in the frequency range of 1.5 MHz or more but less than 30 MHz, or 250 W or more in the
g. Passive Coherent Location systems or equipment specially designed for detecting and tracking moving objects by measuring reflections of ambient radio frequency emissions, supplied by non-radar transmitters.
5A001.g. does not control:
a. Radio-astronomical equipment;
b. Systems or equipment that require any radio transmission from the target.
b. * * *
b.7. Being radio equipment employing any of the following:
b.7.a. Quadrature-amplitude-modulation (QAM) techniques above level 4 if the “total digital transfer rate” exceeds 8.5 Mbit/s;
b.7.b. QAM techniques above level 16 if the “total digital transfer rate” is equal to or less than 8.5 Mbit/s;
b.7.c. Other digital modulation techniques and having a “spectral efficiency” exceeding 3 bit/s/Hz; or
b.7.d. Operating in the 1.5 MHz to 87.5 MHz band and incorporating adaptive techniques providing more than 15 dB suppression of an interfering signal.
1. 5A991.b.7 does not control equipment specially designed to be integrated and operated in any satellite system for civil use.
2. 5A991.b.7 does not control radio relay equipment for operation in an ITU allocated band:
a. Having any of the following:
a.1. Not exceeding 960 MHz; or
a.2. With a “total digital transfer rate” not exceeding 8.5 Mbit/s; and
b. Having a “spectral efficiency” not exceeding 4 bit/s/Hz.
c. * * *
c.4. * * *
c.4.c. Operating in the 1.5 MHz to 87.5 MHz band and incorporating adaptive techniques providing more than 15 dB suppression of an interfering signal; or
License Requirement Notes: See § 743.1 of the EAR for reporting requirements for exports under License Exceptions.
a. * * *
a.3. * * *
a.3.d. * * *
a.3.d.1. Individual elements with a peak response in the wavelength range exceeding 1,200 nm but not exceeding 3,000 nm; and
a.3.e. Non-“space-qualified” linear (1-dimensional) “focal plane arrays”, having individual elements with a peak response in the wavelength range exceeding 3,000 nm but not exceeding 30,000 nm.
(a) Pulsed excimer “lasers” controlled by 6A005.d.4.c having all of the following characteristics:
(1) Operating at wavelengths between 240 and 360 nm;
(2) A repetition rate > 250 Hz; and
(3) An average output power > 500 W;
(b) Copper vapor “lasers” controlled by 6A005.b.4.b having all of the following characteristics:
(1) Operating at wavelengths between 500 and 600 nm; and
(2) An average output power ≥ 40 W;
(c) Pulsed carbon dioxide “lasers” controlled by 6A005.d.3.c (except industrial CO
(1) Operating at wavelengths between 9,000 and 11,000 nm;
(2)A repetition rate > 250 Hz;
(3) An average output power > 2.5kW; and
(4) A pulse width < 200ns;
(d) Argon ion “lasers” controlled by 6A005.a.2 having all of the following characteristics:
(1) Operating at wavelengths between 400 and 515 nm; and
(2) An average output power ≥ 50 W;
(e) Alexandrite “lasers” controlled by 6A005.c.2.b having all of the following characteristics:
(1) Operating at wavelengths between 720 and 800 nm;
(2) A bandwidth ≤ 0.005 nm;
(3) A repetition rate > 125 Hz; and
(4) Average output power > 30 W;
(f) Pulse-excited, Q-switched neodymium-doped (other than glass) “lasers” controlled by 6A005.b.6.b having all of the following characteristics:
(1) An output wavelength exceeding 1,000 nm, but not exceeding 1,100 nm;
(2) A pulse duration equal to or more than 1 ns; and
(3) A single-transverse mode output having an average power exceeding 40 W or a multiple-transverse mode output having an average power exceeding 50 W;
(g) Neodymium-doped (other than glass) “lasers” controlled by 6A005.b.2, b.3, or b.4, having all of the following characteristics:
(1) Incorporating frequency doubling for output wavelength between 500 and 550 nm; and
(2) Average output power > 40 W;
(h) Tunable pulsed single-mode dye laser oscillators controlled by 6A005.c.1.b and 6A005.c.2.b having all of the following characteristics:
(1) Operating at wavelengths between 300 nm and 800 nm;
(2) An average output power greater than 1 W;
(3) A repetition rate greater than 1 kHz; and
(4) Pulse width less than 100 ns;
(i) Tunable pulsed dye laser amplifiers and oscillators controlled by 6A005.c.1.b and 6A005.c.2.b having all of the following characteristics:
(1) Operating at wavelengths between 300 nm and 800 nm;
(2) An average output power greater than 30 W;
(3) A repetition rate greater than 1 kHz; and
(4) Pulse width less than 100 ns;
NP controls do not apply to single mode oscillators.
LVS: N/A for NP items $3000 for all other items
GBS: Yes, except 6A005.a.2, a.4, b.2.b, b.3.a, b.4.b, b.6.b, c.1.b, c.2.b, d.3.c, and d.4.c, which meets the parameters for NP controls set forth in the License Requirements Note.
CIV: Yes, except 6A005.a.2, a.4, b.3.a, b.2.b, b.3.a, b.4.b, b.6.b, c.1.b, c.2.b, d.3.c, and d.4.c, which meets the parameters for NP controls set forth in the License Requirements Note.
1. Pulsed “lasers” include those that run in a continuous wave (CW) mode with pulses superimposed.
2. Eximer, semiconductor, chemical, CO, CO
3. 6A005 includes fiber “lasers”.
4. The control status of “lasers” incorporating frequency conversion (i.e., wavelength change) by means other than one “laser” pumping another “laser” is determined by applying the control parameters for both the output of the source “laser” and the frequency-converted optical output.
5. 6A005 does not control the following “lasers”:
a. Ruby with output energy below 20 J;
b. Nitrogen;
c. Krypton.
a. Non-“tunable” continuous wave “(CW) lasers”, having any of the following:
a.1. An output wavelength less than 150 nm with an output power exceeding 1W;
a.2. An output wavelength of 150 nm or more but not exceeding 520 nm and having an output power exceeding 30 W;
6A005.a.2 does not control Argon “lasers” having an output power equal to or less than 50 W.
a.3. An output wavelength exceeding 520 nm but not exceeding 540 nm and having any of the following:
a.3.a. A single transverse mode output having an output power exceeding 50 W; or
a.3.b. A multiple transverse mode output having an output power exceeding 150 W;
a.4. An output wavelength exceeding 540 nm but not exceeding 800 nm and having an output power exceeding 30 W;
a.5. An output wavelength exceeding 800 nm but not exceeding 975 nm and having any of the following:
a.5.a. A single transverse mode output having an output power exceeding 50 W; or
a.5.b. A multiple transverse mode output having an output power exceeding 80 W;
a.6. An output wavelength exceeding 975 nm but not exceeding 1,150 nm and having any of the following;
a.6.a. A single transverse mode output having any of the following:
a.6.a.1. A “wall-plug efficiency” exceeding 12% and an output power exceeding 100 W; or
a.6.a.2. An output power exceeding 150 W; or
a.6.b. A multiple transverse mode output having any of the following:
a.6.b.1. A “wall-plug efficiency” exceeding 18% and an output power exceeding 500 W; or
a.6.b.2. An output power exceeding 2 kW;
6A005.a.6.b does not control multiple transverse mode, industrial “lasers” with output power exceeding 2 kW and not exceeding 6 kW with a total mass greater than 1,200 kg. For the purpose of this note, total mass includes all components required to operate the “laser”, e.g., “laser”, power supply, heat exchanger, but excludes external optics for beam conditioning and/or delivery.
a.7. An output wavelength exceeding 1,150 nm but not exceeding 1,555 nm and having any of the following:
a.7.a. A single transverse mode having an output power exceeding 50 W; or
a.7.b. A multiple transverse mode having an output power exceeding 80 W; or
a.8. An output wavelength exceeding 1,555 nm and having an output power exceeding 1 W.
b. Non-“tunable” “pulsed lasers”, having any of the following;
b.1. An output wavelength less than 150 nm and having any of the following:
b.1.a. An output energy exceeding 50 mJ per pulse and a “peak power” exceeding 1 W; or
b.1.b. An “average output power” exceeding 1 W;
b.2. An output wavelength of 150 nm or more but not exceeding 520 nm and having any of the following:
b.2.a. An output energy exceeding 1.5 J per pulse and a “peak power” exceeding 30 W; or
b.2.b. An “average output power” exceeding 30 W;
6A005.b.2.b does not control Argon “lasers” having an “average output power” equal to or less than 50 W.
b.3. An output wavelength exceeding 520 nm, but not exceeding 540 nm and having any of the following:
b.3.a. A single transverse mode output having any of the following:
b.3.a.1. An output energy exceeding 1.5 J per pulse and a “peak power” exceeding 50 W; or
b.3.a.2. An “average output power” exceeding 50 W; or
b.3.b. A multiple transverse mode output having any of the following:
b.3.b.1. An output energy exceeding 1.5 J per pulse and a “peak power” exceeding 150 W; or
b.3.b.2. An “average output power” exceeding 150 W;
b.4. An output wavelength exceeding 540 nm but not exceeding 800 nm and having any of the following:
b.4.a. An output energy exceeding 1.5 J per pulse and a “peak power” exceeding 30 W; or
b.4.b. An “average output power” exceeding 30 W;
b.5. An output wavelength exceeding 800 nm but not exceeding 975 nm and having any of the following:
b.5.a. A “pulse duration” not exceeding 1 μs and having any of the following:
b.5.a.1. An output energy exceeding 0.5 J per pulse and a “peak power” exceeding 50 W;
b.5.a.2. A single transverse mode output having an “average output power” exceeding 20 W; or
b.5.a.3. A multiple transverse mode output having an “average output power” exceeding 50 W; or
b.5.b. A “pulse duration” exceeding 1 μs and having any of the following:
b.5.b.1. An output energy exceeding 2 J per pulse and a “peak power” exceeding 50 W;
b.5.b.2. A single transverse mode output having an “average output power” exceeding 50 W; or
b.5.b.3. A multiple transverse mode output having an “average output power” exceeding 80 W.
b.6. An output wavelength exceeding 975 nm but not exceeding 1,150 nm and having any of the following:
b.6.a. A “pulse duration” of less than 1 μs and having any of the following:
b.6.a.1. An output “peak power” exceeding 5 GW per pulse;
b.6.a.2. An “average output power” exceeding 10 W; or
b.6.a.3. An output energy exceeding 0.1 J per pulse;
b.6.b. A “pulse duration” exceeding 1 ns but not exceeding 1 μs, and having any of the following:
b.6.b.1. A single transverse mode output having any of the following:
b.6.b.1.a. A “peak power” exceeding 100 MW;
b.6.b.1.b. An “average output power” exceeding 20 W limited by design to a maximum pulse repetition frequency less than or equal to 1 kHz;
b.6.b.1.c. A ‘wall-plug efficiency' exceeding 12% and an “average output power” exceeding 100 W and capable of operating at a pulse repetition frequency greater than 1 kHz;
b.6.b.1.d. An “average output power” exceeding 150 W and capable of operating at a pulse repetition frequency greater than 1 kHz; or
b.6.b.1.e. An output energy exceeding 2 J per pulse;
b.6.b.2. A multiple transverse mode output having any of the following:
b.6.b.2.a. A “peak power” exceeding 400 MW;
b.6.b.2.b. A ‘wall-plug efficiency' exceeding 18% and an “average output power” exceeding 500 W;
b.6.b.2.c. An “average output power” exceeding 2 kW; or
b.6.b.2.d. An output energy exceeding 4 J per pulse; or
b.6.c. A “pulse duration” exceeding 1 μs and having any of the following:
b.6.c.1. A single transverse mode output having any of the following:
b.6.c.1.a. A “peak power” exceeding 500 kW;
b.6.c.1.b. A ’wall-plug efficiency' exceeding 12% and an “average output power” exceeding 100 W; or
b.6.c.1.c. An “average output power” exceeding 150 W; or
b.6.c.2. A multiple transverse mode output having any of the following:
b.6.c.2.a. A “peak power” exceeding 1 MW;
b.6.c.2.b. A ‘wall-plug efficiency' exceeding 18% and an “average output power” exceeding 500 W; or
b.6.c.2.c. An “average output power” exceeding 2 kW;
b.7. An output wavelength exceeding 1,150 nm but not exceeding 1,555 nm and having any of the following:
b.7.a. A “pulse duration” not exceeding 1 μs and having any of the following:
b.7.a.1. An output energy exceeding 0.5 J per pulse and a “peak power” exceeding 50 W;
b.7.a.2. A single transverse mode output having an “average output power” exceeding 20 W; or
b.7.a.3. A multiple transverse mode output having an “average output power” exceeding 50 W; or
b.7.b. A “pulse duration” exceeding 1 μs and having any of the following:
b.7.b.1. An output energy exceeding 2 J per pulse and a “peak power” exceeding 50 W;
b.7.b.2. A single transverse mode output having an “average output power” exceeding 50 W; or
b.7.b.3. A multiple transverse mode output having an “average output power” exceeding 80 W; or
b.8. An output wavelength exceeding 1,555 nm and having any of the following:
b.8.a. An output energy exceeding 100 mJ per pulse and a “peak power” exceeding 1 W; or
b.8.b. An “average output power” exceeding 1 W;
c. “Tunable” lasers, having any of the following:
6A005.c includes titanium-sapphire (Ti: Al
c.1. An output wavelength less than 600 nm and having any of the following:
c.1.a. An output energy exceeding 50 mJ per pulse and a “peak power” exceeding 1 W; or
c.1.b. An average or CW output power exceeding 1W;
c.2. An output wavelength of 600 nm or more but not exceeding 1,400 nm and having any of the following:
c.2.a. An output energy exceeding 1 J per pulse and a “peak power” exceeding 20 W; or
c.2.b. An average or CW output power exceeding 20 W; or
c.3. An output wavelength exceeding 1,400 nm and having any of the following:
c.3.a. An output energy exceeding 50 mJ per pulse and a “peak power” exceeding 1 W; or
c.3.b. An average or CW output power exceeding 1 W;
d. Other “lasers”, not controlled in 6A005.a., 6A005.b, or 6A005.c, as follows:
d.1. Semiconductor “lasers”, as follows:
1. 6A005.d.1 includes semiconductor “lasers” having optical output connectors (e.g., fiber optic pigtails).
2. The control status of semiconductor “lasers” specially designed for other equipment is determined by the control status of the other equipment.
d.1.a. Individual single-transverse mode semiconductor “lasers”, having any of the following:
d.1.a.1. A wavelength equal to or less than 1,510 nm and having an average or CW output power exceeding 1.5 W; or
d.1.a.2. A wavelength greater than 1,510 nm, and having an average or CW output power exceeding 500 mW;
d.1.b. Individual, multiple-transverse mode semiconductor “lasers”, having any of the following:
d.1.b.1. A wavelength of less than 1,400 nm and having an average or CW output power exceeding 10W;
d.1.b.2. A wavelength equal to or greater than 1,400 nm and less than 1,900 nm, and having an average or CW output power exceeding 2.5 W; or
d.1.b.3. A wavelength equal to or greater than 1,900 nm and having an average or CW output power exceeding 1 W.
d.1.c. Individual semiconductor “laser” arrays, having any of the following:
d.1.c.1. A wavelength of less than 1,400 nm and having an average or CW output power exceeding 80 W;
d.1.c.2. A wavelength equal to or greater than 1,400 nm and less than 1,900 nm and having an average or CW output power exceeding 25 W; or
d.1.c.3. A wavelength equal to or greater than 1,900 nm and having an average or CW output power exceeding 10 W.
d.1.d. Array stacks of semiconductor “lasers” containing at least one array that is controlled under 6A005.d.1.c.
1. Semiconductor “lasers” are commonly called “laser” diodes.
2. An “array” consists of multiple semiconductor “laser” emitters fabricated as a single chip so that the centers of the emitted light beams are on parallel paths.
3. An “array stack” is fabricated by stacking, or otherwise assembling, “arrays” so that the centers of the emitted light beams are on parallel paths.
d.2. Carbon monoxide (CO) “lasers” having any of the following:
d.2.a. An output energy exceeding 2 J per pulse and a “peak power” exceeding 5 kW; or
d.2.b. An average or CW output power exceeding 5 kW;
d.3. Carbon dioxide (CO
d.3.a. A CW output power exceeding 15 kW;
d.3.b. A pulsed output having a “pulse duration” exceeding 10 μs and having any of the following:
d.3.b.1. An “average output power” exceeding 10 kW; or
d.3.b.2. A “peak power” exceeding 100 kW; or
d.3.c. A pulsed output having a “pulse duration” equal to or less than 10 μs and having any of the following:
d.3.c.1. A pulse energy exceeding 5 J per pulse; or
d.3.c.2. An “average output power” exceeding 2.5 kW;
d.4. Excimer “lasers”, having any of the following:
d.4.a. An output wavelength not exceeding 150 nm and having any of the following:
d.4.a.1. An output energy exceeding 50 mJ per pulse; or
d.4.a.2. An “average output power” exceeding 1 W;
d.4.b. An output wavelength exceeding 150 nm but not exceeding 190 nm and having any of the following:
d.4.b.1. An output energy exceeding 1.5 J per pulse; or
d.4.b.2. An “average output power” exceeding 120 W;
d.4.c. An output wavelength exceeding 190 nm but not exceeding 360 nm and having any of the following:
d.4.c.1. An output energy exceeding 10 J per pulse; or
d.4.c.2. An “average output power” exceeding 500 W; or
d.4.d. An output wavelength exceeding 360 nm and having any of the following:
d.4.d.1. An output energy exceeding 1.5 J per pulse; or
d.4.d.2. An “average output power” exceeding 30 W;
For excimer “lasers” specially designed for lithography equipment, see 3B001.
d.5. “Chemical lasers”, as follows:
d.5.a. Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) “lasers”;
d.5.b. Deuterium Fluoride (DF) “lasers”;
d.5.c. “Transfer lasers”, as follows:
d.5.c.1. Oxygen Iodine (O
d.5.c.2. Deuterium Fluoride-Carbon dioxide (DF-CO
d.6. “Non-repetitive pulsed” Neodymium (Nd) glass “lasers”, having any of the following:
d.6.a. A “pulse duration” not exceeding 1 μs and an output energy exceeding 50 J per pulse; or
d.6.b. A “pulse duration” exceeding 1 μs and an output energy exceeding 100 J per pulse;
“Non-repetitive pulsed” refers to “lasers” that produce either a single output pulse or that have a time interval between pulses exceeding one minute.
e. Components, as follows:
e.1. Mirrors cooled either by active cooling or by heat pipe cooling;
e.2. Optical mirrors or transmissive or partially transmissive optical or electro-optical components specially designed for use with controlled “lasers”;
f. Optical equipment, as follows:
N.B.: For shared aperture optical elements, capable of operating in “Super-High Power Laser” (“SHPL”) applications, see the U.S. Munitions List (22 CFR part 121).
f.1. Dynamic wavefront (phase) measuring equipment capable of mapping at least 50 positions on a beam wavefront having any the following:
f.1.a. Frame rates equal to or more than 100 Hz and phase discrimination of at least 5% of the beam's wavelength; or
f.1.b. Frame rates equal to or more than 1,000 Hz and phase discrimination of at least 20% of the beam's wavelength;
f.2. “Laser” diagnostic equipment capable of measuring “SHPL” system angular beam steering errors of equal to or less than 10 μrad;
f.3. Optical equipment and components specially designed for a phased-array “SHPL” system for coherent beam combination to an accuracy of lambda/10 at the designed wavelength, or 0.1 μm, whichever is the smaller;
f.4. Projection telescopes specially designed for use with “SHPL” systems.
6A008 does not control:
a. Secondary surveillance radar (SSR);
b. Civil Automotive Radar;
c. Displays or monitors used for air traffic control (ATC) having no more than 12 resolvable elements per mm;
d. Meteorological (weather) radar.
a. Operating at frequencies from 40 GHz to 230 GHz and having any of the following:
a.1. An “average output power” exceeding 100 mW; or
a.2. Locating accuracy of 1 m or less (better) in range and 0.2 degree or less (better) in azimuth;
a. Argon ion “lasers” having both of the following characteristics:
a.1. Operating at wavelengths between 400 nm and 515 nm; and
a.2. An average output power greater than 40 W;
b. Tunable pulsed single-mode dye laser oscillators having all of the following characteristics:
b.1. Operating at wavelengths between 600 nm and 800 nm;
b.2. Having an average output greater than 1 W;
b.3 A repetition rate greater than 1 kHz; and
b.4. Pulse width less than 100 ns;
c. [RESERVED]
d. Pulsed carbon dioxide “lasers” having all of the following characteristics:
d.1. Operating at wavelengths between 9,000 nm and 11,000 nm;
d.2. A repetition rate greater than 250 Hz;
d.3. An average output power greater than 500 W; and
d.4. Pulse width of less than 200 ns;
e. Para-hydrogen Raman shifters designed to operate at 16 micrometer output wavelength and at a repetition rate greater than 250 Hz.;
f. Neodymium-doped (other than glass) lasers with an output wavelength between 1000 and 1100 nm having either of the following:
f.1. Pulse-excited and Q-switched with a pulse duration equal to or greater than 1 ns, and having either of the following:
f.1.a. A single-transverse mode output with an average output power greater than 40 W; or
f.1.b. A multiple-transverse mode output with an average output power greater than 50 W; or
f.2. Incorporating frequency doubling to give an output wavelength between 500 and 550 nm with an average output power of greater than 40 W.
c. Ruby “lasers” having an output energy exceeding 20 J per pulse;
d. Non-“tunable” “pulsed lasers” having an output wavelength exceeding 975 nm but not exceeding 1,150 nm and having any of the following:
d.1. A “pulse duration” equal to or exceeding 1 ns but not exceeding 1 μs, and having any of the following:
d.1.a. A single transverse mode output and having any of the following:
d.1.a. A `wall-plug efficiency' exceeding 12% and an “average output power” exceeding 10 W and capable of operating at a pulse repetition frequency greater than 1 kHz; or
d.1.a.2.1. An “average output power” exceeding 20 W; or
d.1.b. A multiple transverse mode output and having any of the following:
d.1.b.1. A `wall-plug efficiency' exceeding 18% and an “average output power” exceeding 30 W;
d.1.b.2. A “peak power” exceeding 200 MW; or
d.1.b.3. An “average output power” exceeding 50 W; or
d.2. A “pulse duration” exceeding 1 μs and having any of the following:
d.2.a. A single transverse mode output and having any of the following:
d.2.a.1. A `wall-plug efficiency' exceeding 12% and an “average output power” exceeding 10 W and capable of operating at a pulse repetition frequency greater than 1 kHz; or
d.2.a.2. An “average output power” exceeding 20 W; or
d.2.b. A multiple transverse mode output and having any of the following:
d.2.b.1. A `wall-plug efficiency' exceeding 18% and an “average output power” exceeding 30 W; or
d.2.b.2. An “average output power” exceeding 500 W;
e. Non-“tunable” continuous wave “(CW) lasers”, having an output wavelength exceeding 975 nm but not exceeding 1,150 nm and having any of the following:
e.1. A single transverse mode output and having any of the following:
e.1.a. A `wall-plug efficiency' exceeding 12% and an “average output power” exceeding 10 W and capable of operating at a pulse repetition frequency greater than 1 kHz; or
e.1.b. An “average output power” exceeding 500 W; or
e.2. A multiple transverse mode output and having any of the following:
e.2.a. A `wall-plug efficiency' exceeding 18% and an “average output power” exceeding 30 W; or
e.2.b. An “average output power” exceeding 500 W;
6A995.e.1.b does not control multiple transverse mode, industrial “lasers” with output power less than o equal to 2kW with a total mass greater than 1,200kg. For the purpose of this note, total mass includes all components required to operate the “laser”, e.g., “laser”, power supply, heat exchanger, but excludes external optics for beam conditioning and/or delivery.
f. Non-“tunable” “lasers”, having a wavelength exceeding 1,400 nm, but not exceeding 1555 nm and having any of the following:
f.1. An output energy exceeding 100 mJ per pulse and a pulsed “peak power” exceeding 1 W; or
f.2. An average or CW output power exceeding 1 W.
a. Linear accelerometers having any of the following:
a.1. Specified to function at linear acceleration levels less than or equal to 15 g, and having any of the following:
a.1.a. A “bias” “stability” of less (better) than 130 micro g with respect to a fixed calibration value over a period of one year; or
a.1.b. A “scale factor” “stability” of less (better) than 130 ppm with respect to a fixed calibration value over a period of one year;
a.2. Specified to function at linear acceleration levels exceeding 15 g, and having all of the following:
a.2.a. A “bias” “repeatability” of less (better) than 5,000 micro g over a period of one year; and
a.2.b. A “scale factor” “repeatability” of less (better) than 2,500 ppm over a period of one year; or
a.3. Designed for use in inertial navigation or guidance systems and specified to function at linear acceleration levels exceeding 100 g.
b. Angular or rotational accelerometers specified to function at linear acceleration levels exceeding 100 g.
a. A “drift rate” “stability”, when measured in a 1 g environment over a period of one month, and with respect to a fixed calibration value, of less (better) than 0.5 degree per hour when specified to function at linear acceleration levels up to and including 100 g;
b. An “angle random walk” of less (better) than or equal to 0.0035 degree per square root hour; or
7A002.b does not control spinning mass gyros (spinning mass gyros are gyros which use a continually rotating mass to sense angular motion).
c. A rate range greater than or equal to 500 degrees per second and having any of the following:
c.1. A “drift rate” “stability”, when measured in a 1 g environment over a period of three minutes, and with respect to a fixed calibration value of less (better) than 40 degrees per hour; or
c.2 An “angle random walk” of less (better) than or equal to 0.2 degree per square root hour; or
d. Specified to function at linear acceleration levels exceeding 100 g.
d. Inertial measurement equipment including Inertial Measurement Units (IMU) and Inertial Reference Systems (IRS), incorporating accelerometers or gyros controlled by 7A001 or 7A002, and specially designed components therefor.
* * *
7A003 does not control inertial navigation systems that are certified for use on “civil aircraft” by civil authorities of a Wassenaar Arrangement Participating State, see Supplement No. 1 to Part 743 for a list of these countries.
CIV: N/A
TSR: N/A
The list of items controlled is contained in the ECCN heading.
a. Linear accelerometers designed for use in inertial navigation systems or in guidance systems of all types, usable in “missiles” having all of the following characteristics, and specially designed components therefore:
1. ‘Scale factor' “repeatability” less (better) than 1250 ppm; and
2. ‘Bias’ “repeatability” less (better) than 1250 micro g.
The measurement of ‘bias’ and ‘scale factor’ refers to one sigma standard deviation with respect to a fixed calibration over a period of one year.
b. Continuous output accelerometers of any type, specified to function at acceleration levels greater than 100 g, and specially designed components therefor.
a. “Software” specially designed or modified to improve the operational performance or reduce the navigational error of systems to the levels controlled by 7A003, 7A004 or 7A008;
b. “Source code” for hybrid integrated systems that improves the operational performance or reduces the navigational error of systems to the level controlled by 7A003 or 7A008 by continuously combining heading data with any of the following:
b.1. Doppler radar or sonar velocity data;
b.2. Global navigation satellite systems (
b.3. Data from ‘Data-Based Referenced Navigation’ (‘DBRN’') systems;
a. * * *
a.7. “DBRN” systems designed to navigate underwater using sonar or gravity databases that provide a positioning accuracy equal to or less (better) than 0.4 nautical miles.
a. Systems, equipment and components, specially designed or modified for submersible vehicles, designed to operate at depths exceeding 1,000 m, as follows:
a.1. Pressure housings or pressure hulls with a maximum inside chamber diameter exceeding 1.5 m;
a.2. Direct current propulsion motors or thrusters;
a.3. Umbilical cables, and connectors therefor, using optical fiber and having synthetic strength members;
a.4. Components manufactured from material specified in ECCN 8C001.
f. “Software” specially designed to design the internal cooling passages of aero gas turbine engine blades, vanes and tip shrouds;
g. “Software” having all of the following characteristics:
g.1. Being specially designed to predict aero thermal, aeromechanical and combustion conditions in aero gas turbine engines; and
g.2. Having theoretical modeling predictions of the aero thermal, aeromechanical and combustion conditions which have been validated with actual turbine engine (experimental or production) performance data.
For the purpose of national security controlled items, “source code” items are controlled either by “software” or by “software” and “technology” controls, except when such “source code” items are explicitly decontrolled.