Aging Administration
Commodity Credit Corporation
Farm Service Agency
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Commission of Fine Arts
Aging Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Final rule; technical amendment.
The Board of Governors (Board) is amending appendix A of Regulation CC to delete the reference to the Utica office of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and reassign the Federal Reserve routing symbols currently listed under that office to the head office of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland and the head office of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. The Board is also amending appendix B of Regulation CC to delete the reference to the Utica office. In addition, the Board is providing advance notice of future amendments to appendix A that are anticipated in connection with the next phase of the Reserve Banks' restructuring of the check-processing operations within the Federal Reserve System.
The amendments to appendix A under the Second and Fourth Federal Reserve Districts (Federal Reserve Banks of New York and Cleveland) that revise the listings for the Utica office and the Cleveland head office are effective February 23, 2008.
The amendment to appendix A under the Third Federal Reserve District (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia) is effective March 29, 2008. The removal of the second Federal Reserve District (Federal Reserve Bank of New York) is effective March 29, 2008.
The revision of appendix B is effective March 29, 2008.
Jack K. Walton II, Associate Director (202/452-2660), or Joseph P. Baressi, Financial Services Project Leader (202/452-3959), Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems; or Heatherun Sophia Allison (202/452-3565), Senior Counsel, Legal Division. For users of Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact 202/263-4869.
Regulation CC establishes the maximum period a depositary bank may wait between receiving a deposit and making the deposited funds available for withdrawal.
Appendix A to Regulation CC contains a routing number guide that assists banks in identifying local and nonlocal banks and thereby determining the maximum permissible hold periods for most deposited checks. The appendix includes a list of each Federal Reserve check-processing office and the first four digits of the routing number, known as the Federal Reserve routing symbol, of each bank that is served by that office for check-processing purposes. Banks whose Federal Reserve routing symbols are grouped under the same office are in the same check-processing region and thus are local to one another. Appendix B to Regulation CC reduces the generally permissible hold times for nonlocal check deposits collected between certain check-processing regions from 5 days to 3 days due to generally faster collection times between these regions.
The Reserve Banks announced in June 2007 that the check-processing operations of the Utica office of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York would cease in the first quarter of 2008.
The Board is amending the lists of routing symbols associated with the Federal Reserve Banks of New York, Philadelphia, and Cleveland to conform to the transfer of operations from the New York Reserve Bank's Utica office to the Cleveland and Philadelphia Reserve Banks' head offices. The amendments affecting the Federal Reserve Banks of New York and Cleveland that list the 0220, 2220, 0223, and 2223 routing symbols under the Cleveland head office are effective February 23, 2008. The amendments that list the 0213 and 2213 routing symbols under the Philadelphia head office and delete the appendix A reference to the Utica office are effective March 29, 2008. In addition, because the Utica check-processing region will no longer exist, the Board is deleting the appendix B reference to the Utica office, and these
The Board believes that today's notice should provide banks ample time to make any needed processing changes before the effective date of the amendments, including allowing affected banks to amend their availability schedules and related disclosures, if necessary, and provide their customers with notice of these changes.
The Federal Reserve Banks announced in June 2007
The Board plans to amend appendix A in connection with each stage of the restructuring to delete the name of the office that will no longer process checks and transfer the affected Federal Reserve routing symbols to another check-processing office. The Board intends to provide notice of each stage of the restructuring and the associated amendments to appendix A approximately 60 days prior to the effective date of the amendment in order to give affected banks ample time to make processing changes and, if necessary, amend their availability schedules and related disclosures and provide their customers with notice of any changes to their availability schedules.
The Board has not followed the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) relating to notice and public participation in connection with the adoption of the final rule. The revisions to appendix A and appendix B are technical in nature and are required by the statutory and regulatory definitions of “check-processing region.” Because there is no substantive change on which to seek public input, the Board has determined that the section 553(b) notice and comment procedures are unnecessary. In addition, the underlying consolidation of Federal Reserve Bank check-processing offices involves a matter relating to agency management, which is exempt from notice and comment procedures.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR Part 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board has reviewed the final rule under authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget. The technical amendments to appendix A of Regulation CC will delete the reference to the Utica office of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and reassign the routing symbols listed under that office to the head offices of the Federal Reserve Banks of Philadelphia and Cleveland. The technical amendment to appendix B of Regulation CC will delete the reference to the Utica office. The depository institutions that are located in the affected check-processing regions and that include the routing numbers in their disclosure statements would be required to notify customers of the resulting change in availability under § 229.18(e). However, all paperwork collection procedures associated with Regulation CC already are in place, and the Board accordingly anticipates that no additional burden will be imposed as a result of this rulemaking.
Banks, Banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
12 U.S.C. 4001-4010, 12 U.S.C. 5001-5018.
A depositary bank that is located in the following check-processing territories shall make funds deposited in an account by a nonlocal check described below available for withdrawal not later than the number of business days following the banking day on which funds are deposited, as specified below.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
During a heavy maintenance check on a DHC-4 aircraft, an operator discovered that both of the upper engine mount bracket assemblies on one aircraft were cracked. Further inspection of the operator's fleet confirmed that engine mount bracket assemblies on five out of ten aircraft were also cracked.
This AD becomes effective January 23, 2008.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication, listed in the AD as of January 23, 2008.
We must receive comments on this AD by February 7, 2008.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
George Duckett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-7325; fax (516) 794-5531.
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-26, dated November 7, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
During a heavy maintenance check on a DHC-4 aircraft, an operator discovered that both of the upper engine mount bracket assemblies on one aircraft were cracked. Further inspection of the operator's fleet confirmed that engine mount bracket assemblies on five out of ten aircraft were also cracked.
As an interim action to prevent failure of upper engine mount bracket assemblies, this directive mandates a one-time fluorescent penetrant inspection. Subsequent corrective action may be implemented in the future pending results of the investigation.
Viking Air Limited has issued Alert Service Bulletin V4/0001, dated November 9, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because failure of the upper engine mount bracket assembly could lead to separation of the engine from the airplane. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective January 23, 2008.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to all Viking Air Limited Model (Caribou) DHC-4 and (Caribou) DHC-4A airplanes, certificated in any category.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54: Nacelles/Pylons.
(e) The mandatory continued airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
“During a heavy maintenance check on a DHC-4 aircraft, an operator discovered that both of the upper engine mount bracket assemblies on one aircraft were cracked. Further inspection of the operator's fleet confirmed that engine mount bracket assemblies on five out of ten aircraft were also cracked.
“As an interim action to prevent failure of upper engine mount bracket assemblies, this directive mandates a one-time fluorescent penetrant inspection. Subsequent corrective action may be implemented in the future pending results of the investigation.”
Failure of the upper engine mount bracket assembly could result in separation of the engine from the airplane. Corrective actions include replacing any cracked engine mount bracket assembly with a new assembly.
(f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1) Within 10 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, do a fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI) for cracking of the upper engine mount bracket assemblies having part numbers C4WM1090-1 and C4WM1090-2, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Viking Alert Service Bulletin V4/0001, dated November 9, 2007. Before further flight, replace any cracked engine mount bracket assembly with a new engine mount bracket assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the alert service bulletin.
(2) Within 7 days after completing the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, report any crack found to: Viking Technical Support, E-mail:
(3) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Viking All Operators Message 2007-4-11-02, Revision A, dated November 5, 2007, are considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this AD.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences.
(g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: George Duckett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-7325; fax (516) 794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(h) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-26, dated November 7, 2007; Viking All Operators Message 2007-4-11-02, Revision A, dated November 5, 2007; and Viking Alert Service Bulletin V4/0001, dated November 9, 2007; for related information.
(i) You must use Viking Alert Service Bulletin V4/0001, dated November 9, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Viking Air Limited, 9574 Hampden Road, Sidney, British Columbia V8L 5V5, Canada.
(3) You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action will establish Class E airspace at Wheatland, WY. Additional Class E airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) at Phifer Airfield. This will improve the safety of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft executing the new RNAV GPS SIAP at Phifer Airfield, Wheatland, WY.
Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, System Support Group, Western Service Area, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 917-6726.
On September 18, 2007, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9R signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Wheatland, WY. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate IFR aircraft executing a new RNAV (GPS) approach procedure at Phifer Airfield, Wheatland, WY.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes additional controlled airspace at Phifer Airfield, Wheatland, WY.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E. O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9-mile radius of Phifer Airfield, WY and within 4 miles north and 4 miles south of the Phifer Airfield, WY 080° radial extending from the 9-mile radius to 12.90 miles east of the Phifer Airfield, WY.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC).
Final rule.
This document contains amendments to project review regulations. These amendments include language clarifying the definition of “agricultural water use,” and providing a qualified exception to the consumptive use approval requirements for agricultural water use projects. Also, an error in the “Authority” citation for Part 808 is corrected.
These rules are effective March 15, 2008.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 1721 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391.
Richard A. Cairo, General Counsel, 717-238-0423; Fax: 717-238-2436;
Since 1995, SRBC has continued to suspend the application of its consumptive use regulation to agricultural water uses pending the implementation of a mitigation method that is more suited to agriculture's unique circumstances.
The Commission's member states have taken definitive steps to support projects that will provide storage and release of water to mitigate agricultural water use in their jurisdictions and thus satisfy the standards for consumptive use mitigation set forth in 18 CFR 806.22. The final rulemaking will amend 18 CFR 806.4 (a)(1) to provide an exception for agricultural water use projects from the consumptive use review and approval requirements of 18 CFR 806.4 (a)(1) and (3), unless water is diverted for use beyond lands that are at least partially in the basin, and provided the Commission makes a determination that the state-sponsored projects are sufficient to meet the consumptive use mitigation standards contained in 18 CFR 806.22.
A second amendment clarifies the definition of “agricultural water use” in 18 CFR 806.3, 806.4 and 806.6 by inserting the word “products” after the word “turf.” This will clarify that the maintenance of turf grass as part of a project or facility, such as a golf course, does not constitute an agricultural water use. Only the raising of turf products for sale such as sod would constitute an agricultural water use with this clarification.
A third amendment corrects an error made as part of the December 5, 2006 rulemaking in the “Authority” citation to Part 808 by replacing the erroneous Sec. 3.5 (9) with the correct Sec. 3.4 (9).
The Commission convened a public hearing on November 7, 2007 in Williamsport, PA and held the comment
Administrative practice and procedure, Water resources.
Secs. 3.4, 3.5 (5), 3.8, 3.10 and 15.2, Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
(a) * * *
(1)
(3)
(b) * * *
(3) Transfer of land used primarily for the raising of food, fiber or forage crops, trees, flowers, shrubs, turf products, livestock, or poultry, or for aquaculture, to the extent that, and for so long as, the project's water use continues to be for such agricultural water use purposes.
(b) * * *
(3) A project involving the transfer of land used primarily for the raising of food, fiber or forage crops, trees, flowers, shrubs, turf products, livestock or poultry, or for aquaculture, to the extent that, and for so long as, the project's water use continues to be for such agricultural water use purposes.
Secs. 3.4 (9), 3.5 (5), 3.8, 3.10 and 15.2, Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the Washington Street S136 Bridge, across the Norwalk River, mile 0.0, at Norwalk, Connecticut. This deviation allows the bridge owner to open only one of the two moveable spans for bridge openings between January 2, 2008 and March 31, 2008. Vessels that require a full two-span bridge opening will be required to provide at least a twelve-hour advance notice by calling the bridge operator at (203) 866-7691. This deviation is necessary to facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance.
This deviation is effective from January 2, 2008 through March 31, 2008.
Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, One South Street, New York, New York, 10004, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (212) 668-7165. The First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch Office maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation.
Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at (212) 668-7165.
The Washington Street S136 Bridge, across the Norwalk River, mile 0.0, at Norwalk, Connecticut, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 9 feet at mean high water and 16 feet at mean low water. The existing regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.217(a).
The owner of the bridge, Connecticut Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation to facilitate scheduled structural maintenance and painting at the bridge.
In order to perform the structural and bridge painting operations, one of the two moveable spans must remain in the closed position in order to erect paint containment and perform the required bridge maintenance.
Under this temporary deviation the Washington Street S136 Bridge across the Norwalk River, mile 0.0, at Norwalk, Connecticut, need open only one of the two moveable spans for bridge openings from January 2, 2008 through March 31, 2008. Vessels requiring a full two-span bridge opening may do so provided that they give at least a twelve-hour advance notice to the bridge operator by calling (203) 866-7691.
Should the bridge maintenance authorized by this temporary deviation be completed before the end of the effective period published in this notice, the Coast Guard will rescind the remainder of this temporary deviation, and the bridge shall be returned to its normal operating schedule. Notice of the above action shall be provided to the public in the Local Notice to Mariners and the
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Chelsea Street Bridge across the Chelsea River at mile 1.2, between Chelsea and East Boston, Massachusetts. Under this temporary deviation, a two-hour advance notice shall be required between 3:30 p.m. and 7 a.m., from January 2, 2008 through January 8, 2008. Vessels that can pass under the draw without a bridge opening may do so at all times. This deviation is necessary to facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance.
This deviation is effective from 3:30 p.m. on January 2, 2008 through 7 a.m. on January 8, 2008.
Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (617) 223-8364. The First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch Office maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation.
John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at (617) 223-8364.
The Chelsea Street Bridge, across the Chelsea River at mile 1.2, between Chelsea and East Boston, Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 9 feet at mean high water and 19 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR § 117.593.
The owner of the bridge, the City of Boston, requested a temporary deviation to facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance, the installation of radio control system necessary to operate the bridge traffic signals and vehicular crash gates on the Chelsea side of the waterway.
The Chelsea Street Bridge facilitates deep draft commercial vessel traffic transiting to several oil facilities located upstream from the bridge. The oil facilities and the shipping pilots were notified. No objections were received.
Under this temporary deviation, the Chelsea Street Bridge shall open on signal after at least a two-hour advance notice is given by calling the bridge on VHF channel 13 or by telephone at 617-635-7636, between 3:30 p.m. and 7 a.m., from January 2, 2008 through January 8, 2008. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may do so at all times.
This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing two temporary safety zones 500 meters around the primary components, two independent submerged turret loading buoys, of Excelerate Energy's Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port, Atlantic Ocean, and its accompanying systems. The purpose of these temporary safety zones is to protect vessels and mariners from the potential safety hazards associated with deepwater port facilities. All vessels, with the exception of deepwater port support vessels, are prohibited from entering into or moving within either of the safety zones.
This rule is effective from January 8, 2008 until May 7, 2008.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2007-0191 and are available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet at
If you have questions on this rule, contact Chief Eldridge McFadden, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Boston, at 617-223-5160. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The deepwater port facilities discussed elsewhere in this rule were recently completed and present a potential safety
For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
On May 14, 2007, the Maritime Administration (MARAD), in accordance with the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended, issued a license to Excelerate Energy to own, construct, and operate a natural gas deepwater port, “Northeast Gateway.” Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port (NEGDWP) is located in the Atlantic Ocean, approximately 13 nautical miles south-southwest of the City of Gloucester, Massachusetts, in Federal waters. The coordinates for its two submerged turret loading (STL) buoys are: STL Buoy A, Latitude 42°23′39″ N, Longitude 070°35′28″ W and STL Buoy B, Latitude 42°23′55″ N, Longitude 070°36′48″ W. The NEGDWP will accommodate the mooring, connecting, and offloading of two liquefied natural gas carriers (LNGCs) at one time. The NEGDWP operator plans to offload LNGCs by degasifying the LNG on board the vessels. The regasified natural gas is then transferred through two submerged turret loading buoys, via a flexible riser leading to a seabed pipeline that ties into the Algonquin Gas Transmission Pipeline for transfer to shore.
Excelerate recently completed installation of the STL buoys and associated sub-surface infrastructure, which includes, among other things, a significant sub-surface sea anchor and mooring system.
The Coast Guard is establishing two temporary safety zones 500 meters around the Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port (NEGDWP) STL buoys as described above to protect vessels from these submerged hazards. All vessels, other than Liquefied Natural Gas carriers and associated support vessels, are prohibited from entering into or moving within these safety zones.
This rule is effective upon publishing in the
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
This regulation may have some impact on the public in excluding vessels from the areas of these zones. This impact, however, is outweighed by the safety risk mitigated by the enactment of these zones.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in those portions of Atlantic Ocean covered by the safety zones. For the reasons outlined in the Regulatory Evaluation section above, this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard wants to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call Lieutenant Commander Heather Morrison, Chief, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Boston, at 617-223-3028.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and will not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it 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.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of the categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation as the rule establishes a safety zone.
A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1226 and 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into or movement within these zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Boston. Liquefied Natural Gas Carrier vessels and related Support Vessels calling on the Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port are authorized to enter and move within the safety zones of this section in the normal course of their operations.
(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or authorized representative.
(4) Upon being hailed by an authorized representative by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed.
(5) Persons and vessels may contact the Coast Guard to request permission to enter the zone on VHF-FM Channel 16 or via phone at 617-223-5761.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is temporarily revising the security zones in the Port of Tampa, East Bay, Rattlesnake, Sunshine Skyway Bridge and Big Bend for the purpose of providing counter-surveillance, intrusion detection and response measures. Entry into these zones will be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from January 2, 2008, until February 7, 2008.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket [USCG-2007-0097] and are available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention Department, 155 Columbia Drive, Tampa, FL 33606-3598 between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. They are also available in our online docket via
Lt. Ronaydee Marquez, Waterways Management Division, Sector St. Petersburg, FL (813) 228-2191 Ext 8307.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM and delaying its effective date would be contrary to the public interest since immediate action is necessary to continue security zones where the [COTP Sector St. Petersburg, FL. 07-047] temporary final rule established them to ensure the security of vessels, facilities, and the surrounding areas within the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg Zone. The Coast Guard is making these changes permanent through the implementation of a final rule published elsewhere in today's
For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
This temporary final rule adopts the currently established revisions to the Tampa Bay security zones as published under [COTP Sector St. Petersburg, FL. 07-047] and as proposed the NPRM published on November 6, 2007. The temporary final rule [COTP Sector St. Petersburg, FL. 07-047] lasts only through January 1, 2008, at which time the final rule [USCG-2007-0062] published elsewhere in today's
Using the newly developed Maritime Security Risk Analysis Model tool, the working group evaluated risk to the maritime transportation system (MTS) within Tampa Bay. The results of the risk assessment indicated the need to revise the following established security zones for the purpose of implementing counter-surveillance; and, intrusion detection and response measures:
• § 165.760(a)(1), Rattlesnake, Tampa, FL;
• § 165.760(a)(3), Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Tampa, FL;
• § 165.760(a)(5), Piers, Seawalls, and Facilities, Port of Tampa, Port Sutton and East Bay;
• § 165.760(a)(6), Piers, Seawalls, and Facilities, Port of Tampa, East Bay and the eastern side of Hooker's Point;
• § 165.760(a)(7), Piers, Seawalls, and Facilities, Port of Tampa, on the western side of Hooker's Point; and
• § 165.760(a)(8), Piers, Seawalls, and Facilities, Port of Manatee.
• § 165.764(a)(1), Big Bend, Tampa Bay, Florida zone. The Security Zones revised includes 3 zones within the Port of Tampa (Port Sutton and East Bay; East Bay and the eastern side of Hooker's Point; and the western side of Hooker's Point), Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Rattlesnake and Big Bend and Port of Manatee. At the Port of Tampa, a minor adjustment to the Security Zone boundary was implemented for alignment with protected assets. The East Bay segment of the Security Zone was discontinued. The Security Zone beneath the Sunshine Skyway Bridge was reduced to the size of the navigable channel. The Rattlesnake area Security Zone was expanded shoreward to protect critical facilities. The Big Bend Security Zone was slightly modified to align with the natural barriers around the facility.
This temporary rule extends the regulation established by temporary final rule [COTP Sector St. Petersburg, FL. 07-047]. The following security zones will temporarily suspend paragraphs in §§ 165.760 and 165.764 that are being replaced by these new security zones or that are no longer needed. The coordinates are based on North American Datum (NAD) 1983.
•
•
•
•
•
Entry into or remaining on or within these zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg or a designated representative. Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg or a designated representative on VHF channel 16, or by phone at (727) 824-7506, to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This rule may have some impact on the public, but these potential impacts will be minimized for the following reasons: there is ample room for vessels to navigate around security zones, and there are several locations for recreational and commercial fishing vessels to fish throughout the Tampa Bay Region. Also, the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg may, on a case-by-case basis allow persons or vessels to enter a security zone.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may impact the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels who wish to transit in the areas where the security zones are enforced. This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because the majority of the zones are limited in size, leaving ample room for vessels to navigate around the zones. The zones will not significantly impact commuter and passenger vessel traffic patterns, and mariners will be notified of the zones via local notice to mariners and marine broadcasts. Also, the Captain of the Port may, on a case-by-case basis allow persons or vessels to enter a security zone.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the office listed under
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g.), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. An “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(b)
(2) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg or his designee on VHF channel 16, or by phone at (727) 824-7506, to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
(c)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing revisions to certain security zones within the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg Zone (formerly the Captain of the Port Tampa Zone). The purpose of these revisions is to ensure the security of vessels, facilities, and the surrounding areas within these zones. Entry into the area encompassed by these revised security zones is prohibited without permission of the Captain of the Port or a designated representative.
This rule is effective February 7, 2008.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket [USCG-2007-0062] and are available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention Department, 155 Columbia Drive, Tampa, FL 33606-3598 between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Lt. Ronaydee Marquez, Waterways Management Division, Sector St. Petersburg, FL (813) 228-2191 Ext 8307.
On November 6, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Security Zone; Tampa Bay, Port of Tampa, Port of St. Petersburg, Rattlesnake, Old Port Tampa, Big Bend, Weedon Island, and Crystal River, FL” in the
The Maritime Transportation Security Act authorized the establishment of Area Maritime Security Committees (AMSC) that “advise, consult with, report to, and make recommendations” on matters relating to maritime security in an AMSC's port area. See 46 U.S.C. 70112(a)(2) and 33 CFR 103.205. One topic the Tampa Bay AMSC discussed is the existing security zones established soon after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. See 68 FR 47852, August 12, 2003, and 68 FR 52340, September 3, 2003.
These existing security zones were established in 2003 and codified in 33 CFR 165.760 and 165.764 by the Captain of the Port Tampa. As stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking published November 6, 2007, in this rulemaking, there were a number of temporary security zone rules issued before these two final rules. See 68 FR 7093, February 12, 2003, and 68 FR 19166, April 18, 2003.
Some of the security zones in §§ 165.760 and 165.764 were suspended from July 26, 2007, until January 1, 2008, and revised, and temporary security zones were made effective during this same period. See 72 FR 45162, August 13, 2007. These temporary changes were made based on the newly-developed Maritime Security Risk Analysis tool utilized by the AMSC. A temporary final rule [USCG-2007-0097] published elsewhere in today's
A Tampa Bay AMSC working group evaluated risk to the maritime transportation system (MTS) within Tampa Bay, and assessed various risk mitigation options. The results of the risk assessment indicated the need to revise the following established security zones for the purpose of enhancing port security for the region:
• § 165.760(a)(1), Rattlesnake, Tampa, FL;
• § 165.760(a)(3), Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Tampa, FL;
• § 165.760(a)(5), Piers, Seawalls, and Facilities, Port of Tampa, Port Sutton and East Bay;
• § 165.760(a)(7), Piers, Seawalls, and Facilities, Port of Tampa, on the western side of Hooker's Point;
• § 165.764(a)(1), Big Bend, Tampa Bay, Florida zone.
The five revised zones temporarily replacing these five suspended zones appear in § 165.T07-047(a)(1) through (5), but will expire by January 2, 2008, and also in temporary § 165.T07-0097(a) (1) through (5), but will expire February 7, 2008. The risk assessment also indicated that two of the zones suspended—§ 165.760(a)(6) [Piers, seawalls, and facilities, Port of Tampa, East Bay and the eastern side of Hooker's Point], and (a)(8) [Piers, seawalls, and facilities, Port of Manatee]—were no longer needed.
The security zones in this final rule have been discussed, vetted and recommended by representatives of the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Infrastructure Protection, the Western Florida Area Maritime Security Committee, the Florida Region IV and VI Regional Domestic Security Task Forces, and numerous local agencies who share in the maritime security mission in the Tampa Bay region. These revisions are needed to ensure the security of vessels, facilities, and the surrounding areas within the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg Zone following the expiration of temporary § 165.T07-0097.
In 2005, Sector St. Petersburg was created, replacing the Captain of the Port Tampa Zone. Authority to create security zones in the Tampa Bay region now resides with the Sector St. Petersburg Captain of the Port. See 70 FR 41415, July 19, 2005, and 72 FR 36316, July 2, 2007.
No comments were received. There are no changes to the regulatory text from the notice of proposed rulemaking that was published in the
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This rule may have some impact on the public, but these potential impacts will be minimized for the following reasons: There is ample room for vessels to navigate around security zones, and there are several locations for recreational and commercial fishing vessels to fish throughout the Tampa Bay Region. Also, the Captain of the Port may, on a case-by-case basis allow persons or vessels to enter a security zone.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the majority of the zones are limited in size, leaving ample room for vessels to navigate around the zones. The zones will not significantly impact commuter and passenger vessel traffic patterns, and mariners will be notified of the zones via local notice to mariners and marine broadcasts. Also, the Captain of the Port may, on a case-by-case basis, allow persons or vessels to enter a security zone.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small business may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulator Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to the small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” is available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a) * * *
(1)
(3)
(5)
(7)
(14)
(15)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg or a designated representative on VHF channel 16 to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or designated representative. In the case of moving security zones, notification of activation of these zones will be given by Broadcast Notice to Mariners on VHF FM Marine Band Radio, Channel 22A. For vessels not equipped with a radio, there will also be on site notification via a designated representative of the Captain of the Port.
A graphical representation of all fixed security zones will be made available via the Coast Pilot and nautical charts.
(3)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0215. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Irene Shandruk, (215) 814-2166, or by e-mail at
Section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires, in part, that states submit to EPA plans to maintain any NAAQS promulgated by EPA. EPA interprets this provision to require that areas that were maintenance areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, but attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS submit a plan to demonstrate the continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA established June 15, 2007, three years after the effective date of the initial 8-hour ozone designations, as the deadline for submission of plans for these areas.
On May 20, 2005, EPA issued guidance that applies, in part, to areas that are designated attainment/unclassifiable for the 8-hour ozone standard and that had an approved 1-hour ozone maintenance plan. The purpose of the guidance, referred to as section 110(a)(1) guidance, is to assist the states in the development of a SIP which addresses the maintenance requirements found in section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. There are five components of the section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan which are: (1) An attainment inventory, which is based on actual typical summer day emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
On November 7, 2007 (72 FR 62809), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of West Virginia. The NPR proposed approval of the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for Greenbrier County, as well as concurrent approval of two amendments to its existing 1-hour ozone maintenance plan, which include (a) removal of the obligation to submit a maintenance plan for the 1-hour NAAQS eight years after approval of the initial 1-hour maintenance plan, and (b) removal of the State's obligation to implement contingency measures upon a violation of the 1-hour NAAQS. The formal SIP revision was submitted by West Virginia on November 29, 2006.
The WVDEP 8-hour ozone maintenance plan addresses the components of the section 110(a)(1) 8-hour ozone maintenance plan as outlined in EPA's May 20, 2005 guidance. West Virginia requested approval of their 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for Greenbrier County, as well as concurrent approval of two amendments to its existing 1-hour ozone maintenance plan.
It is important to note that the formation of ozone is dependent on a number of variables which cannot be estimated through emissions growth and reduction calculations. A few of these variables include weather and the transport of ozone precursors from outside the maintenance area. In the section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan, WVDEP had indicated that the state will track the progress of the maintenance plan by updating the emissions inventory for Greenbrier County approximately every three years. The emissions inventory update will include point, area, and mobile emissions. Information from these future updates will be compared with the projected growth estimates for the 2002 base inventory data to track maintenance of the standard.
Approval of two amendments to West Virginia's existing 1-hour maintenance plan has also been requested by WVDEP. Section 175A(b) requires that maintenance plans be updated. The 1-hour maintenance plan for Greenbrier County extends to 2005, but no update has been developed. West Virginia identifies the most important reason for this being that available resources are being devoted to attainment and maintenance of the 8-hour standard since the 8-hour standard is considered by the State to be more protective than the former 1-hour standard upon which the current maintenance plan is based. As such, West Virginia is amending this existing maintenance plan, which is codified at 40 CFR 52.2520(e), for the Greenbrier County 1-hour maintenance area by removing the State's obligation to submit a maintenance plan for the 1-hour NAAQS eight years after approval of the initial 1-hour maintenance plan, and is requesting approval of these amendments.
EPA is approving the SIP revisions submitted by WVDEP pertaining to their section 110(a)(1) 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for Greenbrier County, West Virginia. This plan demonstrates how the State intends to maintain the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. Additionally, EPA is concurrently approving two amendments to the existing 1-hour ozone maintenance plan: (1) Removal of the obligation to submit a maintenance plan for the 1-hour NAAQS 8 years after approval of the initial 1-hour maintenance plan; and (2) removal of the State's obligation to implement contingency measures upon a violation of the 1-hour NAAQS.
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
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 CAA. 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
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 10, 2008. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the section 110(a)(1) 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for Greenbrier County, West Virginia, and concurrent approval of two amendments to the existing 1-hour ozone maintenance plan may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
The amendments read as follows:
(e) * * *
Administration for Children and Families (ACF), HHS.
Final rule.
This final rule implements the addition of family child care as a Head Start and Early Head Start program option. Family child care is care and education provided to children in a private home or other family-like setting. In keeping with the goal of designing programs that meet family and community needs, some Head Start and Early Head Start agencies have identified family child care as an effective Head Start service delivery model.
Camille Loya, Office of Head Start, Administration on Children and Families, 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20024; (202) 401-5964.
Head Start is authorized under the Head Start Act (the Act), Title VI, Subtitle A, Chapter 8 of the Public Law 97-35, the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 9801
Additionally, programs are required to provide for the direct participation of the parents of enrolled children in the development, conduct, and direction of local programs. Parents also receive training and education to foster their understanding of and involvement in the development of their children. In fiscal year 2005, Early Head Start and Head Start served 906,993 children and their families through over 2,000 local grantee and delegate agencies. More than 23 million children and families have been served since the 1965 initiation of the Head Start program.
While Early Head Start and Head Start are intended to serve primarily children whose families have incomes at or below the poverty line, or who receive public assistance, Head Start regulations
The authority for this final rule is found in sections 644(a) and 644(c) and section 645A(b)(9) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9839(a), 9839(c), and 9840a(b)(9)). Sections 644(a) and (c) require the issuance of regulations setting standards for organization, management, and administration of Head Start programs. Section 645A(b)(9) requires that Early Head Start agencies comply with the requirements established by the Secretary concerning design and operation of such programs.
Since the program's inception, Head Start grantee and delegate agencies have been required to use data from a community assessment as required by 45 CFR 1305.3 to design programs that meet local community needs and support individual family goals. As a result, over the years, Head Start has implemented a variety of program options, including the provision of comprehensive child development services in centers (the center-based option), in the child's home (the home-based option), or through a combination of center and home-based services (the combination option). With the issuance of this final rule, regulations applicable to family child care, as a program option, are established. Family child care is care and education provided to children in a private home or other family-like setting not necessarily the child's home as in the home-based option. In keeping with the goal of designing programs that meet family and community needs, some Head Start and Early Head Start agencies have identified family child care as an effective Head Start service delivery model. Family child care may offer advantages in greater hours of service, flexibility, and smaller group size. Many families believe their children will benefit from a home-like setting and multi-age groupings that can include siblings.
The formal recognition of the family child care setting as a Head Start and Early Head Start program option is particularly relevant given the increased participation of many parents in the workforce or education and training opportunities. This increase is largely due to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), Public Law 104-193, which created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. To support parents as they pursue training opportunities and seek and maintain employment, Head Start will provide increased opportunities for full day and full year services. Partnerships with other community agencies will ensure quality, flexibility and cost effectiveness. Because family circumstances may vary and many low income wage earners are obligated to work non-traditional hours, full day services may include extended hours of care including evenings and weekends. The family child care option may be particularly appropriate in these and other situations as it will provide grantee and delegate agencies with more flexibility in designing services to meet individual family needs. Early Head Start programs may choose the home-like setting of family child care for serving infants and toddlers from families with parents who are working or in training as a result of TANF. Family child care also may be a particularly appropriate option in rural areas where families are widely dispersed or in any area where there is a shortage of facilities. Finally the family child care option may be ideal for some children whose temperaments and learning styles flourish in a smaller, less formal setting.
Family child care has long been considered a possible Head Start program option. Since 1970, Head Start has served as a catalyst for promoting discussions and collaborations among a variety of organizations and agencies interested in expanding Head Start's comprehensive services to family child care settings. With the intent of increasing the availability of family child care services, beginning in 1984 and continuing through 1997, a number of Head Start grantees established family child care homes through innovative demonstration grants and program expansions. In keeping with its role as a national laboratory for the field of child development and early education, the Office of Head Start funded these demonstration projects to provide resources and leadership in the implementation of Head Start comprehensive services in family child care settings. This effort helped agencies meet community and family needs and provided opportunities for exchanging information and experience among the participating agencies and establishing a professional network among previously isolated providers.
To help raise the level of quality in the family child care community and to support agencies in delivering Head Start's comprehensive child development services within the family child care setting, the Office of Head Start has supported significant initiatives to promote the professional development of family child care staff, including establishing the Child Development Associate (CDA) credential for family child care providers. This nationally awarded credential is recognized in 47 States as meeting staff qualification requirements for child care licensing. To promote developmentally appropriate programming for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers in family child care, Head Start supported the development of a curriculum and corresponding staff training program titled, “The Creative Curriculum for Family Child Care.” Head Start also engaged in extensive work with a satellite distance learning network and over 45 community colleges to offer child development courses and other classes relevant to the provision of family child care, leading to the award of the CDA credential. In 1988, Head Start collaborated with the State of Washington and local community colleges to support the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) and Welfare Reform by providing education and credentialing opportunities for family child care providers, including Head Start parents.
From 1992 to 1997, the Office of Head Start conducted an “Evaluation of the Head Start Family Child Care Homes Demonstration” to determine whether the services provided in family child care settings had the capacity to meet the Head Start Program Performance Standards and have impacts comparable to those resulting from enrollment in center based Head Start programs. Based on the data from this study, family child care was found to be a viable setting for providing comprehensive Head Start services at costs comparable to those for full-day center-based services. Although the study focused on programs serving four year old children, the findings show that services delivered in a family child care setting can meet Head Start standards of quality and can produce similar outcomes for children and families.
Based on these initiatives, accumulated experience, and research, the Office of Head Start identified indicators of quality family child care. These quality indicators include: use of licensed homes with very small groups of children, especially when infants and
Through the demonstration efforts and through recent expansion of Head Start and Early Head Start enrollment, approximately five percent of programs currently provide family child care to some of their children and families under approved locally-designed models. Approximately 5,000 children are enrolled in these programs. We expect that this number will increase following publication of this final rule.
In the past several years, the Office of Head Start has convened several groups of representatives from a cross-section of for-profit and non-profit family child care programs, other organizations and agencies, experts, and parents to advise the Office of Head Start regarding various aspects of family child care programming. The family child care issues addressed by these groups included staff-child ratios, staff qualifications, oversight and support for the family child care provider and utilization of multiple funding sources. Informed by years of experience, and by a wide range of individuals and groups, as well as the findings of the evaluation study, the Office of Head Start is implementing regulations that will add family child care as a Head Start and Early Head Start program option.
All Head Start and Early Head Start grantees and delegate agencies must comply with the Head Start Performance Standards and other applicable regulations. Current Standards (45 CFR part 1304) were published in the
Several program elements are unique to family child care and thus are not addressed specifically in the current Head Start Program Performance Standards. These elements include the hours and days of possible operation, differences in staff qualification, differences in indoor and outdoor facilities and space, group size and age composition variations, different health and safety issues, role of the Head Start Policy Council and the applicability of management policies and procedures.
Other program elements, such as child development and education, proportionate Policy Council, Committee or other governing group representation, and the conduct of home visits are addressed in the Head Start Performance Standards and are made applicable to the Head Start family child care program option. In addition to the Head Start Program Performance Standards and other Head Start regulations, Head Start and Early Head Start grantee and delegate agencies implementing the family child care program option must ensure the provisions, as specified in this revision, are met. Also, Early Head Start programs are required to “provide early, continuous, child development and family supportive services on a year-round basis (62 FR 18966). Therefore, grantee and delegate agencies providing Early Head Start through the family child care option must provide these services year round.
A summary of the major provisions of the final rule follows. The rule:
• Establishes requirements for including family child care settings as a Head Start and Early Head Start program option.
• Describes the minimum credentials, which must be held or obtained by providers of Head Start and Early Head Start family child care services.
• Describes the minimum knowledge and experience that must be possessed by family child care providers who enroll Head Start and Early Head Start children.
• Describes the minimum qualifications of the Head Start or Early Head Start child development specialist.
• Specifies training opportunities that must be made available to family child care providers.
• Requires that family child care homes establish schedules to meet the needs of Head Start and Early Head Start parents.
• Requires that Head Start and Early Head Start programs offering the family child care option ensure that homes are available that can accommodate the special needs of children with disabilities.
• Specifies minimum requirements for the indoor and outdoor space available to children enrolled in the Head Start or Early Head Start family child care option.
• Describes Policy Council role in program decision to offer family child care option and requires proportionate representation of family child care providers on Policy Council or Policy Committee.
• Establishes requirements to ensure the health and safety of Head Start and Early Head Start children enrolled in the family child care option.
• Establishes allowable adult to child ratios and group size limits for the family child care program option.
• Requires that agencies offering the family child care option employ a child development specialist to provide support and oversight to family child care providers.
• Requires that homes where family child care is provided as a Head Start or Early Head Start program option are licensed or otherwise certified by State, Tribal or local authority.
On August 29, 2000, the Department of Health and Human Services (Department) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
This final rule amends Head Start Regulation 45 CFR part 1306 to provide grantees authority to operate a family child care program option and specify what requirements will be imposed on Head Start programs implementing this option. We have amended the final rule in a judicious manner, and taken time to carefully consider the large number of comments in order to provide clarity to the family child care program option.
The comments were analyzed and categorized by regulatory section. Only those sections for which comments were made or which were changed in the final rule are discussed below.
This section described the qualifications required for family child care providers with Head Start or Early Head Start children enrolled.
Eighty comments were critical of the provision's requirement that providers obtain at least a CDA within one year of hire. The majority indicated that one year is not a reasonable length of time to receive a degree. Some respondents suggested specific allowances including permitting longer time for non-English speakers. One respondent asked if the Office of Head Start would provide funds for providers to obtain a credential. Many respondents indicated that the allowable time period for obtaining a credential or degree is too short. Recommendations ranged from 18 to 60 months, but the majority of respondents, wrote that 24 months would be reasonable. A few respondents indicated that there should be no requirement at all for provider education. Finally, several respondents drew attention to the difficulty of obtaining a CDA in rural areas, while several others made the same statement about small cities or “disadvantaged” cities.
The language in the final rule was clarified throughout to indicate that Head Start or Early Head Start and family child care program relationships may be contractual or employer-employee based on the nature of each situation.
Under the proposed rule, this section required that agencies offering the family child care program option ensure that alternative arrangements are made for enrolled children in the event a provider or family child care facility is unavailable.
Finally, respondents pointed out that arrangement for alternative care, either when planned or in the event of an emergency, should be made by family child care providers with the parents of the enrolled children. A few comments indicated that the responsibility for finding alternative care should rest entirely with parents as such responsibility “promotes the parent's self-sufficiency.” Several respondents requested that the Office of Head Start provide recommendations of appropriate alternative sites when the family child care home is not available.
This section of the proposed rule specified that when a grantee or delegate provides substitute or additional staff, such staff must have the knowledge and experience necessary to
This section of the proposed rule required that at the time of hire, the child development specialist must have at least an Associate degree in child development or early childhood education.
This section of the proposed rule specified that grantee and delegate agencies offering family child care must provide specific training topics for family child care staff.
This section of the proposed rule provided definitions of “family child care” and “Head Start family child care.” There were no significant comments specifically in response to this section. However, the word “comprehensive” was added to describe the Head Start and Early Head Start services provided to children enrolled in family child care. The addition was made to clarify the nature of the services to be provided.
This section of the proposed rule provided the definition of “family child care program option” as the provision of Head Start and Early Head Start services to children receiving child care in the home of the provider or in a family-like setting, such as space in an apartment building which has been set aside for the provision of child care.
This section of the proposed rule defined the term “family child care teacher” as the provider of Head Start or Early Head Start services to children in their own residence or a family-like setting.
This section of the proposed rule specified that when Head Start or Early Head Start children are enrolled, designated group size limits apply and the provider's own children under the age of six years must be counted in the group size.
This section stated that when no more than two of the children are under three years of age, the maximum group size is six children.
This section of the proposed rule specified that when more than two children are under three years of age, the maximum group size is four children and in such cases, no more than two of the four children may be under the age of 24 months.
Another category of comments elicited by this section suggested that the provisions governing group family child care include larger group size with a second adult assisting the family child care provider.
We changed the final rule to be more consistent with requirements for Head Start classrooms. A majority of States identify a ratio of approximately six children, with no more than two under two years of age, for a single provider and the final rule was changed to reflect this majority. This consistency with the Head Start requirement will reduce problems associated with variance from State regulations. In view of the many possible advantages and research supporting the quality of “family group” child care homes, we have included a provision allowing a family child care provider and an assistant to care for up to twelve children when no more than four of the children are under two years of age.
The ratio for teacher to infants and toddlers in Early Head Start classrooms is one to four. We maintain this ratio for the family child care option with the stipulation that no more than two of the four children may be under the age of 24 months. We believe this ratio and the associated age limits are necessary both in the event of an emergency and for the provision of high quality services.
In the proposed rule, this section specified that when children requiring additional care because of special needs are enrolled, “* * * group sizes are smaller than the maximum allowed.”
Under the proposed rule, this section specified that Head Start and Early Head Start programs offering the family child care option must provide support and oversight to providers through the employment of a child development specialist and through other staff with responsibilities related to the provision of comprehensive services. Included was the requirement that there are mechanisms in place for assuring communication with providers at all times when Head Start or Early Head Start children are present.
In the NPRM section 1306.20(h)(2) it was also specified that a full-time child development specialist be assigned no more than 12 family child care homes with part-time child development specialists being assigned a proportionate number. We have combined this section into a single section 1306.20(h)(1) in this final rule.
A number of respondents indicated support for the proposal that child development specialists be assigned a limited number of family child care homes, but some said they would require additional funding to meet the requirement. Other respondents questioned a prescribed ratio given the
We also agree that Head Start programs will need flexibility in designing their family child care option. We believe that a child development specialist is essential to connect the family child care homes with the Head Start and Early Head Start program and ensure effective communication. Based on these two conditions, we deleted section 1306.20(h)(2), as designated in the NPRM, and added language to section 1306.20(h)(1) to require that programs offering the family child care option employ and assign child development specialists or other Head Start or delegate agency staff to ensure the provision of high quality comprehensive services.
This section (section 1306.20(h)(3) in the NPRM) specified that the responsibilities assigned to child development specialists include unannounced and announced visits to family child care homes with at least one 90 minute visit per home per week.
This section (section 1306.20(h)(4) in the NPRM) of the proposed rule stated that the child development specialist must conduct health, nutrition and safety checks of the home, and must observe and assess curriculum implementation and child development services. The section also required that the specialist provide on-site feedback and training and technical assistance to the providers including support for the development of collegial or mentoring relationships.
This section of the proposed rule required that grantees or delegates formally assign family child care management functions to agency staff.
Under the proposed rule, this section (1306.20(j) in the NPRM) specified that to ensure that all program services are available to children enrolled in the family child care option, grantee and delegate agencies must ensure that providers are supported by agency staff with responsibilities related to the provision of comprehensive services as described by 45 CFR parts 1304 and 1308. There were no comments in response to this section. However, the provision was reworded to simply state that grantee and delegate agencies must ensure that children enrolled in the family child care option receive comprehensive Head Start or Early Head Start services as described by 45 CFR parts 1304 and 1308.
This section of the proposed rule was amended to include Family Child Care in the list of Head Start program options that consists of a center-based option, a
Sections 1306.35 and 1306.36 were revised and redesignated as sections 1306.36 and 1306.37 respectively and a new section 1306.35 was added.
This section of the proposed rule required that agencies implementing the family child care option must ensure that each family child care home operates year round, five or more days per week and at least six hours per day.
In the proposed rule, paragraph (i) of section 1306.35(a)(2) specified that agencies offering the family child care option must ensure that family child care homes are available to serve children with disabilities and accommodate parents with disabilities. Paragraph (ii) stated that services must be provided as specified in children's individual education plans (IEPs) or Individual Family Services Plans (IFSPs).
In the proposed rule, this section required that Head Start family child care homes provide sufficient indoor and outdoor space for children to be supervised and participate in activities that foster physical, emotional, and cognitive growth and development.
Under the proposed rule, this section required that agencies include Policy Councils in decisions to “hire or terminate contracted Head Start family child care teachers.”
In the proposed rule, this section required that agencies offering the family child care option have a plan in place to ensure the health and safety of children and conduct at least one safety inspection of each home each year. Further requirements regarding frequent observations by the child development specialist policies and procedures to correct identified concerns also were included.
This section of the proposed rule required that Head Start and Early Head Start children enrolled in the family child care program option be kept away from potentially hazardous situations, including, sources of heat and appliances. It also stated that premises must be free from health endangering pests.
This section required that smoke and carbon monoxide detectors be installed in spaces occupied by children.
Under the proposed rule, this section required radon detectors in family child care homes where basements are devoted to the program.
Under the proposed rule, this section required that children be directly supervised at all times.
In the proposed rule, this section required “enhanced supervision” when children are near a body of water or a source of heat or when they are being transported.
This provision in the proposed rule required that all water hazards be enclosed with a fence and safeguarded against access by children.
This section stated in the proposed rule that no firearms or other weapons shall be kept in space occupied by or accessible to children.
In the proposed rule, this section required that alcohol and other drugs not be consumed while children are present and are not accessible to children at any time.
Under the program rules, this section required that domestic animals be disease free, immunized, appropriately restrained and kept from children.
In the proposed rule, this provision required that “emergency coverage plans” be in place to ensure that a qualified substitute provider is in place in the event the regular provider must leave due to an emergency.
This section of the proposed rule stated that grantees and delegates must ensure that homes where Head Start or Early Head Start family child care services are offered meet State, Tribal, and local licensing requirements. When State, Tribal, and local regulations vary from the Head Start Standards, the more stringent regulation shall apply.
This section in the proposed rule asserted the continued right of the Commissioner of the Administration on Children, Youth and Families to fund alternative program variations.
This section of the proposed rule stipulated that any exception to the requirements contained in sections 1306.32, 1306.33, 1306.34, and 1306.35 would only be granted if the Director of the Office of Head Start determines that the grantee made a reasonable effort to comply but was unable to do so because of limitations or circumstances of a specific community or communities served by the grantee. This section did not elicit any comments. The section remains unchanged in the final rule.
Executive Order 12866 requires that regulations be drafted to ensure that there is consistency with the priorities and principles set forth in the Executive Order. The Department has determined that this rule is consistent with these priorities and principles. This final rule establishes a program option, which will not require grantees to expend a significant amount of funds. Agencies choosing to operate this program option will not incur significant costs exceeding those costs incurred to deliver Head Start services in other program settings, such as in center-based or home-based settings and options.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In keeping with the goal of designing programs to meet community and family needs, Head Start agencies have identified family child care as a preferred option for parents who believe their children will benefit from a home-like setting. Head Start agencies also have found that family child care is a suitable option for parents who are working or in training, or when families need care for more than one child. While we have no measure at this point to estimate the number of grantees that are small entities which will choose the family child care option, we believe the number which will choose it will not be significant at this time, given the newness of the option and diversity of needs across the country. For this reason, the Secretary certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on substantial numbers of small entities.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval any reporting or recordkeeping requirements inherent in a proposed or final rule. This final rule does not contain any information collection or recordkeeping requirements.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires that a covered agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a covered agency must prepare a budgetary impact statement, section 205 further requires that it select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with the statutory requirements. In addition, section 205 requires a plan for informing and advising any small government that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the proposed rule. We have determined that this final rule will not impose a mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million in any one year. Accordingly, we have not prepared a budgetary impact statement, specifically addressed the regulatory alternatives considered, or prepared a plan for informing and advising any significantly or uniquely impacted small government.
This rule is not a “major” rule as defined in Chapter 8 of 5 U.S.C.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277, Div. A, section 101(h)) requires a family impact assessment affecting family well-being.
Many parents, especially those from low-income families, work during nontraditional hours, and their work schedules often change from week to week. The Head Start family child care option will ensure the availability of quality child care during both traditional and nontraditional work hours. Head Start family child care also provides a network that ensures training to increase the competence of the family child care teacher as well as a system of back-up in the event that he or she is unavailable. Allowing parents to place their Early Head Start or Head Start children as well as school-age children in the care of one provider will decrease the number of stops they must make to drop children off prior to going to work. The availability of family child care increases the choices available to parents by ensuring that their children are well cared for, and ensures that parents are not distracted from their work by worrying about the dependability and quality of care being provided to their children. This will increase family financial stability by enabling parents to secure and keep jobs. Many low-income workers have minimal leave and little flexibility in their work schedules and are unable to take time off to compensate for unreliable care or to make numerous phone calls to ensure the safety and well-being of their children. Head Start ensures a level of quality care for children, as well as back-up systems, thereby promoting family stability.
Executive Order 13132 on Federalism applies to policies that have Federalism implications, defined as “regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on the States, or on the distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This rule does not have Federalism implications for State or local governments as defined in the Executive Order.
Dental health, Education of disadvantaged, Grant program—social programs, Health care, Mental health programs, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Education of disadvantaged, Grant program—social programs.
42 U.S.C. 9801
(h)
(2) Family child care providers who enroll Head Start children must have the knowledge and skill necessary to
(3) Grantee and delegate agencies offering the family child care option must ensure that closures of the family child care setting for reasons of emergency are minimized and that providers work with parents to establish alternate plans when emergencies do occur. Grantees and delegates must also ensure that the family child care home advises parents of planned closures due to vacation, routine maintenance, or other reason well in advance.
(4) Substitute staff and assistant providers used in family child care must have necessary training and experience to ensure the continuous provision of quality services to children.
(5) At the time of hire, the child development specialist must have, at a minimum, an Associate degree in child development or early childhood education.
(6) Child development specialists must have knowledge and experience in areas that include the theories and principles of child growth and development, early childhood education (birth to age five), and family support. Child development specialists must have previous early childhood experience, familiarity with the Child Development Associate (CDA) competency standards and knowledge and understanding of the Head Start Program Performance Standards and other applicable regulations.
(l) * * *
(5) In addition, grantee and delegate agencies offering the family child care program option must make available to family child care providers training on:
(i) Infant, toddler, and preschool age child development;
(ii) Implementation of curriculum (see § 1304.3(a)(5) for the definition of curriculum);
(iii) Skill development for working with children with disabilities;
(iv) Effective communication with infants, toddlers, and preschoolers and with their families;
(v) Safety, sanitation, hygiene, health practices and certification in, at minimum, infant and child cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR);
(vi) Identifying and reporting suspected child abuse or neglect;
(vii) United States Department of Agriculture's Child and Adult Care Food Program; and
(viii) Other areas necessary to increase the knowledge and skills of the family child care providers.
42 U.S.C. 9801
(n)
(o)
(p)
(g) Grantee and delegate agencies offering the family child care program option must ensure that in each family child care home where Head Start children are enrolled, the group size does not exceed the limits specified in this paragraph. Whenever present, not at school or with another care provider, the family child care provider's own children under the age of six years must be included in the count.
(1) When there is one family child care provider, the maximum group size is six children and no more than two of the six may be under two years of age. When there is a provider and an assistant, the maximum group size is twelve children with no more than four of the twelve children under two years of age.
(2) One family child care provider may care for up to four infants and toddlers, with no more than two of the four children under the age of 18 months.
(3) Additional assistance or smaller group size may be necessary when serving children with special needs who require additional care.
(h)(1) Grantee and delegate agencies offering the family child care program option must provide support for family child care providers through a child development specialist or other Head Start or delegate agency staff member with responsibilities related to the provision of comprehensive Head Start and Early Head Start services.
(2) The grantee or delegate agency will assign responsibilities to the child development specialist and other agency staff to support and ensure the provision of quality Head Start services at each family child care home. These responsibilities must include both regular announced and unannounced visits to each home. The duration and timing of such visits will be planned in accordance with the needs of each home but shall occur not less than once every two weeks.
(3) During visits to family child care homes the child development specialist will periodically verify compliance with either contract requirements or agency policy depending on the nature of the relationship; facilitate ongoing communication between grantee or delegate agency staff, family child care providers, and Head Start and Early Head Start families; provide recommendations for technical assistance; and support the family child care provider in developing collegial or mentoring relationships with other child care professionals.
(i) Head Start, Early Head Start and delegate agencies must ensure that children in the Head Start family child care option receive comprehensive services as specified in 45 CFR Parts 1304 and 1308.
(a) Grantees may choose to implement one or more than one of four program options: a center-based option, a home-based program option, a combination program option, or a family child care option.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(ii) Ensure that children with disabilities enrolled in family child care are provided services which support their participation in the early intervention, special education, and related services required by their individual family service plan (IFSP) or individual education plan (IEP) and that the child's teacher has appropriate knowledge, training, and support.
(3)
(4)
(b)
(2)
(i) Children enrolled in the Head Start family child care program option are protected from potentially hazardous situations. Providers must ensure that children are safe from the potential hazards posed by appliances (stove, refrigerator, microwave, etc). Premises must be free from pests and the use of chemicals or other potentially harmful materials for controlling pests must not occur while children are on premises.
(ii) Grantee and delegate agencies must ensure that all sites attended by children enrolled in Head Start and Early Head Start are equipped with functioning and properly located smoke and carbon monoxide detectors.
(iii) Radon detectors are installed in family child care homes where there is a basement and such detectors are recommended by local health officials;
(iv) Children are supervised at all times. Providers must have systems for assuring the safety of any child not within view for any period (e.g. the provider needs to use the bathroom or an infant is napping in one room while toddlers play in another room);
(v) Providers ensure the safety of children whenever any body of water, road, or other potential hazard is present and when children are being transported;
(vi) Unsupervised access by children to all water hazards, such as pools or other bodies of water, are prevented by a fence;
(vii) There are no firearms or other weapons kept in areas occupied or accessible to children;
(viii) Alcohol and other drugs are not consumed while children are present or accessible to children at any time; and
(ix) Providers secure health certificates for pets to document up to date immunizations and freedom from any disease or condition that poses a threat to children's health. Family child care providers must ensure that pets are appropriately managed to ensure child safety at all times.
(c)
(d)
In addition to the center-based, home-based, combination programs, and family child care options defined in this part, the Director of the Office of Head Start retains the right to fund alternative program variations to meet the unique needs of communities or to demonstrate or test alternative approaches for providing Head Start services.
An exception to one or more of the requirements contained in §§ 1306.32, 1306.33, 1306.34, and 1306.35 will be granted only if the Director of the Office of Head Start determines, on the basis of supporting evidence, that the grantee made a reasonable effort to comply with the requirement but was unable to do so because of limitations or circumstances of a specific community or communities served by the grantee.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Commission declines to adopt rules and regulations implementing minimum customer account record exchange obligations on all local carriers. This action is necessary because the Commission does not believe mandating the exchange of customer account information between LECs is appropriate at this time.
Effective December 21, 2007.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
David Marks, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0347 (voice), or e-mail
This is a summary of the Commission's
Copies of document FCC 07-221 and any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Document FCC 07-221 and any subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact the Commission's duplicating contractor at their Web site:
The
In 2005, the Commission released a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
Upon a review of the record, the Commission declines to adopt mandatory minimum standards for the exchange of customer account information between LECs. The Commission does not believe mandating the exchange of customer account information between LECs is appropriate at this time for several reasons.
First, a number of commenters note that Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), Ordering and Billing Forum (OBF) has developed Local Service Migration Guidelines that are specifically designed to facilitate the sharing of customer service records among LECs. Because ATIS OBF is an established industry forum that includes representatives of both incumbent LECs and competitive LECs, the Commission encourages carriers to adhere to the industry-established guidelines and, where necessary, to work with the OBF industry forum to further develop and refine them.
Second, the Commission notes that a number of state commissions have addressed issues relating to local service migrations. Unlike LEC-to-inter-exchange carrier (IXC) information sharing requirements, for which states and a broad coalition of carriers supported nationwide standards for the exchange of information, the record here suggests that the problems with LEC-to-LEC exchanges may not be as widespread and, therefore, may be more appropriately addressed by individual state commissions, which are well-suited to address local service matters between LECs operating in their states.
Third, the Commission disagrees with those commenters that maintain LEC-to-LEC information sharing raises the same issues as LEC-to-IXC information sharing. Access to information makes LEC-to-LEC migrations different. In the LEC-to-IXC context, the Commission noted that certain transactions affecting an IXC's ability to provide service and manage customers' accounts, including the execution of customer preferred interexchange carrier (PIC) requests, are carried out, not by the customer's IXC, but by the customer's LEC. Because a LEC's exclusive control of the local switch could enable a LEC to place a customer on an IXC's network without the IXC's knowledge, the Commission determined that effective communications between LECs and IXCs is critical to an IXC's ability to maintain accurate billing records and to honor customer PIC selections and other customer requests. In the LEC-to-LEC situation, it does not appear that the new LEC is operating in the same information vacuum, or that the information needed could not be obtained from the LEC's new customer.
Finally, to the extent that critical customer account information cannot reasonably be obtained from a LEC's own customer and the customer's former LEC fails to provide such information in a timely manner thus causing unreasonable delay in a local service migration, the Commission notes that such conduct may constitute a violation of the Act and the Commission's rules. The Commission encourages carriers to bring such matters to our attention through the Commission's formal complaint procedures, which allow us to review them on a case-by-case basis to determine the scope and seriousness of the issues presented.
Because no new rules are adopted in this order, the Commission will not send a copy of the
Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4, 201, 202, 222, 258, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201, 202, 222, 258, and 303(r), the
The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this
Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; correction.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on January 2, 2008, in the
This correction is effective on January 8, 2008. The comment deadline for the proposed rule published at 73 FR 90 remains March 3, 2008.
Richard Di Nucci, Office of Field Operations, (202) 344-2513.
On January 2, 2008, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) requested public comment on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements, as published in the
1. In the
•
2. In the
•
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Reopening of comment period.
OSHA is reopening the comment period for its review of the Methylene Chloride Standard under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Section 5 of Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review.
Written comments to OSHA must be sent or postmarked by March 10, 2008.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. OSHA-2007-0024, by any of the following methods:
For general information and press inquiries: Kevin Ropp, Office of Communications, Room N-3647, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1999. For technical inquiries: Joanna Dizikes Friedrich, Directorate of Evaluation and Analysis, Occupational
OSHA is conducting a review of the Methylene Chloride Standard (29 CFR 1910.1052) under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Section 5 of Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. On July 10, 2007, OSHA provided background information about the review, raised questions of special concern to the Agency, and requested public comments (72 FR 37501). The 90-day comment period ended on October 9, 2007. In response to a request for additional time to comment received from the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, OSHA is reopening the comment period for an additional 60 days. Accordingly, written comments must now be submitted (sent or postmarked) by March 10, 2008. Granting this additional time to comment on the review will allow this and other stakeholders time to provide more thorough comments on the review which in turn will give OSHA a more complete record.
Department of Education.
Notice of negotiated rulemaking.
The Secretary of Education (Secretary) announces the establishment of two negotiated rulemaking committees to develop proposed regulations related to the Federal student aid programs authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). The first committee will develop proposed regulations for the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant program. The second committee will develop proposed regulations for other Federal student aid programs authorized by Title IV of the HEA.
The dates for the negotiated rulemaking sessions are listed in the
John Kolotos, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 8018, Washington, DC 20006. Telephone: (202) 502-7762. E-mail:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed in this section.
On October 22, 2007, we published a notice in the
After considering the information we received at the hearings and in writing, we have decided to establish two negotiating committees that will begin meeting in January 2008. The first committee will develop proposed regulations for the TEACH Grant program. The TEACH Grant regulations will be in a new Part 686 in Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The second committee will develop proposed regulations for the Federal student loan programs.
In selecting individuals from the submitted nominations, the Department has tried to assemble a balanced and complementary representation of the interests affected by the subject matter, consistent with section 492 of the HEA. We believe the individuals selected will bring valuable knowledge and expertise to the table, and will work as a cohesive unit to assist us in developing proposed regulations that are both reasonable and effective. Individuals that were not selected as members of the committees will be able to attend the meetings and have access to the negotiators. The committee meetings will be open to the public.
Participation in the rulemaking process is not limited to members of the committees or those who work with the committees. Following the negotiated rulemaking process, we will publish for public comment proposed regulations in the
The topics the TEACH Grant Committee are likely to address all relate to the new TEACH Grant program and include:
Institutional Eligibility.
Program Eligibility.
Student Eligibility.
Conversion of Grant to Loan.
Repayment.
Conforming Changes.
This list of topics is tentative. Topics may be added as the process continues.
The members of the TEACH Grant Committee and the interests they are representing are:
Sandra Robinson, Dean, College of Education, University of Central Florida.
Joseph Pettibon, Assistant Provost, Student Financial Aid, Texas A&M University.
Herbert Brunkhorst, Professor of Science, Education and Biology, and Chair, Science, Math and Technology Education, California State University San Bernardino.
Beth Stack, Director of Operations, Student Financial Services, University of Pittsburgh.
Jan Lariviere, Associate Director for Teacher Development, Center for Science Education, University of Kansas.
Scott Fleming, Government Relations, Georgetown University.
Ellis Salim, Director of Financial Aid, Baker College.
Thomas O'Neill, Jr., President, Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Nebraska.
We have scheduled a total of three negotiated rulemaking sessions, all of which will be held at our offices on 1990 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. The following schedule is subject to change. We will announce any changes to this schedule on the Department's Web site at
Session 1: January 8-January 10.
Session 2: January 22-January 24.
Session 3: February 6-February 8.
For the first negotiating session, the TEACH Grant committee is scheduled to meet from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day.
For Session 2, the committee is scheduled to meet from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day.
For Session 3, the committee is scheduled to meet from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on February 6 and from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on February 7 and 8.
The topics the Student Loan Committee is likely to address are:
Income-based Repayment Plan (IBR).
Conforming the Economic Hardship Deferment with IBR.
Public Service Loan Forgiveness.
Definition of Not-for-Profit Holder.
Harmonizing HEROES Waivers with Other Benefits Provided to Returning and Active Duty Military.
Federal Preemption of State Laws Related to improper inducements and arrangements between schools, lenders and other entities in the student loan programs.
This list of topics is tentative. Topics may be added as the process continues.
The members of the Student Loan Committee and the interests they are representing are:
We have scheduled a total of three negotiated rulemaking sessions, all of which will be held at our offices on 1990 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. The following schedule is subject to change. We will announce any changes to this schedule on the Department's Web site at
Session 1: January 14-January 16.
Session 2: February 4-February 6.
Session 3: March 4-March 6.
For the first negotiating session, the Student Loan Committee is scheduled to meet from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day.
For Session 2, the committee is scheduled to meet from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on February 4th and 5th; and from 9 a.m. to 12 noon on February 6th.
For Session 3, the committee is scheduled to meet from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day.
You may view this document in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following 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 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
20 U.S.C. 1098a.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would provide for an option for Medicare
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on March 10, 2008.
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-4133-P. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (no duplicates, please):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
4.
Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201; or 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
“Electronic Comments on CMS Regulations” on that Web site to view public comments.
Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.
The beneficiary premiums for Prescription Drug Plans (PDP) are based on an annual bidding process. Each year the beneficiary premium for a Part D plan can change as a result of this bidding process. In addition, each year, as required by statute, CMS recalculates the Federal Part D premium subsidy available to low-income beneficiaries based on the new premiums for plans in each region. As a result of these premium and subsidy changes, the premium for a Part D plan can be fully covered by the low-income subsidy (LIS) in one year and not the following year.
The amount of the premium subsidy available to LIS-eligible individuals cannot be calculated until after bids are submitted for the calendar year in question, because the subsidy amount is based on the bids that are submitted. Therefore, a PDP sponsor whose premium for LIS-eligible enrollees is currently zero does not know at the time its bid is submitted whether the premium that would result from its bid will be higher or lower than the premium subsidy amount.
LIS-eligible individuals enrolled in a PDP that does not charge them a premium are faced with the possibility that the plan they are enrolled in will impose a premium during the next calendar year that would require them to make monthly payments. Section 1860D-1(b)(1)(C) of the Social Security Act (the Act) mandates the initial enrollment of full-benefit dual eligible individuals not choosing a plan into a PDP where they would not pay a premium. It does not, however, require that individuals be reassigned to a plan that would not charge them a premium, if they would be required to pay a premium in their plan the following calendar year. Using our authority under Section 1860D-1(b)(1)(A) of the Act to, “establish a process for the enrollment, disenrollment, termination, and change of enrollment of Part D eligible individuals in prescription drug plans,” we have specified that LIS-eligible individuals facing the above situation may “elect” a PDP with no premium (to which they would be randomly assigned) by taking no action. We have referred to this process as our reassignment process. Beneficiaries eligible for the full low-income premium subsidy, including beneficiaries dually eligible for benefits under Titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act, are subject to reassignment. Beneficiaries eligible for a partial premium subsidy are not subject to reassignment.
For 2008, the number of beneficiaries reassigned to a different organization under this process varied widely by region, ranging from as few as 17
Alternatively, LIS beneficiaries can affirmatively elect to stay in their plan and begin paying a premium, or choose another plan with or without a premium. While this policy prevents an LIS-eligible individual who did not choose to elect a plan from being charged a premium, it disrupts continuity and stability in coverage.
Currently, under the demonstration project entitled, “Medicare Demonstration to Transition Enrollment of Low-Income Subsidy Beneficiaries” (established in 2007 and extended to 2008), if the premium amount for a LIS-eligible individual in the above situation is lower than a specified de minimis amount, the individual would not be charged this de minimis amount, and could remain in his or her current plan without paying a premium. This demonstration also transitions the calculation of the low-income benchmark premium amount for a region from a method that weights the standardized Part D bids for PDPs equally to the statutory method, which calculates the benchmarks by weighting the bids for PDPs and MA-PD plans in that region based on plan enrollment. While the evaluation for this demonstration project is still underway, we believe the de minimis policy has demonstrated the advantages of the continuity of care and stability that result from permitting LIS-eligible individuals effectively to be charged a lower total premium than the total premium amount charged in the case of non-LIS-eligible individuals. Accordingly, we believe that PDP Sponsors should have this option on an ongoing basis under regular program rules, subject to limitations that ensure the integrity of the bid process, and retain incentives to submit competitive bids.
We believe that the statute could reasonably be interpreted to permit, consistent with limitations that would be set forth in regulations, PDP Sponsors to establish a separate premium for LIS-eligible individuals in the amount of the low-income premium subsidy. Section 1860D-13(a)(1)(F) of the Act ordinarily requires that a prescription drug premium be uniform. This rule applies, however, “except as provided in subparagraphs (D) (which provides for the late enrollment penalty) and (E) (which governs LIS-eligible individuals) * * *”. In addition 1860D-13(a)(1)(E) of the Act provides that in the case of an LIS-eligible individual, the premium “is subject to decrease * * *”. While we initially interpreted this language to refer only to the decrease in the amount paid by the LIS-eligible individual in the amount of the low-income premium subsidy, we believe that the statutory language would also permit an interpretation that would allow PDP Sponsors to charge a decreased premium amount in the case of such individuals. When subject to the limitations as proposed here, this reasonable interpretation of the statute supports our goal of ensuring continuity of care and stability, while ensuring the integrity of the bid process and retaining incentives for organizations to submit competitive bids. We believe that our earlier interpretation of the statute did not take into account the flexibility afforded by section 1860D-13(a)(1)(E) of the statute, which is broadly worded to provide that for a LIS eligible individual, “[t]he monthly beneficiary premium is subject to decrease[.]”
We are proposing to make revisions to the regulations in order to implement an option for PDP Sponsors to reduce PDP beneficiary premiums for LIS-eligible individuals. This option would not be made available to plans that offer enhanced alternative coverage. Specifically, we are proposing to revise § 422.262 and § 423.286(e), to provide for an exception to the general rule for uniformity of premiums. We are also proposing to revise § 423.286(e), to state that the monthly beneficiary premium paid by the beneficiary may be eliminated as provided in § 423.780.
We are proposing to amend § 423.34(d), to clarify that PDPs that have a separate premium for LIS-eligible individuals under our proposed option would not be eligible to receive “auto-enrollees” under section 1860D-1(b)(1)(C) of the Act. However, PDP Sponsors that have separate premiums for LIS enrollees in their PDPs would keep their existing LIS enrollees. An auto-enrollment would continue to be available only to PDPs with a standard prescription drug premium that is equal to, or below, the LIS amount.
In addition, we are proposing to revise § 423.780, to permit a PDP sponsor, subject to the conditions discussed below, to establish a separate premium for LIS-eligible individuals in the amount of the low-income premium subsidy amount when the premium that would otherwise apply would exceed this amount.
Several options were considered as we developed this proposed rule. We considered allowing all PDP Sponsors to make a business judgment, after the LIS amount was established, whether to reduce their premium to the subsidy amount for LIS-eligible individuals without regard to the amount by which their premium would otherwise exceed the amount of the subsidy. We did not choose this approach for two reasons. First, if the difference between the two amounts were too great, this would produce a significant disparity between the revenue needs assumed in the bid, and the revenue that would be received under the reduced premium, and undermine the integrity of the bid process. More importantly, if a PDP sponsor knew that it could be assured of reducing its premium for LIS-eligible individuals to the LIS amount no matter how much the premium produced by its bid exceeded this amount, this would greatly reduce existing incentives to bid as low as possible.
Second, we considered changing our approach to re-assignment from allowing LIS-eligible individuals to be re-assigned if they take no action to an approach that would allow LIS-eligible individuals to be informed of zero-premium PDP options, but would remain in their current plan if they take no action. We consulted with beneficiary advocate groups about this approach, and many expressed concerns about LIS-eligible individuals being subjected to premium costs without them electing to pay them. We further considered only reassigning LIS individuals if the premium they would have to pay were above a certain level, on the assumption that a relatively low premium amount may not present a financial hardship. However, this would raise complicated issues regarding collection of these premium amounts.
We are proposing to retain the current reassignment policy and permit certain PDP Sponsors to reduce premiums for LIS-eligible individuals to the subsidy amount, while limiting the amount the premium produced by bids could be reduced to reach the LIS amount. We considered proposing a fixed dollar amount, as is employed under the current de minimis demonstration, and would be employed under the change in reassignment policy discussed above. However, we again were concerned about an approach that permanently would employ a fixed dollar figure, and decided that a methodology under which the number is not known in
We are proposing to apply this rule to PDPs only, as current auto-assignment rules do not apply to beneficiaries enrolled in MA-PDs. For this same reason, we do not plan to apply this rule to partial subsidy eligible enrollees. Furthermore, partial subsidy eligible enrollees already pay a premium, as their subsidy is only a percentage of the subsidy amount. A change from the subsidy amount to a higher premium does not have the same impact on them that it does on a full-subsidy eligible beneficiary, who would go from a zero-premium to paying one.
We accordingly propose to set the amount at a region-specific level that would ensure LIS-eligible individuals in each region a robust choice among zero-premium PDPs. Specifically, we are proposing that the limit on the amount by which premiums could be reduced for LIS-eligible individuals be an amount that ensures that at least five PDP Sponsors (i.e., organizations offering PDPs) in every PDP region would have a PDP with a premium at or below the premium subsidy amount. We chose the minimum number of five PDP Sponsors per region because this represents the mid-range number of PDP Sponsors in key regions that qualified for assignment of low-income subsidy-eligible beneficiaries in 2008. Specifically, in 2008 the number of PDP Sponsors with zero-premium plans for LIS individuals ranges from a low of two to a high of eight organizations in key regions with significant MA enrollment. The option of five organizations as a minimum threshold was selected to maintain the average 2008 level of competitiveness. This proposed rule would not affect regions in which there would be at least five PDP Sponsors offering zero-premium plans without this rule in place. In order to achieve the goal of stability for beneficiaries and plans, and offer multiple provider options, this test will be applied at the organizational level (PDP sponsor), rather than the plan (PDP) level. We believe that capping the number of premium differential organizations at a number that would produce zero-premium plans from at least five PDP Sponsors would maintain or possibly improve upon the current competitiveness of bids. We invite public comments on our choice of the minimum number five as the minimum number of Sponsors offering zero-premium plans, as well as on the other options discussed above that we considered, and any additional options that we are not proposing in this proposed rule.
PDP Sponsors will be required to elect this option in their bids. CMS will add a checkbox to the current Bid Pricing Tool submitted by PDP Sponsors in June of each year for each PDP to be offered. Sponsors will use this checkbox to indicate that the PDP will have two premiums—one for enrollees not eligible for the full LIS subsidy and another for LIS-eligible enrollees if they qualify under this rule. This rule will not increase the amount of the low-income premium subsidy paid to plans to account for the difference between the low-income premium subsidy and the premium produced by the plan's bid.
We note that PDP Sponsors that elect this option would be obligated, under our proposed regulations, to charge all LIS-eligible enrollees in affected plans a premium amount that would be the premium subsidy amount if the prescription drug premium produced by their bid did not exceed the amount established to ensure at least five PDP Sponsors offer zero-premium plans in each region. This premium would be part of the benefit package they would be obligated under their contract to cover.
The information collection requirements contained in § 423.780(f)(i) of this proposed rule are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). However, the burden associated with the requirement for the PDP sponsor to elect the option of providing for a separate prescription drug premium amount for LIS individuals is included in the burden estimate associated with the Bid Pricing Tool for Prescription Drug Plans which is currently approved under OMB approval number 0938-0944.
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on
We have examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism, and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). This rule permits Prescription Drug Plan (PDP) Sponsors, subject to conditions, to lower their premiums for low-income subsidy beneficiaries to ensure there are a sufficient number of organizations offering zero-premium plans in each region and reduce the number of reassignments compared to the current regulatory framework. We believe this proposed rule would lead to Federal savings of approximately $20 million per year. This assumes full enrollment weighting for the calculations of the low-income benchmark premium amounts. The estimate was developed by applying this rule against the 2008 bids and this impact was projected throughout the forecast period. The estimate does not anticipate any change in bidding strategies or outcomes. All organizations with existing LIS beneficiaries that could be assigned out of the organization are assumed to elect the option to retain their beneficiaries including receiving reduced premiums for such LIS members. LIS beneficiaries that are assigned out of organizations are assumed to be randomly assigned to organizations that have premiums below the low income premium subsidy benchmark. We invite public comment on the assumptions included in this assessment.
We also evaluated the potential for non-Federal costs and savings associated with this rule. A small number of Part D sponsors would forego revenue associated with the reduction in their beneficiary premium for low income beneficiaries. In addition, we anticipate a reduction in administrative costs for these sponsors, as well as for sponsors to which the beneficiaries would have been reassigned in the absence of this rule. However, we believe that these costs and savings would be relatively small. We invite public comment on this assessment of non-Federal costs and savings. This rule
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of $6.5 million to $31.5 million in any 1 year. Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. We are not preparing an analysis for the RFA because we have determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 603 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area for Medicare payment regulations and has fewer than 100 beds. We are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because we have determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this regulation will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold level is currently approximately $127 million. This rule will have no consequential effect on State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Since this regulation does not impose any costs on State or local governments, the requirements of E.O. 13132 are not applicable.
The number of PDP Sponsors offering PDPs that had low enough premiums to qualify for low-income assignments for 2008 ranged from two to eight organizations per region in key regions that had a relatively high proportion of beneficiaries enrolled in MA plans. Five is the average number of PDP Sponsors offering plans that qualified for low-income assignments in these regions; we selected the five PDP Sponsor option to maintain the 2008 level of competitiveness in the bidding process. The 5 plan requirement is an attempt to balance the two goals of introducing beneficiary stability, particularly in regions with very low LIS premium subsidy benchmarks, together with maintaining the incentives in the competitive bidding process. There may be negative consequences if the 5 organizational requirement is too high and the plans bid less competitively or if the 5 organizational requirement is too low and there are an even greater number of low-income beneficiary reassignments. In addition, based on analysis of the 2008 bids, and assuming no de minimis demonstration is in place, CMS anticipates that seven regions would be affected by having a minimum of five plans. CMS estimates that a three Sponsor minimum would have affected five regions, while a seven Sponsor minimum would have affected ten regions. Therefore, we anticipate that this regulation will increase the number of PDP Sponsors offering zero-premium PDPs that would be available to full low-income subsidy-eligible beneficiaries. This proposed regulation would also decrease the number of reassignments of LIS-eligible beneficiaries to other PDPs, compared to the level of reassignment under the current regulation absent a de minimis policy. This decrease in beneficiary movement across plans would boost program stability for both beneficiaries and plans. Based on an analysis of 2008 bids, the five-organization minimum requirement results in 0.2 million fewer beneficiary assignments as compared to the current regulatory framework. The five-organization minimum requirement results in 0.5 million more beneficiary reassignments than would occur under the de minimis policy.
Lastly, CMS expects the improved program continuity and stability that would be produced by this rule would help prevent an increase in costs and risks imposed on PDP Sponsors. The higher the threshold for the number of PDP Sponsors per region offering zero-premium PDPs, the greater the negative impact on competitive bidding. We are seeking to strike a balance between minimizing LIS reassignments and preserving the integrity of the competitive bidding process. The results of competitive bidding in 2008 generated an average of five PDP Sponsors per region eligible for reassignments in certain key regions with relatively high MA enrollment. Selecting five as the minimum organization threshold under this proposed rule is intended to achieve this balance.
This approach maintains a strong incentive to bid low to keep and possibly add LIS beneficiaries. Absent the rule, there may be a “winner take all” outcome in certain regions with one organization acquiring all of the LIS beneficiaries in the region. It is difficult to predict what would happen in the absence of this rule, but we would expect some organizations would be induced to bid even lower while other organizations would give up on this population and bid higher. From a cost perspective these factors may offset relative to the proposed rule, but the volatility issue would remain.
As stated in the Background section of this proposed rule, we considered allowing PDP Sponsors to reduce their premium to the subsidy amount after it was established for LIS-eligible individuals without regard to the amount of their premium. We also considered allowing plans with premiums under a fixed dollar amount to reduce their low-income premiums to the premium subsidy amount. We determined, however, that these options would undermine the integrity and competitiveness of the bidding process.
We also considered changing our approach to reassignment to an approach that would allow LIS-eligible individuals to be informed of zero-premium PDP options, but would remain in their current plan, regardless of the premium, if they take no action. Beneficiary advocacy groups were concerned about beneficiaries being charged a premium without electing to pay it. We further considered only reassigning LIS individuals if the premium they would have to pay were above a certain relatively low premium amount; however, this would raise complicated issues regarding collection of these premium amounts.
We chose to propose to retain the current reassignment policy and, in regions that would not otherwise have at least five zero-premium plans for LIS enrollees, permit a sufficient number of PDPs to reduce their premiums for LIS individuals so that the region includes five zero-premium plans. We believe this option would both maintain or possibly improve upon the current competitiveness of bids and reduce reassignments for beneficiaries.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs—health, Health care, Health insurance, Health maintenance organizations (HMO), Loan programs—Health, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Emergency medical services, Health facilities, Health maintenance organizations (HMO), Medicare, Penalties, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to amend 42 CFR chapter IV as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 422 continues to read as follows:
Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh).
2. Amend § 422.262 to revise paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1)
3. The authority citation for part 423 continues to read as follows:
Secs 1102, 1860D-1 through 1860D-42, and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395w-101 through 1395w-152, and 1395hh).
4. Amend § 423.34 by—
A. Revising paragraph (d)(1).
B. Adding a new paragraph (d)(3).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(d) * * *
(1)
(2) * * *
(3) PDPs whose premiums were reduced for LIS beneficiaries under § 423.780(f) would not be entitled to automatic enrollment under paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
5. Amend § 423.286 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
(e)
6. Amend § 423.780 by adding a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:
(f)
(1) The PDP sponsor must elect this option at the time its bid is submitted, and agree to set its prescription drug premium for all full subsidy eligible individuals at the premium subsidy amount under paragraph (b) of this section for the entire coverage year if
(i) The PDP sponsor puts forward no other PDP in the PDP region that is offering a premium below the premium subsidy amount or closer to the premium subsidy amount; and
(ii) Its premium amount would otherwise equal or be below the amount established under paragraph (f)(ii) of this section.
(2) Following the establishment of the premium subsidy amount, CMS will review the bids of PDP sponsors that have elected the option under paragraph (f)(i) of this section, and determine an amount that, when added to the premium subsidy amount, would produce a premium amount that is no greater than the amount that would equal or exceed the prescription drug premium amount produced by bids for at least five PDP sponsors in every PDP region.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) extends the date for filing reply comments from December 31, 2007, to January 16, 2008, to provide parties additional time to evaluate the extensive comments received and prepare their replies.
Reply comments are due on or before January 16, 2008.
Interested parties may file reply comments on or before January 16, 2008. All filings related to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking should refer to WC Docket No. 07-135. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's Rulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
•
• For ECFS filers, if multiple dockets or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to
•
• Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
• To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to
Douglas Slotten, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, (202) 418-1572.
This is a summary of the Commission's Order in WC Docket No. 07-135, adopted on December 20, 2007, and released on December 20, 2007. The complete text of this Order is available for public inspection Monday through Thursday from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. in the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text is available also on the Commission's Internet site at
1. Reply comments are currently due on December 31, 2007, 72 FR 64179 (Nov. 15, 2007). We find that providing an additional sixteen days to file reply comments in this proceeding will facilitate the development of a more accurate and complete record. We note that it is the policy of the Commission that extensions of time shall not be routinely granted. Given the complexity of the issues that are raised, the large number of comments that were filed, and the intervening holidays, however, we find that good cause exists to provide all parties an extension of time from December 31, 2007 to January 16, 2008 for filing reply comments in this proceeding.
2.
3.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
PHMSA proposes to revise the Federal pipeline safety regulations to allow certain thermoplastic pipelines made from new Polyamide-11 (PA-11) pipe to be designed using a higher design factor and to raise the design pressure limit for the same pipelines. Design pressure calculations and design pressure limitations for all other thermoplastic pipes (PE-polyethylene, PB-polybutylene, PVC-polyvinyl chloride, etc.) would remain unchanged. These rule changes would allow pipeline operators to operate certain pipelines constructed of new PA-11 pipe at higher operating pressures than currently allowed by the existing rules.
Anyone interested in filing written comments on this proposal must do so by February 7, 2008. PHMSA will consider late comments filed so far as practical.
Comments should reference Docket No. PHMSA-2005-21305 and may be submitted in the following ways:
•
•
•
•
Comments are posted without changes or edits to
Richard Sanders at (405) 954-7214, or by e-mail at
Plastic pipe is used to transport various products in both pressure and non-pressure applications. In pressure service, such as the transport of water or natural gas, the theoretical maximum internal design pressure for plastic pipes is independent of the product being transported. That is, the theoretical maximum design pressure of a plastic pipe is a function of (1) the pipe's physical dimensions and (2) the long-term hydrostatic strength (LTHS) of the pipe material.
The physical dimensions used to calculate the design pressure of a plastic pipe are its outside diameter and wall thickness. In practice these physical dimensions are often expressed by a standard dimension ratio (SDR), which is the ratio of a pipe's average specified outside diameter to the minimum specified wall thickness of the pipe. For a given pipe diameter, the higher the SDR the thinner the pipe wall. Typical SDRs are specified in industry standards developed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
The LTHS used to calculate the design pressure of a plastic pipe is usually represented in pipe design formulas by an assigned value known as the hydrostatic design basis (HDB). The HDB is a reflection of a plastic pipe's ability to resist internal pressure over long periods of time. The Hydrostatic Stress Board of the Plastics Pipe Institute (PPI) assigns an HDB to a plastic pipe material based on testing of the material using the industry accepted test methods published by ASTM International. The HDB for various plastic pipes can be found in the PPI Technical Report, TR-4,
For safety reasons, plastic pipe in any service is not allowed to operate up to its theoretical maximum internal design pressure. That is, the theoretical maximum design pressure for plastic pipe in service is reduced by a safety factor to calculate an allowable design pressure, which is the pressure at which a pipe can safely operate. Safety factors, commonly referred to as design factors, are generally built into plastic pipe design pressure formulas to account for unknowns in the pipeline operations and environment. For example, plastic pipes used in water service may use a design factor of 0.50, which reduces the allowable design pressure to 50 percent of the theoretical maximum design pressure. For transporting natural gas, the Federal pipeline safety regulations set the design factor at a more conservative 0.32 due to the increased hazards associated with transporting natural gas as compared to water. This design factor limits a plastic pipe's allowable design pressure to 32 percent of its theoretical maximum design pressure. This proposed rulemaking would increase the design factor for plastic pipe in natural gas service to 0.40 (40 percent) for certain PA-11 pipe.
For plastic pipe used to transport natural gas, the allowable design pressure is limited by the Federal pipeline safety regulations in two ways. First, as explained above, the plastic pipe design pressure formula in § 192.121 contains a built-in limitation of 0.32, which limits the allowable design pressure to 32 percent of the theoretical maximum design pressure. Second, the allowable design pressure calculated using the design formula in § 192.121 cannot exceed the design pressure limitations in § 192.123. For plastic pipes produced before July 14, 2004, the design pressure cannot exceed 100 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) (689 kilopascal (kPa)) for pipelines in distribution systems and in class 3 or 4 locations. For PE 2406 and PE 3408 polyethylene thermoplastic pipe produced after July 14, 2004, the allowable design pressure cannot exceed 125 psig (862 kPa) for 12-inch iron pipe size (IPS) [nominal pipe diameter] or less. This proposed rulemaking would increase the design pressure limit from 100 psig (689 kPa) to 200 psig (1378 kPa) for certain PA-11 pipe.
In October 2004 Arkema, Inc. (Arkema), a manufacturer of PA-11 thermoplastic pipe, submitted two petitions to PHMSA requesting we revise 49 CFR 192.121 and 192.123. The first petition requested an increase in the design factor from 0.32 to 0.40 in § 192.121 for new PA-11 plastic pipes. The second petition requested an increase in the design pressure limit in § 192.123 from 100 psig (689 kPa) to 200 psig (1378 kPa) for new 2-inch IPS, PA-11 plastic pipes. These changes would allow new 2-inch IPS, PA-11 pipeline systems to be operated up to an allowable design pressure determined by the increased design factor of 0.40 or 200 psig (1378 kPa), whichever is less. The design factor and design pressure limits for all other plastic pipes would remain unchanged.
Arkema asserted in its petition that new PA-11 material will pose less risk to the public at a design factor of 0.40 than older thermoplastic piping materials used with a 0.32 design factor. Arkema also asserted that allowing an increased design pressure will allow gas companies to replace steel pipeline systems with 2-inch plastic pipe operating up to 200 psig (1378 kPa), and
On June 22, 2005, PHMSA published a notice in the
On April 6, 2006, Arkema submitted two amended petitions to PHMSA to replace the original petitions of October 2004. The new petitions addressed the public comments received by PHMSA and recommendations made by PHMSA's staff. In the first amended petition, Arkema requested an increase in the design factor in § 192.121 from 0.32 to 0.40 for new PA-11 pipe of all pipe diameters with two conditions. First, the minimum wall thickness for pipe of a given diameter must be SDR-11 or thicker. Second, the rapid crack propagation (RCP) characteristics of each new pipe diameter or thicker wall for an already tested diameter must be measured using accepted industry standard test methods. Arkema subsequently notes that since its original petition, industry test methods, including RCP testing, now have been completed to qualify new 4-inch pipe, which had not been tested at the time of the original petition. Therefore, PHMSA proposes to update the regulation to allow the revised design factor for new PA-11 up to 4-inch diameter pipe and appurtenances.
Arkema's second amended petition requested a revision to § 192.123 to allow the use of PA-11 pipe at a maximum allowable operating pressure of up to 200 psig (1378 KPa) for SDR-11 pipe at diameters of up to 4-inch IPS. This request is based on the availability of complete PA-11 piping systems, results from a three-year research program by the Gas Technology Institute (GTI) and the successful testing of exhumed samples from field installations of PA-11. Therefore, PHMSA is proposing to allow the use of PA-11 pipe at a maximum of 200 psig (1378 kPa). Arkema also supported the ICC recommendation to require warning tape and included proposed draft rule language in its amended petition to address this issue.
The GTI sponsored laboratory and field research on PA-11 pipe and piping systems beginning in the late 1990s. The research was accomplished by Nicor Technologies (Nicor). Final reports on this laboratory and field research are in the docket for this rulemaking.
In 1997, Nicor began with laboratory research on the physical, mechanical, and chemical properties of PA-11 pipe materials. Nicor used comprehensive laboratory testing and evaluation protocols to examine PA-11 pipe materials from three individual production samples and concluded that overall “the results of the comprehensive short term and long term testing * * * indicate that PA-11 pipe is a suitable plastic alternative to steel systems operating at higher pressure and under exposure to high temperatures for a short period of time.”
Nicor followed up the laboratory research on the properties of PA-11 pipe materials with additional laboratory and field research on the economic feasibility of using PA-11 gas distribution piping systems at higher operating pressures and temperatures than currently permitted for plastic materials. Nicor performed laboratory tests on numerous PA-11 fittings and appurtenances. This was followed by the field testing of a PA-11 trial piping system installed at a Nicor private test site in Illinois, where Nicor installed approximately 400 feet of PA-11 pipe using three different installation techniques: Plowing, directional boring and open trenching. Nicor concluded that the “results of the trial installation of PA-11 piping system have successfully demonstrated that PA-11 piping systems can be safely and effectively installed at higher operating pressures.”
Nicor used the results of the research on the PA-11 trial system to petition the ICC and PHMSA for a waiver to install and operate a PA-11 pipeline system at pressures above 100 psig (689 kPa) in Woodstock, Illinois. The ICC and PHMSA approved the waiver. The pipeline was installed in December 1999. This has allowed GTI and Nicor to continue the research on PA-11 piping systems. This final phase allowed the researchers to evaluate the effects of high operating pressures (150 psig), moisture, aging and other factors on an actual operating natural gas pipeline system. The study concluded, “PA-11 has met or exceeded all of the provisions contained within ASTM D2513-99 [American Society of Testing Materials,
To continue and expand the research on PA-11, GTI solicited several utilities to participate in field trials across the United States. The utilities sought and received both Federal and State waivers to allow some of the PA-11 trial systems to be designed using a 0.40 design factor in the plastic pipe design formula in § 192.121 and to operate at pressures above the plastic pipe design limitations in § 192.123. The PA-11 trial systems were installed from December 1999 to November 2004 in Arizona, Illinois, Louisiana, New Mexico, Tennessee and Utah in various geographic, climatic and operating temperature and pressure environments. Three of the trial systems were designed using a design factor of 0.40. One system was designed using an HDB of 1600 psig at a temperature of 140° F. All the trial systems operate between 60 psig (413 kPa) and 200 psig (1378 kPa) with half operating above 175 psig (1206 kPa). The GTI final report on this research,
PHMSA is proposing to change the design pressure limits in §§ 192.121 and 192.123 for certain PA-11 pipes. The changes would allow new 4-inch IPS or less, SDR-11, PA-11 pipelines to be designed using a design factor of 0.40 (in lieu of 0.32) in the plastic pipe design formulas in § 192.121. The design pressure limit in § 192.123 would be raised from 100 psig (689 kPa) to 200 psig (1378 kPa) for new 4-inch IPS or less, SDR-11, PA-11 plastic pipe used in distribution system pipelines and in pipelines in class 3 and 4
When 49 CFR Part 192 was first promulgated in 1970 there were multiple design factors for plastic pipe based on the class location in which the pipeline was installed. They ranged from 0.20 in class 4 locations to 0.32 in class 1 locations. In 1977, the Materials Transportation Board (MTB) [now PHMSA] proposed a single design factor within the range of 0.32 to 0.50 to be used in the plastic pipe design formula in § 192.121 (see 42 FR 8386). This single factor would allow operators to use the same pipe for identical design pressures throughout their systems, thus saving the cost of keeping various pipes and matching components in inventory for different class locations. At the time of that proposal, some commenters, including the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) suggested that a design factor of 0.40 be adopted, based on its many years of satisfactory use prior to adoption of the more conservative factor in § 192.121.
Other commenters favored a single design factor equal to 0.50. This view was stated for several reasons, but it was based primarily on the fact that plastic pipe did not have a history of pressure failures. After considering the several arguments favoring either 0.40 or 0.50, a 0.32 design factor was adopted. The more conservative increment was chosen to protect against unforeseeable events and has remained in effect since May 1978.
The 0.32 design factor was accepted as a conservative value based on the state of plastic pipe technology in 1978. Advances in plastic pipe technology coupled with the extensive laboratory and field research on PA-11 by Nicor under the sponsorship of the GTI, provide sufficient evidence that the design factor can be increased to 0.40 for certain PA-11 pipes without compromising safety. This evidence includes the history of the PA-11 trial systems, which have been operating safely for several years at increased operating pressures. Moreover, increasing the design factor may allow PA-11 pipe to be used in lieu of steel pipe in some locations, thereby reducing corrosion, a primary factor in pipeline failures.
When 49 CFR Part 192 was first promulgated in 1970 the design pressure limit for plastic pipe used in distribution systems and class 3 or 4 locations was set at 100 psig (689 kPa), which was the design pressure limit in ANSI B31.8 Standard,
When PHMSA was considering the pressure limit increase for PE 2406 and PE 3408 thermoplastic pipes, eleven of the commenters on the proposed new rule agreed the proposed increase in the design pressure limit was warranted. AGA, for example, noted that modern polyethylene pipe was already being reliably operated at pressures greater than 100 psig (689 kPa) under waivers granted by State pipeline safety regulators. AGA further contended that the reliability of newer polyethylene pipe was supported by laboratory and field analysis of the long-term hydrostatic strength of the polyethylene materials.
Bay State and Northern Natural Gas, two natural gas distribution system operators, suggested that the design pressure limit be established per International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards, which allow any design pressure permitted by the measured HDB. UGI Utilities suggested an even higher maximum allowable pressure. However, because there was insufficient data to conclude that pipelines operating at such pressures would operate safely, PHMSA concluded that prescribing a maximum pressure higher than 125 psig was unsupported at that time. The design pressure limit for existing pipe and new pipes other than PE 2406 and PE 3408, such as PA-11, remains at 100 psig (689 kPa).
As explained above, the design pressure of thermoplastic pipe is a function of the physical dimensions and HDB of the pipe. Therefore, for plastic pipes of the same physical dimensions, or SDR, the calculated design pressure is directly proportional to the HDB. PA-11 has an HDB twice that of PE 2406. Therefore, the design pressure of PA-11 calculated using the plastic pipe design formula in § 192.121 is twice the design pressure of PE 2406. For SDR-11 pipe, the calculated design pressure of PA-11 is 160 psig, while the design pressure of PE 2406 is 80 psig. With the current design pressure limit of 100 psig in § 192.123 for distribution systems and class 3 or 4 locations, however, PA-11 is limited to a design pressure of only 4 percent of its HDB while the PE 2406 can operate up to 6.4 percent of its HDB. If PE 2406 can safely operate at 6.4 percent of its HDB, 80 psig, then it stands to reason that PA-11 should also be allowed to operate at 6.4 percent of its HDB, 160 psig, all else being equal.
But all else is not equal. Existing regulations allow certain sizes of PE 2406 pipes to operate up to 125 psig (10 percent of HDB) in distribution systems and class 3 or 4 locations. For example, a PE 2406, SDR-7 pipeline with a calculated design pressure of 133 psig could operate up to 125 psig (10 percent of HDB), but a PA-11, SDR-7 pipeline would be limited to 100 psig (4 percent of HDB) in the exact same application. If the design limits were applied equally based on the long-term pressure carrying capability of each pipe, the PA-11, SDR-7 pipeline would be allowed to operate up to 250 psig (10 percent of HDB).
The proposed regulation would only allow pipelines constructed from 4-inch IPS or less, PA-11, SDR-11 pipe to be operated up to 200 psig (8 percent of HDB). This requires two actions. First, the design factor in § 192.121 would have to be raised to 0.40, as explained above, so the calculated design pressure will equal 200 psig (1378 kPa). Second, the design pressure limit in § 192.123 would have to be raised to 200 psig (1378 kPa) to allow PA-11 pipelines to operate at 200 psig (1378 kPa) in distribution systems and class 3 or 4 locations. PHMSA believes these changes would not be inconsistent with pipeline safety because the HDB of PA-11 is twice that of PE 2406. Moreover, the extensive laboratory and field research, coupled with the successful field trial systems, validate that PA-11 pipelines can safely operate up to 200 psig (1378 kPa).
Anyone may search the electronic form of comments received in response to any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment if submitted for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's (DOT) complete Privacy Act Statement in the
This proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735) and, therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This proposed rulemaking is not significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034).
Installing PA-11 is not mandated; it is optional. PHMSA believes operators may choose to install PA-11 pipe, rather than some other type of pipe, only if it is the most cost-effective alternative available. Consequently, PHMSA anticipates that the benefits of this proposal will equal or exceed its costs. Any gas transmission operators with (or installing) pipelines in class 3 or 4 locations could potentially be affected by the proposed rulemaking. Furthermore, all gas distribution operators could potentially be affected by the proposed rule. In total, PHMSA estimates that the proposed rule could potentially affect 900 gas transmission operators and 1,450 gas distribution system operators. The draft economic evaluation is available for review and comment in the docket.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The proposed rule mandates no action by gas pipeline operators. Rather, it provides operators with an option to use PA-11 pipe in certain pipeline systems based on economic, operations or other considerations. Consequently, the proposal imposes no economic burden on these potentially affected gas pipeline operators. PHMSA concludes this proposed rulemaking would not have a significant negative economic impact on any small entity.
PHMSA has analyzed this rulemaking according to Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Because the proposed rule would not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
This proposal does not impose any new information collection requirements.
This proposed rulemaking does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the proposed rulemaking.
PHMSA has analyzed the proposed rulemaking for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
PHMSA has analyzed the proposed rulemaking according to Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). The proposal does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The proposed rulemaking does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. This proposed regulation would not preempt state law for intrastate pipelines. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
Transporting gas impacts the nation's available energy supply. However, this proposed rulemaking is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not identified this proposal as a significant energy action.
Gas, Natural gas, Pipelines, Pipeline safety.
For the reasons provided in the preamble, PHMSA proposes to amend 49 CFR Part 192 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110, 60113, 60116, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.
2. Revise § 192.121 to read as follows:
Subject to the limitations of § 192.123, the design pressure for plastic pipe is determined by either of the following formulas:
P = Design pressure, gauge, psig (kPa).
S = For thermoplastic pipe, the HDB is determined in accordance with the listed specification at a temperature equal to 73° F (23° C), 100° F (38° C), 120° F (49° C), or 140° F (60° C). In the absence of an HDB established at the specified temperature, the HDB of a higher temperature may be used in determining a design pressure rating at the specified temperature by arithmetic interpolation using the procedure in Part D.2 of PPI TR-3/2004,
t = Specified wall thickness, inches (mm).
D = Specified outside diameter, inches (mm).
SDR = Standard dimension ratio, the ratio of the average specified outside diameter to the minimum specified wall thickness, corresponding to a value from a common numbering system that was derived from the American National Standards Institute preferred number series 10.
D F = 0.32, or = 0.40 for nominal pipe size (IPS) 4 or less, SDR-11, polyamide-11 (PA-11) pipe produced after February 7, 2008 only.
3. Amend § 192.123 to revise paragraph (a) introductory text and to add a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (e) and paragraph (f) of this section, the design pressure may not exceed a gauge pressure of 100 psig (689 kPa) for plastic pipe used in:
(f) The design pressure for polyamide-11 (PA-11) pipe produced after February 7, 2008 may exceed a gauge pressure of 100 psig (689 kPa) provided that:
(1) The design pressure does not exceed 200 psig (1378 kPa);
(2) The pipe size is nominal pipe size (IPS) 4-inch or less;
(3) The pipe has a standard dimension ratio of SDR-11 only; and
(4) Pipes with design pressures above 100 psig (689 kPa) shall be buried with a warning tape or other device sufficient to warn an excavator of the presence of a high pressure gas line near the tape or other device before reaching the burial depth of the pipeline.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition To list the pygmy rabbit (
The finding announced in this document was made on January 8, 2008. To be considered in the 12-month finding for this petition, data, comments, and information must be submitted to us on or before March 10, 2008.
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on
Robert D. Williams, Field Supervisor, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office by mail (see
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information to indicate that listing a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information concerning the status of the pygmy rabbit. We request any additional information, comments, and suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties. We are opening a 60-day comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to provide information on the status of the pygmy rabbit throughout its range, including:
(1) Information regarding the species' historical and current population status, distribution, and trends; its biology and ecology; and habitat selection;
(2) information on the effects of potential threat factors that are the basis for a listing determination under section 4 (a) of the Act, which are:
(a) present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range;
(b) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (in relation to the pygmy rabbit, this includes hunting and research);
(c) disease or predation;
(d) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence; or
(3) information on management programs for the conservation of the pygmy rabbit.
Please note that comments merely stating support or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this finding by one of the methods listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that we will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this finding, will be available for public inspection on
For more information on the biology, habitat, and range of the pygmy rabbit, please refer to the “Species Information” section in our previous 90-day finding published in the
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at the time we make the determination. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a status review of the species.
On April 21, 2003, we received a formal petition, dated April 1, 2003, from the Committee for the High Desert, Western Watersheds Project, American Lands Alliance, Oregon Natural Desert Association, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Center for Native Ecosystems, and Mr. Craig Criddle, requesting that the pygmy rabbit found in California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming be listed as threatened or endangered in accordance with section 4 of the Act. The petition also requested that we designate critical habitat concurrently with listing, if listing occurs. The petition, which was clearly identified as such, contained information on the natural history, biology, and distribution of the pygmy rabbit. It also contained information on what the petitioners reported as potential threats to the species, including but not limited to, habitat loss due to agricultural practices, sagebrush conversion, livestock grazing, fire, mining, energy development, and recreation; hunting; research practices; disease; predation; intra- and inter-specific competition; natural stochastic events such as floods and drought; mortality caused by collisions with off-road vehicles, snowmobiles, and automobiles; and life history traits. The petition also discussed existing regulatory mechanisms and their perceived inadequacies.
In response to the petitioner's requests, we sent a letter to the petitioners dated June 10, 2003, explaining that we would not be able to address their petition until fiscal year 2004. Action on this petition was precluded by court orders and settlement agreements for other listing actions that required nearly all of our listing funds for fiscal year 2003. On May 3, 2004, we received a 60-day notice of intent to sue, and on September 1, 2004, we received a complaint regarding our failure to carry out the 90-day and 12-month findings on the status of the pygmy rabbit. On March 2, 2005, we reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to submit to the
On May 20, 2005, we published a 90-day finding in the
This finding does not address our prior listing of the Columbia Basin distinct population segment (DPS) of the pygmy rabbit. On November 30, 2001, we published an emergency listing and concurrent proposed rule to list this DPS of the pygmy rabbit as endangered (66 FR 59734 and 66 FR 59769, respectively). We listed the Columbia Basin DPS of the pygmy rabbit as endangered in our final rule dated March 5, 2003 (68 FR 10388).
Based on our reconsideration of the information provided in the petition, we find that it presents substantial scientific information that listing the pygmy rabbit may be warranted. Our process for making this 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the “substantial scientific and commercial information” threshold (as mentioned above). Therefore, we are initiating a status review to determine if listing the species is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding this species.
If we determine that listing the pygmy rabbit is warranted, we intend to propose critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we propose to list the species.
The primary author of this notice is the staff of the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA.
Notice.
The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is issuing this notice to publish the final 2006-crop cane state allotments and company allocations to sugarcane and sugar beet processors for the period from October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007 (fiscal year (FY) 2007). This notice also publishes the 2007-crop (FY 2008) cane state allotments and company allocations based on an 8.450 million short tons, raw value (STRV) overall allotment quantity (OAQ) of domestic sugar. This applies to all domestic sugar marketed for human consumption in the United States from October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2008.
Barbara Fecso, Dairy and Sweeteners Analysis Group, Economic Policy and Analysis Staff, Farm Service Agency, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0516, Washington, DC 20250-0516; telephone (202) 720-4146; FAX (202) 690-1480; e-mail:
As part of the domestic sugar program, for sugar marketed for human consumption in the United States, CCC is required to make determinations establishing, adjusting, or suspending sugar marketing allotments. The Secretary is required to establish, by the beginning of each crop year, an appropriate allotment for the marketing by processors of sugar processed from sugar beets and from domestically produced cane sugar at a level the Secretary estimates will result in no forfeitures of sugar to the CCC under the loan program
CCC announced the Final FY 2007 and initial FY 2008 allotments and allocations in a September 27, 2007, news release. This notice provides the final allotments and allocations for FY 2007 and the initial allotments and allocations for FY 2008.
The Secretary is required to reassign the remainder of the allocation to imports if the Secretary determines that processors will be unable to market their allocations after other reassignments and sales from CCC inventory have occurred (7 U.S.C. 1359ee(b)(1)(D)). In a July 31, 2007, news release, CCC announced the determination of a FY 2007 domestic cane sugar supply shortfall of 79,000 STRV and reassigned this deficit to imports. State allotments and company allocations were adjusted downward to reflect the ability of each company and each state to market its allocation and allotment.
The final 2006-crop (FY 2007) beet sugar and cane sugar marketing allotments are listed in the following table:
When CCC announced an 8.450 million ton STRV OAQ in an August 10, 2007, news release, it distributed 54.35 percent of the FY 2008 OAQ (4,592,575 STRV) to the beet sugar allotment. At that time, however, CCC determined that the cane sugar sector would be unable to fill 70,000 STRV of its allotment and withheld this amount for reassignment to imports. Consequently, of the 45.65 percent of the OAQ statutorily allotted to the cane sugar sector (3,857,425 STRV), only 3,787,425 STRV was allotted to cane sugar states for allocation to sugarcane processors. Cane sugar state allotments and processor allocations were announced by CCC in a September 27, 2007 news release.
To establish sugar beet processor allocations, CCC applies the sugar beet sector's allotment to fixed company allocation shares. Likewise, cane sugar state and cane sugar processor allocations are calculated by applying fixed shares to the cane sugar allotment. Allocation shares will change only if CCC determines that a processor cannot fulfill its sugar allocation and reassigns the unused allocation to other processors or if a grower successfully transfers allocation commensurate with his production history to another processor.
CCC determined that South Louisiana Sugars Cooperative, Inc., a Louisiana sugarcane processor, was closed and accepted grower petitions to transfer allocation elsewhere. Permanent allocation transfers in Louisiana could not be made by the September 30, 2007, announcement deadline for FY 2008 allocations, but will be forthcoming.
CCC is required to limit the amount of sugarcane acreage that may be harvested in Louisiana for sugar or seed whenever marketing allotments are in effect and the quantity of sugarcane estimated to be produced in Louisiana, plus a reasonable carryover, exceeds the marketing allotment allocation for Louisiana. This limitation is referred to as a “proportionate share,” and is applied to each farm's sugarcane acreage base to determine the quantity of sugarcane that may be harvested on that farm. Because production is expected to be inadequate to fill Louisiana's FY 2008 allotment, CCC determined that there will be no proportionate share restrictions for the 2007 crop year.
In FY 2004, CCC determined that Puerto Rico's processors permanently terminated operations because no sugar had been processed for two complete years. Since Puerto Rico is entitled to an allocation by law, its allocation of 6,356 STRV is reassigned to the mainland cane sugar-producing states. Hawaii did not receive any of Puerto Rico's reassignment because it is not expected to use all of its current cane sugar allotment. A request for an allocation as a new entrant will be required for any mills in Puerto Rico to market cane sugar in the future.
The established 2007-crop (FY 2008) sugar beet and cane sugar marketing allotments are listed in the following table:
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is seeking comments from interested individuals and organizations on an extension of a currently approved information collection associated with transferring of farm records from one administrative county office to another.
Comments on this notice must be received on or before March 10, 2008 to be assured consideration.
Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Farm Service Agency, USDA, Attn: Alison Groenwoldt, Agricultural Program Specialist, Common Provisions Branch, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250. Comments should also be sent to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments also may be submitted by e-mail to:
Alison Groenwoldt, Agricultural Program Specialist, (202) 720-4213 and
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget Approval.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
The USDA, Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact statement to authorize livestock grazing within the Westside Rangeland Analysis Area on the Wallowa Valley Ranger District of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.
Written comments concerning the proposed action should be received by February 11, 2008. Send written comments and suggestions to Wallowa Valley District Ranger, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, 88401 Highway 82, Box A, Enterprise, OR 97828.
Alicia Glassford, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Wallowa Mountains Office, 88401 Hwy 82, Box A, Enterprise, OR, Phone: (541) 426-5689.
The purpose of and need for this action is to allocate forage for commercial livestock grazing. The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan allows for livestock forage production where forage is in excess to basic plant and soil needs, wildlife needs, and where other specific resource conditions are to be achieved or maintained. While livestock grazing has been ongoing for many years in the Westside Rangeland Analysis Area, this grazing has been addressed through annual operating instructions which have not been subjected to a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis process. Thus, the NEPA process for this group of allotments is being initiated.
The Westside Rangeland Analysis Area (63,507 acres) is located approximately 20 miles north of Enterprise, Oregon and is the portion of National Forest System lands within the Wallowa Valley Ranger District generally located west of State Highway 3. The proposal will result in Allotment Management Plans for the six allotments within the Westside Rangeland Analysis Area: Buck Creek Allotment, Day Ridge Allotment, Mud Creek Allotment, North Powwatka Allotment, South Powwatka Allotment, and Tope Creek Allotment. Specific elements of the Proposed Action are as follows:
Authorize a total of 1579 head-months of livestock grazing on the 22,718-acre Buck Creek Allotment between June 1 and October 31.
Authorize a total of 100 head-months of livestock grazing on the 2,765-acre Day Ridge Allotment between May 15 and June 15.
Authorize a total of 3,528 head-months of livestock grazing on the 11,032-acre Mud Creek Allotment between May 15 and September 15.
Authorize a total of 774 head-months of livestock grazing on the 8074-acre North Powwatka Allotment between April 15 and November 15.
Authorize a total of 1171 head-months of livestock grazing on the 11,455-acre South Powwatka Allotment between June 1 and October 31.
Authorize a total of 429 head-months of livestock grazing on the 7,463-acre Tope Creek Allotment between June 1 and September 30.
The Wallowa Valley District Ranger, Barbara C. Van Alstine, will be the responsible official for making the decision and providing direction for the analysis.
The responsible official will decide whether or not to authorize commercial livestock grazing within the Westside Rangeland Area. The responsible official will also decide whether or not to select the proposed action as stated or modified, or to select an alternative to it, any mitigation measures needed and any monitoring that may be required.
This notice of intent begins the scoping process in the development of the environmental impact statement. Public participation is especially important at several points during the development of the EIS. The Forest Service is seeking information, comments, and coordination with the Federal, State, and local agencies and tribal governments and individuals or organizations who may be interested in or affected by the proposed action. The public is asked to provide the responsible official with written comments describing their concerns about this project. The most useful comments to developing or refining the proposed action would be site specific concerns and those that pertain to authorizing livestock grazing within the Westside Rangeland Analysis Area that meets the Purpose of and Need for
The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available to the public for review by May 2008. EPA will publish a notice of availability of the draft EIS in the
The final EIS is scheduled to be completed in September 2008. In the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to substantive comments received during the comment period that pertain to the environmental consequences discussed in the draft EIS and applicable laws, regulations, and policies considered in making the decision regarding authorization of livestock grazing. 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 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. Substantive comments are defined as “comments within the scope of the proposed action, specific to the proposed action, and have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and include supporting reasons for the Responsible Official to consider (36 CFR 215.2). Submission of substantive comments is a prerequisite for eligibility to appeal under the 36 CFR part 215 regulations.
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.
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.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) by the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles, grantee of FTZ 202, requesting authority to reorganize and expand its zone in the Los Angeles area, adjacent to the Los Angeles-Long Beach Customs port of entry. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on December 19, 2007.
FTZ 202 was approved on July 14, 1994 (Board Order 693, 59 FR 37464, 7/22/94), expanded on August 26, 1996 (Board Order 842, 61 FR 46763, 9/5/96) and on July 9, 1999 (Board Order 1043, 64 FR 38887, 7/20/99), and expanded/reorganized on April 30, 2004 (Board Order 1331, 69 FR 26065, 5/11/04). The zone project currently consists of 22 sites (5,704 acres) and a temporary site (10 acres) located at port facilities, industrial parks and warehouse facilities in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Kern and Riverside Counties. (An expansion application is currently pending (Doc. 44-2006) to include a site (177 acres, Proposed Site 23) within the Tejon Industrial Complex in Lebec.)
The applicant is now requesting authority to reorganize and expand its zone project as follows. The changes will result in an overall net decrease of 329.25 acres in zone acreage.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is March 10, 2008. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to March 24, 2008.
A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at each of the following locations: U.S. Department of Commerce, Export Assistance Center, 11150 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 975, Los Angeles, CA 90064; and, Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
For further information, contact Camille Evans at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) by the South Carolina State Ports Authority, grantee of FTZ 38, requesting authority to expand its existing zone to include additional sites in the Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina Customs and Border Protection port of entry. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR Part 400). It was formally filed on December 20, 2007.
FTZ 38 was approved by the Board on May 4, 1978 (Board Order 131, 43 FR 20526, 5/12/78) and expanded as follows: on November 9, 1994 (Board Order 715, 59 FR 59992, 11/21/94); on July 23, 1997 (Board Order 910, 62 FR 40797, 7/30/97); on January 8, 1999 (Board Order 1015, 64 FR 3064, 1/8/99); and, on July 21, 2005 (Board Order 1404, 70 FR 44559).
The general-purpose zone project currently consists of seven sites (1,546 acres) in Spartanburg County/Laurens Counties:
The applicant is now requesting authority to expand the general-purpose zone to include five additional sites in the area:
The applicant is also requesting that 19 acres at
In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address listed below. The closing period for their receipt is March 10, 2008. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to March 24, 2008.
A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at each of the following locations: U.S. Department of Commerce Export Assistance Center, 216 S. Pleasantburg Drive, Suite 243, Buck Mickel Center, Greenville, S.C. 29607; and, Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On July 2, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of initiation of 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”).
January 8, 2008.
Frances Veith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4295.
On July 2, 2007, the Department published the notice of initiation of the second sunset review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act.
The products covered by this order are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8 to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters (weight and dimension) of the brake rotors limit their use to the following types of motor vehicles: automobiles, all-terrain vehicles, vans and recreational vehicles under “one ton and a half,” and light trucks designated as “one ton and a half.”
Finished brake rotors are those that are ready for sale and installation without any further operations. Semi-finished rotors are those on which the surface is not entirely smooth, and have undergone some drilling. Unfinished rotors are those which have undergone some grinding or turning.
These brake rotors are for motor vehicles, and do not contain in the casting a logo of an original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) which produces vehicles sold in the United States. (
Brake rotors are currently classifiable under subheadings 8708.39.5010, 8708.39.5030, and 8708.30.5030 of the
All issues raised in this review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the web at <http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn>. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Pursuant to section 752(c)(3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins:
Excluded from the antidumping duty order are the following exporters and producer combinations:
Exporter: China National Automotive Industry Import &Export Corporation
Producer: Shandong Laizhou CAPCO Industry;
Exporter: Shandong Laizhou CAPCO Industry
Producer: Shandong Laizhou CAPCO Industry;
Exporter: Shenyang Honbase Machinery Co., Ltd.
Producer: Shenyang Honbase Machinery Co., Ltd.;
Exporter: Shenyang Honbase Machinery Co., Ltd.
Producer: Lai Zhou Luyan Automobile Fittings Co., Ltd.;
Exporter: Lai Zhou Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co., Ltd.
Producer: Lai Zhou Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co., Ltd.;
Exporter: Lai Zhou Luyan Automobile Fittings Co., Ltd.
Producer: Shenyang Honbase or Laizhou Luyuan; and
Exporter: China National Machinery and Equipment I&E (Xinjiang) Corporation, Ltd.
Producer: Zibo Botai Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
In a five-year sunset review, it is the Department's policy to include companies that did not begin exporting until after the order was issued as part of the PRC-wide entity from the investigation.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305 of the Department's regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On September 4, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (“wire rod”) from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The Department has conducted expedited (120-day) sunset reviews for these orders pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping.
January 8, 2008.
Devta Ohri or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3853, or (202) 482-0182, respectively.
On September 4, 2007, the Department published the notice of initiation of the sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on wire rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, pursuant to Section 751(c) of the Act.
The Department received a notice of intent to participate from the following domestic parties: Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc.; ISG Georgetown, Inc.; Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc.; and Rocky Mountain Steel Mills within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The companies claimed
Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc. reported that it is related to Gerdau S.A., a producer and exporter of subject merchandise in Brazil. ISG Georgetown, Inc. reported that it is related to the following producers and exporters of subject merchandise: Belgo Siderurgia S.A. in Brazil; Mittal Canada, Inc. in Canada; Siderurgica Lazaro Cardenas Las Truchas, SA in Mexico; Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. in Trinidad and Tobago; and OJSC Mittal Steel Kryviy Rih in Ukraine. Pursuant to section 771(4)(B) of the Act, a domestic interested party may be excluded from participating as part of the domestic industry if it is related to an exporter of subject merchandise. In this sunset review, even if we excluded the parties above from participating as part of the domestic industry in the sunset review of the order, there would still be sufficient participation by other domestic interested parties to merit a sunset review of the order. Since there is sufficient industry support regardless of whether the two companies are included, we do not need to resolve the issue of whether to include or exclude Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc. and ISG Georgetown, Inc. Therefore, collectively, Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc., ISG Georgetown, Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc.; Rocky Mountain Steel Mills; and Nucor Corporation will be known as the “domestic interested parties.”
The Department received a complete substantive response to the notice of initiation from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no responses from respondent interested parties with respect to any of the orders covered by these sunset reviews, nor was a hearing requested. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department is conducting expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders for Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine.
The merchandise subject to these orders is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter.
Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium).
Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. Grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium.
Grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).
For purposes of grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis - that is, the direction of rolling - of the rod) over thickness (measured on the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 24, 2003.
The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise.
All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope.
The products under review are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.3092, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, 7227.90.6059, and 7227.90.6080 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive.
All issues raised in these reviews are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine; Final Results” from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration (December 31, 2007), which is hereby adopted by this notice (“Decision Memo”). The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the orders were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in room B-099 of the main Department building.
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.
We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on wire rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins:
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On September 4, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the
January 8, 2008.
Devta Ohri or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3853 or (202) 482-0182, respectively.
On September 4, 2007, the Department published the notice of initiation of the sunset review of the countervailing duty order on wire rod from Brazil, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act.
Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc. reported that it is related to Gerdau S.A., a producer and exporter of subject merchandise in Brazil. ISG Georgetown, Inc. reported that it is related to Belgo Siderurgia S.A. in Brazil, a producer and exporter of subject merchandise. Pursuant to Section 771(4)(B) of the Act, a domestic interested party may be excluded from participating as part of the domestic industry if it is related to an exporter of subject merchandise. In this sunset review, even if we excluded the parties above from participating as part of the domestic industry in the sunset review of the order, there would
The Department received a complete substantive response to the notice of initiation from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no responses from respondent interested parties, nor was a hearing requested. Therefore, we conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the CVD order on wire rod from Brazil, as provided for in section 351.218 (e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the Department's regulations.
The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter.
Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium).
Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. Grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium.
Grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).
For purposes of grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis - that is, the direction of rolling - of the rod) over thickness (measured on the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod. This measurement methodology applies only to inclusions on certain grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and certain grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 24, 2003.
The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise.
All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope.
The products under review are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.3092, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, 7227.90.6059, and 7227.90.6080 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
All issues raised in substantive responses by parties in this sunset review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil; Final Results,” (“Decision Memo”), from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated December 31, 2007, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy, the net countervailable subsidy rate likely to
Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file in B-099, the Central Records Unit, of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Department's Web page at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.
For the reasons stated in the Decision Memo, the Department determines that revocation of the countervailing duty order on wire rod from Brazil is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the following countervailing duty rates:
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i) of the Act.
Notice is hereby given that Public Law 99-190, as amended, authorizing the National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs Program, has been funded for 2008 in the amount of $8,367,400.00. All requests for information and applications for grants should be sent to: 2008 NCACA Grant Program, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, 401 F Street, NW., Suite 312, Washington, DC 20001-2728, Phone: 202-504-2200.
Deadline for receipt of grant applications as 1 March 2008.
This program provides grants for general operating support of organizations whose primary purpose is performing, exhibiting, and/or presenting the arts. To be eligible for a grant, organizations must be located in the District of Columbia, must be non-profit, non-academic institutions of demonstrated national repute, and must have annual incomes, exclusive of federal funds, in excess of one million dollars for each of the past three years, Organizations seeking grants must provide a Dun and Bradstreet (D&S) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number when applying.
The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for January 17, 2007, at 10 a.m. in the Commission's offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include buildings, parks and memorials.
Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site:
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (hereinafter the “Corporation”), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirement on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, the Corporation is soliciting comments concerning the AmeriCorps Annual Progress Report designed to collect demographic, performance, and narrative information from federal grantees. These reports will be submitted by grantees that receive Corporation funding through the Corporation's AmeriCorps State and National. Completion of the Progress Report is required as a condition of these awards.
Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the addresses section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service, Learn and Serve America; Attention Amy Borgstrom, Associate Director for Policy, Room 9515; 1201 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20525.
(2) By hand delivery or by courier to the Corporation's mailroom at Room 8100 at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
(3) By fax to: (202) 606-3476, Attention Amy Borgstrom, Associate Director for Policy.
(4) Electronically through the Corporation's e-mail address system:
Amy Borgstrom, (202) 606-6930, or by e-mail at
The Corporation is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses).
The Annual Progress Report will be completed by grantees of the Corporation's AmeriCorps State and National programs. The purpose of the information collection is to elicit accurate information from Corporation grantees in order to assess impacts and respond to requests for information from stakeholders.
The Corporation seeks to renew their Annual Progress Report.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
The REMS program was formerly known as the “Emergency Response and Crisis Management” grant program. As indicated elsewhere in this notice, the priorities and other application requirements used for this competition are from notices that were published in the
This priority is:
This priority supports LEA projects to improve and strengthen emergency management plans, at the district and school-building level, addressing the four phases of emergency management: Prevention-Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery. Plans must include: (1) Training for school personnel and students in emergency management procedures; (2) Coordination with local law enforcement, public safety, public health, and mental health agencies; and (3) A method for communicating school emergency management policies and reunification procedures to parents and guardians.
These priorities are:
Under this priority, we give a competitive preference to applications from LEAs that (1) have not yet received a grant under this program (CFDA 84.184E) and (2) are located in whole or in part within Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) jurisdictions, as determined by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). An applicant must meet both of these criteria in order to receive the competitive preference. Under a consortium application, all members of the LEA consortium need to meet both criteria to be eligible for the preference. Applications submitted by educational service agencies (ESAs) are eligible under this priority if each LEA to be served by the grant is located within a UASI jurisdiction and has not
Because DHS' determination of UASI jurisdictions may change from year to year, applicants under this priority must refer to the most recent list of UASI jurisdictions published by DHS before submitting their applications to determine if they will receive a competitive preference under this priority.
The Governor of each State has designated a State Administrative Agency (SAA) as the entity responsible for applying for, and administering, funds under the DHS Grant Program (which includes the UASI program). The SAA is also responsible for defining the geographic borders for jurisdictions included in the UASI program. Guidance on jurisdiction definitions can be found at:
Under this priority, we give competitive preference to applications from LEAs that have not previously received a grant under this program (CFDA 84.184E). Applicants (other than ESAs) that have received funding under this program directly, or as the lead agency or other partner in a consortium application under this program, will not receive competitive preference under this priority. For applications submitted by ESAs, each LEA to be served by the grant must not have received funding under this program directly, or as the lead agency, or other partner in a consortium application, in order for the ESA to be eligible under this priority; however the ESA itself may have received a previous grant.
1.
Applications that fail to include the required agreement, including information on partners' roles and responsibilities and on their commitment to continuation and continuous improvement (with signatures and explanations for missing signatures as specified above), will not be read.
Although this program requires partnerships with other parties, administrative direction and fiscal control for the project must remain with the LEA.
2.
3.
Because DHS' determination of NIMS requirements may change from year to year, applicants must refer to the most recent list of NIMS requirements published by DHS when submitting their applications. In any notice inviting applications, the Department will provide applicants with information necessary to access the most recent DHS list of NIMS requirements. Information about the FY 2007 NIMS requirements for tribal governments and local jurisdictions, including LEAs, may be found at:
An LEA's NIMS compliance must be achieved in close coordination with the local government and with recognition of the first-responder capabilities held by the LEA and the local government. As LEAs are not traditional response organizations, first-responder services will typically be provided to LEAs by local fire and rescue departments, emergency medical service providers, and law enforcement agencies. This traditional relationship must be acknowledged in achieving NIMS compliance in an integrated NIMS compliance plan for the local government and the LEA. LEA participation in the NIMS preparedness program of the local government is essential to ensure that first-responder services are delivered to schools in a timely and effective manner. Additional information about NIMS implementation is available at:
4.
5.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards later in FY 2008 and in FY 2009 and subsequent years from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
3.
(a)
Section 9501 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), requires that State educational agencies (SEAs), LEAs, or other entities receiving funds under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act provide for the equitable participation of private school children, their teachers, and other educational personnel in private schools located in areas served by the grant recipient. In order to ensure that grant program activities address the needs of private school children, LEAs must engage in timely and meaningful consultation with private school officials during the design and development of the program. This consultation must take place before any decision is made that affects the opportunities of eligible private school children, teachers, and other educational personnel to participate.
In order to ensure equitable participation of private school children, teachers, and other educational personnel, an LEA must consult with private school officials on such issues as: Hazards/vulnerabilities unique to private schools in the LEA's service area, training needs, and existing emergency management plans and resources already available at private schools.
(b)
Section 9521 of the ESEA permits LEAs to receive a grant only if the SEA finds that the combined fiscal effort per student or the aggregate expenditures of the LEA and the State with respect to the provision of free public education by the LEA for the preceding fiscal year was not less than 90 percent of the combined fiscal effort or aggregate expenditures for the second preceding fiscal year.
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.184E.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the person listed under
2.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition may be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov), or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery, please refer to section IV.6.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a.
To comply with the President's Management Agenda, we are participating as a partner in the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site. The Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools grant competition, CFDA Number 84.184E, is
If you choose to submit your application electronically, you must use the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
You may access the electronic grant application for the Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools grant competition at
Please note the following:
• Your participation in Grants.gov is voluntary.
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not consider your application if it is date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov at
• To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit your application in paper format.
• If you submit your application electronically, you must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. Please note that two of these forms—the SF 424 and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424—have replaced the ED 424 (Application for Federal Education Assistance).
• If you submit your application electronically, you must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified in this paragraph or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department). The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by e-mail. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with 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.
b.
If you submit your application in paper format by mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier), you must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address:
or
Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you submit your application in paper format by hand delivery, you (or a courier service) must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.184E), 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.
These GPRA measures constitute the Department's indicators of success for this program. Applicants for a grant under this program are advised to give careful consideration to these measures in designing their proposed project, including considering how data for the measures will be collected. Grantees will be required to collect and report, in their interim and final performance reports, data on about their progress with regard to these measures.
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
Take notice that on December 19, 2007, Arrowhead Louisiana Gathering LLC (“Arrowhead”) submitted a request for waiver of the requirement to file the FERC Form No. 6-Q for the second quarter of the 2007 calendar year.
In support thereof, Arrowhead states that while its tariff became effective June 9, 2007, it performed no service during the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007, and has no operating revenues to report for that period.
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 or 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
On December 20, 2007, the Commission issued an order that instituted a proceeding in the above-referenced docket, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) 16 U.S.C. 824e, to investigate the justness and reasonableness of extending the California Independent System Operator, Inc.'s Reliability Capacity Services Tariff until the earlier of the implementation of the Market Redesign and Technology Upgrade or an alternative backstop capacity procurement mechanism.
The refund effective date, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the Federal Power Act, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
On December 26, 2007, the Western Power Trading Forum (WPTF) filed a request for an extension of time to file an answer to the Public Utilities of the State of California's (CPUC) Motion to Supplement Request for Rehearing or, in the Alternative, to Supplement the CPUC's Response to the Motion For Clarification of the California Generators filed December 21, 2007, in the above-docketed proceeding (December 21 Motion). WPTF states that because of the intervening holidays and vacation schedules involving WPTF counsel and personnel, additional time is needed to coordinate and prepare a responsive filing.
Upon consideration, notice is hereby give that an extension of time for filing answers to the CPUC's December 21 Motion is granted and including January 14, 2008.
Take notice that on December 28, 2007, Cargill Power Markets, LLC, filed a formal complaint against Independent System Operator New England, Inc., Central Maine Power Company, New England Power Company, NSTAR Electric Company and The United Illuminating Company (collectively, Respondents), pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Power Act, and Commission Rule 206, alleging that the Respondents improperly processed a queue for transmission service on the Phase I/II HVDC-TF.
Cargill Power Markets, LLC certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for the Respondents as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
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
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on December 20, 2007, Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline, L.P (Cheniere), 700 Milam Street, Suite 800, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in the above-referenced docket an abbreviated application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and part 157 of the regulations of the Commission, to amend its certificate authority issued on June 15, 2006 in Docket No. CP05-357-000
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on December 14, 2007, Chestnut Ridge Storage LLC (Chestnut Ridge), Ten Thousand Memorial Drive, Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77024-3410, filed an application under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to construct and operate a new underground natural gas storage facility to be located in Fayette County, Pennsylvania and Monongalia and Preston Counties, West Virginia. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Chestnut Ridge's Application seeks (1) a certificate of public convenience and necessity that would authorize Chestnut Ridge to construct, own, operate and maintain a high-deliverability depleted reservoir natural gas storage facility, the Junction Natural Gas Storage Project (JCT Project), that will accommodate the injection, storage and subsequent withdrawal of natural gas for redelivery in interstate commerce; (2) a blanket certificate pursuant to subpart G of 18 CFR part 284 that will permit Chestnut Ridge to provide open-access firm and interruptible natural gas storage services on behalf of others in interstate commerce with pre-granted abandonment of such services; (3) a blanket certificate pursuant to Subpart F of 18 CFR part 157 that will permit Chestnut Ridge to construct, acquire, operate, rearrange and abandon certain facilities following construction of the proposed project; (4) authorization to provide the proposed storage services at market-based rates; and (5) approval of a
Chestnut Ridge also requests that the Commission waive the requirements of (i) 18 CFR 157.6(b)(8) and 157.14(a)(13), (14), (16), (17) (which relate to the filing of information required to justify rates on a cost-of-service basis, given that Chestnut Ridge proposes to charge market-based rates for the services it will provide); (ii) 18 CFR 157.14(a)(10) (which requires a showing regarding accessible gas supplies that is not applicable to a storage project to which third parties will deliver their gas); (iii) 18 CFR 260.2 and part 201 (accounting and reporting requirements appropriate for a cost-of-service rate structure); and (iv) 18 CFR 284.7(e) and 284.10 (which
Chestnut Ridge states that the JCT Project would provide necessary natural gas infrastructure in furtherance of the Commission's policies supporting the development of new natural gas storage capacity. According to Chestnut Ridge, the JCT Project will increase the reliability of natural gas supply during periods of production and transportation interruptions and will enhance the reliability of the interstate pipeline grid. Chestnut Ridge states that the JCT Project will include up to twenty-six (26) storage injection/withdrawal wells with a total working gas storage capacity of up to 25 billion cubic feet (Bcf). Chestnut Ridge also states that the JCT Project will have gas injection and withdrawal capabilities of up to 500,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d).
Chestnut Ridge represents that construction and operation of the JCT Project will have minimal impacts on the natural environment and on adjacent landowners. Chestnut Ridge states that the market power study included with its Application demonstrates that Chestnut Ridge will not have market power in any relevant market. It asserts that the Commission can therefore conclude that Chestnut Ridge will be unable to charge or collect rates for its services that exceed just and reasonable levels.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be file on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a new license for the Ottumwa Hydroelectric Project, located on the Des Moines River in the City of Ottumwa, Wapello County, Iowa, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). In the EA, Commission staff analyze the potential environmental effects of relicensing the project and conclude that issuing a new license for the project, with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the issuance date of this notice, and should be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1-A, Washington, DC 20426. Please affix “Ottumwa Project No. 925-010” to all comments. Comments may be filed electronically via Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “eFiling” link. For further
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the natural gas pipeline facilities proposed by Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG) under the above-referenced docket. CIG's High Plains Expansion Project (Project) would be located in Weld, Morgan, and Adams Counties, Colorado.
The Final EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff concludes that the proposed Project, with the appropriate mitigation measures as recommended, would have limited adverse environmental impact.
The purpose of the Project is to expand CIG's existing pipeline system along Colorado's Front Range in order to provide additional transportation services to this rapidly growing market. CIG is proposing to construct about 163.7 miles of 24-inch and 30-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate pipeline segments and associated ancillary facilities.
The Final EIS addresses the potential environmental impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the following facilities:
•
•
•
•
• Ten new meter stations and 19 new block valves; and
• Twelve pig launcher/receivers.
The entire project would be capable of transporting about 899,000 decatherms of gas per day. CIG proposes to begin construction in January 2008. It would put each pipeline segment into service as it is completed, and the entire Project would be in service by October 2008.
The Final EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8371.
A limited number of copies of the Final EIS are available from the Public Reference Room identified above. In addition, CD copies of the Final EIS have been mailed to affected landowners; various federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; local libraries and newspapers; intervenors; and other individuals that expressed an interest in the proposed Project. Hard-copies of the Final EIS have also been mailed to those who requested that format during the scoping and comment periods for the proposed Project.
Additional information about the proposed Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC Internet Web site (
To access information via the FERC Web site click on the “eLibrary” link then click on “General Search” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. The “eLibrary” link provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. For assistance with “eLibrary”, please contact FERC Online Support at
In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which 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 these documents. To learn more about eSubscription and to sign-up for this service please go to
Take notice that on December 18, 2007, East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC (East Tennessee), P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, filed in Docket No. CP08-38-000 a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.210 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and East Tennessee's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-412, for authorization to acquire approximately 72 miles of transmission pipeline. East Tennessee proposes to acquire approximately 72 miles of Spectra Energy Virginia Pipeline Company's 8-inch line, in Smyth and Washington Counties, Virginia, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at
Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Garth Johnson, General Manager, Certificates & Reporting, East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642 at (713) 627-5415.
Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to section
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
Comment Date: January 11, 2008.
Take notice that on November 28, 2007, Enbridge Pipelines (Patoka), LLC, submitted a request for waiver of the requirement to file the FERC Form No. 6 for the last two months of the 2004 calendar year.
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 or 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Ocean State Power and Ocean State Power II (collectively, Ocean State) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff. The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy, capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. Ocean State also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, Ocean State requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Ocean State.
On December 18, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the requests for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is January 18, 2008.
Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket approvals by the deadline above, Ocean State is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Ocean State, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of Ocean State's issuance of securities or assumptions of liability.
Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
On December 21, 2007, the Commission issued an order that instituted a proceeding in the above-referenced docket, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) 16 U.S.C. 824e, to review Mississippi Power Company's request for authorization to update its depreciation rates.
The refund effective date, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the Federal Power Act, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Take notice that during the month of November 2007, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).
Ocean State Power and Ocean State Power II (collectively, Ocean State) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff. The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy, capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. Ocean State also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, Ocean State requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Ocean State.
On December 18, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the requests for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is January 18, 2008.
Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket approvals by the deadline above, Ocean State is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Ocean State, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of Ocean State's issuance of securities or assumptions of liability.
Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on December 21, 2007, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. submitted for filing revisions to its application filed on December 12, 2007.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on December 18, 2007, Saltville Gas Storage Company L.L.C. (Saltville), P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, filed in Docket No. CP08-39-000 a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.210 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Saltville's blanket certificate issued in Docket Nos. CP04-13,
Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Garth Johnson, General Manager, Certificates & Reporting, East Tennessee Natural Gas, L.L.C., P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642 at (713) 627-5415.
Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
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
Comment Date: January 23, 2008.
Susquehanna Energy Products LLLP (now Susquehanna Energy Products LLC) (Susquehanna Energy) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying tariff. The proposed market-based rate tariff provides for the sales of capacity and energy at market-based rates. Susquehanna Energy also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, Susquehanna Energy requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Susquehanna Energy.
On June 16, 2003, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development-South, granted the requests for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is January 9, 2008.
Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket approvals by the deadline above, Susquehanna Energy is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Susquehanna Energy, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued
Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on December 18, 2007, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco), Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, filed in Docket No. CP08-40-000, an application pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208, and 157.212 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) as amended, to construct and operate a new receipt point to receive revaporized liquefied natural gas in Beauregard Parish, Louisiana, under Transco's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-426-000,
Transco states that it proposes to construct and operate a new receipt point on Transco's mainline to receive revaporized liquefied natural gas from the Cheniere Trail LNG, L.P., import terminal via the Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline. The taps into Transco's mainline would be located in Beauregard Parish, Louisiana. This new receipt point would provide Transco with the ability to receive up to 1 Bcf/day of revaporized LNG from the Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline into Transco's mainline. Transco further states that it estimates the total cost to construct and operate the proposed receipt point at $1,700,000, for which Cheniere Trail Pipeline, L.P., would reimburse Transco for all costs associated with such facilities.
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Bill Hammons, Staff Regulatory Analyst, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, or via telephone at (713) 215-2130.
This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DHAC, PJ-12.1, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please reference the project number (P-2506-144) on any comments or motions filed. Comments and motions filed need to carefully specify the appropriate project number in order to avoid confusion with the SMP's concurrently filed by UPPCO for four other projects (see item k below). 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.
k.
l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
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.
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DHAC, PJ-12.1, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please reference the project number (P-10856-061) on any comments or motions filed. Comments and motions filed need to carefully specify the appropriate project number in order to avoid confusion with the SMP's concurrently filed by UPPCO for four other projects (see item k below). 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.
k.
l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
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.
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DHAC, PJ-12.1, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please reference the project number (p-2402-108) on any comments or motions filed. Comments and motions filed need to carefully specify the appropriate project number in order to avoid confusion with the SMP's concurrently filed by UPPCO for four other projects (see item k below). 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.
k.
l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
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.
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments and/or motions: January 29, 2008.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DHAC, PJ-12.1, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please reference the project number (p-10854-080) on any comments or motions filed. Comments
k.
l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
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.
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DHAC, PJ-12.1, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please reference the project number (P-1864-083) on any comments or motions filed. Comments and motions filed need to carefully specify the appropriate project number in order to avoid confusion with the SMP's concurrently filed by UPPCO for four other projects (see item k below). 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.
k.
l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
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.
Waterbury Generation, LLC (Waterbury) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying market-based rate tariff. The proposed market-based rate tariff provides for the sale of energy, capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. Waterbury also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, Waterbury requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Waterbury.
On December 26, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development—West, granted the requests for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is January 28, 2008.
Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket approvals by the deadline above, Waterbury is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Waterbury, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of Waterbury's issuance of securities or assumptions of liability.
Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Waterbury Generation, LLC (Waterbury) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying market-based rate tariff. The proposed market-based rate tariff provides for the sale of energy, capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates. Waterbury also requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, Waterbury requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Waterbury.
On December 26, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development—West, granted the requests for blanket approval under part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is January 28, 2008.
Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket approvals by the deadline above, Waterbury is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Waterbury, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approvals of Waterbury's issuance of securities or assumptions of liability.
Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008, 3 p.m. Eastern Time.
Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr. Conference Room on the Ninth Floor of the EEOC Office Building, 1801 “L” Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507.
The meeting will be open to the public.
1. Announcement of Notation Votes;
2. Obligation of Funds for Temporary Interactive Voice Response/Automatic Call Distribution (IVR/ACD) Non-competitive Hosting Contract, and
3. Obligation of Funds for Competitive Contract for Technology Support of Customer Response Function.
In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the meeting will be open to public observation of the Commission's deliberations and voting. (In addition to publishing notices on EEOC Commission meetings in the
Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) and (202) 663-4074 (TTY) at any time for information on these meetings. The EEOC provides sign language interpretation at Commission meetings for the hearing impaired. Requests for other reasonable accommodations may be made by using the voice and TTY numbers listed above.
Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Officer on (202) 663-4070.
Notice of a Partially Open Meting of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 9:30 AM. the meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in Room 1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.
Item No. 1: Transaction Due Diligence Best Practices.
The meeting will be open to public participation for Item No. 1 only.
For further information, contact: Office of the Secretary, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571 (Tele. No. 202-565-3957).
Farm Credit Administration.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).
The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on January 10, 2008, from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.
Roland E. Smith, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.
Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090.
Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:
• December 13, 2007.
• Auditors' Report on FCA FY 2007/2006 Financial Statements.
• Office of Examination Quarterly Report.
• Update on OE Oversight Activities.
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. sections 3501-3520. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before February 7, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, (202) 395-5887, or via fax at 202-395-5167 or via internet at
To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page
For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214 or via the Internet at
There is an increase in the number of respondents/responses and burden hours due a recalculation of the burden estimates.
Section 90.179 requires Part 90 licensees that share use of their private land mobile radio (PLMR) facility on a non-profit, cost-shared basis keep a written sharing agreement as part of the station records. The written agreement would set out: (1) The method of sharing, (2) the components of the system which are covered by the sharing arrangements, (3) the method by which costs are to be apportioned, (4) and acknowledgement that all shared transmitter use must be subject to the licensee's control.
These requirements are necessary to identify users of the systems should interference problems develop. This information is used by the Commission to investigate interference complaints and resolve interference and operational complaints that may arise among the users.
Federal Election Commission.
Notice of filing dates for special election.
Mississippi has set November 4, 2008, as the date of the Special General Election to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Senator Trent Lott. Under Mississippi law, a majority winner in a nonpartisan special election is declared elected. Should no candidate achieve a majority vote, a Special Runoff Election will be held on November 25, 2008, between the top two vote-getters.
Committees participating in the Mississippi special elections are required to file pre- and post-election reports. Filing dates for these reports are affected by whether one or two elections are held.
Mr. Kevin R. Salley, Information Division, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463; Telephone: (202) 694-1100; Toll Free (800) 424-9530.
All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the Mississippi Special General and Special Runoff Elections shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report on October 23, 2008; a 12-day Pre-Runoff Report on November 13, 2008; and a 30-day Post-Runoff Report on December 25, 2008. (See chart below for the closing date for each report).
If only one election is held, all principal campaign committees of candidates participating in the Special General Election shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report on October 23, 2008; and a 30-day Post-General Report on December 4, 2008. (See chart below for the closing date for each report).
Political committees filing on a quarterly basis in 2008 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the Mississippi Special General or Special Runoff Elections by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (See chart below for the closing date for each report).
Committees filing monthly that support candidates in the Mississippi Special General or Special Runoff Election should continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.
Additional disclosure information in connection with the Mississippi Special Elections may be found on the FEC Web site at
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than January 22, 2008.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 2, 2008.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than January 23, 2008.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 3, 2008.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 1, 2008.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 2, 2008.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 1, 2008.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 3, 2008.
This notice amends Part B of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration on Aging (AoA), as follows: Part B, Administration on Aging (67 FR 36883-36890), as last amended, May 28, 2002. This reorganization of AoA will achieve several important objectives: It will streamline the organization; consolidate and elevate AoA's disaster preparedness and responses activities; improve the integration of AoA's budget development and policy analysis functions; and enhance the organization's capacity to implement the provisions of the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006 which seek to assist older Americans to conserve and extend their personal resources by bringing transparency to long-term care, divert seniors away from nursing home care, and empower older adults to take more control of their own health through lifestyle and behavioral changes. The changes are as follows:
I. Delete Part B, “The Administration on Aging” in its entirety and replace with the following:
B.00 Mission.
B.10 Organization.
B.20 Functions.
Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary (BA).
Center for Policy and Management (BE).
Center for Program Operations (BF).
B.20 Functions.
A. Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary (BA):
BA.00 Mission.
BA.10 Organization.
BA.20 Functions.
Immediate Office of the Assistant Secretary (BA).
Executive Secretariat (BAA).
Office of Communications (BA1).
Office of Preparedness and Response (BA2).
BA.20 Functions.
1.
Sets national policies, establishes national priorities, ensures policy consistency, and directs plans and programs conducted by AoA. Advises the Secretary, HHS agencies, and other Federal agencies on the characteristics, circumstances, and needs of older people, and on policies, plans and programs designed to promote their welfare.
The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs serves as the Assistant Secretary's primary associate in carrying out the mission of the agency. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs serves as the AoA's Reports Clearance Officer and is the AoA liaison with the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, the Office of the General Counsel, the Office of the Inspector General, and the Government Accountability Office for areas under the Office's purview.
In collaboration with other Federal agencies, it develops and implements interagency agreements to assist older persons. Provides liaison with other Federal advisory committees focused on the aging. Works with national aging organizations, professional societies, and academic organizations to identify mutual interests and plan voluntary and funded approaches to meet the needs of older persons. Ensures affirmative action throughout the Aging Network in employment and service delivery.
2.
3.
Coordinates the development of legislative proposals, testimony, background statements, and other policy documents for use by the Assistant Secretary in activities related to legislation. In coordination with the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, analyzes proposed and enacted legislation related directly or indirectly to older people, including legislation directly affecting OAA programs. Through automated legislative information systems tracks bills related to the aging. Develops and issues status reports regarding key legislative developments to Headquarters and Regional Support Centers staff, the network of State and Area Agencies on Aging, and Indian Tribal Organizations.
Coordinates with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, including planning and implementing strategy for relations with the news and other information media; and initiates media outreach activities and responds to all media inquiries concerning AoA programs and related issues.
Oversees the international liaison functions of AoA, coordinating AoA international activities with Departmental as well as other Federal agencies, States and national organizations concerned with international aging matters. At all levels, from national to the local service delivery level, develops methods and collaborations to articulate the problems and concerns of the elderly to organizations beyond the traditional network of agencies and works with these organizations to be more sensitive and responsive to age-related needs and issues.
Compiles, publishes, and disseminates information on programs funded under the Act, as well as demographic data on the elderly population and data from other Federal agencies on the health, social and economic status of older persons. Promotes information dissemination in professional fields. Ensures dissemination of information such as best practice models to exchange program experience with the network of State and Area Agencies on Aging; and works with organizations in the field of aging and with other organizations in fields that impact older persons to enhance the dissemination of consumer and technical information. Works with the Office of Evaluation to ensure the successful collection of data and its analysis to demonstrate the effectiveness of AoA dissemination activities. Ensures that program and service information and trends are disseminated to advocates for older persons.
Responds to written, phone and personal inquiries from all sources dealing with services and needs of the aging.
3.
OPR coordinates with AoA's Regional Support Centers and aging network organizations in response to the needs of older individuals following a Presidentially-declared disaster to assess needs and provide disaster assistance, relief and reimbursement pursuant to section 310 of the Older Americans Act. OPR serves as the primary liaison with the Secretary's Operations Center and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response and serves on interagency working groups to represent AoA and the unique interests of older individuals and other special needs populations. OPR is responsible for developing operational plans and training to ensure the preparedness of AoA, the Aging Network and the public to respond to threats, disasters and emergencies; for policy formulation and coordination for preparedness and response strategic planning; and for the development and implementation of plans to ensure the continuity of operations.
B. Center for Policy and Management (BE):
BE.00 Mission.
BE.10 Organization.
BE.20 Functions.
Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Management (BE).
Office of Management Analysis and Resources (BEA).
Office of Budget and Finance (BE1).
Office of Administrative and Technology Services (BE2).
Office of Grants Management (BE3).
Office of Planning and Policy Development (BE4).
BE.20 Functions.
1.
The Deputy Assistant Secretary also serves as the AoA's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Chief Information Officer (CIO) and is the principal advisor and counsel to the Assistant
2.
Conducts annual reviews and assessments of internal controls required under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act and ensures compliance with the Government Accountability Office and Office of Management and Budget standards. Oversees the implementation of cross-cutting management initiatives including the President's Management Agenda and strategic plan management goals and objectives; advises on actions needed to support various initiatives; and prepares reports on the status of implementation activities. Monitors legislation related to administrative management and provides analysis of the impact on AoA programs and resources. Coordinates with other components to carry out reviews of administrative activities and management practices required under the Chief Financial Officers Act, the Improper Payments Information Act, the Federal Information Security Management Act, and other legislation.
Plans, organizes and conducts management studies of organizational structures, functional statements, job structures, staffing patterns, and management and administrative information systems; identifies and resolves problems of organization and administrative management; and develops administrative management policies, strategies, procedures and techniques. Prepares and maintains organizational functional statements and delegations and designations of authority for AoA.
Develops and implements human capital strategies and strategic workforce plans; directs the development and creation of strategies to attract diverse talent and develop a highly skilled workforce; and provides leadership in the development of plans for achieving short- and long-range human capital goals. Provides leadership and guidance to meet the human resource management needs and coordinates internal and external resources to provide staff with personnel services including position management, performance management, employee recognition, staffing, recruitment, employee and labor relations, employee assistance, payroll liaison, staff development and training, and special hiring and placement programs.
3.
In coordination with AoA program offices, formulates and presents budget estimates; executes apportionment documents; and plans, directs, and coordinates financial and budgetary programs of AoA. Provides guidance to AoA program offices in preparing budgets, justifications, and other supporting budgetary materials. Solicits, obtains and consolidates information and data from other AoA offices, and prepares budget documents on behalf of the Assistant Secretary for presentation to the Department, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Congress.
Analyzes the budget as approved by the Congress and apportioned by OMB, obtains input from program offices and recommends for the Assistant Secretary's approval a financial plan for its execution. Makes allowances to AoA offices within the guidelines of the approved financial plan. Develops and maintains an overall system of budgetary controls to ensure observance of established ceilings on both program—including all mandatory and discretionary grant accounts—and Salaries and Expense funds; maintains administrative control of funds against allotments and allowances; certifies funds availability for all AoA accounts; and coordinates the management of AoA's interagency agreement activities. Prepares requests for apportionment of appropriated funds; and prepares spending plans and status-of-funds reports for the Assistant Secretary.
Develops financial operating procedures and manuals; coordinates the preparation of AoA's financial audits; and provides analysis on financial issues. Serves as the AoA liaison with the Office of the Secretary and OMB on all budgetary and financial matters. Acts as AoA's coordination point for all travel management activities; provides technical assistance and oversight on the use of the GovTrip system; manages employee participation in the Travel Charge Card program, and coordinates Travel Management Center services for AoA.
4.
Provides oversight and direction to meet the administrative needs of AoA
Assists other AoA components in securing contractor assistance by advising on appropriate acquisition vehicles, developing statements of work, and managing the technical aspects of contracts. Develops and implements procurement strategies for information technology support services; reviews all information technology acquisition documentation for compliance with applicable laws and regulations; defines the specifications for procurement of all hardware and software; and identifies opportunities to share information technology services through inter-governmental, inter-departmental and inter-agency agreements. Monitors the use of credit cards for small purchases and establishes and manages contracts and/or blanket purchase agreements for administrative support and facilities management services.
Manages the development of AoA custom applications, systems, and Web sites; oversees training and technical assistance for all AoA systems, hardware and software; and coordinates the preparation of manuals and policy issuances required to meet the instructional and informational needs of users of the systems. Directs and coordinates AoA's systems security and privacy responsibilities, including protection, security and integrity of AoA data; and is responsible for establishing and maintaining a secure Inter- and intranet presence. Represents AoA on the Department's Chief Information Officer's council and other Departmental information technology policy and planning boards, teams, and workgroups.
5.
Ensures that the administrative business and financial management aspects of discretionary grants administration are carried out and grantee performance is monitored. Performs cost analysis/budget analysis for all discretionary grant award documents and negotiates grant budgets, executing all awards for AoA. Advises and assists management and program officials in developing, implementing and evaluating program plans, strategies, regulations, announcements, guidelines and procedures. Recommends approval or disapproval of any grant applications based on programmatic considerations. Only the Office of Grants Management has the authority to obligate the Government to the expenditure of funds for grants and cooperative agreements. Serves as liaison with other offices in the Department.
Issues and maintains control over mandatory grant awards under the OAA, and makes adjustments to previously issued mandatory grant awards. In coordination with all AoA Headquarters and Regional Support Centers having grant administrative responsibilities: Reviews and assesses AoA mandatory grant award procedures; directs and/or coordinates management initiatives to improve mandatory grant programs in financial areas; develops proposals for improving the efficiency in awarding grants and coordinating financial operations among AoA programs; establishes priorities and develops procedures for grantee financial monitoring; and reviews activities at the field level for all AoA discretionary and mandatory grant programs. For mandatory grant activities, develops financial management standards for State and Area Agencies and provides guidance on and interpretation of applicable Federal regulations to AoA staff. Based on mandatory grants management policies and procedures approved by the Department, reprograms mandatory grant funds as required under the OAA. Following consultation with all Headquarters and Regional Support Centers having grant administrative responsibilities, and with the approval of the Assistant Secretary: Develops AoA instructions and procedures for the administration of the business aspects of all mandatory and formula grants, including those approved in AoA Regional Support Centers.
Provides training, technical assistance, overall guidance, monitoring and assistance to AoA staff in all areas of administrative and financial management of grants. Has primary responsibility for developing grants management policy issuances, and ensuring consistent policy interpretation within AoA concerning grants management. Serves as AoA liaison with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the HHS Office of Inspector General and the Department's Office of Grants on grant matters. Assists at discretionary and mandatory grant hearings, before the Departmental Appeals Board, in response to disallowances and other financial claims by AoA, State Agencies on Aging, and other grantees. Responds to Departmental and Office of Inspector General audit reviews, ensuring proper analysis and resolution of audit findings by Regional Support Centers for final action by the Assistant Secretary. Coordinates receipt and processing of all grants and related materials.
6.
Coordinates the development and implementation of the agency's strategic plan that establishes long and short-range goals; objectives, strategies and action plan for advancing the agency's policy and program agenda. Reviews and coordinates all policy and program development documents and activities to ensure consistency with AoA's
Directs intergovernmental affairs activities as it relates to the agency's policy and program development agenda, and develops and maintains effective relationships with other governmental departments and agencies. Plans, negotiates, facilitates and updates, as appropriate, memoranda of understanding with other departments and agencies to promote agreements and cooperative relationships and ventures that address policies and services affecting the aging population.
Maintains information on, and pursues collaborative opportunities with, other Federal agencies, non-profit organizations and private corporations that have the potential to contribute to AoA's policy and program development priorities.
Supports the Assistant Secretary for Aging in implementing section 203(1) of the OAA by coordinating, advising, consulting with and cooperating with the head of each department, agency and instrumentality of the Federal Government proposing or administering programs or services substantially related to the objectives of the OAA. Oversees the consultation process by which agency heads must consult with AoA before establishing programs or services related to the OAA. Plans and implements the process for the collaboration of all Federal agencies with AoA in the execution by those agencies of programs and services related to the OAA.
Provides technical, program and policy development input on legislative activities and the annual budget development cycle. Participates in Departmental and inter-departmental activities that concern health and social services; reviews and comments on Departmental regulations and policies regarding health programs and institutional and non-institutional long-term care services. Provides agency-wide leadership on the programmatic functions of AoA's discretionary grant programs. Plans and directs activities authorized under Title IV of the OAA as amended. Conducts activities for the development of adequate knowledge for improving the circumstances of older people. Develops a knowledge base for policy decisions and program development and coordination through support of a wide range of research, demonstration, and training activities.
Prepares the planning documents for, and coordinates the development of, annual discretionary funds program announcements. Provides technical input for Congressional and budget presentations related to research and demonstration programs. Evaluates research, demonstration and training grant and contract proposals; and recommends approval/disapproval, monitors progress, gives technical guidance to, and evaluates the performance of grantees and contractors. Develops standards and identifies successful service and systems development strategies and best practice models for use by the Aging Network. Develops technical assistance material and dissemination strategies for these strategies, models, and best practice suggestions, in coordination with the other AoA offices.
Conducts relevant policy research and program demonstrations to inform policy and program development; undertakes qualitative and quantitative analyses to develop policy options and recommendations for the Assistant Secretary for Aging. Develops policy reports based on the needs and circumstances of older people, their family members and the aging population. Manages a program for the collection, analysis, and dissemination of information related to the needs and problems of older persons. Develops and coordinates initiatives with other Federal agencies, national aging organizations and universities to fill gaps in information in the field of aging. Reviews research findings from the literature and products from AoA, the Aging Network, and other sources regarding information on aging to identify new findings that will be useful to older people and professionals operating in the field of aging. Determines the relative utility of such products, and in collaboration with the Office of Communications, their potential users and the most effective way to disseminate the information to users.
Promotes coordination of AoA's research and demonstrations with other national, field and local programs related to aging. Within overall AoA strategy and long-range plans, conducts continuing studies and periodic reviews of needs and resources in the field of aging, and makes recommendations for action to the Assistant Secretary for Aging.
BF.00 Mission.
BF.10 Organization.
BF.20 Functions.
Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Program Operations (BF).
Office of Evaluation (BFA).
Office of Core Programs (BF1).
Office for American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian Programs (BF2).
Office of Elder Rights (BF3).
Office of Regional Operations (BFD1 to BFDX).
BE.20 Functions.
1.
Consults with and provides technical assistance to and education for State and Area Agencies on Aging, Tribal grantees, and local community service providers in the development of plans, goals, and system development activities. Ensures that statutory requirements, regulations, policies, and instructions are implemented for Titles III, VI and VII, and for the functions under Title II and Title IV of the OAA for which the Office is responsible, as well as for Section 398 of the PHSA. In addition, the Deputy Assistant Secretary provides oversight and leadership to the Nutrition Officer established in Title II of the OAA who provides technical assistance and guidance to Regional Support Centers, States, Area Agencies on Aging and community service providers.
The Deputy Assistant Secretary carries out the functions and serves as the Director of the Office of long-term Care Ombudsman Programs established in Section 201(d)(1) of the OAA. Serves as the effective and visible advocate regarding Federal policies and laws that may adversely affect the health, safety, welfare, or rights of older residents of long-term care facilities; reviews Federal legislation, regulations, and policies regarding long-term care ombudsman programs and makes recommendations
Supervises and provides technical guidance to the Regional Support Centers as they implement the national programs of the OAA. Ensures that clear and consistent guidance is given on program and policy directives. Issues substantive operating procedures to guide Regional staff of AoA in the conduct of their responsibilities; and establishes standards for performance plans and regularly assesses the performance against the established standards.
2.
Develops AoA plans and priorities for evaluation of AoA grant programs, with subject matter input from appropriate units. Manages contracting for mandated evaluation projects and performs intramural evaluation studies. Prepares reports of the results of program and impact evaluations conducted by and for AoA, with technical input from other AoA units. Provides technical guidance on evaluation activities conducted as part of AoA's discretionary grants programs.
Coordinates AoA activities related to the collection, analysis, and dissemination of national and program data on older individuals. Develops and manages all aspects of data requirements associated with home and community-based services programs under Title III of the OAA.
Develops and designs the criteria for collecting, analyzing and disseminating program performance data on State and Area Agencies' implementation of OAA programs, and prepares that data for reporting to Congress and the public. Designs, implements and provides guidance and technical assistance to State and Area Agencies on Aging and service providers on data collection and analysis (section 202(b)(28)) and on uniform data collection procedures for State Units on Aging (section 202(b)(29)).
Develops and operates, in coordination with the Office of Administrative and Technology Services, a National Aging Program Information System focused on the information needs of AoA and the Network on Aging to both manage and advocate for the delivery of effective and efficient services to the elderly. Provides liaison with the Federal Task Force on Aging Statistics in support of planning and program requirements. Performs routine and special statistical analyses of data for AoA offices, other Federal and non-Federal organizations, and the general public.
3.
Implements Title III of the OAA through the development of regulations, policies and guidance governing the development and enhancement of comprehensive and coordinated home and community-based care service delivery systems by State and Area Agencies on Aging. This includes implementing and enhancing systems for supportive services and the operation of multi-purpose senior centers, congregate and home-delivered nutrition services, health promotion and disease prevention services, and caregiver support and assistance services.
Provides guidance regarding State Plan processing and approval, the process and criteria for approval of States? Intrastate Funding Formulas for the allocation and targeting of resources within States, and implementation of the Interstate Funding Formula for distribution of Title III funds among States. Fosters, oversees, ensures accountability and assesses the implementation of Title III by States and Area Agencies through guidance and direction to Regional staff regarding program reviews and program and system development and enhancements. Designs and provides training and technical assistance for program compliance, effectiveness, and enhancement.
Directs and assesses the development of State-administered, home and community-based long-term care systems, and social and supportive services for the elderly. Initiates and encourages expansion of the capacities of home and community-based social service and health care systems to deliver comprehensive services to the elderly. Provides technical and subject matter expertise for the development of these systems, targeted at enhancing the capabilities of State and Area Agencies and local community service delivery programs to improve their service to older people. Coordinates with the Office of Planning and Policy Development to achieve a fully integrated approach for the enhancement of systems of care throughout the nation.
Provides specialized input on programs under the OAA to long-range planning, operational plans and the budget process.
Carries out the functions of the designated nutrition officer, who coordinates nutritional services under the Act and develops the regulations and guidelines, and provides technical assistance regarding nutrition to the AoA Regional Support Centers, State and Area Agencies, nutrition service providers, and other organizations. Serves as the liaison to the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies and organizations related to nutrition policy and program issues.
Coordinates with the Office of Evaluation to conduct operational studies, program analyses, and evaluations on special issues of concern to the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary, Regional Support Centers, and State and Area Agencies on Aging. Prepares reports on program operations under Title III for the Assistant Secretary, other AoA offices, the Secretary, the President, Congress and the public. Through the analysis of State Plans, evaluation findings and other relevant material, identifies potential Title III program and management issues and develops recommendations to the Assistant Secretary on possible solutions.
4.
Chairs the Interagency Task Force on Older Indians which is comprised of representatives from the Federal departments and agencies with an interest in the welfare of individuals who are older Indians and makes recommendations to the Assistant Secretary at six-month intervals, to facilitate coordination among federally funded programs and improve services to older Indians.
Provides the Native American input to the Office of Planning and Policy Development for inclusion in AoA's research plan. In addition, collaborates with the Office of Core Programs on Title VI-Title III coordination.
Provides input and feedback to the Office of Planning and Policy Development for the development and operation of Resource Centers on Native American Elders, which gather information, perform research, provide for dissemination of results of the research, and provide technical assistance and training to those who provide services to Native American elders.
Provides specialized input on Title VI programs and the Native American components of Title II and Title VII-B programs to other offices for long-range planning, operational plans, research and training, and the budget process. Develops testimony and background documents concerning Native Americans for use by the Assistant Secretary.
Serves as the AoA focal point for the administration and assessment of the programs authorized under Title VI and the Native American Organization provisions of Title VII-B of the OAA, including administering grants, cooperative agreements and contracts. Implements the American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian programs in the field through provision of program and policy direction, training and oversight to the Regional Support Centers in the execution of the Native American components of their Title II, Title VI and Title VII-B responsibilities. Oversees the Regional Support Centers monitoring of Title VI grantees. Arranges for and manages ongoing training and technical assistance for Title VI grantees. Coordinates additional training and technical assistance with other projects managed by the Office of Planning and Policy Development.
5.
Reviews State Plans to determine eligibility for funding under the OAA and recommends approval or disapproval to the Assistant Secretary. Implements Title VII in the field through the provision to Regional Support Centers of guidance and information concerning AoA programs, and the development and interpretation of Title VII program regulations and policy. Ensures the implementation of guidance and instructions concerning long-term care ombudsman, prevention of elder abuse, and elder rights and legal assistance development programs. Provides guidance and leadership in the development of the pension counseling program and effective models for nationwide replication.
Fosters, oversees, ensures accountability and assesses the implementation of Title VII by States through guidance and direction to Regional staff regarding program reviews, and program and system development and enhancements. Designs and provides training and technical assistance for program compliance, effectiveness, and enhancement.
Conducts staff functions and responsibilities for the operation of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program and makes recommendations to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Program Operations for program and policy enhancement. Serves as the agency's focal point for coordinating, implementing, monitoring, expanding, evaluating, and promoting efforts to provide consumer information, education and protection designed to detect, prevent and report error, fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Provides in-depth expertise, information, leadership and technical assistance through the Regional Support Centers to the Senior Medicare Patrol network and serves as a reliable clearinghouse of information for the aging network, older persons and their families. Provides specialized input on Title VII and consumer protection programs to long-range planning, operational plans and the budget process. Develops program plans and instructions for AoA Regional Support Centers and State and Area Agencies to improve the Title VII protection and representational programs funded under the OAA.
6.
The Regional Support Centers serve as the focal point for the development, coordination and administration of OAA programs within the designated HHS region. Represent the Assistant Secretary for Aging within the region, providing information for, and contributing to the development of, national policy dealing with the elderly. Based on national policy and priorities, establish field program goals and objectives. Serve as the effective and visible advocates for the elderly to Federal agencies in their geographic jurisdiction to ensure the rights of the elderly; advise, consult and cooperate with each Federal agency proposing or administering programs or services related to the aging; coordinate and assist in the planning and development by public (including Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies) and private organizations of comprehensive and coordinated services and opportunities for older individuals in each community of the nation; and conduct active public education of officials and citizens and the aged to ensure broad understanding of the needs and capabilities of the aged.
Monitor, assist and evaluate State Agencies on Aging administering programs supported under Titles II, III and VII of the OAA, and Indian Tribal Organizations administering projects under Title VI. Review OAA State Plans on Aging and recommend approval or disapproval to the Assistant Secretary for Aging, as appropriate. Review applications and recommend approval or disapproval of Title VI applications to the Assistant Secretary.
Advise the Assistant Secretary of problems and progress of programs through the Deputy Assistant Secretary, CPO; recommend to the Assistant Secretary changes that would improve OAA operations; evaluate the effectiveness of OAA and related programs in the Regions and recommend to the Assistant Secretary or take positive action to gain improvement; and guide agencies and grantees in applications of policy to specific operational issues requiring resolution. Facilitate interagency cooperation at the Federal, Regional Support Center, State and Tribal levels to enhance resources and assistance available to the elderly. Disseminate and provide technical assistance regarding program guidelines and developments to State and Area Agencies, Indian Tribal Organizations and local community service providers.
II.
III.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-5960 and send comments to Maryam I. Daneshvar, CDC Acting Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an e-mail to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
National Hospital Discharge Survey—Revision—The National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) (OMB# 0920-0212), National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, shall collect statistics on the extent and nature of illness and disability of the population of the United States. This three-year clearance request includes the data collection in 2008 and 2009 using the current NHDS design; a pretest of a new design; and data collection for 2010 and 2011 of the survey using the new design.
The National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) has been conducted continuously by the National Center for Health Statistics, CDC, since 1965. It is the principal source of data on inpatient utilization of short-stay, non-Federal hospitals and is the principal annual source of nationally representative estimates on the characteristics of discharges, the lengths of stay, diagnoses, surgical and non-surgical procedures, and the patterns of use of care in hospitals in various regions of the country. It is the benchmark against which special programmatic data sources are measured. The data items collected are the basic core of the variables contained in the Uniform Hospital Discharge Data Set (UHDDS) in addition to several variables (admission source and type, admitting diagnosis and present on admission indicators) which are identical to those needed for billing of inpatient services for Medicare patients. In the current survey, data are obtained in one of three ways: Abstracted by hospital staff; abstracted by Bureau of the Census Staff under an interagency agreement; and provided in electronic format. Due to budgetary constraints, the number of hospitals and the number of discharges for the 2008 and 2009 NHDS data collections will decrease by approximately 50% from previous years.
Although the current NHDS is still fulfilling its intended functions, it is based on concepts from the health care delivery system, as well as the hospital and patient universes, of previous decades. It has become clear that a redesign of the NHDS that provides greater depth of information is necessary.
In 2008, a sample of 40 hospitals will be selected for a pretest. These hospitals will not be a probability sample, but instead will be intentionally selected to include hospitals of differing size, location and other characteristics related to their service and patient clientele.
In 2010, a redesigned NHDS will be implemented and will consist of a completely new sample of approximately 240 hospitals. The redesigned NHDS will use a modified two stage design. The first stage sampling will be hospitals. The second stage of sampling will be discharges. A stratified, random sample of 120 discharges is targeted within each hospital. In the redesigned survey all data will be abstracted by trained health care staff under contract. All data will be obtained from hospital records and charts and computer systems.
The current data items will be collected with significant additional details. Patient level data items to be collected include personal identifiers such as Social Security number, name and medical record number; clinical laboratory results such as hematocrit and white blood cell count; and financial billing and record data. The survey includes detailed questions for three modules: Acute myocardial infarction; infectious disease; and end of life issues. Facility level data items include demographic information, clinical capabilities, and financial information.
Users of NHDS data include, but are not limited to the CDC; the Congressional Research Office; the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE); American Health Care Association, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and Bureau of the Census. Data collected through the NHDS are essential for evaluating health status of the population, for the planning of programs and policy to elevate the health status of the Nation, for studying morbidity trends, and for research activities in the health field. NHDS data have been used extensively in the development and monitoring of goals for the Year 2000 and 2010 Healthy People Objectives. In addition, NHDS data provide annual updates for numerous tables in the Congressionally-mandated NCHS report, Health, United States. Other users of these data include universities, contract research organizations, many in the private sector, foundations, and a variety of users in the print media. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice of hearing.
This notice announces an administrative hearing to be held on February 15, 2008, at the CMS San Francisco Regional Office, 90 7th Street, 5th Floor, Room 5A, San Francisco, California 94103, to reconsider CMS' decision to disapprove California's SPA 06-019B.
Closing Date: Requests to participate in the hearing as a party must be received by the presiding officer by January 23, 2008.
Kathleen Scully-Hayes, Presiding Officer, CMS, Lord Baltimore Drive, Mail Stop LB-23-20, Baltimore, MD 21244, Telephone: (410) 786-2055.
This notice announces an administrative hearing to reconsider CMS' decision to disapprove California's SPA #06-019B which was submitted on December 27, 2006.
Under this SPA, the State was seeking to provide direct reimbursement effective October 1, 2006, to Medicaid recipients where the recipient obtains and pays for Medicaid services after receiving a Medicaid card.
The amendment was disapproved because it did not comport with the requirements of sections 1902(a)(10), 1902(a)(32), and 1905(a) of the Social Security Act (the Act) and Federal regulations at 42 CFR 431.246, 431.250, and 447.15.
The following are the issues to be considered at the hearing:
• Would payments under the proposed SPA that would be made directly to Medicaid recipients for services furnished after the recipients have been determined to be eligible (and not during a retroactive eligibility period) be within the scope of the definition of “medical assistance” referenced in section 1902(a)(10) and set forth in section 1905(a) of the Act? The definition at section 1905(a) specifically limits medical assistance to payments made to providers of covered services (the “vendor payment principle”), and contains an express statutory exception permitting direct payment to recipients only for physician and dentist services; the proposed SPA does not appear to be limited to payments for these service categories.
• Would payments under the proposed SPA that are made directly to Medicaid recipients for services furnished after the recipients have been determined eligible (and not during a retroactive eligibility period) be consistent with the requirement of section 1902(a)(32) of the Act? That section limits payment under the plan to amounts paid directly to providers (or certain assignees of those providers). This statutory requirement ensures that recipients obtain covered services from participating providers who bill the Medicaid program rather than the recipient, and accept the State's payment, including a payment of zero dollars, as payment in full. (See 42 CFR 447.15.)
• Would payments under the proposed SPA that are made directly to Medicaid recipients for services furnished after the recipients have been determined eligible (and not during a retroactive eligibility period) be within the regulatory exception at 42 CFR 431.246 and 431.250(b) to the vendor payment principle? Those sections provide for corrective payments based on a successful appeal by a recipient who, pending the appeal decision, sought and paid for covered services. Such a circumstance in the context of SPA 06-019B would exist where a recipient appealed the State's determination of the amount of the recipient's “share of cost” for covered services. But, SPA 06-019B does not appear to limit such payment to these exceptions to the vendor payment rule.
• Is there any binding judicial decision that would permit the Federal Government to participate in the payments contemplated in the proposed SPA? The United States was not a party to a California State Court case that apparently addressed the issues, and is not bound by that decision. Moreover, under regulations at 42 CFR 431.250 that provide for Federal participation in payments made under court order, the services must be provided within the scope of the Medicaid program under Federal law. Services that are billed directly to the recipient (and not part of a retroactive eligibility period) are outside of the Federal definition of medical assistance, and thus are not within the scope of the Federal Medicaid program.
• Is there any statutory or regulatory conflict providing a basis to conclude that the express statutory provisions establishing the vendor payment principle could not practically be applied? CMS has recognized such a conflict as the basis for permitting an exception to the vendor payment principle during a retroactive period, but such a conflict does not appear to be present in this instance.
• Are direct payments to recipients who have been determined eligible consistent with accuracy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the State Medicaid program in serving those recipients?
Section 1116 of the Act and Federal regulations at 42 CFR Part 430, establish Department procedures that provide an administrative hearing for reconsideration of a disapproval of a State plan or plan amendment. CMS is required to publish a copy of the notice to a State Medicaid agency that informs the agency of the time and place of the hearing, and the issues to be considered. If we subsequently notify the agency of additional issues that will be considered at the hearing, we will also publish that notice.
Any individual or group that wants to participate in the hearing as a party must petition the presiding officer within 15 days after publication of this notice, in accordance with the requirements contained at 42 CFR 430.76(b)(2). Any interested person or organization that wants to participate as amicus curiae must petition the presiding officer before the hearing begins in accordance with the requirements contained at 42 CFR 430.76(c). If the hearing is later rescheduled, the presiding officer will notify all participants.
The notice to California announcing an administrative hearing to reconsider the disapproval of its SPA reads as follows:
I am responding to your request for reconsideration of the decision to disapprove California's State plan amendment (SPA) 06-109B, which was submitted on December 27, 2006.
Under this SPA, the State was seeking to provide direct reimbursement, effective October 1, 2006, to Medicaid recipients where the recipient obtains and pays for Medicaid services after receiving a Medicaid card.
The amendment was disapproved because it did not comport with the requirements of sections 1902(a)(10), 1902(a)(32), and 1905(a) of the Social Security Act (the Act) and Federal regulations at 42 CFR sections 431.246, 431.250, and 447.15.
The following are the issues to be considered at the hearing:
• Would payments under the proposed SPA that would be made directly to Medicaid recipients for services furnished after the recipients have been determined to be eligible (and not during a retroactive eligibility period) be within the scope of the definition of “medical assistance” referenced in section 1902(a)(10) and set forth in section 1905(a) of the Act? The definition at section 1905(a) specifically limits medical assistance to payments made to providers of covered services (the “vendor payment principle”), and contains an express statutory exception permitting direct payment to recipients only for physician and dentist services; the proposed SPA does not appear to be limited to payments for these service categories.
• Would payments under the proposed SPA that are made directly to Medicaid recipients for services furnished after the recipients have been determined eligible (and not during a retroactive eligibility period) be consistent with the requirement of section 1902(a)(32) of the Act? That section limits payment under the plan to amounts paid directly to providers (or certain assignees of those providers). This statutory requirement ensures that recipients obtain covered services from participating providers who
• Would payments under the proposed SPA that are made directly to Medicaid recipients for services furnished after the recipients have been determined eligible (and not during a retroactive eligibility period) be within the regulatory exception at 42 CFR 431.246 and 431.250(b) to the vendor payment principle? Those sections provide for corrective payments based on a successful appeal by a recipient who, pending the appeal decision, sought and paid for covered services. Such a circumstance in the context of SPA 06-019B would exist where a recipient appealed the State's determination of the amount of the recipient's “share of cost” for covered services. But, SPA 06-019B does not appear to limit such payment to these exceptions to the vendor payment rule.
• Is there any binding judicial decision that would permit the Federal Government to participate in the payments contemplated in the proposed SPA? The United States was not a party to a California State Court case that apparently addressed the issues and is not bound by that decision. Moreover, under regulations at 42 CFR 431.250 that provide for Federal participation in payments made under court order, the services must be provided within the scope of the Medicaid program under Federal law. Services that are billed directly to the recipient (and not part of a retroactive eligibility period) are outside of the Federal definition of medical assistance, and thus are not within the scope of the Federal Medicaid program.
• Is there any statutory or regulatory conflict providing a basis to conclude that the express statutory provisions establishing the vendor payment principle could not practically be applied? CMS has recognized such a conflict as the basis for permitting an exception to the vendor payment principle during a retroactive period, but such a conflict does not appear to be present in this instance.
• Are direct payments to recipients who have been determined eligible consistent with accuracy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the State Medicaid program in serving those recipients?
I am scheduling a hearing on your request for reconsideration to be held on February 15, 2008, at the CMS San Francisco Regional Office, 90 7th Street, 5th Floor, Room 5A, San Francisco, California 94103, to reconsider the decision to disapprove SPA 06-019B. If this date is not acceptable, we would be glad to set another date that is mutually agreeable to the parties. The hearing will be governed by the procedures prescribed by Federal regulations at 42 CFR Part 430.
I am designating Ms. Kathleen Scully-Hayes as the presiding officer. If these arrangements present any problems, please contact the presiding officer at (410) 786-2055. In order to facilitate any communication which may be necessary between the parties to the hearing, please notify the presiding officer to indicate acceptability of the hearing date that has been scheduled and provide names of the individuals who will represent the State at the hearing.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the withdrawal of Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 555.700 Revocation of Tolerances for Cancelled Pesticides (CPG 7120.29) (CPG Sec. 555.700). CPG Sec. 555.700 is no longer necessary because the policy stated in the CPG is obsolete. Elsewhere in this issue of the
The withdrawal is effective January 8, 2008.
Submit written requests for single copies of CPG Sec. 555.700 to the Division of Compliance Policy (HFC-230), Office of Enforcement, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request or fax your request to 240-632-6861.
A copy of the CPG may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Michael E. Kashtock, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, College Park, MD 20740-3835, 301-436-2022, FAX 301-436-2651.
CPG Sec. 555.700 stated FDA's policy to routinely establish action levels for pesticide chemical residues to replace tolerances that are revoked when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cancels registration for the pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Such residues may persist in the environment for many years. Section 408(l)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 346a(l)(4)), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, authorizes EPA to establish tolerances for pesticide chemical residues that will unavoidably persist in the environment. Therefore, because EPA may establish tolerances for such pesticide chemical residues, the policy set forth in CPG Sec. 555.700 is obsolete. Consequently, FDA is withdrawing CPG Sec. 555.700, in its entirety, to eliminate this obsolete policy.
Previously established action levels are listed in FDA's CPG Sec. 575.100 Pesticide Chemical Residues in Food and Feed—Enforcement Criteria (CPG 7141.01). A notice announcing availability of a draft revision of CPG Sec. 575.100 is published elsewhere in this issue of the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of draft, revised Compliance Policy Guide (CPG) Sec. 575.100 Pesticide Chemical Residues in Food—Enforcement Criteria (CPG 7141.01) (the draft CPG). The draft CPG is intended to provide guidance to FDA staff on FDA's internal enforcement processes concerning pesticide chemical residues in food.
Elsewhere in this issue of the
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115 (g)(5)), to ensure that the agency considers your comment on the draft CPG before it begins work on the final version of the CPG, submit written or electronic comments on the draft CPG by March 10, 2008.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft CPG to the Division of Compliance Policy (HFC-230), Office of Enforcement, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request, or fax your request to 240-632-6861.
Submit written comments on the draft CPG to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, room 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
Michael E. Kashtock, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-317), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 301-436-2022, FAX 301-436-2651.
FDA is revising CPG Sec. 575.100 Pesticide Chemical Residues in Food—Enforcement Criteria (CPG 7141.01) to reflect the changes in pesticide law, including the changes in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) made by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). Subsequent to the FQPA, certain additional amendments related to pesticide provisions in the Act were made in the Antimicrobial Regulation Technical Corrections Act of 1998 (ARTCA) (Public Law 105-324). However, the ARTCA amendments do not affect the enforcement policy set forth in the draft CPG. The draft CPG is intended to provide clear policy and regulatory guidance to FDA's field and headquarters staff with regard to pesticide residue issues. It also contains information that may be useful to the regulated industry and to the public.
The draft CPG is being issued as a Level 1 guidance consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft CPG, when finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on enforcement policy relating to pesticide chemical residues. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft CPG from the Office of Regulatory Affairs home page. It may be accessed at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled “The Review and Inspection of Premarket Approval Application Manufacturing Information and Operations.” This guidance document explains for premarket approval application (PMA) applicants the process involved with the review of a PMA manufacturing section and inspection of the manufacturing operations described in the manufacturing section. This guidance is also generally applicable to the process involved with the review of manufacturing information in certain PMA supplements. The procedural information outlined in this document should help applicants and FDA schedule and complete their work in a timely manner.
Submit written or electronic comments on this guidance at any time. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance document entitled “The Review and Inspection of Premarket Approval Application Manufacturing Information and Operations” to the Division of Small Manufacturers, International, and Consumer Assistance (HFZ-220), Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., Rockville, MD 20850. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request, or fax your request to 240-276-3151. See the
Submit written comments concerning this guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
Timothy A. Ulatowski, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-300), Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-0100.
On October 26, 2002, MDUFMA (Public Law 107-250), amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act). Among other things, MDUMFA authorized the collection of user fees to improve the performance and predictability of FDA's device premarket review process, which includes PMAs. FDA, in consultation with the regulated industry, agreed to dedicate user fees to help the agency achieve performance goals, including the predictability of scheduling and timeliness of preapproval inspections.
This final guidance document, “The Review and Inspection of Premarket Approval Application Manufacturing Information and Operations,” explains for PMA applicants the administrative process FDA intends to follow in its review of the PMA manufacturing section information and the inspection of the particular manufacturing facility and its manufacturing operations. This final guidance document supersedes the corresponding draft guidance issued on June 19, 2006 (71 FR 35275 through 35276).
The comment period for the draft guidance document closed on September 18, 2006. During the comment period, we received several comments and recommendations. Two comments recommended that the agency inspect pilot manufacturing operations or the manufacture of a surrogate product in lieu of inspecting the complete manufacturing operation described in the PMA manufacturing section. FDA disagrees with this recommendation as the statute does not provide such an alternative. The statute requires the agency to determine whether the manufacturing operations, as described in the PMA, conform to good manufacturing practice requirements.
Several comments recommended clarification of certain terms related to the process involved with scheduling inspections and factors that affect the PMA manufacturing section review process. The agency incorporated many of the suggested clarifications.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the agency's current thinking on “The Review and Inspection of Premarket Approval Application Manufacturing Information and Operations.” It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by using the Internet. To receive “The Review and Inspection of Premarket Approval Application Manufacturing Information and Operations,” you may either send an e-mail request to
CDRH maintains an entry on the Internet for easy access to information including text, graphics, and files that may be downloaded to a personal computer with Internet access. Updated on a regular basis, the CDRH home page includes device safety alerts,
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 USC 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 814 have been approved under OMB Control Number 0910-0231; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB Control Number 0910-0073.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled “The Review and Inspection of Premarket Approval Applications Under the Bioresearch Monitoring Program.” This guidance provides premarket approval application (PMA) applicants with information about the bioresearch monitoring (BIMO) review process. This includes a BIMO evaluation of clinical and nonclinical information in the PMA and certain PMA supplements as well as preapproval BIMO inspections. The procedural information outlined in this document should help applicants and FDA to better understand the BIMO review and inspection so it can proceed in a timely manner.
Submit written or electronic comments on this guidance at any time. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance document entitled “The Review and Inspection of Premarket Approval Applications Under the Bioresearch Monitoring Program” to the Division of Small Manufacturers, International, and Consumer Assistance (HFZ-220), Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., Rockville, MD 20850. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request, or fax your request to 240-276-3151. See the
Submit written comments concerning this guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
Matthew J. Tarosky, Center for Devices
On October 26, 2002, the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (MDUFMA) (Public Law 107-250) was signed into law. Among other things, MDUMFA authorized the collection of user fees to improve the performance and predictability of FDA's device review program, including premarket approval applications (PMAs). One such goal included a commitment to improve the scheduling and timeliness of PMA preapproval inspections. A portion of the user fees collected under MDUFMA will be used to help to cover the costs associated with the bioresearch monitoring (BIMO) program review of a PMA and the performance of any related clinical or nonclinical inspections. This final guidance document supersedes the corresponding draft guidance entitled “The Review and Inspection of Premarket Approval Applications Under the Bioresearch Monitoring Program,” which was announced in the
The comment period for the draft guidance closed on September 18, 2006. During this time, FDA received one set of comments from a device manufacturer concerning the draft guidance. Some of the comments suggested combining the BIMO and manufacturing preapproval inspections. FDA did not make changes in response to these comments because preapproval BIMO and manufacturing inspections can not be performed at the same time. Compared to the preapproval manufacturing inspection program, the BIMO program has different objectives, usually involves inspections of different sites, and FDA investigators with different expertise. FDA did modify the guidance to respond to comments that requested further information about criteria for selecting inspection sites and determining when followup actions are necessary.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the agency's current thinking on “The Review and Inspection of Premarket Approval Applications Under the Bioresearch Monitoring Program.” It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by using the Internet. To receive “The Review and Inspection of Premarket Approval Applications Under the Bioresearch Monitoring Program,” you may either send an e-mail request to
CDRH maintains an entry on the Internet for easy access to information including text, graphics, and files that may be downloaded to a personal computer with Internet access. Updated on a regular basis, the CDRH home page includes device safety alerts,
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 USC 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 814 have been approved under OMB Control Number 0910-0231.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Meeting announcement and request for comments.
NICEATM in collaboration with the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) announces an independent scientific peer review panel meeting to evaluate modifications and new applications for the Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA). The LLNA is an alternative test method that can be used to determine the allergic contact dermatitis potential of chemicals and products. The panel will review the following:
• The validation status of three modified LLNA test method protocols that use non-radioactive probe chemicals.
• The validation status of a LLNA limit dose procedure.
• The use of the LLNA to test mixtures, aqueous solutions, and metals (applicability domain for the LLNA).
• The use of the LLNA to determine potency (potential for causing allergic contact dermatitis).
• Revised draft recommended performance standards for the LLNA.
At this meeting, the panel will peer review the draft background review documents and revised draft LLNA performance standards for each topic and evaluate the extent that established validation and acceptance criteria have been appropriately addressed. The panel will also comment on the extent
NICEATM invites public comments on the draft background review documents, draft ICCVAM test recommendations, draft test method protocols, and revised draft LLNA performance standards. All documents will be available on the NICEATM-ICCVAM Web site at
The meeting is scheduled for March 4-6, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day. The meeting is open to the public free of charge, with attendance limited only by the space available. In order to facilitate planning for this meeting, persons wishing to attend are asked to register by February 20, 2008, via the NICEATM-ICCVAM Web site (
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Headquarters, Bethesda Towers Bldg., 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD.
Comments may also be submitted via the NICEATM-ICCVAM Web site at
The LLNA is a reduction and refinement alternative test method for skin sensitization testing because it reduces the number of animals needed and can substantially reduce or avoid pain and distress compared to traditional guinea pig testing methods for sensitization. The LLNA was the first alternative test method evaluated and recommended by ICCVAM (NIH Publication No. 99-4494, available at:
Drawing on the submitted data and literature sources, ICCVAM and NICEATM drafted background review documents for each of the modifications and new applications of the LLNA. ICCVAM has also developed draft test method recommendations regarding the proposed usefulness, limitations, and validation status of these test methods. ICCVAM will convene an independent scientific panel to peer review the draft background review documents for the test methods and determine whether the data and analyses in the draft documents support the draft ICCVAM test method recommendations. The panel will also be asked to comment on the adequacy of the revised draft performance standards, proposed future studies, draft standardized test method protocols, and recommended reference substances. NICEATM will ask the panel to consider all available information, including the scientific studies cited in the draft review documents, public comments, and any new information identified during the peer review, for developing their conclusions and recommendations.
The purpose of this meeting is to conduct a scientific peer review of the revised draft performance standards and an evaluation of modifications and new applications for the LLNA. The LLNA is an alternative test method that can be used to determine the allergic contact dermatitis potential of chemicals and products. The panel will review the following:
• The LLNA as a stand-alone assay for potency determination for hazard classification purposes
• Modified LLNA protocols
• The LLNA limit test
• The use of the LLNA to test mixtures, aqueous solutions, and metals (applicability domain for the LLNA)
• The use of the LLNA to determine potency (potential for causing allergic contact dermatitis).
The panel will consider the draft background review documents for each of these methods and evaluate the extent that established validation and acceptance criteria are appropriately addressed for each test method (as described in the ICCVAM document,
1. The LLNA limit test.
2. The applicability domain of the LLNA including its suitability for mixtures, aqueous solutions, and metals.
3. The LLNA as a stand-alone assay for potency determination for hazard classification.
4. The revised draft performance standards for the LLNA.
5. The modified LLNA test method protocols using non-radioactive materials.
Additional information about the meeting, including a roster of the panel members and the draft agenda, will be made available two weeks prior to the meeting on the NICEATM-ICCVAM Web site (
This public meeting will take place March 4-6, 2008, at the CPSC Headquarters, Bethesda Towers Bldg., 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD (an area map, driving directions, and CPSC contact information are available at
NICEATM prepared draft background review documents on each of these modifications or applications of the LLNA that describe the current validation status of the modified test methods and applications and contain all of the data and analyses supporting this proposed validation status. The draft background review documents, draft ICCVAM test method recommendations, draft test method protocols, and revised draft test method performance standards are available from the NICEATM-ICCVAM Web site (
NICEATM invites the submission of written comments on the draft background review documents, draft ICCVAM test method recommendations, draft test method protocols, and revised draft test method performance standards. Written comments should be submitted preferably electronically via the NICEATM-ICCVAM Web site or by e-mail (
This meeting is open to the public, and time will be provided for the presentation of oral comments by the public at designated times during the peer review. Members of the public who wish to present oral statements at the meeting should contact NICEATM (see
Summary minutes and the panel's final report will be available following the meeting on the NICEATM-ICCVAM Web site (
ICCVAM is an interagency committee composed of representatives from 15 Federal regulatory and research agencies that use or generate toxicological information. ICCVAM conducts technical evaluations of new, revised, and alternative methods with regulatory applicability, and promotes the scientific validation and regulatory acceptance of toxicological test methods that more accurately assess the safety and hazards of chemicals and products and that refine, reduce, or replace animal use. The ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 285l-3, available at
Coast Guard, DHS.
Request for applications.
The Coast Guard seeks applications for membership in the Area Maritime Security Committee (AMSC) Detroit. The Committee assists the Captain of the Port, Detroit, in developing, reviewing, and updating the
Requests for membership should reach the U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port Detroit by February 7, 2008.
Applications for membership should be submitted to the Captain of the Port Detroit at the following address: U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit, 110 Mt. Elliot Ave., Detroit, MI, 48207.
For questions about submitting an application or about the AMSC in general contact: LT Jeff Ahlgren, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit, 110 Mount Elliot Ave., Detroit MI, 48207; (313) 568-9580.
The Area Maritime Security Committee (the Committee and Sub-Committees), is established under, and governed by, 33 CFR Part 103, subpart C. The functions of the Committee/Sub-Committees include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Identifying critical port infrastructure and operations.
(2) Identifying risks (i.e., threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences).
(3) Determining strategies and implementation methods for mitigation.
(4) Developing and describing the process for continuously evaluating overall port security by considering consequences and vulnerabilities, how they may change over time, and what additional mitigation strategies can be applied.
(5) Advising and assisting the Captain of the Port in developing, reviewing, and updating the Area Maritime Security Plan under 33 CFR Part 103, subpart E.
Members must have at least 5 years of experience related to maritime or port security operations. Applicants may be required to pass an appropriate security background check before appointment to the Committee/Sub-Committees.
Applicants must register and remain active as Coast Guard Homeport users if appointed.
The term of office for each vacancy is 5 years. However, a member may serve one additional term of office. Members are not salaried or otherwise compensated for their service on the Committee/Sub-Committees.
Applications for membership may be in any format. However, because members must demonstrate an interest in the security of the area covered by the Committee/Regional Sub-Committees, we particularly encourage the submission of information highlighting experience in maritime or security matters.
Section 102 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-295) (the Act) authorizes the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating to establish Area Maritime Security Committees for any port area of the United States. See 33 U.S.C. 1226; 46 U.S.C. 70112(a)(2); 33 CFR 103.205; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The Act exempts Area Maritime Security Committees from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).
Coast Guard, DHS.
Request for applications.
The Coast Guard seeks applications for membership in the Area Maritime Security Committee, Eastern Great Lakes and five regional sub-committees: Northeast Ohio Region, Northwestern Pennsylvania Region, Western New York Region, Lake Ontario Region and St Lawrence Region. The Committee assists the Captain of the Port, Buffalo, in developing, reviewing, and updating the Area Maritime Security Plan for their area of responsibility.
Requests for membership should reach the U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Buffalo, on February 7, 2008.
Submit applications for membership to the Captain of the Port, Buffalo, Attn: Regional Executive Coordinator, 1 Fuhrmann Boulevard, Buffalo, NY 14203-3189.
The Area Maritime Security Committee, Eastern Great Lakes (the Committee and Sub-Committees), is established under, and governed by, 33 CFR Part 103, subpart C. The functions of the Committee/Sub-Committees include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Identifying critical port infrastructure and operations.
(2) Identifying risks (i.e., threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences).
(3) Determining strategies and implementation methods for mitigation.
(4) Developing and describing the process for continuously evaluating overall port security by considering consequences and vulnerabilities, how they may change over time, and what additional mitigation strategies can be applied.
(5) Advising and assisting the Captain of the Port in developing, reviewing, and updating the Area Maritime Security Plan under 33 CFR Part 103, subpart E.
There are 10 vacancies on the Eastern Great Lakes Committee. These vacancies will be the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson from the five regional subcommittees: Northeast Ohio Region, Northwestern Pennsylvania Region, Western New York Region, Lake Ontario Region and St Lawrence Region. Members may be selected from:
(1) The Federal, Territorial, or Tribal government;
(2) The State government and political subdivisions of the State;
(3) Local public safety, crisis management, and emergency response agencies;
(4) Law enforcement and security organizations;
(5) Maritime industry, including labor;
(6) Other port stakeholders having a special competence in maritime security; and
(7) Port stakeholders affected by security practices and policies.
In support of the Coast Guard's policy on gender and ethnic diversity, we
Members must have at least 5 years of experience related to maritime or port security operations. Applicants may be required to pass an appropriate security background check before appointment to the Committee/Sub-Committees. Applicants must register and remain active as Coast Guard Homeport users if appointed.
The term of office for each vacancy is 5 years. However, a member may serve one additional term of office. Members are not salaried or otherwise compensated for their service on the Committee/Sub-Committees.
Applications for membership may be in any format. However, because members must demonstrate an interest in the security of the area covered by the Committee/Regional Sub-Committees, we particularly encourage the submission of information highlighting experience in maritime or security matters.
Section 102 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-295) (the Act) authorizes the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating to establish Area Maritime Security Committees for any port area of the United States. See 33 U.S.C. 1226; 46 U.S.C. 70112(a)(2); 33 CFR 103.205; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The Act exempts Area Maritime Security Committees from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to extend an existing approval to collect information from applicants who apply to purchase mineral materials from public lands under regulations at 43 CFR parts 3600 and 3610. The BLM uses the information collected on Form 3600-9 (Contract for the Sale of Mineral Materials) to evaluate the environmental impacts of and otherwise evaluate mineral materials disposal proposals.
You must submit your comments to BLM at the address below on or before March 10, 2008. BLM will not necessarily consider any comments received after the above date.
You may mail comments to: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Mail Stop 401LS, 1849 C Street, NW., ATTN: Bureau Information Collection Clearance Officer (WO-630), Washington, DC 20240.
You may send comments via Internet to:
You may deliver comments to the Bureau of Land Management, Administrative Record, Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20036.
All comments will be available for public review at the L Street address during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday through Friday except Federal holidays. Before including your address, telephone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
You may contact George Brown at (202) 452-7765 (Commercial or FTS). Persons who use a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) on 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message for Mr. Brown.
5 CFR 1320.12(a) requires that we provide a 60-day notice in the
(1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper functioning of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimates of the information collection burden, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions we use;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the information collection burden on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The Mineral Materials Act of 1947, as amended (Act), 30 U.S.C. 601 and 602, provides for the disposal of mineral materials, such as sand, gravel, and petrified wood from public lands by sale or free use. BLM disposes such materials under the regulations at 43 CFR parts 3600 and 3610.
BLM uses Form 3600-9 to collect information to:
(1) Determine whether the sale of mineral materials is in the public interest;
(2) Mitigate the environmental impacts of mineral materials development;
(3) Get fair market value for materials sold; and
(4) Prevent trespass removal of the materials.
Applicants must submit a request in writing to BLM to purchase mineral materials. Specific information requirements are not stated in the regulations, but sale agreements are made on Form 3600-9 approved by BLM.
BLM estimates we process 5,400 contracts for mineral materials each year. We estimate it takes 30 minutes to complete and compile supporting documentation. The estimated total annual information collection burden is 2,700 hours.
The BLM will summarize all responses to this notice and include them in the request for OMB approval. All comments will be of public record.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Public Meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Northwest Colorado Resource Advisory Council (RAC) Subcommittee on the Kremmling Field Office Management Plan (RMP) Revision will meet as indicated below.
January 17 and 29, 2008; from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.
The Kremmling RMP Subcommittee will meet at the Kremmling Chamber of Commerce, 203 Park Avenue, Kremmling, CO.
Joe Stout, Planning and Environmental Coordinator, telephone 970-724-3003.
The Northwest Colorado RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of public land issues in northwestern Colorado. A subcommittee has been formed under this RAC to advise it regarding the Kremmling RMP Revision. The individuals on this subcommittee represent a broad range of interests and have specific knowledge of the Field Offices. Recommendations developed by these subcommittees will be presented formally for discussion to the NW RAC at publicly announced meetings of the full NW RAC. Both the subcommittee meetings and the full NW RAC meetings have public comment opportunities.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Public Meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Western Montana Resource Advisory Council will meet as indicated below.
The next regular meeting of the Western Montana RAC will be held February 28, 2008 at the Butte Field Office, 106 N. Parkmont, Butte, Montana, beginning at 9 a.m. The public comment period for the meeting will begin at 11:30 a.m. and the meeting is expected to adjourn at approximately 3 p.m.
For the Western Montana RAC, contact Marilyn Krause, Resource Advisory Council Coordinator, at the Butte Field Office, 106 North Parkmont, Butte, Montana 59701, telephone 406-533-7617.
The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in western Montana. At the February 28 meeting, topics we plan to discuss include: Cooperative rangeland monitoring, forest health issues, a review of Forest Service fee proposals, and election of officers.
All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided below.
United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC).
Notice of Availability of Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.
Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) has prepared a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for future improvements to three Rio Grande Flood Control Projects (FCP) operated by the USIBWC along the Texas-Mexico Border: The Rectification FCP, the Presidio FCP and Lower Rio Grande FCP. The PEIS, prepared in cooperation with the United States Bureau of Reclamation, United States Fish and Wildlife Service and United States Army Corps of Engineers, analyzes potential impacts of the No Action Alternative and three action alternatives for future FCP improvements under consideration.
Because several measures under consideration are at a conceptual level of development, the USIBWC has taken a broad programmatic look at the potential environmental implications of measures identified for future implementation. The USIBWC will apply the programmatic evaluation as an overall guidance for future environmental evaluations of individual improvement projects whose implementation is anticipated or possible within a 20-year timeframe. Once any given improvement project is identified for future implementation, site-specific environmental documentation will be developed based on project specifications and PEIS findings.
The Final PEIS will be available to agencies, organizations and the general public on January 8, 2008. A copy of the Final PEIS will also be posted in the USIBWC Web site at
Mr. Daniel Borunda, Environmental Protection Specialist, Environmental Management Division, USIBWC, 4171 North Mesa Street, C-100, El Paso,
The PEIS analyzes potential effects of the No Action Alternative and three action alternatives for future improvement of the Rectification, Presidio and Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Projects located along the Texas-Mexico border. Potential improvements were organized in three action alternatives: (1) Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Alternative, focusing on engineering improvements; (2) Integrated Water Resources Management Alternative, integrating additional water conservation and quality measures to the projects' core mission of flood control and water delivery; and (3) Multipurpose Project Management Alternative incorporating, in addition to engineering improvements and integrating water management, additional measures for multiple use of the floodway and environmental measures supporting initiatives by federal agencies, local governments, and other organizations. These additional measures would be conducted largely under cooperative agreements with the proponent agency or organization. The PEIS evaluated alternatives for each flood control project in terms of potential effects relative to those of the No Action Alternative, in the areas of water, biological, cultural and socioeconomic resources, land use, and environmental health issues. The Multipurpose Project Management Alternative was selected as the preferred option for implementation of improvements to the flood control projects as it supports improvements in water quality and water conservation, and is consistent with the core project mission of flood control and water delivery. Public participation in the PEIS development included scoping meetings, a 45-day review period of the Draft PEIS, and Public Hearings held at the Cities of El Paso, Presidio and McAllen, Texas, on August 21, 22, and 28, 2007, respectively.
Copies of the FEIS have been sent to agencies, organizations and individuals who participated in the scoping process and to those who have requested copies of the FEIS. A limited number of Final PEIS copies may be obtained upon request from the contact person identified above. A Record of Decision will be issued after a minimum of 30 days following the filing of the Final PEIS. Any comments on the Final PEIS must be received no later than 30 days after the date of publication of the notice of availability by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the
United States International Trade Commission.
Institution of antidumping duty investigations and scheduling of preliminary phase investigations.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731-TA-1138 and 1139 (Preliminary) under section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)) (the Act) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports from aminotrimethylenephosphonic acid (ATMP) and 1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1-diphosphonic acid (HEDP) from China and India, provided for in subheading 2931.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation pursuant to section 732(c)(1)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping investigations in 45 days, or in this case by February 14, 2008. The Commission's views are due at Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by February 22, 2008.
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
Christopher Cassise (202-708-5408), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
These investigations are being instituted in response to a petition filed effective December 31, 2007, by Compass Chemical International LLC, Huntsville, TX.
Persons (other than petitioners) wishing to participate in the investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the Commission's rules, not later than seven days after publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in these investigations available to authorized applicants representing interested parties (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the investigations under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the
The Commission's Director of Operations has scheduled a conference in connection with these investigations for 9:30 a.m. on January 18, 2008, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC. Parties wishing to participate in the conference should contact Christopher Cassise (202-708-5408) not later than January 16, 2008, to arrange for their appearance. Parties in support of the imposition of antidumping duties in these investigations and parties in opposition to the imposition of such duties will each be collectively allocated one hour within which to make an oral presentation at the conference. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the conference.
As provided in sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the Commission's rules, any person may submit to the Commission on or before January 24, 2008, a written brief containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the investigations. Parties may file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the conference no later than three days before the conference. If briefs or written testimony contain BPI, they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even where electronic filing of a document is permitted, certain documents must also be filed in paper form, as specified in II(C) of the Commission's Handbook on Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of availability.
Paul Michalak, Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-7612; Fax number: (301) 415-5955; E-mail:
Power Resources, Inc. (PRI) currently holds Source Material License SUA-1548 for the Smith Ranch-Highland Uranium Project (SR-HUP) site, located in Converse County, Wyoming. Source Material License SUA-1548 permits PRI to conduct In Situ Leach (ISL) uranium recovery operations at the SR-HUP site. As specified in Source Material License SUA-1548, License Condition 10.5.1 requires the following:
The licensee is prohibited from constructing new Satellite Facilities or waste water evaporation ponds prior to NRC review and approval of designs and specifications.
By letter dated October 11, 2006, PRI submitted a request to construct ISL Satellite SR-2 (SR-2) at the SR-HUP site. In this proposed action, an ISL satellite facility is a structure (i.e., building and associated equipment) where the ion exchange portion of the ISL processing circuit is conducted. ISL Satellite SR-2 would service Mine Units 9, 10, 11, and 12, located near the southwest corner of Smith Ranch. It is estimated that construction of SR-2 and associated access road would impact approximately 1.5 acres of land.
The NRC staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of its review of PRI's request in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate.
PRI's SR-HUP is a commercial ISL uranium mining facility located in the South Powder River Basin, Converse County, Wyoming. The main office and Central Processing Plant complex is located at Smith Ranch, about 17 air miles (22 road miles) (27 air/35 road kilometers (km)) northeast of Glenrock, Wyoming, and 23 air miles (25 road miles) (37 air/40 road km) northwest of Douglas, Wyoming. NRC issued PRI's current NRC license for the SR-HUP (Source Material License SUA-1548) on August 18, 2003, as part of a license renewal process. Commercial ISL uranium production began at the Highland site in January 1988, and at the Smith Ranch site in June 1997.
PRI current operations at the SR-HUP include an ISL Central Processing Plant (CPP) and an ISL Satellite facility (SR-1) at the Smith Ranch site and two ISL Satellite facilities (Satellite Nos. 2 and 3) at the Highland site.
Under SUA-1548, PRI is authorized, through its ISL process, to produce up to 5.5 million pounds (2.5 million kilograms) per year of tri-uranium octoxide (U3O8), also known as “yellowcake.” PRI's current annual production is less than half of this limit.
The NRC staff has reviewed PRI's request in accordance with the NRC's environmental protection regulations in 10 CFR Part 51. Those regulations implement section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. The EA provides the results of the NRC staff's environmental review. The NRC staff's radiation safety review of PRI's request will be documented separately in a Safety Evaluation Report.
The NRC staff has prepared the EA in accordance with NRC requirements in 10 CFR 51.21 and 51.30, and with the associated guidance in NRC report NUREG-1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions
The NRC staff's review addressed the environmental impacts of PRI's currently-approved mining operations at the SR-HUP only insofar as such operations would be modified by the proposed addition of SR-2.
PRI is proposing to construct and operate SR-2 at the SR-HUP site. Construction of SR-2 would entail the clearing of about 1.5 acres of land due to satellite building and access road construction. The SR-2 facility would be the source of the barren lixiviant pumped into the uranium ore zone and the recipient of the pregnant lixiviant recovered from Mine Units 9, 10, 11, and 12. Upon recovery from the subsurface, the pregnant lixiviant would be pumped to a series of IX columns located within SR-2, where uranium from the lixiviant would be extracted from the solution via adsorption onto the ion exchange (IX) resin in the columns. Following IX extraction of the uranium, the resin would be removed from the tanks and transported to the Smith Ranch CPP for further processing (i.e., elution, precipitation, drying into a U
Construction of a second satellite facility at the Smith Ranch site would enable PRI to conduct IX exchange activities in close proximity to future Mine Units 9, 10, 11, and 12, all of which are located in the southwest portion of Smith Ranch, approximately 4.5 miles southwest of the closest processing facility (Smith Ranch CPP). This would also allow PRI to continue to meet the current and future needs of its customers for U
Under the “no action” alternative, PRI would continue to conduct ISL uranium recovery operations at existing satellite facilities within the permit boundary of the SR-HUP, but it would not be authorized to build and operate SR-2.
In the southern Powder River Basin, where the SR-HUP facility is located, uranium ore has been mined via open pits and underground mining in the past. This activity occurred from 1970 to 1984 at the Exxon Highland facility, which is adjacent to the eastern edge of the SR-HUP permit area, and from the mid-1970s to 1986 at Union Pacific Resources' Bear Creek site (now owned by Anadarko Petroleum), which is approximately 15 miles (24 km) northeast of the SR-HUP permit area.
The environmental impacts associated with the recovery and processing of uranium ore obtained via open pit or underground mining are generally recognized as being considerably greater than those associated with ISL uranium recovery. Underground mining would produce ore that is crushed and ground in a conventional uranium mill. Uranium within the crushed material would be extracted through leaching. Conventional uranium mining and milling produces considerable volumes of waste (e.g., slag, mill tailings, etc.) which must be disposed. In the southern Powder River Basin, where the SR-HUP facility is located, uranium was historically mined via open pits and subsurface mine shafts during the 1970s and 1980s. At SR-HUP, construction of the Bill Smith mine shaft was initiated in September 1972, and completed in early 1977. However, due to porous sands and heaving shale zones in the Fort Union formation, conventional subsurface mining was terminated in June 1978. Open pit uranium mining occurred from 1970 to 1984 at the Exxon Highland facility, which is adjacent to the eastern edge of the SR-HUP permit area (approximately 15 miles northeast of SR-2). Although the potential for future conventional mining exists, two factors make conventional mining in the vicinity of the SR-HUP unlikely: ISL operations are approximately two-to-three times more cost effective than open pit mining/conventional milling operations; and virtually all the South Powder River Basin uranium ore deposits are amenable to ISL development. Therefore, although both open pit and underground mining of uranium has occurred near SR-2, these alternatives were not considered further in this analysis.
Under the no-action alternative, PRI would not be authorized to operate a satellite ISL facility in the southwestern portion of SR-HUP. PRI would continue to operate its other satellite facilities within the SR-HUP permit area. The SR-2 area would remain open to its current uses: livestock grazing and wildlife use.
The addition of SR-2 to the SR-HUP would add approximately 10 to 12 employees to the SR-HUP work force. With such a small increase in the work force, socioeconomic impacts to local housing, schools, health and social services, transportation, and other support facilities are negligible. Additionally, given the remote rural location of SR-HUP, no impacts related to environmental justice issues were identified.
The major potential environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of SR-2 include the disturbance of about 1.5 acres of land due to satellite building construction and operation and support road construction.
The primary impact on land use will be the temporary loss (approximately nine years) of about 1.5 acres from livestock use. These effects will be limited, temporary, and reversible through returning the land to its former grazing use following completion of post-recovery surface reclamation. The temporary alteration of an approximately 1.5 acre area is not considered to constitute a significant adverse impact to either ecological systems or wildlife.
To the extent possible, PRI will use existing access roads in the area; however, it is expected that, as part of the SR-2 construction, PRI will need to construct an access road and widen existing roads. Ephemeral drainages may be affected by this road construction, as well as by the construction of the SR-2 satellite building. When designing and constructing new roads, PRI will consider weather, elevation contours, land rights, cultural resources, and drainages. When constructing new roads, PRI will make efforts to cross ephemeral drainages or channels at right angles to enhance erosion protection
Air quality will be impacted by the release of diesel emissions from construction equipment and from fugitive dust from construction activities and vehicle traffic. Diesel emissions would be minor and of short duration, and would be readily dispersed in the atmosphere. Fugitive dust generated from construction activity, as well as vehicle traffic on unpaved roads, would be localized and of short duration. Localized areas affected by site operations would be reclaimed, topsoiled, and re-seeded.
Operation of SR-2 would involve the transportation of uranium-charged resin beads from the satellite facility to the Smith Ranch CPP, and the transportation of the stripped resin beads back to the satellite facility. Expected truck traffic between SR-2 and the Smith Ranch CPP would initially be about one truck a day, with a decrease in traffic, as the well fields are mined out. It is not expected that the additional traffic would result in an increased accident rate for the stretch of Ross Road between the SR-2 access road and the Smith Ranch CPP. However, in the case of an accident involving a shipment of uranium-loaded resin, the environmental impacts would be expected to be small. Overturning of a tanker truck carrying the loaded resin could result in the release of some resin and residual water. The resin beads, which would be deposited on the ground a short distance from the truck, would retain the uranium, absent a strong brine to strip the resin. PRI would collect the resin and any contaminated soils and dispose of them appropriately (e.g., in a licensed facility). All disturbed areas would then be reclaimed in accordance with the applicable NRC and State regulations. Airborne release of uranium would not occur since the uranium would remain fixed to the beads.
The primary source of radiological impact to the environment from site operations is gaseous radon-222, which is released from the satellite facility and from the wellfields. In a worst case scenario that considered the cumulative radiological impacts for the entire SR-HUP operation including SR-2, the two nearest SR-2 residents, Sunquest Ranch, and the Vollman Ranch, are estimated to receive a peak maximum yearly dose of 17.5 and 13.2 mrem/yr, respectively. However, it is very unlikely that these peak doses would be reached due to the modeling methodology and input data conservatism. Additionally, the airborne sampling program at PRI has been used and would continue to be used to verify the off site dose to the nearest resident and the general population. NRC staff evaluated the model results and has determined that estimated dose to the nearest resident and members of the public meet the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1301 (i.e., 100 mrem/yr).
In terms of waste disposal, PRI is required, under License Condition 9.6 of SUA-1548, to dispose of 11e.(2) byproduct materials generated by project operations at a licensed byproduct waste disposal site. Currently, PRI disposes of its radioactively-contaminated solid wastes at Pathfinder Mines Corporation's Shirley Basin uranium mill site in eastern Wyoming. PRI has submitted a Class I Underground Injection Well application with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for liquid waste disposal. Wastewater disposal associated with PRI's SR-2 operations is not expected to affect local stock and domestic wells as these wells are completed in stratigraphic horizons far above the zones planned for wastewater disposal.
The NRC has reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. The NRC staff has determined that the construction and operation of SR-2 would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an EIS is not warranted for the proposed action, and pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, a FONSI is appropriate.
The NRC staff consulted with other Federal and State agencies regarding the proposed action. These consultations were intended to afford these agencies the opportunity to comment on the proposed action, and to ensure that the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) were met with respect to the proposed action.
The WDEQ administers and implements the State rules and regulations for ISL related activities. PRI possesses a current WDEQ mining permit for its commercial operations. By letter dated September 13, 2007, the NRC staff provided a draft copy of the SR-2 EA to the WDEQ for its review and comment. By correspondence dated November 29, 2007, the WDEQ indicated it had no comments on the EA (WDEQ 2007).
By letter dated June 26, 2007, with follow-up correspondence on September 19, 2007, NRC staff requested information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region (USFWS/MPR) regarding endangered or threatened species or critical habitat in the SR-2 area. No response was received. In absence of a response, NRC staff identified a USFWS/MPR Web site (dated December 2006) which listed, by county, endangered and threatened species in Wyoming. Utilizing the Converse County, Wyoming list, NRC staff has concluded that there are no endangered or threatened species, either plant or animal, nor is there critical habitat, in SR-2.
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA, the NRC staff consulted with the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (WSHPO). By letter dated June 14, 2007, the NRC staff requested information from the WSHPO regarding cultural and historic properties that may be affected by SR-2. Further correspondence documenting Section 106 consultations was sent to WSHPO on December 4, 2007. By return letter dated December 12, 2007, the WSHPO provided its concurrence that no historic properties would be adversely affected by the proposed action.
By letters dated July 20, 2007, the NRC staff initiated a Section 106 of the NHPA consultation with numerous Native American cultural and tribal/business representatives located in Oklahoma, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and New Mexico. The consultation requested information regarding historical sites or cultural resources within the southwest area of SR-HUP (i.e., SR-2 and Mine Units 9, 10, 11, and 12), including any specific knowledge of any sites that are believed to have traditional religious and cultural significance.
The NRC has received responses from two Native American tribes: Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (dated August 20, 2007) and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (dated September 6, 2007). Following telephone calls to both parties, NRC staff forwarded supplemental information to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (dated September 21, 2007) and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (dated October 3, 2007) indicating that the proposed action would not impact Class III Cultural Resource inventoried sites deemed eligible for inclusion to the NRHP. The supplemental information also included planned mitigation measures (i.e., buffer zones) to protect
On the basis of the EA, the NRC staff has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts from the addition of the SR-2 to the SR-HUP operational area for the purpose of conducting satellite IX processing of uranium-bearing solution. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined not to prepare an EIS.
Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, will be available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at:
These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC) (the licensee) is the holder of Possession Only License No. DPR-45 for the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) in Genoa, Wisconsin. The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
Title 10 of the
On February 4, 1980, NRC issued a license amendment for LACBWR, approving an increase in the capacity of the spent fuel pool by using a vertical two-tier storage rack configuration. The two-tiered storage rack configuration does not allow observation of areas below occupied areas of the upper rack and does not allow observation of the areas below occupied areas of the lower rack, without fuel handling activities. Spent fuel pool loading was completed after LACBWR shutdown in 1987.
Due to the physical layout of the spent fuel pool at LACBWR, fuel handling activities would need to occur in order for DPC to inventory all SNM in the LACBWR spent fuel pool. Historically, the licensee's annual physical inventory of SNM in the spent fuel pool consisted of verifying that each fuel assembly that can be observed (without fuel handling activity) is in its historical location and that no SNM items have been moved or are missing. In March 2006, NRC staff conducted an inspection of the MC&A safeguards program at LACBWR, which included review of the MC&A procedures and the annual physical inventory required in 10 CFR 74.19. The inspection resulted in a notice of violation related to the licensee's MC&A procedures and annual physical inventory of SNM.
In response to the notice of violation, DPC requested an exemption from certain inventory-related requirements of 10 CFR 74.19(b) and 10 CFR 74.19(c), in a letter dated July 26, 2006. The exemption would limit the handling of fuel assemblies, due to the associated risks (fuel handling accident, fuel assembly damage, further fuel rod segment displacement from existing damaged fuel assemblies), and result in decreased radiation doses to workers. DPC wishes to rely upon the historical MC&A record at LACBWR to provide positive means of verification in performance of annual physical inventory of SNM. The licensee would also continue to use security measures or controls to assure no unauthorized access or diversion of contents from the spent fuel pool. DPC has commenced
NRC staff reviewed DPC's request and issued a request for additional information on February 8, 2007. DPC provided the additional information on March 21, 2007.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 74.7, the Commission may, upon application of any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulations in 10 CFR Part 74 as it determines are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and are otherwise in the public interest. The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 74.19 is to provide recordkeeping requirements for material control and accounting of SNM, including requirements for procedures and for conduct of an annual physical inventory of all SNM.
In 2006, while conducting work (that required fuel handling) in the spent fuel pool, DPC was able to observe most of the fuel assemblies. No historical records discrepancies were found with respect to the lower tier fuel assemblies that were observed during that time. However, some fuel assemblies in the lower tier of the spent fuel pool have not been observed since 1987. Regarding these assemblies, the licensee must observe them by the completion of its next annual inventory, using existing procedures for any fuel handling needed, to confirm the assemblies are in the locations indicated by the accounting records. After DPC confirms the locations of the remaining assemblies in the lower tier of the spent fuel pool (that have not been observed since 1987) by completion of its next annual inventory, the licensee's claim of thorough MC&A documentation dating back to 1987 can be verified.
Since all assemblies will have been observed over a two-year period by the completion of the next inventory period in 2008, and the licensee has commenced the preliminary stages of a dry cask storage project that currently indicates that assemblies will be removed from the spent fuel pool within the next few years, the staff has determined that it will be sufficient for the licensee to continue its current inventory practice with regard to assemblies, following the 2008 inventory campaign. This approach will help prevent the future movement of certain fuel assemblies that might result in unnecessary fuel breakage, while still meeting the intent of the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 74.19.
The licensee committed in its March 21, 2007, letter to place in the fuel debris storage baskets, all fuel rod segments and debris retrieved in the future. The licensee must inventory, on an annual basis, the contents of the stainless steel baskets that contain fuel pellets and other debris. The licensee must also revise all pertinent procedures to incorporate those future actions. In addition, the licensee must observe and note the presence of each bottom tier assembly prior to an assembly being placed above it in the upper tier position. The licensee must also provide significant revisions to the dry storage project plan and/or timeline to the NRC in a timely manner (within 45 days).
The NRC staff has determined that granting of the licensee's proposed exemption, with certain conditions discussed above, will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
Given the above considerations, the NRC staff concludes that by granting the proposed exemption with the above conditions, the underlying purpose of the requirements in 10 CFR 74.19 will be met. The Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 74.7, the exemption is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants DPC an exemption from certain inventory-related requirements of 10 CFR 74.19(b) and 10 CFR 74.19(c) for LACBWR, provided the licensee satisfies the conditions set forth in the discussion above. This exemption will expire at the time the fuel is transferred to dry cask storage.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will have no significant impact on the environment (72 FR 73383, December 27, 2007).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of January 7, 14, 21, 28, February 4, 11, 2008.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 7, 2008.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 14, 2008.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 21, 2008.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 28, 2008.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of February 4, 2008.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of February 11, 2008.
*The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)—(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415-1662.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, Rohn Brown, at 301-492-2279, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at
This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969).
Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Notice—computer matching between the Office of Personnel Management and the Social Security Administration.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-503), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines on the Conduct of Matching Programs, 54 FR 25818 (June 19, 1989), and OMB Circular No. A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources (revised November 28, 2000), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is publishing notice of its new computer matching program with the Social Security Administration (SSA).
OPM will file a report of the subject matching program with the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The matching program will begin 30 days after the
Send comments to Sean Hershey, Chief, Management Information Branch, Office of Personnel Management, Room 4316, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415.
James Sparrow on (202) 606-1803.
The Privacy Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), establishes the conditions under which computer matching involving the Federal Government could be performed and adding certain protections for individuals applying for and receiving Federal benefits. The Privacy Act regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other Federal, State, or local government records. Among other things, it requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching programs to:
(1) Negotiate written agreements with the other agency for agencies participating in the matching programs;
(2) Obtain the approval of the match agreement by the Data Integrity Boards (DIB) of the participating Federal agencies;
(3) Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;
(4) Notify applicants and beneficiaries that their records are subject to matching;
(5) Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, termination or denying an individual's benefits or payments.
We have taken action to ensure that all of OPM's computer matching programs comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act, as amended.
OPM and SSA.
The purpose of this agreement is to establish the terms, conditions and safeguards for disclosure of Social Security benefit information to OPM via direct computer link for the administration of certain programs by OPM's Center for the Retirement and Insurance Services Program. OPM is legally required to offset specific benefits by a percentage of benefits (i.e., Disability Annuitants, Children Survivor Annuitants and Spousal Survivor Annuitants) payable under Title II of the Social Security Act. This matching activity will enable OPM to compute benefits at the correct rate and determine eligibility for these benefits.
Section 8461(h) of title 5 of the United States Code.
Under the matching program, OPM will match SSA's DIB and payment date against OPM's records of retirees receiving a FERS disability annuity. The purpose of the matching program is to identify person receiving both a FERS disability annuity and a DIB under section 223 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 423, in order to apply OPM offsets. Under FERS, 5 U.S.C. 8452(a)(2)(A), for any month in which an annuitant is entitled to both a FERS disability annuity and to a DIB, the FERS annuity shall be computed as follows: the FERS disability annuity is reduced, for any month during the first year after the individual's FERS disability annuity commences or is restored by 100% of the individual's assumed Social Security DIB for such month, and, for any month occurring during a period other than the period described above, by 60% of the individual's assumed Social Security DIB for such month.
OPM will provide SSA with an extract from the Annuity Master File and from pending claims snapshot records via the File Transfer Management System (FTMS). The extracted file will contain identifying information concerning the child survivor annuitant for whom OPM needs information concerning receipt of SSA child survivor benefits: full name, SSN, date of birth, and type of information requested, as required to extract data from the SSA State Verification and Exchange System files for Title II records. Each record on the OPM file will be matched to SSA's records to identify FERS child survivor annuitants who are receiving SSA CIBs. The
OPM's records of surviving spouses who may be eligible to receive the FERS Supplementary Annuity will be
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(o)(1)(G)), requires that each matching agreement specify procedures for ensuring the administrative, technical and physical security of the records matched and the results of such programs. All Federal agencies are subject to: the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA), 44 U.S.C. 3541
FISMA requirements apply to all Federal contractors and organizations or sources that possess or use Federal information, or that operate, use, or have access to Federal information systems on behalf of an agency. OPM will be responsible for oversight and compliance of their contractors and agents. Both OPM and SSA reserve the right to conduct onsite inspection to monitor compliance with FISMA regulations.
The matching program shall become effective upon the signing of the agreement by both parties to the agreement and approval of the agreement by the Data Integrity Boards of the respective agencies, but no sooner than 40 days after notice of this matching program is sent to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget or 30 days after publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is filing revisions to the study outline and selection specifications for the General Securities Principal Sales Supervisor Module (Series 23) examination program.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Section 15A(g)(3) of the Act
The Series 23 examination is a limited qualification examination that tests a candidate's knowledge of securities industry rules and regulations pertaining to the supervision of investment banking, securities markets and trading as well as financial responsibility requirements. The Series 23 examination, in combination with the General Securities Sales Supervisor (Series 9/10) examination, is an acceptable qualification alternative to the General Securities Principal (Series 24) examination for associated persons who are required to register and qualify as a General Securities Principal with FINRA. The Series 23 examination covers material from the Series 24 examination not otherwise covered under the Series 9/10 examination.
A committee of industry representatives, together with FINRA staff, recently undertook a review of the Series 23 examination program. As a result of this review, FINRA is proposing to make revisions to the study outline to reflect changes to the laws, rules and regulations covered by the examination and to better reflect the duties and responsibilities of individuals taking the examination.
Among other revisions, FINRA is proposing to revise the references to the FINRA and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”) rules in the study outline to reflect NASDAQ's separation from FINRA (then known as NASD). In addition, FINRA is proposing to add sections on SEC Regulation M-A (Mergers and Acquisitions), SEC Regulation S-K, SEC Regulation S-X, SEC Regulation NMS, SEC Regulation SHO, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, SEC Rule 3a4-1 (Associated Persons of an Issuer Deemed Not to Be Brokers), SEC Rule 405 (Definitions of Terms), the NASDAQ Initial Public Offering Process (NASDAQ Head Trader Alert 2005-096) and NYSE Rule 392 (Notification Requirements for Offerings of Listed Securities). FINRA also is proposing to add sections on NASD IM-2110-7 (Interfering With the Transfer of Customer Accounts in the Context of Employment Disputes) and IM-2210-6 (Requirements for the Use of Investment Analysis Tools), as well as on NASD Rules 2111 (Trading Ahead of Customer Market Orders), 2290 (Fairness Opinions), 2370 (Borrowing From or Lending to Customers), 2441 (Net Transactions with Customers) and 5110 (Transactions Related to Initial Public Offerings).
FINRA is proposing to change the title of section 1 of the study outline from “Supervision of Investment Banking Activities” to “Supervision of Investment Banking, Underwriting Activities and Research” and the title of section 4 from “Sales Supervision; General Supervision of Employees; Regulatory Framework of NASD” to “Sales Supervision and General Supervision of Employees.” Further, as a result of the revisions discussed above, the number of questions on each section of the study outline were modified as follows: Supervision of Investment Banking, Underwriting Activities and Research, increased from 25 to 30 questions; Supervision of Trading and Market Making Activities, decreased from 29 to 24 questions; Supervision of Brokerage Office Operations, decreased from 16 to 12 questions; Sales Supervision and General Supervision of Employees, increased from 19 to 23 questions; and Compliance with Financial Responsibility Rules, no changes to the number of questions (remains at 11 questions).
FINRA is proposing similar changes to the Series 23 selection specifications and question bank. The number of questions on the Series 23 examination will remain at 100, and candidates will continue to have 2
FINRA believes that the proposed revisions to the Series 23 examination program are consistent with the provisions of sections 15A(b)(6)
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2007-027. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is filing revisions to the study outline and selection specifications for the Limited Representative—Corporate Securities (Series 62) examination program.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Section 15A(g)(3) of the Act
Pursuant to NASD Rule 1032(e), each associated person of a member who is included within the definition of representative in NASD Rule 1031(b) may register with FINRA as a Limited Representative—Corporate Securities if: (1) The individual's activities in the investment banking and securities business of the member are limited solely to the solicitation, purchase and sale of a “security,” as that term is defined in section 3(a)(10) of the Act; (2) the individual does not engage in any
A committee of industry representatives, together with FINRA staff, recently undertook a review of the Series 62 examination program. As a result of this review, FINRA is proposing to make revisions to the study outline to reflect changes to the laws, rules, and regulations covered by the examination and to better reflect the duties and responsibilities of a Limited Representative—Corporate Securities.
Among other revisions, FINRA is proposing to revise the references to the FINRA and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”) rules in the study outline to reflect NASDAQ's separation from FINRA (then known as NASD). In addition, FINRA is proposing to add sections on exchange-traded funds, hedge funds, unit investment trusts, SEC Regulation M-A (Mergers and Acquisitions), SEC Regulation S-K, SEC Regulation S-X, SEC Regulation NMS, SEC Regulation SHO and SEC Rule 405 (Definitions of Terms). FINRA also is proposing to add sections on NASD IM-2110-7 (Interfering With the Transfer of Customer Accounts in the Context of Employment Disputes), IM-2440-2 (Additional Mark-Up Policy For Transactions in Debt Securities, Except Municipal Securities) and IM-2210-6 (Requirements for the Use of Investment Analysis Tools), as well as on NASD Rules 2111 (Trading Ahead of Customer Market Orders), 2370 (Borrowing From or Lending to Customers) and 2441 (Net Transactions with Customers).
FINRA is proposing to change the title of section 1 of the study outline from “Characteristics of Corporate Securities” to “Types and Characteristics of Securities and Investments,” the title of section 3 from “Valuing Corporate Securities” to “Evaluation of Securities and Investments,” and the title of section 4 from “Handling Customer Accounts” to “Handling Customer Accounts and Securities Industry Regulations.” Further, as a result of the revisions discussed above, the number of questions on each section of the study outline was modified as follows: Types and Characteristics of Securities and Investments, decreased from 28 to 25 questions; The Market for Corporate Securities, increased from 31 to 40 questions; Evaluation of Securities and Investments, no changes to the number of questions (remains at 14 questions); and Handling Customer Accounts and Securities Industry Regulations, decreased from 42 to 36 questions.
FINRA is proposing similar changes to the Series 62 selection specifications and question bank. The number of questions on the Series 62 examination will remain at 115, and candidates will continue to have 2
FINRA believes that the proposed revisions to the Series 62 examination program are consistent with the provisions of sections 15A(b)(6)
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to retire an existing pilot program (the “Pilot”),
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this rule change is to retire the Pilot that permits the Exchange to list the Fund Options because the Fund now meets all of the Exchange's generic initial and maintenance standards.
On May 17, 2006, the Commission approved the Amex proposal to list and trade the Fund Options for a 60-day pilot period that expired on July 2, 2006.
The Fund now meets the Exchange's listing and maintenance standards in Commentary .06 to Amex Rule 915 and Commentary .07 to Amex Rule 916, respectively (the “Listing Standards”
When the Exchange first sought to list options on the Fund, the Exchange had determined that the Fund met substantially all of the Exchange's Listing Standards requirements, but did not meet the Listing Standards requirement that no more than 50% of the weight of the securities in the Fund be comprised of securities that are not subject to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement (“CSSA”).
The Fund has now become compliant with Commentary .06(b)(i) to Amex Rule 915 because the Korean Exchange (“KRX”)
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of section 6(b) 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 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 of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of 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.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-139. 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 (
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-139 and should be submitted on or before January 29, 2008.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
CBOE proposes to modify the application of its Hybrid Agency Liaison (“HAL”) system. The text of the rule proposal is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, CBOE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
CBOE Rule 6.14 governs the operation of the Exchange's HAL system. HAL provides automated order handling in designated classes trading on Hybrid for qualifying electronic orders that are not automatically executed. The purpose of this filing is to modify the HAL eligibility and order handling process for non-marketable limit orders that improve the Exchange's disseminated quote.
CBOE Rule 6.14 provides that the Exchange, with input from the appropriate Floor Procedure Committee, shall designate the classes in which HAL shall be activated.
The HAL order handling process operates as follows.
Exposed orders are filled at the conclusion of the allocation period in accordance with the allocation algorithm in effect for the option class pursuant to Rule 6.45A or Rule 6.45B. There is no participation entitlement applicable to exposed orders, and the response size is limited to the size of the exposed order for allocation purposes. If no responses are received during the exposure period, then a linkage order is routed to the NBBO market on behalf of the exposed order in cases where the exposed order is marketable against the NBBO, or if there remains an unexecuted portion of a limit order that is not marketable at the conclusion of the allocation period, then the limit order or remaining balance is entered into the electronic book.
This filing makes two HAL changes. First, for all non-Hybrid 3.0 Classes, limit orders that better the Exchange's quote but that are not-marketable (orders that fall under 6.14(a)(iii)) will no longer be flashed through HAL. Instead, these orders will route directly and automatically to the electronic book. Second, non-marketable limit orders that would improve the Exchange's disseminated quote in Hybrid 3.0 Classes will be flashed and handled under normal HAL processing, except when the eligible order is entered on the same side of the market as a manual quote. In that case, the eligible limit order will automatically route into the electronic book instead of being processed by HAL, and the manual quote will automatically cancel, so that the Exchange's disseminated quote will be represented by the limit order's bid/offer. This is consistent with how the limit order would currently be processed in Hybrid 3.0 Classes when a manual quote is present.
The Exchange proposes the first change in connection with a recent fee change it submitted (SR-CBOE-2007-152) which provides a rebate, under certain circumstances, to Market-Makers that “step-up” to trade orders flashed in HAL. The rebate program is meant to reduce the number of orders that route to away exchanges. Thus, the rebate is geared more toward encouraging matching better priced quotes on other markets than it is toward trading middle market limit orders. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to directly book those middle market limit orders and not submit them for HAL processing. This way, rebates are not provided for stepping-up to trade orders that will otherwise book. Additionally, direct booking allows a wider range of users to trade against the order sooner.
The second change allows the Exchange to introduce the HAL process in Hybrid 3.0 Classes. By initiating HAL in Hybrid 3.0 Classes, the Exchange will provide further automation to the order handling process by allowing Market-Makers appointed to the relevant option class to electronically participate on such orders.
In all other respects, HAL shall operate as it currently operates today.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to amend CBOE Rule 6.14 to modify the eligibility and order handling process for limit orders that improve the Exchange's disseminated quote when HAL is activated is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to national securities exchanges and, in particular, the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposal.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Normally, a proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change will allow a greater number of users to trade against certain orders sooner. In addition, initiating HAL for Hybrid 3.0 Classes provides further automation to order handling by allowing Market-Makers to electronically participate on such orders. Accordingly, consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, 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 the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Through this filing, the Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Participant Fees and Assessments (the “Fee Schedule”) to provide that recently-modified processing fees would no longer be assessed on a per-report basis, but would be rolled up and assessed on a per-trade basis. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Under the Exchange's Fee Schedule, the Exchange assesses a fee in connection with the processing of certain away-market trades that are sent to clearing through the Exchange's facilities.
Through this filing, the Exchange would amend the Fee Schedule to provide that the fees would no longer be assessed on a per-report basis, but would be rolled up and assessed on a per-trade basis.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)(4) 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 solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become effective upon filing pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) 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 Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is filing revisions to the study outline and selection specifications for the General Securities Principal (Series 24) examination program.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Section 15A(g)(3) of the Act
Pursuant to NASD Rule 1022(a), each associated person of a member who is included within the definition of principal in NASD Rule 1021(b), and each person designated as a Chief Compliance Officer on Schedule A of Form BD (Uniform Application for Broker-Dealer Registration), is required to register with FINRA as a General Securities Principal, or in such other limited principal registration categories as may be appropriate.
A committee of industry representatives, together with FINRA
Among other revisions, FINRA is proposing to revise the references to the FINRA and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”) rules in the study outline to reflect NASDAQ's separation from FINRA (then known as NASD). In addition, FINRA is proposing to add sections on SEC Regulation M-A (Mergers and Acquisitions), SEC Regulation S-K, SEC Regulation S-X, SEC Regulation NMS, SEC Regulation SHO, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, SEC Rule 3a4-1 (Associated Persons of an Issuer Deemed Not to Be Brokers), SEC Rule 405 (Definitions of Terms), the NASDAQ Initial Public Offering Process (NASDAQ Head Trader Alert 2005-096) and NYSE Rule 392 (Notification Requirements for Offerings of Listed Securities). FINRA also is proposing to add sections on NASD IM-2110-7 (Interfering With the Transfer of Customer Accounts in the Context of Employment Disputes), IM-2440-2 (Additional Mark-Up Policy For Transactions in Debt Securities, Except Municipal Securities) and IM-2210-6 (Requirements for the Use of Investment Analysis Tools), as well as on NASD Rules 2111 (Trading Ahead of Customer Market Orders), 2290 (Fairness Opinions), 2370 (Borrowing From or Lending to Customers), 2441 (Net Transactions with Customers) and 5110 (Transactions Related to Initial Public Offerings).
FINRA is proposing to change the title of Section 1 of the study outline from “Supervision of Investment Banking Activities” to “Supervision of Investment Banking, Underwriting Activities and Research” and the title of Section 4 from “Sales Supervision; General Supervision of Employees; Regulatory Framework of NASD” to “Sales Supervision and General Supervision of Employees.” Further, as a result of the revisions discussed above, the number of questions on each section of the study outline were modified as follows: Supervision of Investment Banking, Underwriting Activities and Research, increased from 23 to 33 questions; Supervision of Trading and Market Making Activities, decreased from 39 to 31 questions; Supervision of Brokerage Office Operations, decreased from 34 to 29 questions; Sales Supervision and General Supervision of Employees, increased from 38 to 43 questions; and Compliance with Financial Responsibility Rules, decreased from 16 to 14 questions.
FINRA is proposing similar changes to the Series 24 selection specifications and question bank. The number of questions on the Series 24 examination will remain at 150, and candidates will continue to have 3
FINRA believes that the proposed revisions to the Series 24 examination program are consistent with the provisions of Sections 15A(b)(6)
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2007-028. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is filing revisions to the study outline and selection specifications for the Limited Representative—Options (Series 42) examination program.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Section 15A(g)(3) of the Act
Pursuant to NASD Rule 1032(d), each associated person of a member who is included within the definition of representative in NASD Rule 1031(b) may register with FINRA as a Limited Representative—Options and Security Futures if: (1) The individual's activities in the investment banking and securities business of the member are limited solely to the solicitation or sale of option or security futures contracts, including option contracts on government securities as that term is defined in Section 3(a)(42)(D) of the Act, for the account of a broker-dealer or public customer; (2) the individual also registers as either a Limited Representative—Corporate Securities (Series 62) or Limited Representative—Government Securities (Series 72); (3) the individual passes the Series 42 qualification examination; and (4) the individual completes a firm element continuing education program that addresses security futures before engaging in any security futures business.
A committee of industry representatives, together with FINRA staff, recently undertook a review of the Series 42 examination program. As a result of this review, FINRA is proposing to make revisions to the study outline to reflect changes to the laws, rules and regulations covered by the examination and to better reflect the duties and responsibilities of a Limited Representative—Options.
Among other revisions, FINRA is proposing to add sections on NASD IM-2110-7 (Interfering With the Transfer of Customer Accounts in the Context of Employment Disputes) and NASD Rules 2370 (Borrowing From or Lending to Customers) and 2790 (Restrictions on the Purchase and Sale of Initial Equity Public Offerings).
As a result of the revisions discussed above, FINRA is proposing to decrease the number of sections covered by the Series 42 outline from five to four. Further, FINRA is proposing to modify the section headings and the number of questions on each section of the outline as follows: Section 1, Terminology, Types of Options, Investment Strategies and Taxation, 20 questions; Section 2, Handling Options Accounts, 14 questions; Section 3, Trading and Settlement Practices, 10 questions; and Section 4, Qualifications and Business Conduct of Registered Options Representatives, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, 6 questions.
FINRA is proposing similar changes to the Series 42 selection specifications and question bank. The number of questions on the Series 42 examination
FINRA believes that the proposed revisions to the Series 42 examination program are consistent with the provisions of Sections 15A(b)(6)
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is filing revisions to the study outline and selection specifications for the Limited Representative—Equity Trader (Series 55) examination program.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Section 15A(g)(3) of the Act
Pursuant to NASD Rule 1032(f), each associated person of a member who is included within the definition of representative in NASD Rule 1031(b) is required to register with FINRA as a Limited Representative—Equity Trader if, with respect to transactions in equity, preferred or convertible debt securities effected otherwise than on a securities exchange, such person is engaged in proprietary trading, the execution of transactions on an agency basis or the direct supervision of such activities. There is an exception from the Limited Representative—Equity Trader requirement for any associated person of a member whose trading activities are conducted principally on behalf of an investment company that is registered with the Commission pursuant to the Investment Company Act of 1940 and that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the member. The Series 55 examination is the FINRA examination that qualifies an individual to function as a Limited Representative—Equity Trader. Before registration as a Limited Representative—Equity Trader may become effective, the individual must be registered as either a General Securities Representative (Series 7) or Limited Representative-Corporate Securities (Series 62).
A committee of industry representatives, together with FINRA staff, recently undertook a review of the Series 55 examination program. As a result of this review, FINRA is proposing to make revisions to the study outline to reflect changes to the laws, rules and regulations covered by the examination and to better reflect the duties and responsibilities of a Limited Representative—Equity Trader.
Among other revisions, FINRA is proposing to revise the references to the FINRA and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”) rules in the study outline to reflect NASDAQ's separation from FINRA (then known as NASD). FINRA also is proposing to add sections on NASD Rules 2441 (Net Transactions with Customers) and 5110 (Transactions Related to Initial Public Offerings).
FINRA is proposing to change the title of Section 2 of the study outline from “NASDAQ Display, Execution and Trading Systems” to “Display, Execution and Trading Systems.” Further, as a result of the revisions discussed above, the number of questions on each section of the study outline was modified as follows: NASDAQ and Over-The-Counter Markets, increased from 41 to 42 questions; Display, Execution and Trading Systems, decreased from 17 to 12 questions; Trade Reporting Requirements, increased from 19 to 22 questions; and General Industry Standards, increased from 23 to 24 questions.
FINRA is proposing similar changes to the Series 55 selection specifications and question bank. The number of questions on the Series 55 examination will remain at 100, and candidates will continue to have 3 hours to complete the exam. Also, each question will continue to count one point, and each candidate must correctly answer 70 percent of the questions to receive a passing grade.
FINRA believes that the proposed revisions to the Series 55 examination program are consistent with the provisions of Sections 15A(b)(6)
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is filing revisions to the study outline and selection specifications for the Limited Representative—Private Securities Offerings (Series 82) examination program.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Section 15A(g)(3) of the Act
Pursuant to NASD Rule 1032(h), each associated person of a member who is
A committee of industry representatives, together with FINRA staff, recently undertook a review of the Series 82 examination program. As a result of this review, FINRA is proposing to make revisions to the study outline to reflect changes to the laws, rules and regulations covered by the examination and to better reflect the duties and responsibilities of a Limited Representative—Private Securities Offerings.
Among other revisions, FINRA is proposing to add sections on exchange-traded funds, Private Investment in Public Equity (PIPE) offerings, NASD IM-2110-7 (Interfering With the Transfer of Customer Accounts in the Context of Employment Disputes) and NASD Rule 2370 (Borrowing From or Lending to Customers).
FINRA is proposing to change the title of Section 3 of the study outline from “Analyzing Corporate Securities” to “Analyzing Corporate Securities and Investment Planning.” Further, as a result of the revisions discussed above, the number of questions on each section of the study outline was modified as follows: Characteristics of Corporate Securities, no changes to the number of questions (remains at 13 questions); Regulation of The Market for Registered and Unregistered Securities, no changes to the number of questions (remains at 45 questions); Analyzing Corporate Securities and Investment Planning, increased from 15 to 16 questions; and Handling Customer Accounts and Industry Regulations, decreased from 27 to 26 questions.
FINRA is proposing similar changes to the Series 82 selection specifications and question bank. The number of questions on the Series 82 examination will remain at 100, and candidates will continue to have 2
FINRA believes that the proposed revisions to the Series 72 examination program are consistent with the provisions of Sections 15A(b)(6)
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is filing revisions to the study outline and selection specifications for the Limited Representative—Government Securities (Series 72) examination program.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Section 15A(g)(3) of the Act
Pursuant to NASD Rule 1032(g), each associated person of a member who is included within the definition of representative in NASD Rule 1031(b) may register with FINRA as a Limited Representative—Government Securities if: (1) The individual's activities in the investment banking and securities business of the member are limited solely to the solicitation, purchase and sale of “government securities,” as that term is defined in Sections 3(a)(42)(A) through (C) of the Act, for the account of a broker-dealer or public customer; and (2) the individual passes the Series 72 qualification examination.
A committee of industry representatives, together with FINRA staff, recently undertook a review of the Series 72 examination program. As a result of this review, FINRA is proposing to make revisions to the study outline to reflect changes to the laws, rules and regulations covered by the examination and to better reflect the duties and responsibilities of a Limited Representative—Government Securities.
Among other revisions, FINRA is proposing to add sections on NASD IM-2210-6 (Requirements for the Use of Investment Analysis Tools), NASD Rule 2370 (Borrowing From or Lending to Customers) and NASD Rule 2790 (Restrictions on the Purchase and Sale of Initial Equity Public Offerings).
FINRA is proposing to change the title of Section 3 of the study outline from “Other Related Securities and Financial Instruments” to “Related Securities and Financial Instruments” and the title of Section 5 from “Legal Considerations” to “Securities Industry Regulations and Legal Considerations.” Further, as a result of the revisions discussed above, the number of questions on each section of the study outline was modified as follows: Government Securities, decreased from 25 to 22 questions; Mortgaged-Backed Securities, no changes to the number of questions (remains at 25 questions); Related Securities and Financial Instruments, no changes to the number of questions (remains at 9 questions); Economic Activity, Government Policy and the Behavior of Interest Rates, decreased from 16 to 13 questions; Securities Industry Regulations and Legal Considerations, increased from 10 to 15 questions; and Customer Considerations, increased from 15 to 16 questions.
FINRA is proposing similar changes to the Series 72 selection specifications and question bank. The number of questions on the Series 72 examination will remain at 100, and candidates will continue to have 3 hours to complete the exam. Also, each question will continue to count one point, and each candidate must correctly answer 70 percent of the questions to receive a passing grade.
FINRA believes that the proposed revisions to the Series 72 examination program are consistent with the provisions of Sections 15A(b)(6)
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Nasdaq is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to correct certain errors in the rule manual regarding fees charged for the Mutual Fund Quotation Service (“MFQS”). The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of
Nasdaq is amending its rule manual to reflect MFQS fees previously approved when MFQS was operated as a facility of the National Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”) but inadvertently not transferred to the corresponding Nasdaq rule when Nasdaq commenced operations as a national securities exchange on August 1, 2006. Pursuant to SR-NASD-2005-059 ,
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as concerned solely with the administration of a self-regulatory organization pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-093. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
NYSE proposes to reduce the annual trading floor regulatory fee allocated among the specialists from $16,000,000 to $8,000,000. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the NYSE included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The NYSE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Effective January 1, 2008, the Exchange proposes to reduce from $16,000,000 to $8,000,000 the annual trading floor regulatory fee allocated among the specialists. The purpose of the trading floor regulatory fee is to defray the costs incurred by the Exchange in connection with the monitoring of trading floor activity by the Exchange's Market Surveillance Division. The Exchange has determined that, given the dramatically increased percentage of trades automatically executed and the shifts in the specialists' trading role as a result of the Hybrid Market initiative, it is appropriate to reduce the specialists' direct contribution to the regulatory program. The fee reduction will not have any impact on the Exchange's ability to maintain its current level of trading floor surveillance or to develop and adopt new surveillance technologies and procedures in the future.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 6 of the Act
NYSE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) 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 Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
The Exchange, through its wholly-owned subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities, proposes to amend the section of its Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (the “Fee Schedule”) that applies to orders submitted by ETP Holders.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NYSE Arca has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
As part of its continuing efforts to enhance participation on the Exchange, NYSE Arca Equities proposes to amend certain sections of its Fee Schedule that apply to orders submitted for securities listed on The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC (“Nasdaq”) or Tape B listed securities. Primarily, these changes will increase the rebate (or credit) earned by ETP Holders for providing significant liquidity in Nasdaq-listed securities.
Currently, the credit for round lot orders of Nasdaq-listed securities that provide liquidity is $0.002 per share. Pursuant to this proposal, for Nasdaq-listed securities, the Exchange will increase the $0.002 per share credit to $0.0024 per share if certain volume thresholds are met. Specifically, if an ETP Holder (i) transacts an average daily share volume per month greater than 30 million shares (including transactions that take liquidity, provide liquidity, or route to away market centers) and also (ii) provides liquidity an average daily share volume per month greater than 15 million, then the ETP Holder will earn a credit of $.0024 for its orders that provide liquidity.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to reduce the fee for round lot orders of Tape B listed securities submitted to the Exchange by ETP Holders that are subsequently routed away from the Exchange and executed by another market center or participant, from $0.004 per share to $0.0035 per share.
While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing, the changes will become operative on January 2, 2008.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Two subcommittees of the Shipping Coordinating Committee (SHC) will be holding public meetings in January 2008. Details for both meetings are provided in this notice.
The Subcommittee on Ship Design and Equipment of the SHC will conduct an open meeting at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, January 22, 2008, in Room 6103 of the U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters Building, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the 51st session of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Sub-Committee on Ship Design and Equipment (DE) to be held at the Maritim Hotel in Bonn, Germany from February 18 to February 22, 2008. The primary matters to be considered include:
Hard copies of documents associated with the 50th session of the DE Sub-committee will be available at this meeting. To request further copies of documents please write to the address provided below. Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. Interested persons may seek information by writing to Mr. Wayne Lundy, U.S. Coast Guard (CG-5213), 2100 Second Street SW., Room 1300, Washington, DC 20593-0001 or by calling (202) 372-1379.
The Subcommittee on the Carriage of Bulk Liquids and Gases of the SHC will conduct an open meeting at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, January 30, 2008, in Room 6103 of the United States Coast Guard Headquarters Building, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the 12th Session of the IMO Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases to be held at the Royal Horticultural Halls and Conference Centre in London, England from February 4 to February 8, 2008. The primary matters to be considered include:
Members of the public may attend the meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. Interested persons may seek information by writing: Mr. T. J. Felleisen, U.S. Coast Guard (CG-5223), Room 1210, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001 or by calling (202) 372-1424.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 28 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision standard. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.
The exemptions are effective January 8, 2008. The exemptions expire on January 8, 2010.
Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical Programs, (202)-366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at
On November 28, 2007, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the public (72 FR 67341). That notice listed 28 applicants' case histories. The 28 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
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 statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 28 applications on their merits and made a determination to grant exemptions to all of them. The comment period closed on December 28, 2007.
The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70 ° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision standard, but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 28 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable to meet the vision standard in one eye for various reasons, including amblyopia, retinal detachment, macular scar, macular degeneration, cataract, retinal scar, alternating exotropia, and loss of vision due to trauma. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. All but seven of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The seven individuals who sustained their vision conditions as adults have had them for periods ranging from 4 to 25 years.
Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV. All these applicants satisfied the testing standards for their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a commercial vehicle, with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 28 drivers have been authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 3 to 42 years. In the past 3 years, four of the drivers had convictions for traffic violations and three of them were involved in crashes.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the November 28, 2007 notice (72 FR 67341).
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered not only the medical reports about the applicants' vision, but also
We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively. (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly. (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952.) Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with other factors. These factors—such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history—are used every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes. (See Weber, Donald C., “Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,” Journal of American Statistical Association, June 1971) A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with their experiences in the final year.
Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of the 28 applicants, three of the applicants had a traffic violation for speeding, one of the applicants had a traffic violation for passing in a wrong lane, and three applicants were involved in crashes. The applicants achieved this record of safety while driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
We believe the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to the 28 applicants listed in the notice of November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67341).
We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements on the 28 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver program.
Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. The comments were considered and discussed below.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) expressed opposition to FMCSA's policy to grant exemptions from the FMCSRs, including the driver qualification standards. Specifically, Advocates: (1) Objects to the manner in which FMCSA presents driver information to the public and makes safety determinations; (2) objects to the Agency's reliance on conclusions drawn from the vision waiver program; (3) claims the Agency has misinterpreted statutory language on the granting of exemptions (49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315); and finally (4) suggests that a 1999 Supreme Court decision affects the legal validity of vision exemptions.
The issues raised by Advocates were addressed at length in 64 FR 51568 (September 23, 1999), 64 FR 66962 (November 30, 1999), 64 FR 69586 (December 13, 1999), 65 FR 159 (January 3, 2000), 65 FR 57230 (September 21, 2000), and 66 FR 13825 (March 7, 2001). We will not address these points again here, but refer interested parties to those earlier discussions.
One individual opposes the granting of vision exemptions to vision impaired drivers. She believes that granting vision exemptions to drivers makes the roads more dangerous. This individual also believes that the Agency's policies are too lax.
In regard to this comment, the discussion under the heading, “Basis for Exemption Determination,” explains in detail the evaluation methods the Agency utilizes prior to granting an
Based upon its evaluation of the 28 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts Thomas E. Anderson, Garry A. Baker, Richard D. Becotte, Timothy W. Bickford, James E. Blazer, Terry S. Brookshire, Jr., Wayne A. Burnett, Theodore W. Cozat, Zibbie L. Dawsey, Alex G. Dlugolenski, Karen Y. Duvall, Gordon R. Fritz, John A. Graham, Jimmy D. Gregory, Taras G. Hamilton, Larry K. Lentz, Boleslaw Makowski, Joseph W. Meacham, Charles M. Moore, Anthony D. Ovitt, John R. Parsons, III, Steven S. Reinsvold, Michael J. Richard, Glenn T. Riley, George E. Todd, Gary S. Warren, Bradley A. Weiser, and Eddie L. Williams, from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)).
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Impact Statement.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Valley Metro Rail, Inc. (METRO) intend to prepare an Alternatives Analysis (AA) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on proposed high capacity transit improvements, including potential bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail transit (LRT), modern streetcar, or commuter rail in the Tempe South Corridor in the Cities of Tempe and Chandler in Maricopa County, Arizona. The proposed study area is bounded on the north by the Loop 202 (Red Mountain Freeway); Loop 101 (Price Freeway) on the east; Loop 202 (Santan Freeway) on the south; and the Tempe Branch of the Union Pacific Railroad on the west. The AA/EIS will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations. The AA/EIS process will be initiated with a scoping process that provides opportunities for the public to comment on the scope of the EIS, including the project's purpose and need, the alternatives to be considered, and the impacts to be evaluated in the AA and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). This input will be used to assist decisionmakers in determining a locally preferred alternative (LPA) for the Tempe South Corridor. Upon selection of an LPA, METRO will request permission from FTA to enter into preliminary engineering per requirements of New Starts regulations 49 CFR Part 611. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) will be issued after FTA approves entrance into preliminary engineering.
The purpose of this notice is to alert interested parties regarding the intent to prepare the AA/EIS, to provide information on the nature of the proposed project and possible alternatives, to invite public participation in the AA/EIS process, including comments on the scope of the EIS as proposed in this notice, to announce that public scoping meetings will be conducted, and to identify participating agency contacts.
Written and e-mailed comments on the scope of study, including the project's purpose and need, the alternatives to be considered, and the impacts to be assessed, should be sent to Valley Metro Rail, Inc. (METRO) on or before February 13. See
• Tuesday, January 29, 2007 at 6 p.m., Corona del Sol High School, 1001 East Knox Road, Tempe, Arizona 85284.
• Wednesday, January 30, 2007 at 6 p.m., Tempe Public Library, 3500 South Rural Road, Tempe, Arizona 85282.
Potential participating and cooperating agencies will be invited by phone or letter to an interagency scoping meeting planned to be held on the following date:
• Thursday, February 7, 2007 at 10 a.m., Valley Metro Rail (METRO), 101 North 1st Avenue, Suite 1300, Phoenix, AZ 85003.
The project's purpose and need and the initial set of alternatives proposed for study will be presented at these meetings. The buildings used for the scoping meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. Any individual who requires special assistance, such as a sign language interpreter, to participate in a scoping meeting should contact Dawn Coomer, City of Tempe, 31 E. Fifth Street, Tempe, AZ 85281, 480-350-8550 at least 48 hours in advance of a meeting in order for METRO and the City of Tempe to make the necessary arrangements.
Scoping materials will be available at the meetings and through the project's Web site at
Written comments should be sent to the attention of Mr. Marc Soronson, Valley Metro Rail, Inc., 101 North 1st Avenue, Suite 1300, Phoenix, AZ 85003. E-mail:
Mr. Hymie Luden, Office of Planning and Program Development, Federal Transit Administration, 201 Mission Street, Room 1650, San Francisco, CA 94105. Phone: (415) 744-2732.
The FTA and Valley Metro Rail, Inc. (METRO) invite all interested individuals and organizations, public agencies, and Native American Tribes to comment on the scope of the alternatives analysis (AA) and the EIS, including the project's preliminary statement of purpose and need, the alternatives to be studied and the impacts to be evaluated. Comments should focus on the purpose and need for the proposed project; alternatives that may be less costly or have less environmental or community impacts while achieving similar transportation objectives; and the identification of any significant social, economic, or environmental issues relating to the alternatives.
The draft statement of the project purpose is currently under review by METRO and the Cities of Tempe and Chandler and will be refined further through the scoping process. In its current state, the purpose is defined as follows:
1. Identify an alignment and technology for improved transit service, to connect Downtown Tempe, Arizona State University (ASU) and sections of Chandler with the 20-mile CP-EV light rail starter line.
2. Improve transit connectivity throughout Downtown Tempe and ASU.
3. Improve transit access to employment opportunities throughout the study area in Tempe as well as in the Central Phoenix/East Valley region.
4. Provide transit options to relieve peak period congestion on north-south arterials in the study area, as well as on Downtown Tempe streets.
5. Address mid-day transit travel demand and bus overcrowding.
6. Facilitate continued development of a comprehensive and inter-connected regional transit network that is multi-modal, that offers a range of choices for current and future transit riders, and that attracts new transit riders to the regional system.
7. Provide cost-effective transit service.
8. Support economic development and enhance connectivity among developing transit-oriented, high-density projects, activity centers and attractions in the study area.
Additional considerations supporting the project's need include:
Infill growth in the City of Tempe and the growth in the City of Chandler have caused substantial increases in traffic congestion on the existing roadway network and has generated the need for new public transportation service. Even with implementation of the projects included in the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Regional Transportation Plan, level of service (LOS) in 2030 on both the area freeways and arterials is expected to deteriorate substantially because of increased travel demand, resulting in a significant increase in delay. In Tempe, little or no additional freeway or arterial capacity is planned. Daily freeway congestion is currently higher compared to the region, and the MAG model projects this trend to continue in the future.
At a minimum, the alternatives to be considered in AA include the following:
• No-Build—Implements modified existing and committed road and transit improvements as defined by the Regional Transportation Plan and coordinated by the Cities of Tempe and Chandler.
• Transportation System Management (TSM)—Includes reasonable, cost-effective transit service improvements short of a major capital investment in fixed guideway. In addition, the TSM implements all of the projects in the No-Build alternative.
• Build Alternatives—fixed guideway alternatives include projects defined in the No-Build Alternative. All Build Alternatives begin at various locations along the LRT Starter Line in Tempe (scheduled to open in late 2008) and extend south to Chandler on either:
Transit technologies under consideration are bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail transit (LRT), modern streetcar, and commuter rail. All of the technologies, except commuter rail, are being considered for all of the proposed alignments. Commuter rail is only being considered on the Tempe Branch (UPRR). Between the LRT starter line in Tempe and a new park-and-ride facility in the vicinity of the US 60 (Superstition Freeway), the high capacity transit improvement would be built in a fixed guideway along any of the alignments being considered. Between US 60 and a new park-and-ride in the vicinity of the Loop 202 in Chandler, the following options are being considered for the Tempe Branch UPRR:
• Continue south to the Loop 202 in fixed guideway using the same transit mode as that considered in the northern portion of the study area.
• For LRT and streetcar modes, two additional options that connect at US 60 to BRT with limited stop service are considered:
For all other alternative alignments, BRT operating in mixed traffic lanes with limited stop service would continue south of US 60 to Chandler along either Kyrene Road, Mill Avenue/Kyrene Road, Rural Road, or McClintock Drive, depending on location of the option being considered in the northern segment of the study area. For the Kyrene Road and Mill Avenue/Kyrene Road alignments, the alignment would continue south to a new park-and-ride facility at the Loop 202 (Santan Freeway) that would be built somewhere in the vicinity between I-10 and Kyrene Road. The McClintock Drive alignment would continue south to Chandler Fashion Center via Chandler Boulevard. The Rural Road alignment has two options that could travel south to: (1) The new park-and-ride facility at the Loop 202; or (2) to Chandler Fashion Center. These alternatives will be developed further during preparation of the AA/EIS.
Additional reasonable Build Alternatives suggested during the scoping process that meet the purpose and need for the project will also be considered.
The purpose of the NEPA process is to explore, in a public setting, the effects of the proposed project and its alternatives on the physical, human, and natural environment. The FTA and METRO will evaluate all significant environmental, social, and economic impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed project. Impact areas to be addressed include: Land use; development potential; secondary development; land acquisition and displacements and relocations; cultural resources (including impacts on historical and archaeological resources); parklands and recreation areas; visual and aesthetic qualities; air quality; noise and vibration; ecosystems (including threatened and endangered species);
The methodology for evaluation of impacts will focus on the areas of investigation mentioned above. As the public involvement and agency consultation process proceeds, additional evaluation criteria and impact assessment measures will be included in the analysis. Potential alternatives will be developed to a conceptual level, and will be screened and ranked against these evaluation criteria and local community considerations. Travel time savings, potential for congestion reduction and improved mobility options for Tempe and Chandler residents will be assessed for the transportation alternatives considered. The public involvement program and agency coordination plan discussed below will provide the vehicle through which these evaluation analyses will be conducted.
The regulations implementing NEPA, as well as provisions of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), call for public involvement in the EIS process. Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU requires that FTA and METRO do the following: (1) Extend an invitation to other Federal and non-Federal agencies and Indian tribes that may have an interest in the proposed project to become “participating agencies”; (2) provide an opportunity for involvement by participating agencies and the public in helping to define the purpose and need for a proposed project, as well as the range of alternatives for consideration in the EIS; and (3) establish a plan for coordinating public and agency participation in and comment on the environmental review process. An invitation to become a participating agency, with the scoping information packet appended, will be extended to other Federal and non-Federal agencies and Indian tribes that may have an interest in the proposed project. It is possible that we may not be able to identify all Federal and non-Federal agencies and Indian tribes that may have such an interest. Any Federal or non-Federal agency or Indian tribe interested in the proposed project that does not receive an invitation to become a participating agency should notify, at the earliest opportunity, the person identified above under
A public and agency Coordination Plan that includes a comprehensive Public Involvement Program will be created. The Public Involvement Program will include a full range of involvement activities. Activities will include outreach to local and county officials and community and civic groups; a public scoping process to define the issues of concern among all parties interested in the project; organizing periodic meetings with various local agencies, organizations and committees; a public hearing on release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS); and development and distribution of project newsletters. There will be additional opportunities to participate in the scoping process in addition to the public meetings announced in this notice. Specific mechanisms for involvement will be detailed in the Public Involvement Program.
Valley Metro Rail, Inc. (METRO) may seek New Starts funding for the proposed project under 49 U.S.C. 5309 and will therefore be subject to New Starts regulations (49 CFR Part 611). The New Starts regulation requires a planning Alternatives Analysis that leads to the selection of a locally preferred alternative and inclusion of the locally preferred alternative as part of the long-range transportation plan adopted by the Maricopa Association of Governments. The New Starts regulation also requires the submission of certain project-justification information in support of a request to initiate preliminary engineering, and this information is normally developed in conjunction with the NEPA process. Pertinent New Starts evaluation criteria will be included in the Final EIS.
The AA/EIS will be prepared in accordance with NEPA and its implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and with the FTA/Federal Highway Administration regulations “Environmental Impact and Related Procedures” (23 CFR Part 771). In accordance with 23 CFR 771.105(a) and 771.133, FTA will comply with all Federal environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders applicable to the proposed project during the environmental review process to the maximum extent practicable. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the environmental and public hearing provisions of Federal transit laws (49 U.S.C. 5301(e), 5323(b), and 5324), the project-level air quality conformity regulation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (40 CFR part 93), the section 404(b)(1) guidelines of EPA (40 CFR part 230), the regulation implementing section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR part 800), the regulation implementing section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (50 CFR part 402), section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (23 CFR 771.135), and Executive Orders 12898 on environmental justice, 11988 on floodplain management and 11990 on wetlands.
The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from Harkins Cunningham on behalf of Canadian National Railway Company (WB525—12—12/31/2007), for permission to use certain data from the Board's Carload Waybill Sample. A copy of the request may be obtained from the Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and Administration.
The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and Administration within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before March 10, 2008.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Mary Stout at (202) 461-5867 or FAX (202) 273-9381.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-21), this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before February 7, 2008.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Denise McLamb, Records Management Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-7485, FAX (202) 273-0443 or e-mail:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
a. Ad Hoc Facilities Surveys (VA Medical Facilities) and Special Emphasis Programs Conducted at Headquarters—29,455 hours.
b. Pre-approved Local Facilities Surveys (VA Medical Facilities)—95,892 hours.
c. Special Emphasis Programs Conducted at Headquarters—10.71 minutes.
d. Local Facilities Surveys (VA Medical Facilities)—8 minutes.
a. Ad Hoc Facilities Surveys (VA Medical Facilities) and Special Emphasis Programs Conducted at Headquarters—165,012.
b. Pre-approved Local Facilities Surveys (VA Medical Facilities)—720,785.
By direction of the Secretary.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The EPA is proposing to revise its regulations relating to the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirement that Federal actions conform to the appropriate State, Tribal or Federal implementation plan for attaining clean air (“general conformity”). EPA has only revised the General Conformity Regulations once since they were promulgated in 1993 to include de minimis emission levels for fine particulate matter and its precursors (July 17, 2006). Over this period, EPA and other Federal agencies have gained experience with the implementation of the existing regulations and have identified several issues with their implementation. In addition, in 2004 EPA issued regulations to implement the revised ozone standard and in 2007 issued regulations to implement the new fine particulate matter standard. These regulations could affect the timing and process for general conformity determinations. State and other air quality agencies are in the process of developing revised plans to attain the new standards and the proposed revisions to the General Conformity Regulations will be helpful to the State, Tribe, and local agencies as well as the Federal agencies in developing and commenting on the proposed SIP revisions. This proposed rule revision provides for a streamline process for Federal agencies and States and Tribes to ensure Federal activities are incorporated in these State implementation plans (SIPs). Where that is not possible it provides an efficient and effective process for Federal agencies to ensure their actions do not cause or contribute to a violation of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) or interfere with the purpose of a State, Tribal or Federal implementation plan to attain or maintain the NAAQS.
Submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0491, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held at 9 a.m. in Washington, DC, or at an alternate site nearby. Details regarding the hearing (time, date, and location) will be posted on EPA's Web site at
Mr. Thomas Coda, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code C539-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone number (919) 541-3037 or by e-mail at
Entities affected by this rule include Federal agencies and public and private entities that receive approvals or funding from Federal agencies such as airports and ports.
1.
2.
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposal will also be available on the worldwide web. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this notice will be posted at
The intent of the General Conformity requirement is to prevent the air quality impacts of Federal actions from causing or contributing to a violation of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) or interfering with the purpose of a State implementation plan (SIP), Tribal implementation plan (TIP) or Federal implementation plan (FIP).
In the CAA, Congress recognized that actions taken by Federal agencies could affect State, Tribe, and local agencies' ability to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Congress added section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506) to the CAA to ensure Federal agencies proposed actions conform to the applicable SIP, TIP or FIP for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. That section requires Federal entities to find that the emissions from the Federal action will conform with the purposes of the SIP, TIP or FIP or not otherwise interfere with the State's or Tribe's ability to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
The CAA Amendments of 1990 clarified and strengthened the provisions in section 176(c). Because certain provisions of section 176(c) apply only to highway and mass transit funding and approvals actions, EPA published two set of regulations to implement section 176(c). The Transportation Conformity Regulations, first published on November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188) and recently revised on July 1, 2004 at 69 FR 40004, May 6, 2005 at 70 FR 24280 and March 10, 2006 at 71 FR 12468, address Federal actions related to highway and mass transit funding and approval actions. The General Conformity Regulations,
The EPA recently revised the General Conformity Regulations to include de minimis emission levels for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns (PM
The existing regulations do not specifically identify the roles of Indian Tribes nor the applicability of the regulations to TIPs.
Federal agencies and other parties involved in the conformity process have found that in implementing the existing General Conformity Regulations their process falls in to three phases: (A) Applicability analysis, (B) Conformity determination, and (C) Review process. Besides ensuring that the Federal actions are in conformance with the SIP, the regulations encourage consultation between the Federal agency and the State or local air pollution control agencies before and during the environmental review process.
The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-59) added section 176(c)(5) to the CAA to limit applicability of the conformity programs to areas designated as nonattainment under section 107 of the CAA and maintenance areas under section 175A of the CAA only. Therefore, only actions in designated nonattainment and maintenance areas are subject to the regulation. In addition, the regulations recognize that the vast majority of Federal actions do not result in significant increase in emissions and, therefore, include a number of exemptions such as de minimis emission levels based on the type and severity of the nonattainment problem.
In the applicability analysis phase, the Federal agency determines:
1. Whether the action will occur in a nonattainment or maintenance area;
2. Whether one of the specific exemptions apply to the action;
3. Whether the Federal agency has included the action on its list of “presumed to conform” actions; or
4. Whether the total direct and indirect emissions are below or above the de minimis levels.
Under the current regulations, the applicability analysis phase requires Federal agencies to determine if the action is considered “regionally significant,” i.e., equal to or greater than ten percent of the area's emission inventory for the pollutant. If the action is regionally significant, Federal agencies must conduct a conformity determination for the action even though the emissions caused by the action are below the de minimis levels, the action is presumed to conform or the action is otherwise exempt.
When the applicability analysis shows that the action must undergo a conformity determination, Federal agencies must first show that the action will meet all SIP control requirements such as reasonably available control measures, and the emissions from the action will not interfere with the timely attainment of the standard, the maintenance of the standard or the area's ability to achieve an interim emission reduction milestone. Federal agencies then must demonstrate conformity by meeting one or more of the methods specified in the regulation for determining conformity:
1. Demonstrating that the total direct and indirect emissions are specifically identified and accounted for in the applicable SIP,
2. Obtaining a written statement from the State or local agency responsible for the SIP documenting that the total direct and indirect emissions from the action along with all other emissions in the area will not exceed the SIP emission budget,
3. Obtaining a written commitment from the State to revise the SIP to include the emissions from the action,
4. Obtaining a statement from the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the area documenting that any on-road motor vehicle emissions are included in the current regional emission analysis for the area's transportation plan or transportation improvement program,
5. Fully offset the total direct and indirect emissions by reducing emissions of the same pollutant or precursor in the same nonattainment or maintenance area, or
6. Conducting air quality modeling that demonstrates that the emissions will not cause or contribute to new violations of the standards, or increase the frequency or severity of any existing violations of the standards. Air quality modeling cannot be used to demonstrate conformity for emissions of ozone precursors or nitrogen dioxide (NO
As public bodies, Federal agencies must make their conformity determinations through a public process. The General Conformity Regulations require Federal agencies to provide notice of the draft determination to the applicable EPA Regional Office, the State and local air quality agencies, the local MPO and, where applicable, the Federal land manager(s). In addition, the regulations require Federal agencies to provide at least a 30-day comment period on the draft determination and make the final determination public. State agencies and the public can appeal the final determination in the U.S. Courts system. Failure by a Federal agency to follow the technical and procedural requirements can result in an adverse court decision.
In accordance with the requirements of section 176(c)(4)(C) of the CAA, when EPA promulgated General Conformity Regulations in 1993 it also promulgated
Because 40 CFR part 51, subpart W (§§ 51.850-51.860) essentially duplicates the regulations promulgated at 40 CFR part 93, subpart B (§§ 93.150-93.160), EPA is proposing to delete all of subpart W except for § 51.851. In the proposed revision to § 51.851, EPA would require that if a State or Tribe submits a General Conformity SIP or TIP that it be consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR part 93, subpart B. In addition, EPA is proposing to add a provision to 40 CFR 51.851 to allow the States and Tribes more flexibility to streamline the conformity process conducted under their SIP or TIP.
In 40 CFR part 93, subpart B, EPA is proposing to make only specific revisions to the regulations which (1) clarify the process, (2) delete outdated or unnecessary requirements, (3) authorize innovative and flexible approaches, (4) streamline the process and reduce the paperwork burden, (5) provide transition tools for implementing new standards, (6) incorporate revisions requested by other agencies, and (7) provide a better explanation of regulations and policies.
Several of the proposed revisions encourage both the Federal agencies and the States or Tribes to take actions in advance of the project environmental review. Such advance action should speed the review process for the individual projects and reduce the delays for the project without impairing the environmental review. The EPA invites comment on this approach.
1. The EPA is proposing to add a new section (40 CFR 93.161) to allow for a facility-wide emission budget approach. Under this voluntary arrangement, Federal agencies, in anticipation of future major actions, could negotiate a facility-wide emission budget with the appropriate State, Tribal, or local air quality agency responsible for the SIP or TIP. The State, Tribal, or local agency would incorporate the facility-wide emission budget into the applicable SIP or TIP and submit it to EPA for approval. Once approved, minor actions under the control of the facility where an applicability analysis results in a determination that the emissions are below a de minimis threshold could proceed with no conformity determination. Actions at the facility where the emissions from an action under the facility's control equaled or exceeded an applicable de minimis threshold could demonstrate that the emissions from the proposed action along with all other emissions at the facility are within the EPA approved facility-wide emission budget. By using the facility-wide emission test, the action would be presumed to conform and a conformity determination would not be necessary. Alternatively, a facility with an approved facility-wide emission budget could demonstrate conformity by the conventional methods afforded in the General Conformity regulations.
2. The EPA is proposing a new section (40 CFR 93.165) to explicitly incorporate the use of early emission reduction credits into the regulations. The proposal reflects the provisions of the Airport Early Emission Reduction (AERC) guidance developed in consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and provides a similar framework for other Federal agencies.
3. The EPA is proposing a new section (40 CFR 93.164) to allow, with certain limitations, the emission of one precursor of a criteria pollutant to be mitigated or offset by the reduction in the emissions of another precursor of that pollutant.
4. The EPA is proposing a new section (40 CFR 93.163) to allow alternate schedules for mitigating emissions increases. The mitigation timing approach could allow some flexibility for Federal agencies and States or Tribes to negotiate a program for some emissions mitigation to occur in future years. States or Tribes could consider this approach to accommodate short-term increases in emissions if there is a substantial long-term reduction in emissions.
1. The EPA is proposing to delete the provision in the existing regulation which required Federal agencies to conduct a conformity determination for regionally significant actions even though the total direct and indirect emissions from the action were below the de minimis emission levels.
2. The EPA is proposing additional categories of actions that Federal agencies can include in their “presume to conform” lists and EPA is also proposing to permit States or Tribes to establish in their General Conformity SIPs or TIPs “presume to conform” lists for actions within their State or Tribal area.
3. The EPA is proposing to exempt the emissions from stationary sources permitted under the minor source new source review (NSR) programs as EPA's existing General Conformity regulation already provides for exemptions for emissions from major NSR sources.
1. The EPA is proposing to revise the language in the regulation concerning conformity evaluations for existing action during a transition to new nonattainment designations or to the revised regulations.
2. The EPA is proposing requirements for the implementation of the grace period for newly designated nonattainment areas.
3. The EPA is proposing alternate methods to demonstrate conformity for time periods beyond those covered by the SIP or TIP.
4. The EPA is proposing to allow States or Tribes to include an enforceable commitment in the SIP or TIP to address future emissions from a Federal action.
1. Based on EPA's Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires, which was developed in consultation with Federal land managers, EPA is taking comment on two possible approaches: (1) To include a presumption of conformity for prescribed fire use that are conducted in compliance with certified smoke management plans (SMPs), and (2) for prescribed fires conducted using State approved basic smoke management practices.
2. The EPA is proposing to allow Federal agencies to obtain emission offsets for general conformity purposes from another nearby nonattainment or maintenance area of equal or higher nonattainment classification provided the emissions from that area contribute to violation of the NAAQS in the area where the Federal action is located or in the case of maintenance areas, the emissions from the nearby area contributed in the past to the violations in the area where the Federal action is occurring.
3. At the request of several Federal agencies, EPA is proposing to clarify the
4. Several Federal agencies and other parties involved in the process suggested that EPA should consider exempting construction activity emissions from the conformity regulations requirements. Although the existing General Conformity Regulations do not specifically mention construction emissions, they implicitly require Federal agencies to include emissions from construction activities in the conformity evaluation.
The EPA understands the concerns of the other Federal agencies and in the discussion about the revision to the definition of “caused by,” has identified a number of ways that Federal agencies can work with the State, Tribe, and local agencies to ease the burden of reviewing construction emissions. In addition, EPA is seeking comment on the possibility of exempting short-term construction projects from the General Conformity Regulations. One option would be to define short-term emissions as lasting no more than 2 years. Another option would be to define short-term emissions consistent with how they are defined for Transportation Conformity. Currently under the Transportation Conformity regulations, construction emissions are not required to be included for construction that lasts no longer than 5 years at individual sites.
5. The FAA requested clarification of language in the General Conformity preamble (58 FR 63229) that stated “the EPA believes that the following actions are illustrative of de minimis actions: * * * Air traffic control activities and adopting approach, departure and enroute procedures for air operations.”
The FAA conducted a study of ground level concentrations caused by elevated aircraft emissions released above ground level (AGL) using EPA-approved models and conservative assumptions.
1. The EPA is proposing to clarify that if the action would result in emissions originating in more than one nonattainment or maintenance area, the emissions in each area would be treated as if they result from a separate action.
2. The EPA is proposing to establish procedures to follow in extending the 6-month conformity exemption for actions taken in response to an emergency.
3. The EPA is proposing to revise the procedures that can be used to demonstrate conformity with the applicable SIP.
4. The EPA is proposing to revise the review process to require Federal agencies to notify Tribal governments in the nonattainment or maintenance area.
5. The EPA is proposing to clarify the definition of several terms used in the regulations.
6. The EPA is proposing to include specific language to identify the role of Indian Tribes and TIPs.
Section 176(c)(4) of the CAA specifies that EPA conformity regulations include a requirement for a State to adopt and submit to EPA for approval, a SIP to implement the provisions of section 176(c). Section 6011 of SAFETEA-LU revised the conformity requirements in section 176(c) of the CAA. Although most of the revisions affected the Transportation Conformity requirements, section 6011(f) and (g) also revised the General Conformity requirements. Specifically, section 6011(f) revised section 176(c)(4)(A) of the CAA by including a requirement that the regulations must be periodically updated and by deleting the requirement for the States to adopt and submit a General Conformity SIP. Section 6011(g) requires EPA to revise its conformity regulations by August 2007 to meet the revised requirements. The EPA does not interpret this provision as prohibiting States or Tribes from voluntarily adopting and submitting General Conformity implementation plans. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 51.851 to make the adoption and submittal of the General Conformity SIP optional for the State and eligible federally-recognized Tribal governments.
In promulgating the General Conformity Regulations in 1993, EPA published two sets of regulations: 40 CFR Part 51, subpart W (§§ 93.850 through 93.869) directed States to adopt and submit General Conformity SIPs to EPA for approval and 40 CFR Part 93 subpart B (§§ 93.150 through 93.160) provided the requirements for Federal agencies to follow in conducting their conformity evaluations before EPA approved the General Conformity SIP for the area. Section 40 CFR 51.851 directed States to adopt SIPs meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart W. The other sections in subpart W repeat the requirements found in 40 CFR part 93, subpart B. The EPA is proposing to delete 40 CFR 51.850, and 51.852 through 860 since those sections merely repeat the language in 40 CFR 93.150 and 93.152 through 160 and include a requirement in 40 CFR 51.851(a) that the General Conformity SIP or TIP must meet the requirements in 40 CFR part 93, subpart B.
In addition, EPA is proposing several revisions to § 51.851.
1. The EPA is proposing to divide paragraph (b) of 40 CFR 51.851 into four paragraphs—(b), (c), (d), and (e):
a. Paragraph (b) stating that until EPA approves the SIP revision, Federal agencies must meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 93, subpart B.
b. Paragraph (c) stating that after EPA approves a SIP or TIP meeting the requirement of 40 CFR part 93, subpart B, or portion thereof, the Federal agencies must meet the requirements of the SIP or TIP and portions of 40 CFR part 93, subpart B if not included in the approved SIP or TIP. In addition, the proposed paragraph (c) states that any conformity requirements in an existing implementation plan remain enforceable until the state submits a revision to its applicable implementation plan to specifically remove the conformity requirements and that revision is approved by EPA. Since there is no longer a requirement for State implementation plans to include conformity requirements and the applicable statutes do not grant EPA additional authorities to condition approval of a State's request to remove the general conformity requirements from an implementation plan, it is EPA's intent, once requested by a State, to expeditiously review and approve implementation plan revisions that seek
c. Paragraph (d) contains the requirement that the SIP or TIP can be no less stringent than 40 CFR part 93, subpart B.
d. Paragraph (e) contains the requirement that the SIP or TIP can be no more stringent that the requirement in 40 CFR part 93, subpart B unless the provisions apply to non-Federal as well as Federal entities.
2. The EPA is proposing to add a new provision in § 51.851, which allows States or Tribes to include in their SIP or TIP a list of actions that are presumed to conform.
Since 40 CFR 51.850, 852 through 860 merely repeats the language in 40 CFR 93.150, 93.152 through 93.160, deleting §§ 51.850, 852 though 860 and requiring the SIP or TIP to meet the requirements in part 93 subpart B will not change the SIP or TIP requirements. However, deleting the sections will reduce the confusion on the requirements in the regulations by removing the duplicative language. In addition, EPA can revise the general conformity requirements by revising only one set of regulations. Although States or Tribes would have to revise any SIPs or TIPs which are in place when EPA revises part 93 subpart B regulations, this would not be an additional burden since they would have to revise their SIP or TIP if EPA revised the part 51, subpart W regulations.
By dividing paragraph (b) into four smaller paragraphs, EPA is attempting to simplify the language to make the requirements more understandable. The EPA did not change the requirements in paragraph (b) of the existing regulations.
The proposal to allow the States or Tribes the flexibility to adopt as part of the General Conformity SIP or TIP a list of actions that are presumed to conform resulted from the desire of some States to reduce the need to spend resources on reviewing actions which are known to conform. Although States and Tribes are not obligated to adopt a “presume to conform” list as part of their General Conformity SIP, if they do adopt a list they must include a list in their SIP or TIP.
Section 93.150 establishes the general prohibition against Federal agencies taking actions that do not conform with the SIP and requirements for the Federal agencies to make the conformity determinations following the procedures of subpart B of part 93. The EPA is proposing to make two revisions to § 93.150. First, EPA is proposing to delete the language in paragraph (c) of that section and reserves that paragraph. Second, EPA is proposing to add a new paragraph (e) to the section to state that if an action occurs in more that one nonattainment area that each area must be evaluated separately.
In paragraph (c) of the existing regulations, EPA identified categories of actions that were not subject to the regulations based on environmental review for the action that was either completed or underway at the time the regulations were promulgated. The paragraph was based on the environmental reviews (either the conformity determination or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis) being completed in early 1994. Therefore, paragraph (c) is outdated and is not necessary at this time.
In the new paragraph (e) in § 93.150, EPA is specifically proposing that conformity determinations must be made for each nonattainment or maintenance area. The emissions from most Federal actions or projects occur within one nonattainment or maintenance area, however, some actions or projects could extend across area boundaries, causing emissions in more than one area. A facility (for example, a national park, military installation or an airport) could be located in multiple counties or even in multiple States. Emissions from an action at such facilities could extend across the nonattainment or maintenance area boundaries. Some Federal actions, such as rulemaking or rail merger approvals, could result in emissions in non-contiguous areas, or even nationwide, affecting multiple nonattainment or maintenance areas. The existing regulations do not specify how actions or projects affecting multiple areas should be addressed. Therefore, EPA is proposing that an action's emissions in each area would be treated as if they result from separate actions. This would result in the need for two or more separate applicability analysis and conformity determinations where general conformity is applicable. The number of conformity determinations would correlate to the number of nonattainment or maintenance areas where the action results in direct or indirect emissions originating in those areas. The analysis should provide a comprehensive emissions inventory that includes a clear and separate accounting or division of emissions by nonattainment or maintenance area. For example, an action may occur in two nonattainment areas, each with a 50 ton/year de minimis threshold. If the action would result in total direct and indirect emissions of 55 tons/year, but 30 tons/year are in one area and 25 tons/year the other area, the action would not require a conformity determination since it would be considered de minimis in both areas. If the action would result in total direct and indirect emissions of 85 tons/year, but 60 tons/year are in one area and 25 tons/year the other area, the action would require a conformity determination in the areas with emission of 60 tons/year but the area with 25 tons/year would not need a conformity determination since that portion of the action would be considered de minimis in that areas. EPA is proposing emissions from actions be treated separately for each nonattainment and maintenance area for the following reasons:
1. Federal agencies demonstrate conformity to a SIP, TIP or FIP that are developed on an area-specific basis and SIPs requirements may vary from one area to another.
2. The General Conformity Regulations exemptions are also area-specific. For example, the de minimis levels are based upon the type and classification of the nonattainment or maintenance area.
3. Section 176(c)(5) of the CAA limits the applicability of the conformity regulations to actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas. Therefore, actions, which affect broad regions encompassing several nonattainment, maintenance or attainment areas, must be evaluated based only on the portions of the emissions in the nonattainment and maintenance areas.
The main purpose of § 93.151 is to specify that the regulations in part 93 subpart B apply to Federal actions unless the State or Tribe adopts and EPA approves a General Conformity SIP or TIP for the area. The EPA is not proposing to change the purpose of the section, but is proposing to revise the section to clarify its wording. The existing regulations included statements about the stringency of the SIP compared to the requirements in subpart B of part 93. The EPA is proposing to delete those statements because they duplicate statements in 40 CFR 51.851 which specifies the requirements for the SIP and TIP.
Section 93.152 provides the definition of terms used in the regulations. The EPA is proposing to revise twelve of the definitions, add eleven new terms and delete one term as follows:
Some Federal agencies have suggested that since construction emissions are generally excluded from consideration under the transportation conformity and EPA's NSR programs, they should not be included in the general conformity evaluation either. Furthermore, some agencies pointed out, the emissions from construction activities are not always explicitly included in some SIPs, so it is difficult to demonstrate conformity for the emissions and should not factor into the agencies' demonstrations of conformity to those SIPs. Finally, it has been suggested that construction emissions are temporary and not long-term contributors to the NAAQS violations and, therefore, may not be truly reflective of a completed project's contribution to a nonattainment or maintenance area's emissions budget.
In EPA's Transportation Conformity program (40 CFR 51.390 and part 93), construction emissions are generally not included in the conformity evaluation. The Transportation Conformity Regulations (40 CFR 93.122(e)) do require the consideration of PM
Since the General Conformity Regulations cover a wide variety of actions and projects, the regulations were drafted to be general enough to cover the differing circumstances. While a majority of Federal actions and projects may not involve long-term construction activities, some do. For example, increasing the depth of the navigable channel in New York Harbor is expected to take 9 to 10 years to complete. In addition, the States and local agencies can reasonably anticipate and plan for construction emissions from highway and mass transit activities based upon regional transportation plans and historic activities. However, the States, Tribes and local agencies may not be aware of other Federal activities requiring construction or may not be easily able to estimate the emissions from the construction activities. Therefore, the SIPs or TIPs may not adequately account for the emissions from those activities.
In drafting and adopting a SIP and TIP, States, Tribes and local agencies generally allow for some emissions from construction activities either in a construction emission category or as part of another category, such as off-road mobile or area sources. The emission estimates for these categories are usually based upon historic activity levels or on projected future activity levels. Therefore, if at the time the SIP or TIP is being developed, the State, Tribe or local agency knows about the future actions or projects at the facility, the construction emissions can be incorporated into the SIP or TIP.
For the above reasons, EPA believes that emissions from construction activities could in some circumstances interfere with the SIP or TIP and is therefore not proposing to explicitly exclude all construction emissions from the definition of emissions “caused by” the Federal action. However, this proposal provides several options to allow Federal agencies and the States or Tribes to list construction emissions as “presume to conform” or to exempt the emissions.
1. Once included in a SIP-approved facility-wide emission budget, the construction emissions could be identified as exempt from the general conformity requirements.
2. Under the new provisions for developing a list of “presume to conform” actions, Federal agencies, States, or Tribes can demonstrate that emissions from certain types of construction activities at a facility would conform to the SIP.
3. Some States issue permits for construction emissions. These permits are essentially minor source NSR permits and emissions covered by them would be exempt.
Also, EPA is proposing to clarify that conformity is based on annual emissions. Therefore, Federal agencies should estimate construction emissions on an annual basis and would only have to demonstrate conformity of construction emissions during the years when the emissions occurred.
Currently under the Transportation Conformity regulations, project level construction emissions are not required to be included for construction that lasts no longer than 5 years at individual sites. EPA also recognizes that construction activities are only temporary and for some projects occur for short periods of time. Since these temporary construction activities may last between 1 to 5 years, the EPA solicits comments on whether to exempt emissions from short-term construction activities as well as the appropriate definition of a short-term project.
“In addition to addressing emissions generated outside of nonattainment areas, EPA proposes to revise the definition of “indirect emissions” to add the condition that emissions must be of the type that “the agency can practically control” and for which “the agency has continuing program responsibility.” The addition of this condition clarifies EPA's long standing position that Congress did not intend for conformity to apply to “cases where, although licensing or approving action is a required initial step for a subsequent activity that causes emissions, the agency has no control over that subsequent activity, either because there is no continuing program responsibility or ability to practically control.” 58 FR 63,214, 63,221 (Nov. 30, 1993). The Supreme Court noted this long-held position in ruling that the Department of Transportation was not required to undertake a conformity review for its so-called “Mexican trucks” rule.
1. Sulfur dioxide is a regulated pollutant in all PM
2. Nitrogen oxides are a regulated pollutant in all PM
3. Volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia are not regulated
The EPA is seeking to clarify the process of determining if the General Conformity requirements are applicable to a Federal action. Although EPA is providing clarification on actions that are exempt or presumed to conform in this regulation, nothing in this regulation is intended to interfere with any exemptions established by law.
1. The EPA is proposing to revise the title of the section to include the word “analysis.” The EPA believes that adding the word would make the title more descriptive of the section's content.
2. The EPA is proposing to make a minor wording change to paragraph (a) and (b) of § 93.153. Paragraph (a) is revised to clarify the proper citations under which the Transportation Conformity program is authorized. In paragraph (b) EPA is proposing to add the word “criteria” before the word “pollutant” and “or precursor” after the word to clarify the paragraph.
3. The EPA is proposing to revise the table in sub-paragraph (b)(1) to include all nonattainment areas in the Ozone Transport Regions. In 1993, when the General Conformity Regulations were promulgated, all nonattainment areas in the Ozone Transport Region were classified as marginal or above for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. However, in designating areas for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, some nonattainment areas were identified as needing to meet only the requirements in subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA and were not classified. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise the table in § 93.153(c)(1) to cover the subpart 1 areas by changing the category from “Marginal and moderate NAA's inside an ozone transport region” to “other NAA inside an ozone transport region.”
4. In a separate notice EPA recently revised the tables in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) by adding the de minimis emission levels for PM
5. The EPA is proposing to revise paragraph (d)(1) of § 93.153 to exempt emissions covered by a NSR permit for minor sources. The existing regulations exempt emissions covered by a NSR permit for major sources but not for minor sources. Since the purpose of the conformity program is to ensure that Federal actions do not interfere with the SIP, TIP or FIP, in promulgating the existing regulations EPA recognized that emissions covered by a major source NSR or prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit already had been reviewed to ensure that the emissions did not interfere with the SIP. Therefore, the existing regulations exempt the emissions from sources permitted under major source NSR or PSD programs. Since 1993, when the existing regulations were promulgated, States and local agencies have adopted NSR programs for minor sources as required by section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA. These NSR programs for minor sources also ensure that emissions from the sources (individually and collectively) will not interfere with the SIP. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise the regulation to exempt emissions permitted under the EPA-approved NSR programs for minor sources. The EPA believes this approach will reduce the duplicate review of emissions under both minor source NSR and conformity programs and treat all NSR permitted emissions the same way.
Although operating permits issued under title V of the CAA meet some of the same requirements, EPA is not proposing to exempt the emissions covered by those permits. The conformity program is similar to the NSR program in that it evaluates new or
6. The EPA is proposing to delete “or natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.,” and “or disaster” from paragraph (d)(2) of § 93.153 because they are unnecessary words. In § 93.152 EPA defines an emergency, therefore the words in § 93.153 describing an “emergency” are not necessary and may be confusing since they do not include all types of emergencies.
7. The EPA is proposing to amend paragraph (e)(2) of § 93.153 to provide procedures for reviewing an extension of the exemption from making a conformity determination for actions related to responding to an emergency. A Federal agency, in responding to an emergency event such as a natural disaster, terrorist attack, or military mobilization, may find it impractical to conduct a conformity evaluation on the action before it must take the action. To address this situation, 40 CFR 93.153(d)(2) of the existing regulations provides Federal agencies with a 6-month exemption from the requirement to undertake a conformity analysis for actions taken in response to an emergency. The EPA recognizes that in rare situations it may be impractical, even after 6 months, to conduct a conformity evaluation and is proposing to amend § 93.153(e) to allow the agencies to extend the exemption for another 6 months. This section requires Federal agencies to make a written determination that it is impractical to conduct an evaluation for the action. The existing regulations are not clear about the number of additional extensions permitted nor do the regulations provide any procedures for agencies to follow in deciding on the extension.
EPA believes the only time that the extension of the 6-month exemption has been used was in New York following the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. In responding to the shutdown of the Port Authority Trans-Hudson line between New Jersey and New York, certain Federal agencies sponsored a ferry service across the Hudson River. The service lasted 2 years until the mass transit service was restored. The Federal agencies continued with a series of 6-month extensions of the General Conformity exemption. The Federal agencies did not know what they had to do to invoke the provision and EPA and the State agencies had to request permission to review the decision. In addition, the public was not given notice of the decision to extend the exemption.
The EPA is not proposing to revise requirements for the initial exemption for actions in response to emergencies. The initial governmental actions which are typically commenced on the order of hours or days in response to emergencies or disasters would still be exempt from the General Conformity requirements for 6 months after the commencement of the response to the emergency or disaster. However, EPA is proposing requirements for Federal agencies that want to extend the exemption beyond the initial 6-month period. First, EPA is proposing to require the Federal agencies to allow EPA and the State 15 days to review and provide comments on the draft written determination to extend the exemption at the beginning of the extension period. Next, EPA is proposing to require Federal agencies to publish a notice within 30 days of making the decision. The notice must be published in a daily general circulation newspaper for the affected area. Finally, EPA is proposing to limit the maximum number of 6-month extensions an agency may declare on their own to three. Except in certain circumstances, the EPA believes an agency should be able to plan for and conduct a conformity evaluation for actions within the time allowed by three 6-month extensions following the initial 6-month exemption (i.e., a total of 2 years). In this regard, EPA acknowledges that there could be a circumstance where an agency's action in response to an emergency may need additional 6-month extensions beyond a 2 year timeframe and this proposal does not limit the number of additional 6-month extensions to the emergency provisions. In these cases, EPA is proposing that if more than three extensions of the emergency provisions are needed, for all subsequent 6-month extensions a Federal agency must provide information to EPA and the State stating: (a) The conditions that gave rise to the emergency exemption continue to exist, and (b) how such conditions effectively prevent the agency from conducting a conformity evaluation.
8. The EPA is proposing to revise paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of § 93.153 to permit Federal agencies more flexibility in developing their list of actions that are “presumed to conform” and provide requirements for the materials that must be included in the documentation and draft list. Specifically, EPA is proposing to: Add a paragraph to (f) to specify when and how more than one “presumed to conform” exception may be taken for a Federal action; add a new paragraph (g)(3) to specify that Federal agencies can list actions that are for individual areas or SIPs or TIPs; add a sentence to paragraph (h)(1) to specify the information that must be included in the documentation; and add a sentence to paragraph (h)(2) to allow the Federal agencies to notify EPA headquarters when the presumed to conform actions would have multi-regional or national impacts. In addition, EPA is proposing to revise paragraphs (f) and (h) to include a reference to the new paragraph (g)(3).
In promulgating the existing regulations, EPA identified a number of actions that were “presumed to conform.” The regulations also allow Federal agencies to establish their own lists of actions that are “presumed to conform.” Under the existing regulations, Federal agencies must justify the inclusion of the actions on their “presumed to conform” list by either demonstrating: (1) That the actions will not cause or contribute to an air quality problem or otherwise interfere with the SIP, TIP, or FIP, or (2) that the actions will have emissions below the de minimis levels. The Federal agencies must provide copies of the proposed list to EPA, affected State and local air quality agencies and MPOs. In addition, the agencies must provide at least a 30-day public comment period and document its response to all comments. The notice of the proposed and final list must be published in the
Although EPA has worked with one Federal agency on its “presumed to conform” list, no Federal agency has published such a list. One issue that has given pause to Federal agency efforts to publish presumed to conform lists is the potential for several presumed to conform exemptions to be used in combination and result in unacceptable cumulative air quality impacts. To address this issue, EPA is proposing in § 93.153(f) that actions specified in an individual Federal agency's presumed to conform list may not be used in combination with one another when the total direct and indirect emissions from the combination of actions would equal or exceed any of the
The EPA believes that the use of a “presumed to conform” list is an important tool for Federal agencies in reducing the review time for Federal actions while still ensuring air quality goals are met. For example a Federal land management agency could include on its list of presumed to conform actions prescribed fire use where the agency has formally committed to apply a list of basic smoke management practices developed in cooperation with the affected State(s) and/or air pollution control agencies or Tribal government.
EPA believes that an additional option could be added to the regulations to aid Federal agencies in adopting their presumed to conform list. The EPA is proposing to add sub-paragraph (g)(3) to clarify that the presumption could be for one facility or for facilities in a specified area and does not have to be nationally applicable. For example, if the nonattainment area's SIP includes a sector emission budget for construction activities, a facility may be able to demonstrate that construction activities of a certain size or type fits within the SIP's emission budget. With the concurrence of the State or Tribe, the Federal agencies could publish a “presumed to conform” list that includes the construction emissions at the specific facility.
9. The EPA is proposing to delete the regionally significant test included in paragraph (i) of § 93.153. The existing regulations in § 93.152 define “regionally significant” as “a Federal action for which the direct and indirect emissions of any pollutant represent 10 percent or more of a nonattainment or maintenance area's emissions inventory.” 40 CFR 93.153(i) and (j) require conformity determinations for all regionally significant actions, regardless of any exemptions or presumptions of conformity based on other provisions in the regulations.
The “regionally significant” action concept was proposed in the 1993 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (58 FR13836) in order to “capture those actions that fall below the de minimis emission levels, but have the potential to impact the air quality of the region.” At that time, EPA requested comments on whether the 10 percent level was appropriate. In the discussion of comments in the preamble to the Final Rule (58 FR 63214), EPA reported that it received comments both in favor of and in opposition to the “regionally significant” action concept. While many respondents supported the concept, there was a diversity of opinions regarding whether 10 percent was the most appropriate level. However, EPA reported that no documentation was provided to support a different level. Some respondents felt that the de minimis cut offs would suffice. The EPA decided to retain both the concept and 10 percent level in the final rule.
For a regionally significant action, the Federal agency must conduct a full conformity determination even if the action would cause total direct and indirect emissions below the de minimis levels. In over 12 years since promulgation of the existing regulations, no action has been determined to be regionally significant. The main reason that actions with emissions below de minimis levels are not regionally significant is that the emission inventory for almost all nonattainment and maintenance areas greatly exceeds ten times the de minimis emission levels. Review of the 1999 emission inventory shows that only six (one ozone, two lead and three sulfur dioxide) of over 200 nonattainment areas had emission inventories less than ten times the de minimis levels.(See Evaluation of Potential Regionally Significant Areas Under the General Conformity Regulations, Science Applications International Corporation, March 2005, Docket Number OAR-2004-0491). In other words, except for those six areas, an action with emissions below de minimis levels would never be considered regionally significant.
Federal agencies have expressed concern that, in many cases, demonstrating that a project is not regionally significant is difficult and time consuming. First, the future total emission inventory for an area may not be readily available since the SIP may not cover the time period when the emissions will occur. In addition, most national emission inventories are published 2 to 3 years after the “inventory” year, so if a Federal agency is comparing the action's emissions against the most recent inventory they may be looking at an inventory that is 3 to 5 years old.
The EPA is proposing to eliminate the provision. The EPA believes that since Federal agencies have expended resources to demonstrate that actions are not regionally significant and the existing provision has not been triggered, eliminating the provision would streamline the conformity regulations and have little or no environmental impact.
10. The EPA is proposing to replace paragraph (i) of § 93.153 with a new paragraph to identify three additional groups of actions that are presumed to conform. First, EPA is proposing to allow installations with a facility-wide emission budget to presume that an action at the installation will conform provided that the emissions from that action along with all other emissions from the facility will not exceed the budget. A more detailed discussion of the facility-wide emission budget concept is found in § 93.161.
Second, EPA is taking comment on allowing Federal agencies to presume that the emissions from prescribed burns will conform provided the burning is conducted under a State certified approved SMP. EPA is also asking for comments on the approach of allowing Federal agencies to presume that the emissions from prescribed burns conducted using State approved basic smoke management practices in a nonattainment or maintenance area conform with a SIP.
In May 1998, EPA worked with States and other Federal agencies to develop and publish an interim policy on prescribed fires on wildlands. (See Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires, U.S.EPA, May 1998). To comply with the recommendations in the interim policy, state air regulators and land managers should develop a certified SMP which promotes regional coordination, and may include real-time air quality monitoring. A State SMP establishes a basic framework of procedures and requirements for managing smoke from a prescribed fire managed for resource benefits. A SMP is typically developed by a State or Tribe with cooperation and participation by wildland managers, both public and private, and the general public. The SMPs establish procedures
Given the fundamental purpose of the SMP, EPA believes that it is reasonable to assume that any action in compliance with the certified SMP would be in conformance with the applicable SIP. Therefore, EPA is taking comment on the approach to designate these actions as actions presumed to conform. Federal agencies would not have to conduct a conformity determination for those actions. The presumption to conform is also based on the maintenance in stringency of the existing SMPs where implemented or the implementation of new smoke management programs or practices as identified above.
As reflected in the Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires, States are provided flexibility on the structure of a SMP. Thus, a SMP can be extensive and detailed, or simply identify the basic smoke management practices for minimizing emissions, and controlling impacts from a prescribed fire. The EPA's final rule on the Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events published in the
The Agency plans to begin revising its Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires in 2007 as part of its overall Fire Strategy. The Agency believes that the conditions for prescribed fires that are presumed to conform should be conducted in accordance with programs and practices which meet the requirements of EPA's Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires and those conditions should be deliberated in the formation of the revised policy. To inform the development of that policy, and the final revisions of this General Conformity rule, EPA is also requesting comment on an additional approach for allowing a presumption to conform for emissions from prescribed fires conducted in the absence of a State certified SMP, where the Federal agency submits a demonstration and obtains written permission from the State prior to the burn that the planned burn employs State approved basic smoke management practices. This approach would thereby protect public health in nonattainment and maintenance areas where a SMP has not been adopted, and allow Federal agencies the flexibility needed to conduct necessary prescribed burning.
Finally, as discussed above, EPA is also proposing to allow a State or eligible Tribe, on its own, to adopt in their SIP or TIP a list of actions for facilities in its borders that it “presumes to conform.”
11. The EPA is proposing to revise paragraph (j) of § 93.153 by deleting the reference to regionally significant emissions, by adding a reference to paragraph (i) and by describing the criteria for requiring a conformity determination for an action that otherwise would be presumed to conform. The existing regulations state that an action cannot be presumed to conform if it was regionally significant or did not in fact meet the requirements of sub-paragraph (g)(1). As discussed above, EPA has proposed to delete the regionally significant test, therefore reference to it is proposed to be deleted from this paragraph. For clarity, instead of referring to sub-paragraph (g)(1), EPA is proposing to repeat the requirements in this paragraph.
12. The EPA is proposing to revise paragraph (k) of § 93.153 to incorporate the provisions of section 176(c)(6) of the CAA. (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(6)). In November 2000 (Pub. L. 106-377), Congress added section 176(c)(6) to the CAA to allow for a conformity transition period for newly designated nonattainment areas. That section establishes a 1-year grace period following the effective date of the final nonattainment designation of each NAAQS before the conformity requirements must be met in the area. If an agency takes or starts the Federal action before the end of the grace period, it must comply with the applicable pre-designation conformity requirements. If an agency takes or starts the Federal action after the end of the grace period, it must comply with the post-designation conformity requirements. As discussed above in describing the new term “take or start the Federal action,” EPA is proposing to define the term to mean that a Federal agency takes an action when it signs a permit, license, grant or contract or otherwise starts the Federal action. From the time that an area is designated as nonattainment, agencies will have a year to take or start the Federal action. If the agency fails to take or start the Federal action during the grace period, then it must re-evaluate conformity for the project based on the requirements for the new designation and classification.
1. The EPA is proposing to revise the title of this section to clarify the purpose of the section. In the existing regulations this section is entitled broadly “Conformity Analysis.” Since the short section only discusses the requirement for each Federal agency to make its own determination, EPA is proposing to revise the title of the section to more closely describe the section's content.
2. The EPA is proposing to add language to this section to specifically state that the conformity determination must meet the requirements of this subpart.
1. Since EPA is proposing to add additional sections to subpart B, it is proposing to revise the references to those sections in § 93.155.
2. Consistent with EPA Tribal Authority Rule (63 FR 7253), EPA is proposing to provide federally-recognized Indian Tribal governments the same opportunity to comment on draft conformity determinations as given to States. Therefore, EPA is proposing to require the Federal agencies to notify all the federally-recognized Indian Tribal governments in the nonattainment or maintenance area. To assist other Federal agencies in this notification, EPA is planning to place a list of the federally-recognized Indian Tribal governments in each nonattainment or maintenance areas on its General Conformity web site.
3. The EPA is proposing to add an alternative procedure for notifying EPA when the action would result in emissions originating in nonattainment or maintenance areas in three or more EPA regions. Specifically, EPA is proposing to allow agencies to notify the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards rather than each individual Regional Office. A single contact point for EPA should be more efficient for the other Federal agencies than notifying up to ten Regional Offices.
4. At the request of the several Federal agencies EPA is proposing to add a new paragraph to § 93.155 to describe how restricted information used to support conformity determinations should be handled when provided to EPA, States and Tribal governments. The existing General Conformity Regulation does not contain an explicit statement about protecting restricted information from public release. The interagency review and public participation provisions in the existing regulation require Federal agencies to make available for review the draft conformity determination with supporting materials that describe the analytical methods and conclusions relied upon in making the determination. Disclosure of classified information by a Federal employee is a criminal offense (18 U.S.C. 1905). In addition, certain unclassified information is privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Therefore, several Federal agencies wanted to ensure that the General Conformity Regulations clearly state that no agency or individual was required to release restricted information including, but not limited to, classified materials. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise the regulation to add explicit language concerning the protection of restricted information. In addition, conformity determinations could, in part, be based upon confidential information received from business sources. The EPA is proposing to add specific language to the regulation to protect CBI in accordance with each Federal agency's policy and regulations for the handling of restricted information and CBI. The regulations would allow State or EPA personnel with the appropriate clearances to be able to view the restricted or confidential business information.
1. The EPA is proposing to correct the section referenced in § 93.156. The existing regulations refers to § 93.158. The correct reference should be § 93.154. Section 93.158 prescribes the criteria for conducting a conformity analysis, while § 93.154 requires Federal agencies to make the determination and references the requirements in the other sections of subpart B.
2. The EPA is proposing to provide an alternative public notification procedure for actions that cause emissions above the de minimis levels in more than three nonattainment or maintenance areas. The existing regulations require that the Federal agency publish a notice in a daily newspaper of general circulation in the nonattainment or maintenance area. Some Federal actions, such as rulemaking, affect a large number of nonattainment and maintenance areas. The notification procedure for such an action could be burdensome and inefficient. Therefore, EPA is proposing to allow the Federal agencies to publish a notice in the
3. The EPA is proposing to also add a new paragraph to § 93.156 to describe how restricted information and CBI used to support conformity determinations should be handled in providing the information to the public.
1. The EPA is proposing to revise the title of this section to more appropriately describe the section's content. The existing section is entitled “Frequency of Conformity Determinations.” That title implies that the general conformity requirements for Federal actions must be reevaluated on a regular basis. However, the section states that conformity must be reevaluated only if the determination lapses or the action is modified, resulting in an increase in emissions.
2. If an action's emissions are below the de minimis levels or the action is not located in a nonattainment or maintenance area, a conformity determination is not required. Therefore, the Federal agency would not have a date for the conformity determination. The EPA is proposing minor wording changes in paragraphs (a) and (b) to clarify that the date of a completed NEPA analysis, as evidenced by a signed finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for an environmental assessment, a record of decision (ROD) for an environmental impact statement, or a record of a categorical exclusion can be used when a conformity determination is not required.
3. The EPA is proposing to add two new paragraphs (d and e) to § 93.157 to clarify the requirements for needing to conduct a conformity determination when the action is modified. Paragraph (d) deals with modifying an action for which the Federal agency made a conformity determination. In order to make the determination, the Federal agency had to demonstrate that all the emissions caused by the action conformed to the SIP. Therefore, the Federal agency does not have to revise its conformity determination unless the modification would result in an increase that equals or exceeded the de minimis emission levels for the area. Paragraph (e) deals with modifying an action that the Federal agency determined had emissions below the de minimis level. Since the emissions from the unmodified action were determined to be de minimis and not fully evaluated to determine conformity, EPA is proposing the Federal agency conduct a conformity determination if the total emissions (the emissions from the unmodified action plus the increased emissions resulting from the modification) equal or exceed the de minimis levels for the area. EPA seeks comment on what actions should be considered to constitute “modifications” for purposes of conformity and under what conditions, if any, a subsequent action should be considered to constitute a “new” action versus modification of an action for which a previous de minimis determination was made.
1. In § 93.158(a)(1), EPA is proposing to add “precursor” after “any criteria pollutant” to clarify that Federal agencies can demonstrate conformity for the precursors of the criteria pollutants if the precursor emissions are specifically identified and accounted for in the applicable SIP, TIP or FIP.
2. In § 93.158(a)(2) and (a)(5)(iii), EPA is proposing to allow Federal agencies to obtain emission offsets for the General Conformity requirements from a nearby nonattainment or maintenance area of equal or higher classification, provided that the emissions from the nearby area contribute to the violations of the NAAQS in the area where the Federal action is located or, in the case of a maintenance area, the emissions from the nearby area have contributed in the past to the violations in the area where the Federal action is located. The proposal would require such emissions offsets to be obtained through either an approved SIP revision or an equally enforceable commitment.
This revision to the offset requirements would make the General Conformity offset requirements consistent with the offset requirements in section 173(c)(1) of the CAA for the Federal NSR program. It would also provide the Federal agencies more flexibility in obtaining the offsets in areas impacted by transport from nearby areas. In light of increased knowledge concerning transport of pollutants into areas, EPA solicits comments on whether to limit the offsets to nonattainment or maintenance areas of equal or higher classifications, or permit broader application to all nonattainment and maintenance areas.
3. In § 93.158(a)(2), (a)(3) and (a)(4), EPA is proposing to revise the regulations to address the precursors of PM
4. In § 93.158(a)(3) and (5), EPA is proposing to correct two typographical errors. In sub-paragraph (3), EPA is proposing to correct “meet” to “meets” and in sub-paragraph (5), EPA is proposing to change “paragraph (a)(3(11)” to “paragraph (a)(3)(ii).”
5. In § 93.158(a)(5)(i), EPA is proposing to delete the reference to the year 1990 and replace it with a generic reference to the most current calendar year with a complete emission inventory available before an area is designated unless EPA sets another year. In addition to requiring the conformity regulations, the CAA Amendments of 1990 required the designation of areas as nonattainment based on the existing air quality data. Therefore, when EPA promulgated the existing regulations in 1993, all the designations were based on a 1990 date. Since EPA promulgated the conformity regulations, it has promulgated new 8-hour ozone and PM
6. Also in § 93.158(a)(5)(i), EPA is proposing to revise the paragraph to allow Federal agencies to make conformity determination based upon a State's or Tribe's determination that the emissions from the action along with all other emissions in the area would not exceed the emission budget in the applicable SIP or TIP. Under the existing regulations, States could only make such a determination if they had an approved attainment demonstration or maintenance SIP. This revision would allow the State or Tribe to make its determination based upon a post-designation applicable SIP or TIP even though the plan does not include an attainment demonstration. For example, the State or Tribe could base their determination on an emission budget in an EPA approved “Reasonable Further Progress” plan. By adopting the budget and submitting it as part of the SIP or TIP, the State or Tribe is treating the Federal action like any other source in the area. When the State or Tribal agency adopts the attainment or maintenance SIP or TIP, it will have to consider the emissions, and if necessary require additional controls on the sources. Specifically, EPA solicits comment on whether demonstrating conformity to a budget in a milestone plan (in the absence of an attainment demonstration) is adequate to ensure that the emissions from the action will not interfere with the timely attainment of the NAAQS.
7. Although not specified in the regulations, EPA believes that a State operating permit under title V of the CAA or other air quality operating permit can serve as documentation of the State's or Tribe's determination.
8. The EPA is proposing to revise § 93.158(a)(5)(i)(C) to allow the State or Tribe to commit to including the emissions from the Federal action in future SIPs. Under the existing regulations, Federal agencies can demonstrate conformity by having the State commit to revising the applicable SIP to include the emissions. If a State or Tribe agrees to such a commitment, the State or Tribe must submit a SIP revision within 18 months to include the emissions from the action and to make other necessary adjustments in the SIP to accommodate those emissions. However, the existing SIP or TIP, or a SIP or TIP required to be submitted in 18 months, may not cover the same timeframe covered by the conformity determination. For example, a SIP for a nonattainment area that demonstrates attainment may only cover the period until the attainment date while the conformity determination may cover emissions for many years beyond that date. The State or Tribe may be submitting future SIPs or TIPs to address either maintenance of the standard or to address a continuing nonattainment problem that would cover the time period of the emissions. The EPA's proposed revision to § 93.158(a)(5)(i)(C) would continue to require States to revise the SIP within 18 months of the conformity determination based upon a State's or Tribe's commitment. However, if the existing SIP or TIP, or a SIP or TIP due within 18 months, does not cover the time period of the emissions, then the State or Tribe, in the SIP revision, can include an enforceable commitment to account for the emissions in future SIP revisions. This approach will allow States and Tribes flexibility in committing to include the emissions from the Federal action in the SIP.
9. The EPA is proposing to revise § 93.158(a)(5)(iv) to delete the use of 1990 as the baseline year. As discussed above, when EPA promulgated the existing General Conformity Regulations in 1993, the designations and classifications were based upon the 1990 air quality and emissions. Since 1993, EPA has promulgated new standards and designated additional areas as nonattainment. Therefore, in many cases the 1990 date for the baseline emission inventory is inappropriate. The EPA is proposing to set the baseline year as the most current calendar year with a complete emission inventory available before an area is designated unless EPA sets another year.
In some cases, when EPA establishes a new level for a standard, an area will have an existing SIP or TIP for the pollutant that serves as the applicable SIP or TIP until a revised SIP or TIP is submitted by the State or Tribe and approved by EPA. For example, in transition from the 1-hour ozone standard to the 8-hour ozone standard, EPA revoked the 1-hour standard 1 year after the effective date of the 8-hour ozone designation. Although EPA revoked the 1-hour standard, the existing ozone SIP remains largely in place until it is replaced by the 8-hour ozone SIP. The 1-hour ozone SIP is considered the applicable SIP until it is replaced.
Finally, EPA is proposing to delete another alternate baseline year that no longer is applicable in PM
1. EPA is proposing to change § 93.159(b)(1)(ii) to make it more consistent with when new motor vehicle emissions factors models are used in general conformity determinations. EPA is proposing to clarify that the grace period before such new models are used will be 3 months from EPA's model release or a longer grace period as announced in the
2. The EPA is proposing to revise § 93.159(b)(2) and (c) to update the reference to the Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors and for the Guideline on Air Quality Modeling. EPA has released updated versions of these documents since it promulgated the existing regulations in 1993.
3. The EPA is proposing to revise paragraph (d)(1) to clarify that analysis is first required for the attainment year specified in the SIP. In some cases, such as SIPs for marginal ozone areas, an attainment demonstration date was not required in the SIP. Therefore, EPA is also proposing that if the SIP or TIP does not specify an attainment demonstration year then the analysis is required for the latest attainment year possible under the CAA. Since the CAA requires the SIP demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as possible but no later than the CAA mandated attainment date, it is possible that a SIP or TIP could have an earlier attainment date. That earlier date would be the appropriate year for the conformity analysis.
4. The EPA is proposing a minor wording revision to paragraph (d)(2) to clarify the paragraph. The EPA is proposing to replace the word “farthest” with “last.” The maintenance plans are developed for a 10-year period and revised as necessary for the next 10-year period. The purpose is for conformity to be evaluated for the last year of the maintenance plan. The word “last” conveys that meaning.
The EPA is proposing to revise paragraph § 93.160(f) to clarify its meaning. The regulations were meant to require that the mitigation measures include a written commitment from the person or organization reducing the emissions and those commitments must be fulfilled.
The EPA is proposing to add a new section to the regulations to facilitate the use of a facility-wide emission budget in evaluating conformity. Federal agencies have stated that they would like to streamline the conformity process for individual actions or projects, while States have expressed a desire for the conformity process to help identify and reduce emissions at Federal installations. Although the existing regulations do not preclude States and Federal agencies from using this approach, the regulations do not specifically authorize its use. This approach would be entirely voluntary on the part of the Federal agency and would have to be approved by the State, Tribe or local agency responsible for the SIP or TIP. For example, States can currently adopt a facility-wide budget for a Federal installation as part of the SIP. With such a budget, a Federal agency could easily demonstrate conformity for an action at the installation provided the emissions caused by the action along with all of the other emissions subject to general conformity at the installation stays within the budget. If the State or Tribe includes the emission budget in the SIP or TIP, the emissions would be identified and accounted for in the SIP or TIP. Alternatively, a State or Tribe could provide a letter to the Federal agency stating that the emissions from the installation that are within the budget conform to the SIP or TIP. This proposed section for developing such a budget would in conjunction with a new § 93.153(j) provide a mechanism for presuming that the emissions are in conformance with the SIP or TIP. This approach allows State or Tribe and Federal agencies to identify acceptable levels of emissions from the installation before starting the environmental review for the actions and for the agencies to expedite the review of the Federal actions at the facilities.
Under this approach, a State, Tribe or local air quality agency could work with the Federal agency, or a third party authorized by the agency (e.g., an airport authority), who volunteers to develop a facility-wide emission budget for an installation or facility. In principle, at the time the States or Tribes agree to a budget, they assume responsibility for ensuring that the emissions within the budget will not interfere with the purpose of the SIP or TIP, and will be included in future SIPs or TIPs. The budget would be for a set period of time and near the end of that time the State, Tribe or local agency and Federal agencies could revise the budget for the next time period. For example, the State, Tribe or local agency and Federal agency could develop annual budgets covering a 10-year period. Two years before the end of the period, the budget would be reviewed and updated to cover the next 10-year period. (This is the same procedure used for maintenance plans under section 175A of the CAA. A maintenance plan is developed for 10-years and 8 years into that plan a new plan is developed for the next 10 years.) The budgets would be developed based upon the latest estimates of emissions and growth in the activities at the facility.
The State or Tribe would include the emission budget in the existing SIP or TIP and use the budget for any future SIP or TIP development. In including the emissions in the existing SIP or TIP, States or Tribes can either identify categories in the existing SIP or TIP that cover the emissions or can submit a revision to the SIP or TIP to include the emissions. If unusual or unforeseen circumstances warrant a revision, the State, Tribe or local agency and Federal agency could agree to revise the budget. For example, if the State, Tribe or local agency requires additional reductions to meet their attainment objective or if the facility has unexpected growth, a revised budget could be adopted into the SIP or TIP.
The EPA believes that the proposed program would encourage the State, Tribe or local air quality agency and the Federal facilities to develop an upfront emission budget for the facility, and the action or project environmental review would be streamlined as long as the facility remains within an established budget.
The program would be voluntary on the part of the Federal agency, State, Tribe and local air quality agency. No party would be required to participate. If the parties agreed to participate, an emission budget would be established based upon specific guidance and documented growth projections for the facility.
The emission budget approach would not be applicable to all situations. For example, not all Federal actions or projects occur on installations suitable for emission budgets (e.g., one-time actions on non-Federal lands such as a short-term construction project may not have facilities to have a budget). In addition, some installations with budgets may on occasion take actions or have projects that would result in the budget being exceeded. In these cases, or under any circumstances, a Federal agency may determine applicability or demonstrate conformity with the standard requirements contained in §§ 93.153 through 93.160 and 93.162 through 93.165 of the General Conformity regulations. These requirements include, but are not limited to, a State certifying emissions are included the SIP, a de minimis determination or other exemption, project level mitigation, offsetting emission reductions, or modeling. Therefore, having a facility-wide emissions budget in the SIP would not limit an agency's option for determining conformity, but adds an additional less
As discussed earlier in this preamble under the definition of “caused by”, in developing the facility-wide emission budget, the Federal agency generally would share its plans for construction at the facility. As a result the State, Tribe or local agency could consider the emissions from the construction in its SIP or TIP and they would have three options for handling the construction emissions under the general conformity program. First, they could include the emissions in a facility-wide emission budget. Second, they could determine that the construction emissions at the facility would be covered elsewhere in the SIP or TIP (e.g., in the non-road mobile source budget or the area source budget), and thus the emissions could be presumed to conform. Finally, they could cover the construction emissions separately from the emission budget and conduct a separate conformity evaluation for those emissions.
Since the facility-wide emission budget would be used to develop the SIP or TIP for the area, any Federal action at the installation that remains within its budget would not interfere with the SIP or TIP. By developing a facility-wide emission budget for the installation, the Federal agency would generate a more accurate emission inventory for the activities at the installations and provide the State, Tribe or local agency with realistic growth projections for the installations. The facility-wide emission budgets would encourage operators to identify ways of reducing emissions and adopt control measures when possible in order to allow for unforeseen growth.
The EPA is proposing to add a new section to address how Federal agencies can demonstrate conformity for an action that causes emissions beyond the time period covered by the SIP or TIP. First, EPA is proposing to allow Federal agencies to demonstrate conformity using the last emission budget in the SIP or TIP. If it is not practicable to demonstrate conformity using that technique, then the Federal agency can request the State or Tribe to provide an enforceable commitment to include the emissions from the Federal action in a current or future SIP or TIP emissions budget. In such a case, the State or Tribe would be required to submit a SIP revision within 18 months to include the emissions in the current SIP or TIP or committing to account for the emissions in future SIPs or TIPs. The emissions included in the future SIP should be based on the latest planning assumptions at the time of the SIP revision. Although a State is committing to include the emissions in the emissions budget for the SIP revisions, this commitment does not prevent the State from requiring the use of RACT, RACM or any other control measures within the State's authority to ensure timely attainment of the NAAQS.
The EPA is proposing to add a new section to address the timing of offset and mitigation measures. First, the section generally requires that the emission reductions for the offset and mitigation measures must occur in the same calendar year as the emission increases caused by the Federal action and that the reductions are equal to the emissions increases. As an alternative, the proposed section would allow, under special conditions and consistent with CAA requirements, the State or Tribe to approve other schedules for offsets or mitigation measures.
Mitigation measures and offsets are used to reduce the impact of emission increases from a project or action. To minimize the impact of the project's emissions, the emissions reductions from offsets or mitigation measures should occur at the same time as the emission increases from the project. In general, EPA has interpreted the existing regulations to mean that the reductions must occur in the same calendar year as the emission increases caused by the action because the total direct and indirect emissions from an action are collated on an annual basis. Therefore, EPA is proposing to include this interpretation in the regulations.
For certain projects, however, it may be beneficial for the State or Tribe to approve mitigation measures or offsets that do not provide for emissions reductions equal to the emission increases for the specific years, but provide net long-term air quality benefits. For example, a project with relatively high short-term emissions, such as a construction project, could be mitigated by converting older equipment to electric or alternate fuels. The State or Tribe may find it advantageous to allow a short period when the emissions are not fully mitigated in return for permanent or the long-term emissions reductions. Therefore, EPA is proposing to allow, under certain conditions, the State and Federal agency to negotiate alternate schedules for the implementation of the offsets and mitigation measures. EPA believes that such emissions reductions should also have substantial long-term attainment and maintenance benefits. EPA is also proposing that emissions reductions used over an alternate schedule would be consistent with statutory requirements that new violations are not created, the frequency or severity of existing violations are not increased, and timely attainment is not delayed.
To ensure these noncontemporaneous emission reductions provide greater environmental benefits in the long term, EPA is proposing to require that the offset or mitigation ratios be greater than one-for-one. Therefore, EPA is proposing a ratio that is no less than the NSR offset ratios for the area. These ratios are readily available and already understood to be based on the severity of the nonattainment problem for the area. In addition, EPA seeks comment on other mechanisms that could be used to require greater than one-for-one reductions for the offsets and mitigation measures that occur in later years or alternatively if greater than one-for-one reductions should be required.
Also, EPA believes that the mitigation or offset compensation period should not last indefinitely and is proposing that the period should not exceed two times the period of the under-mitigated emissions. For example, a Federal agency may be approving a construction project lasting 3 years in a serious nonattainment area and that project will cause 150 tons per year of increased emissions; the State or Tribe can approve mitigation measures or offsets which reduce emissions by less than 150 tons per year provided the total reduction over a 6-year period is equal to or more than 540 tons (150 tons per year times 3 years equals 450 tons times the offset/mitigation ratio of 1.2 to 1 for serious nonattainment areas equals 540 tons). Besides requesting comment on the concept of allowing the States or Tribes to approve a longer time period for offsetting or mitigating the emission increases, EPA is also seeking comment on the mechanism and procedures used to permit/implement the concept. In addition, EPA is seeking comment on the appropriate time period for the Federal agencies to offset or mitigate the increased emissions. The EPA is requesting comments on using longer compensation periods in excess of two times the project period.
Agreeing to allow the use of offset or mitigation measures in later years does not exempt the State or Tribe from meeting any of its SIP or TIP obligations, such as reasonable further progress milestones or attainment deadlines. Emissions reductions which accrue beyond the compensation period
EPA is proposing to add a new section to the regulations to allow the use of inter-precursor offset and mitigation measures where they are allowed by the SIP. For example, some States and local air districts have SIP-approved NSR regulations that allow new or modified stationary sources to offset the increase in emissions of one criteria pollutant precursor by reducing the emissions of another precursor of the same criteria pollutant, provided there is an environmental benefit to such an exchange. The existing General Conformity regulations do not specifically allow or prohibit inter-precursor offsets and mitigation measures. Therefore, EPA is proposing to allow such offsets or mitigation measures if they are allowed by a State or Tribe NSR or trading program approved in the SIP; provided they:
1. Are technically justified; and
2. have a demonstrated environmental benefit.
The ratio for the offsets must be consistent with SIP or TIP requirements and EPA guidance.
The EPA recognizes that the evaluation of the inter-precursor offsets may in some cases be difficult and seeks comments on how such offsets or mitigation measures should be evaluated. The EPA expects to use these comments in developing future guidance documents.
The EPA is proposing to add a new section to the regulations to establish an early emission reduction credit program for facilities subject to the General Conformity Regulations. The existing regulations require that the offsets and mitigation measures be in place before the emissions increases caused by the Federal action occur. However, emission reduction programs undertaken before the conformity determination is made could be considered as part of the baseline emissions and not available as offsets or mitigation measures. To expedite the project level conformity process, Federal agencies and project sponsors could benefit from the ability to reduce emissions in advance of the time that the reductions are needed for a conformity evaluation. Although the existing regulations do not address the concept, The Port of Seattle and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency developed a program to implement early emissions reductions. In addition, Congress authorized such a program for the General Conformity program in the FAA reauthorization act signed in December 2003 (Vision 100—A Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, Pub. L. 108-176). That Act authorized FAA to approve funding of programs to reduce emissions at the airports provided the State would issue emission reduction credits that can be used for General Conformity determinations and NSR offsets. On September 30, 2004, EPA issued guidance on the Airport Emission Reduction Credit (AERC) program to implement the requirements of the December 2003 Act (Guidance on Airport Emission Reduction Credits for Early Measures Through Voluntary Airport Low Emission Programs, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, September 2004). Other Federal agencies may benefit from the opportunity to reduce emissions prior to when the reductions are needed to offset emission increases covered by the General Conformity program.
To clarify EPA's intent that this program be allowed for other Federal actions, EPA is proposing to add a new section, § 93.165, to the General Conformity Regulations to define the requirements of this program. Under the program, Federal agencies or interested third parties (such as airport authorities) could identify emission control measures and present the proposed reduction to the State, Tribe or local air quality agency. If the measure met the criteria for an offset (quantifiable; consistent with the applicable SIP attainment and reasonable further progress demonstrations; surplus to the reductions required by and credited to other applicable SIP provisions; enforceable at both the State and Federal levels; and permanent within the timeframe specified by the program) as well as all State, Tribe or local requirements, the State, Tribe or local agency can approve the measure as eligible to produce emission reduction credits. If credits are issued, then a Federal agency can use the credits to reduce the total of direct and indirect emissions from a proposed action. At the time the credits are used the State, Tribe or local agency must certify that the reductions still meet the criteria listed above. The credits must be used in the same calendar year in which they are generated.
In proposed paragraph (a), EPA would establish the ability for the State or Tribe and Federal agency to create and use the emission reduction credits.
In proposed paragraph (b), EPA identifies the criteria for creating the credits. The criteria are the same requirements that apply to any offset or mitigation measure used to compensate for the increased emissions caused by the action. First, the Federal agency must be able to quantify the reductions using reliable techniques. In some cases, however, it may not be possible to quantify the reductions until after the measure has been implemented. For example, a facility may adopt a strategy calling for the purchase and use of alternate-fueled vehicles. Although the agency could calculate the difference in the emissions between the alternate-fueled vehicle and the standard vehicle, it may not know the amount the vehicles will be used. In this case, the State or Tribe and Federal agency could agree on an emission factor and determine the use at a later time. The reductions must be quantified before the credit is used to support a conformity determination.
In proposed paragraph (c), EPA would establish the requirements for the use of the credits. If the strategy used to produce the credit is implemented at the same facility and in the same nonattainment or maintenance area as the Federal action the credits can be used in determining if the action would cause emissions above the de minimis levels. If the strategy is not implemented at the same facility but is in the same nonattainment or maintenance areas as the action, then the credits can be used as offset or mitigation measures for the emissions caused by the action, but not to determine if the action emissions fall below de minimis thresholds. In this context, “same facility” means a contiguous area that a Federal agency manages or exercises control over. Generally, all actions and operations within a fence line of a facility such as an airport and would be considered to be at the “same facility”. However, military operations at a civilian airport would not be considered to be at the “same facility”. Therefore, an airport could install equipment to supply power and conditioned air to airplanes parked at a gate to reduce the use of diesel generators and auxiliary power units at an airport terminal. Those reductions could be considered to be implemented as part of an airport expansion project to improve the terminal and thus would be at the “same facility.”
Since the general conformity program is based on annual emissions, EPA is proposing to require that the credits be used in the same year as they are generated. Such a restriction would ensure consistency with the other parts of the general conformity program. This does not mean that an emission reduction strategy cannot produce an
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a significant regulatory action because it may interfere with actions taken or planned by other Federal agencies. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
This action does not directly impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Although the present proposed revisions to the regulations do not establish any specific new information collection burden, it would establish alternative voluntary approaches that may result in a different burden. For example, the proposed facility-wide emission budget would allow Federal agencies or operators of facilities subject to the General Conformity Requirements such as commercial service airports to work with the State, Tribe or local air quality agency to develop an emission budget for the facility. The State, Tribe or local agencies and Federal agencies or third party facility operators would incur the burden of developing the budget. However, those entities would be relieved of the burden of conducting and reviewing some, if not all, the general conformity determinations for the facility.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an Agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any regulation subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of these proposed regulation revisions on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards. (See 13 CFR 121.); (2) A governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impact of these proposed revisions to the regulations on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposal will not impose any requirements on small entities. The General Conformity Regulations require Federal agencies to conform to the appropriate State, Tribal or Federal implementation plan for attaining clean air. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the regulations on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to related to such impacts.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final regulations with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA regulation for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and to adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the regulation. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final regulations an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that these revisions to the regulations do not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Thus, these proposed regulation revisions are not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
The EPA has determined that these proposed regulation revisions contain no regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments because these regulations affect Federal agencies only. Nonetheless, EPA carried out consultations with governmental entities affected by this regulation.
Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. Policies that have Federalism implications are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.
This action does not have Federalism implications. It will 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. Previously, EPA determined the costs to States to implement the General Conformity Regulations to be less than $100,000 per year. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to these proposed regulation revisions.
Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to these proposed regulation revisions, EPA held meetings with the Federal agencies and organizations that prepare technical support for Federal agencies determinations at which it described the approaches it was considering and provided an opportunity for States, Federal agencies and other stakeholders to comment on the options being considered.
In spirit of Executive Order 13121 and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA is soliciting comments on this proposal from State and local officials.
Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.
These proposed regulation revisions do not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. They do not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, since no Tribe has to demonstrate conformity for their actions. Furthermore, except for allowing the Tribes to comment on draft conformity determinations, these proposed regulation revisions do not affect the relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. The CAA and the Tribal Air Rule establish the relationship of the Federal government and Tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and these revisions to the regulations do nothing to modify that relationship. Because these proposed regulation revisions do not have Tribal implications, Executive Order 13175 does not apply.
Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to these regulations, EPA did consult with some Tribal officials in developing these proposed regulations revisions and encouraged Tribal input at an early stage. The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on the proposed revisions to the regulations from Tribal officials.
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that (1) is determined to be economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
These proposed revisions to the regulations are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and because EPA does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the General Conformity Regulations present a disproportionate risk to children. The General Conformity Regulations ensure that Federal agencies comply with the SIP, TIP or FIP for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. The NAAQS are promulgated to protect the health and welfare of sensitive populations, including children.
The public is invited to submit or identify peer-reviewed studies and data, of which the Agency may not be aware, that assessed results of early life exposure to criteria air pollutant emissions regulated by this rule.
These revisions to the regulations are not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
These proposed revisions to the regulations do not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. 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.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:
23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. Remove and reserve § 51.850 and §§ 51.852 through 51.860.
3. Section 51.851 is revised to read as follows:
(a) A State or eligible Tribe (a Federally recognized Tribal government determined to be eligible to submit a TIP under 40 CFR 49.6) may submit to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a revision to its applicable implementation plan which contains criteria and procedures for assessing the conformity of Federal actions to the applicable implementation plan, consistent with this section and 40 CFR part 93, subpart B.
(b) Until EPA approves the conformity implementation plan revision permitted by this section, Federal agencies shall use the provisions of 40 CFR part 93, subpart B in addition, to any existing applicable State or Tribal requirements, to demonstrate conformity with the applicable SIP or TIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7506).
(c) Following EPA approval of the State or Tribal conformity provisions (or a portion thereof) in a revision to the applicable SIP, conformity determinations shall be governed by the approved (or approved portion of) State criteria and procedures. The Federal conformity regulations contained in 40 CFR part 93, subpart B would apply only for the portion, if any, of the State's or Tribe's conformity provisions that is not approved by EPA.
(d) The State or Tribal conformity implementation plan criteria and procedures cannot be any less stringent than the requirements in 40 CFR part 93, subpart B.
(e) A State's or Tribe's conformity provisions may contain criteria and procedures more stringent than the requirements described in this subpart and part 93, subpart B, only if the State's or Tribe's conformity provisions apply equally to non-Federal as well as Federal entities.
(f) In its SIP or TIP, the State or Tribe may identify a list of Federal actions or type of emissions that it presumes will conform. The State or Tribe may place whatever limitations on that list that it deems necessary. The State or Tribe must demonstrate that the action will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the standard, meeting the reasonable further progress milestones or other requirements of the Clean Air Act. For example, the State may identify the emissions from a certain type and size of construction activities that it presumes will conform. Federal agencies can use the list to determine their “presumed to conform” emissions.
(g) Any previously applicable SIP or TIP requirements relating to conformity remain enforceable until EPA approves the revision to the SIP or TIP to specifically remove them.
4. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
5. Section 93.150 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (c) and by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
(e) If an action would result in emissions originating in more than one nonattainment or maintenance area, the conformity must be evaluated for each area separately.
6. Section 93.151 is revised to read as follows:
The provisions and requirements of this subpart to demonstrate conformity required under section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) apply to all Federal actions in designated nonattainment and maintenance areas where EPA has not approved the SIP required under 40 CFR 51.851. When EPA approves a State's conformity provisions (or a portion thereof) in a revision to an applicable implementation plan, a conformity evaluation is governed by the approved (or approved portion of the) State criteria and procedures. The Federal conformity regulations contained in this subpart apply only for the portions, if any, of the State's conformity provisions that are not approved by EPA. In addition, any previously applicable implementation plan conformity requirements remain enforceable until the EPA approves the revision to the applicable SIP to specifically include the revised requirements or remove requirements.
7. Section 93.152 is amended as follows:
a. Add the definition for “Applicability analysis.”
b. Revise the definition of “Applicable implementation plan or applicable SIP.”
c. Revise the definition for “Areawide air quality modeling analysis.”
d. Add the following definitions in alphabetical order: “Confidential business information,” “Conformity determinations,” “Conformity
e. Revise the definition of “Direct emissions.”
f. Add a new definition for “Emission inventory.”
g. Remove the definition for “Emissions that a Federal agency has a continuing program responsibility for.”
h. Revise the definition of “EPA.”
i. Revise the definition of “Indirect Emissions.”
j. Revise the definition of “Local air quality modeling analysis.”
k. Revise the definitions for “Maintenance area” and “Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).”
l. Add in alphabetical order a definition for “Mitigations measure.”
m. Revise the definition for “National ambient air quality standards”.
n. In the definitions for “Precursors of a criteria pollutant” revise paragraphs (3)(i), (3)(ii) and (3)(iii).
o. Revise the definition for “Reasonably foreseeable emissions.”
p. Remove the definition for “Regionally significant action.”
q. Add the following definitions: “Restricted information.”
r. Add in alphabetical order the definitions for “Take or start the Federal action” and “Tribal implementation plan (TIP).”
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(1) Actions it takes itself; or
(2) Actions of non-Federal entities that the Federal agency, in exercising its normal programs and authorities, approves, funds, licenses or permits; provided the agency can impose conditions on any portion of the action that could affect the emissions.
(1) That are caused or initiated by the Federal action and originate in the same nonattainment or maintenance area but occur at a different time or place as the action;
(2) That are reasonably foreseeable;
(3) That the agency can practically control; and
(4) For which the agency has continuing program responsibility.
(3) * * *
(i) Sulfur dioxide (SO
(iii) Volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH
8. Section 93.153 is amended as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (a).
b. By revising paragaraphs (b) introductory text and (b)(1).
c. By adding paragraph (c)(2)(xxii).
d. By revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2).
e. By revising paragraph (e)(2).
f. By adding paragraph (e)(3).
g. By revising paragraph (f).
h. By revising paragraph (g) introductory text.
i. By Adding paragraph (g)(3).
j. By revising paragraphs (h) introductory text, (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(4).
k. By revising paragraphs (i), (j), and (k).
(a) Conformity determinations for Federal actions related to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or approved under title 23 U.S.C. or 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 must meet the procedures and criteria of 40 CFR part 51, subpart T, in lieu of the procedures set forth in this subpart.
(b) For Federal actions not covered by paragraph (a) of this section, a conformity determination is required for each criteria pollutant or precursor where the total of direct and indirect emissions in a nonattainment or maintenance area caused by a Federal action would equal or exceed any of the rates in paragraphs (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) For purposes of paragraph (b) of this section, the following rates apply in nonattainment areas (NAA's):
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(xxii) Air traffic control activities and adopting approach, departure and enroute procedures for aircraft operations above 3,000 feet above ground level.
(d) * * *
(1) The portion of an action that includes major or minor new or modified stationary sources that require a permit under the new source review (NSR) program (section 173 of the Act) or the prevention of significant deterioration program (title I, part C of the Act).
(2) Actions in response to emergencies which are typically commenced on the order of hours or days after the emergency and, if applicable, which meet the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section.
(e) * * *
(2) For actions which are to be taken after those actions covered by paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the Federal agency makes a new determination as provided in paragraph (e)(1) of this section and:
(i) Provides a draft copy of the written determinations required to affected EPA Regional office(s), the affected State(s) and/or air pollution control agencies, and any Federal recognized Indian Tribal government in the nonattainment or maintenance area. Those organizations must be allowed 15 days from the beginning of the extension period to comment on the draft determination, and
(ii) Within 30 days after making the determination, publish a notice of the determination by placing a prominent advertisement in a daily newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the action.
(3) If additional actions are necessary in response to an emergency or disaster under paragraph (d)(2) of this section beyond the specified time period in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, a Federal agency can make a new written determination as described in (e)(2) of this section for as many 6-month periods as needed, but in no case shall this exemption extend beyond 3 6-month periods except where an agency:
(i) provide information to EPA and the State stating that the conditions that gave rise to the emergency exemption continue to exist and how such conditions effectively prevent the agency from conducting a conformity evaluation.
(ii) [Reserved]
(f) Notwithstanding other requirements of this subpart, actions specified by individual Federal agencies that have met the criteria set forth in either paragraphs (g)(1) (g)(2) or (g)(3) of this section and the procedures set forth in paragraph (h) of this section are presumed to conform, except as provided in paragraph (j) of this section. Actions specified by individual Federal agencies as presumed to conform may not be used in combination with one another when the total direct and indirect emissions from the combination of actions would equal or exceed any of the rates specified in paragraphs (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
(g) The Federal agency must meet the criteria for establishing activities that are presumed to conform by fulfilling the requirements set forth in either paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this section:
(3) The Federal agency must clearly demonstrate that the emissions from the type or category of actions and the amount of emissions from the action are included in the applicable SIP and the State or local air quality agencies responsible for the SIP(s) provide written concurrence that the emissions from the actions along with all other expected emissions in the area will not exceed the emission budget in the SIP.
(h) In addition to meeting the criteria for establishing exemptions set forth in paragraphs (g)(1) (g)(2) or (g)(3) of this section, the following procedures must also be complied with to presume that activities will conform:
(1) The Federal agency must identify through publication in the
(2) The Federal agency must notify the appropriate EPA Regional Office(s), State and local air quality agencies and, where applicable, the agency designated under section 174 of the Act and the MPO and provide at least 30 days for the public to comment on the list of proposed activities presumed to conform. If the presumed to conform action has regional or national application (e.g., the action will cause emission increases in excess of the de minimis levels identified in paragraph(b) of this section in more than one of EPA's Regions), the Federal agency, as an alternative to sending it to EPA Regional Offices, can send the draft conformity determination to U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards;
(4) The Federal agency must publish the final list of such activities in the
(i) Emissions from the following actions are presumed to conform:
(1) Actions at installations with facility-wide emission budgets meeting the requirements in § 93.161 provided that the State has included the emission budget in the EPA approved SIP and the emissions from the action along with all other emissions from the installation will not exceed the facility-wide emission budget.
(2) Prescribed fires conducted in accordance with a State certified smoke management program (SMP) which meets the requirements of EPA's Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires.
(2) Prescribed fires conducted in accordance with a State certified smoke management program (SMP) which meets the requirements of EPA's Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires or, in the absence of a State certified SMP, where the Federal agency has obtained written assurance from the State prior to the burn that the planned burn employs State approved basic smoke management practices.
(3) Emissions for actions that the State identifies in the EPA approved SIP as presumed to conform.
(j) Even though an action would otherwise be presumed to conform under paragraph (f) or (i) of this section, an action shall not be presumed to conform and the requirements of § 93.150, § 93.151, §§ 93.154 through 93.160 and §§ 93.162 through 93.164 shall apply to the action if EPA or a third party shows that the action would:
(i) Cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area;
(ii) Interfere with provisions in the applicable SIP for maintenance of any standard;
(iii) Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area; or
(iv) Delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emissions reductions or other milestones in any area including, where applicable, emission levels specified in the applicable SIP for purposes of:
(A) A demonstration of reasonable further progress;
(B) A demonstration of attainment; or
(C) A maintenance plan.
(k) The provisions of this subpart shall apply in all nonattainment and maintenance areas except conformity requirements for newly designated nonattainment areas are not applicable until 1 year after the effective date of the final nonattainment designation for each NAAQS and pollutant in accordance with section 176(c)(6) of the Act.
9. Section 93.154 is revised to read as follows:
Any department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal government taking an action subject to this subpart must make its own conformity determination consistent with the requirements of this subpart. In making its conformity determination, a Federal agency must follow the requirements in §§ 93.155 through 93.160 and §§ 93.162 through 93.165 and must consider comments from any interested parties. Where multiple Federal agencies have jurisdiction for various aspects of a project, a Federal agency may choose to adopt the analysis of another Federal agency or develop its own analysis in order to make its conformity determination.
10. Section 93.155 is revised to read as follows:
(a) A Federal agency making a conformity determination under §§ 93.154 through 93.160 and §§ 93.162 through 93.164 must provide to the appropriate EPA Regional Office(s), State and local air quality agencies, any federally-recognized Indian Tribal government in the nonattainment or maintenance area, and, where applicable, affected Federal land managers, the agency designated under section 174 of the Act and the MPO a 30-day notice which describes the proposed action and the Federal agency's draft conformity determination on the action. If the action has multi-regional or national impacts (e.g., the action will cause emission increases in excess of the de minimis levels identified in § 93.153(b) in two or more of EPA's Regions), the Federal agency, as an alternative to sending it to EPA Regional Offices, can provide the notice to EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
(b) A Federal agency must notify the appropriate EPA Regional Office(s), State and local air quality agencies, any federally-recognized Indian Tribal government in the nonattainment or maintenance area, and, where applicable, affected Federal land managers, the agency designated under section 174 of the Clean Air Act and the MPO within 30 days after making a final conformity determination under this subpart.
(c) The draft and final conformity determination shall exclude any restricted information or confidential business information. The disclosure of restricted information and confidential business information shall be controlled by the applicable laws, regulations, security manuals, or executive orders concerning the use, access, and release of such materials. Subject to applicable procedures to protect restricted information from public disclosure, any information or materials excluded from the draft or final conformity determination or supporting materials may be made available in a restricted information annex to the determination for review by Federal and State representatives who have received appropriate clearances to review the information.
11. Section 93.156 is revised to read as follows:
(a) Upon request by any person regarding a specific Federal action, a Federal agency must make available, subject to the limitation in paragraph(e) of this section, for review its draft conformity determination under § 93.154 with supporting materials which describe the analytical methods and conclusions relied upon in making
(b) A Federal agency must make public its draft conformity determination under § 93.154 by placing a notice by prominent advertisement in a daily newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the action and by providing 30 days for written public comment prior to taking any formal action on the draft determination. This comment period may be concurrent with any other public involvement, such as occurs in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. If the action has multi-regional or national impacts (e.g., the action will cause emission increases in excess of the de minimis levels identified in § 93.153(b) in two or more of EPA's Regions), the Federal agency, as an alternative to publishing separate notices, can publish a notice in the
(c) A Federal agency must document its response to all the comments received on its draft conformity determination under § 93.154 and make the comments and responses available, subject to the limitation in paragraph (e) of this section, upon request by any person regarding a specific Federal action, within 30 days of the final conformity determination.
(d) A Federal agency must make public its final conformity determination under § 93.154 for a Federal action by placing a notice by prominent advertisement in a daily newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the action within 30 days of the final conformity determination. If the action would have multi-regional or national impacts the Federal agency, as an alternative, can publish the notice in the
(e) The draft and final conformity determination shall exclude any restricted information or confidential business information. The disclosure of restricted information and confidential business information shall be controlled by the applicable laws, regulations or executive orders concerning the release of such materials.
12. Section 93.157 is revised to read as follows:
(a) Once a conformity evaluation is completed by a Federal agency, that determination is not required to be re-evaluated if the agency has: maintained a continuous program to implement the action; the determination has not lapsed as specified in paragraph (a) of this section; or any modification to the action does not result in an increase in emissions above the levels specified in paragraph (d) of this section. If a conformity determination is not required for the action at the time NEPA analysis is completed, the date of the finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for an Environmental Assessment, a record of decision (ROD) for an Environmental Impact Statement, or a categorical exclusion determination can be used as a substitute date for the conformity determination date.
(b) The conformity status of a Federal action automatically lapses 5 years from the date a final conformity determination is reported under § 93.155, unless the Federal action has been completed or a continuous program to implement the Federal action has been commenced.
(c) Ongoing Federal activities at a given site showing continuous progress are not new actions and do not require periodic re-determinations so long as such activities are within the scope of the final conformity determination reported under § 93.155 of the NEPA analysis.
(d) If the Federal agency determines through the applicability analysis that a conformity determination was not necessary because the emissions for the action were below the limits in § 93.153(b) and changes to the action would result in the total emissions from the action being above the limits in § 93.153(b), then the Federal agency must make a conformity determination.
13. Section 93.158 is amended as follows:
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3) introductory text and (a)(4) introductory text;
b. Revising paragraph (a)(5) introductory text;
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(5)(i) introductory text, and (a)(5)(i)(C), and
d. Adding (a)(5)(i)(D).
e. Revising paragraphs (a)(5)(iii), (a)(5)(iv) introductory text; (a)(5)(iv)(A)(
(1) For any criteria pollutant or precursor, the total of direct and indirect emissions from the action are specifically identified and accounted for in the applicable SIP's attainment or maintenance demonstration or reasonable further progress milestone or in a facility-wide emission budget included in a SIP accordance with § 93.161 of this rule;
(2) For precursors of ozone, nitrogen dioxide, or PM, the total of direct and indirect emissions from the action are fully offset within the same nonattainment or maintenance area (or nearby area of equal or higher classification provided the emissions from that area contribute to the violations, or have contributed to violations in the past, in the area with the Federal action) through a revision to the applicable SIP or a similarly enforceable measure that effects emissions reductions so that there is no net increase in emissions of that pollutant;
(3) For any directly-emitted criteria pollutant, the total of direct and indirect emissions from the action meets the requirements:
(4) For CO or directly emitted PM—
(5) For ozone or nitrogen dioxide, and for purposes of paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) and (a)(4)(ii) of this section, each portion of the action or the action as a whole meets any of the following requirements:
(i) Where EPA has approved a revision to the applicable implementation plan after the area was designated as nonattainment and the State makes a determination as provided in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(A) of this section or where the State makes a commitment as provided in paragraph (a)(5)(i)(B) of this section:
(C) Where a Federal agency made a conformity determination based on a State commitment under paragraph (a)(5)(i)(B) of this section and the State has submitted a SIP to EPA covering the time period during which the emissions will occur or is scheduled to submit such a SIP within 18 months of the conformity determination, the State commitment is automatically deemed a call for a SIP revision by EPA under section 110(k)(5) of the Act, effective on the date of the Federal conformity determination and requiring response within 18 months or any shorter time within which the State commits to revise the applicable SIP;
(D) Where a Federal agency made a conformity determination based on a State commitment under paragraph (a)(5)(i)(B) of this section and the State has not submitted a SIP covering the time period of the emissions will occur or is not scheduled to submit such a SIP within 18 months of the conformity determination, the State must, within 18 months, submit to EPA a revision to the existing SIP committing to include the emissions in the future SIP revision.
(iii) The action (or portion thereof) fully offsets its emissions within the same nonattainment or maintenance
(iv) Where EPA has not approved a revision to the relevant SIP since the area was designated or reclassified, the total of direct and indirect emissions from the action for the future years (described in § 93.159(d)) do not increase emissions with respect to the baseline emissions:
(A) * * *
(
(
(B) The baseline emissions are the total of direct and indirect emissions calculated for the future years (described in § 93.159(d)) using the historic activity levels (described in paragraph (a)(5)(iv)(A) of this section) and appropriate emission factors for the future years; or
14. Section 93.159 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and (b)(1)(ii);
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (c) introductory text; and
c. Removing footnotes 1 and 2,
d. Revising paragraph (d).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) The analyses required under this subpart must be based on the latest and most accurate emission estimation techniques available as described below, unless such techniques are inappropriate. If such techniques are inappropriate, the Federal agency may obtain written approval from the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator for a modification or substitution, of another technique on a case-by-case basis or, where appropriate, on a generic basis for a specific Federal agency program.
(1) * * *
(ii) A grace period of 3 months shall apply during which the motor vehicle emissions model previously specified by EPA as the most current version may be used unless EPA announces a longer grace period in the
(2) For non-motor vehicle sources, including stationary and area source emissions, the latest emission factors specified by EPA in the “Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors” (AP-42,
(c) The air quality modeling analyses required under this subpart must be based on the applicable air quality models, data bases, and other requirements specified in the most recent version of the “Guideline on Air Quality Models.” (Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51).
(d) The analyses required under this subpart must be based on the total of direct and indirect emissions from the action and must reflect emission scenarios that are expected to occur under each of the following cases:
(1) The attainment year specified in the SIP, or if the SIP does not specify an attainment year, the latest attainment year possible under the Act, or
(2) The last year for which emissions are projected in the maintenance plan;
(3) The year during which the total of direct and indirect emissions from the action is expected to be the greatest on an annual basis; and
(4) Any year for which the applicable SIP specifies an emissions budget.
15. Section 93.160 is amended as follows:
a. Revising paragraph (e);
b. Revising paragraph (f); and
c. Revising paragraph (g).
(e) When necessary because of changed circumstances, mitigation measures may be modified so long as the new mitigation measures continue to support the conformity determination. Any proposed change in the mitigation measures is subject to the reporting requirements of § 93.156 and the public participation requirements of § 93.157.
(f) Written commitments to mitigation measures must be obtained prior to a positive conformity determination and that such commitments must be fulfilled.
(g) After a State revises its SIP to adopt its general conformity regulations and EPA approves that SIP revision, any agreements, including mitigation measures, necessary for a conformity determination will be both State and Federally enforceable. Enforceability through the applicable SIP will apply to all persons who agree to mitigate direct and indirect emissions associated with a Federal action for a conformity determination.
16. Subpart B is further amended by adding §§ 93.161 through 93.165 to read as follows:
(a) The State or local agency responsible for implementing and enforcing the SIP can in cooperation with Federal agencies or third parties authorized by the agency that operate installations subject to Federal oversight (e.g., a military base or a commercial service airport) develop and adopt a facility-wide emission budget to be used for demonstrating conformity under § 93.158(a)(1). The facility-wide budget must meet the following criteria:
(1) Be for a set time period;
(2) Cover the pollutants or precursors of the pollutants for which the area is designated nonattainment or maintenance;
(3) Include specific quantities allowed to be emitted on an annual or seasonal basis;
(4) The emissions from the facility along with all other emissions in the area will not exceed the emission budget for the area;
(5) Include specific measures to ensure compliance with the budget such as periodic reporting requirements or compliance demonstration when the Federal agency is taking an action that would otherwise require a conformity determination;
(6) Be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision;
(7) The SIP revision must be approved by EPA.
(b) The facility-wide budget developed and adopted in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section can be revised by following the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Total direct and indirect emissions from Federal actions in conjunction with all other emissions subject to general conformity from the facility that do not exceed the facility budget adopted pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section are presumed to conform to the SIP and do not require a conformity analysis.
(d) If the total direct and indirect emissions from the Federal actions in conjunction with the other emissions subject to general conformity from the facility exceed the budget adopted pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the action must be evaluated for conformity. A Federal agency can use the compliance with the facility-wide emissions budget as part of the demonstration of conformity, i.e., the agency would have to mitigate or offset the emissions that exceed the emission budget.
(e) If the SIP for the area includes a category for construction emissions, the negotiated budget can exempt construction emissions from further conformity analysis.
If a Federal action would result in total direct and indirect emissions which would be emitted beyond the time period covered by the SIP, the Federal agency can:
(a) Demonstrate conformity with the last emission budget in the SIP; or
(b) Request the State to adopt an emissions budget for the action for inclusion in the SIP. The State must submit a SIP revision to EPA within 18 months either including the emissions in the existing SIP or establishing an enforceable commitment to include the emissions in future SIP revisions based on the latest planning assumptions at the time of the SIP revision. No such commitment by a State shall restrict a State's ability require RACT, RACM or any other control measures within the State's authority to ensure timely attainment of the NAAQS.
(a) The emissions reductions from an offset or mitigation measure used to demonstrate conformity must occur during the same calendar year as the emission increases from the action except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The State may approve reductions in other years provided:
(1) The reductions are greater than the emission increases by the following ratios:
(2) The time period for completing the emissions reductions must not exceed twice the period of the emissions.
(3) The offset or mitigation measure with emissions reductions in another year will not:
(i) Cause or contribute to a new violation of any air quality standard, (ii) Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any air quality standard, or
(iii) Delay the timely attainment of any standard or any interim emissions reductions or other milestones in any area.
(c) The approval by the State of an offset or mitigation measure with emissions reductions in another year, does not relieve the State of any obligation to meet any SIP or Clean Air Act milestone or deadline.
Federal agencies must reduce the same type pollutant as being increased by the Federal action except the State may approve offsets or mitigation measures of different precursors of the same criteria pollutant, if such trades are allowed by a State in a SIP approved new source review regulation, is technically justified, and has a demonstrated environmental benefit.
(a) Federal facilities and installation subject to Federal oversight can, with the approval of the State agency responsible for the SIP in that area, create an early emissions reductions credit program. The Federal agency can create the emission reduction credits in accordance with the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section and can used them in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Creation of emission reduction credits. (1) Emissions reductions must be quantifiable through the use of standard emission factors or measurement techniques. If non-standard factors or techniques to quantify the emissions reductions are used, the Federal agency must receive approval from the State agency responsible for the implementation of the SIP and from EPA's Regional Office. The emission reduction credits do not have to be quantified before the reduction strategy is implemented, but must be quantified before the credits are used.
(2) The emission reduction methods must be consistent with the applicable SIP attainment and reasonable further progress demonstrations.
(3) The emissions reductions can not be required by or credited to other applicable SIP provisions.
(4) Both the State and Federal air quality agencies must be able to take legal action to ensure continued implementation of the emission reduction strategy. In addition, private citizens must also be able to initiate action to ensure compliance with the control requirement.
(5) The emissions reductions must be permanent or the timeframe for the reductions must be specified.
(6) The Federal agency must document the emissions reductions and provide a copy of the document to the State air quality agency and the EPA regional office for review. The documentation must include a detailed description of the strategy and a discussion of how it meets the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(c) Use of emission reduction credits. The emission reduction credits created in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section can be used, subject to the following limitations, to reduce the emissions increase from a Federal action at the facility for the conformity evaluation.
(1) If the technique used to create the emission reduction is implemented at the same facility as the Federal action and could have occurred in conjunction with the Federal action, then the credits can be used to reduce the total direct and indirect emissions used to determine the applicability of the regulation as required in § 93.153 and as offsets or mitigation measures required by § 93.158.
(2) If the technique used to create the emission reduction is not implemented at the same facility as the Federal action or could not have occurred in conjunction with the Federal action, then the credits cannot be used to reduce the total direct and indirect emissions used to determine the applicability of the regulation as required in § 93.153, but can be used to offset or mitigate the emissions as required by § 93.158.
(3) Emissions reductions credits must be used in the same year in which they are generated.
(4) Once the emission reduction credits are used, they cannot be used as credits for another conformity evaluation. However, unused credits from a strategy used for one conformity evaluation can be used for another conformity evaluation as long as the reduction credits are not double counted. For example, emission reduction credits from a control measure could be used in one year as offset for construction emission increases and in another year to mitigate operational emission increases.
(5) Federal agencies must notify the State air quality agency and EPA
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner; HUD.
Final rule.
This final rule explicitly conforms the eligibility requirements for applicants to the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Appraiser Roster to longstanding HUD practices, as well as to existing nationwide industry practice. Only appraisers on the roster may perform required appraisals of properties that are to serve as security for FHA-insured single-family mortgages. Among other requirements, the current regulations require that an applicant must be a state-licensed or state-certified appraiser and pass a HUD examination on FHA appraisal methods and reporting. This final rule codifies HUD's longstanding practice and the nationwide practice that such certification or licensing comply with national criteria for education, experience, and passage of a state-administered examination. This final rule also eliminates the requirement for applicants to pass a HUD test on FHA appraisal methods and reporting, because the test has become duplicative of the national examination requirements for state licensure and certification and, therefore, unnecessary.
Peter Gillispie, Home Valuation Policy Division, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 9270, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone number (202) 708-2121, extension 3368 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
To qualify for FHA insurance for a single-family mortgage, a lender must obtain an appraisal of the property that is to be the security for the loan. Only an appraiser listed on HUD's FHA Appraiser Roster may perform the appraisal. Under HUD's current regulation found in 24 CFR 200.202(b), an applicant who wishes to be included on the FHA Appraiser Roster must be a State-licensed or State-certified appraiser, must pass a HUD test on FHA appraisal methods and reporting, and must not be listed on the General Services Administration's Suspension and Debarment list, HUD's Limited Denial of Participation List, or HUD's Credit Alert Interactive Voice Response System. HUD's regulations for the Appraiser Roster are codified in subpart G of 24 CFR part 200.
Title XI of the Financial Institutions Recovery, Reform, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (Title XI) (12 U.S.C. 3331
Title XI does not require State-licensed appraisers to meet AQB qualification criteria, and regulations promulgated under Title XI exclude federally insured transactions such as FHA-insured mortgages from the classes of transactions subject to Title XI's appraisal requirements. However, in addition to establishing the statutorily required qualification criteria for State-certified appraisers, the AQB has published model qualification criteria for State-licensed appraisers and other classifications of appraisers, and States and Federal agencies may require compliance with these criteria.
The AQB criteria for State-certified and State-licensed appraisers require candidates to have taken a minimum number of hours of coursework, to have a minimum number of hours of appraisal experience, and to pass an AQB-endorsed, State-administered examination. In addition, appraisers must comply with continuing education requirements in order to renew their credentials. The AQB has revised the criteria twice, and the most recent revision will increase coursework requirements and require completion of a new National Uniform Examination beginning on January 1, 2008. After this revision takes effect, applicants for the State-licensed classification will be required to complete 150 hours of coursework in a required core curriculum, accumulate 2,000 hours of acceptable appraisal experience, and pass the new National Uniform Examination.
On November 30, 2001, at 66 FR 60128, HUD published a proposed rule to require appraisers listed on the Appraiser Roster to be State-licensed or State-certified with credentials that meet the applicable AQB criteria in effect when the credentials were issued. The proposed rule stated that even if a State had “grandfathered in” appraisers who had been licensed before establishment of the AQB criteria, such appraisers could not be added to the Appraiser Roster if their credentials did not meet the applicable AQB criteria. HUD subsequently received public comments expressing concern about persons who were already listed on the Appraiser Roster but whose credentials had been issued by States prior to the adoption of the AQB criteria.
In response to these comments, HUD provided in the final rule published on May 16, 2003 (68 FR 26946), for a 12-month phase-in period following the effective date of the final rule, by the end of which appraisers already on the FHA Appraiser Roster would have to comply with the AQB licensing/certification criteria. In addition, HUD stated that it would later publish in the
This final rule, which follows publication of the May 16, 2003, final rule, codifies the AQB requirements in HUD's FHA Appraiser Roster regulations. Specifically, this final rule requires that an appraiser, in order to be eligible for placement on the FHA Appraiser Roster, must have credentials that met the applicable AQB criteria in effect when the credentials were issued. Appraisers that were State-licensed and State-certified in accordance with earlier versions of the AQB criteria do not lose their eligibility to be listed on the FHA Appraiser Roster merely because the AQB subsequently establishes more stringent education, experience, or examination criteria.
HUD recently undertook a review of the appraisers listed on the FHA Appraiser Roster and determined that the credentials of all currently listed appraisers comply with the applicable AQB criteria. As a result, the provisions in the May 16, 2003, final rule for a 12-month phase-in period are no longer necessary. HUD has also determined that no State in fact “grandfathered in” appraisers who had been licensed prior to establishment of the AQB criteria, a concern at the time of the publication of the May 16, 2003, final rule. Consequently, today's final rule does not contain these unnecessary provisions.
This final rule also eliminates the requirement for applicants to pass a HUD test on FHA appraisal methods and reporting. FHA has undertaken a series of initiatives to align its practices with those of the conventional lending industry, including streamlining and updating its appraisal reporting procedures and policies. By adopting and requiring the use of updated appraisal reporting forms and relaxing its repair and inspection requirements for existing properties, FHA has ensured that an appraisal of a property that is to be the security for FHA-insured financing is not materially different from an appraisal of the same property performed for conventional financing. As a result, the knowledge and skills needed to perform an FHA appraisal do not differ from those needed to perform an appraisal for a conventional mortgage. Therefore, HUD has determined that a separate test on FHA-specific appraisal methods and reporting is no longer necessary.
Furthermore, HUD has concluded that passage of the State-administered examination required under the AQB qualification criteria is an acceptable indicator of an applicant's competence in and knowledge of real estate appraisal methodology. Under the current AQB criteria, applicants must pass the AQB-endorsed uniform examination, or its equivalent, for the level of credentials they are seeking. Examinations for all credentials are comprehensive and cover 15 topics, including economic, legal, and ethical principles and various approaches to property valuation. Practice questions test applicants' ability to apply the knowledge and competency they gained through required coursework and experience to appraise representative properties based on available data. In light of the rigorous and comprehensive nature of the AQB-required examination, HUD has determined that the FHA test provides no additional assurance that appraisers listed on the FHA Appraiser Roster are able to provide accurate appraisals of properties that are to be the security for FHA-insured mortgages.
In general, HUD publishes a rule for public comment before issuing a rule for effect, in accordance with HUD's regulations on rulemaking at 24 CFR part 10. Part 10, however, provides in § 10.1 for exceptions from that general rule where HUD finds good cause to omit advance notice and public participation. The good cause requirement is satisfied when the prior public procedure is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”
HUD finds that good cause exists to publish this rule for effect without soliciting further public comment, on the basis that additional public procedure is unnecessary. The purpose of this final rule is to formally codify the requirement that appraisers who are listed on the FHA Appraiser Roster have credentials that comply with AQB criteria, a practice already in place. On November 30, 2001, HUD published for public comment a proposed rule that included compliance with the AQB criteria. On May 16, 2003, HUD published this requirement in a final rule that considered the public comments on the earlier proposed rule.
This final rule updates the May 16, 2003, final rule by removing provisions that have since become unnecessary or are inapplicable. HUD has determined that because the credentials of all appraisers presently listed on the FHA Appraiser Roster comply with the applicable AQB criteria, the 12-month phase-in period is unnecessary for any currently listed person on the roster. HUD has also determined that no states have “grandfathered in” any previously certified or licensed appraisers from having to comply with the AQB criteria when the criteria were first established. As a result, the provision that clarified that such appraisers would nonetheless have to comply with the AQB criteria is also inapplicable to any prospective applicant to the FHA Appraiser Roster. Further, since FHA appraisal requirements now conform to those of conventional mortgages, it is no longer necessary to test FHA Appraiser Roster applicants for knowledge of FHA-specific requirements. HUD has also concluded that the examinations required by the AQB criteria are acceptable indicators of applicants' knowledge and competency to perform accurate appraisals, including those for FHA-insured transactions.
Since HUD has already received and responded to public comments on the requirement for compliance with AQB criteria, and since elimination of inapplicable provisions does not affect the rights or interests of any members of the public, HUD finds that additional public procedure is unnecessary.
The information collection requirements contained in this document have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB control number 2502-0538. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This final rule does not direct, provide for assistance, or direct or provide loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, nor does it establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Although this rule establishes qualifications for persons who may perform required appraisals for insured mortgages, it does not have any impact on when insurance may or may not be provided. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule will not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive Order.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and on the private sector. This rule will not impose any Federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, within the meaning of the UMRA.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal employment opportunity, Fair housing, Home improvement, Housing standards, Incorporation by reference, Lead poisoning, Loan programs—housing and community development, Minimum property standards, Mortgage insurance, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Unemployment compensation, Wages.
12 U.S.C. 1701-1715z-18; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
(a) Application. To apply for placement on the Appraiser Roster, you must submit an application to HUD.
(b) Eligibility. To be eligible for placement on the Appraiser Roster:
(1) You must be a state-licensed or state-certified appraiser with credentials that complied with the applicable licensing or certification criteria established by the Appraiser Qualification Board (AQB) of the Appraisal Foundation and in effect at the time the license or certification was awarded by the issuing jurisdiction; and
(2) You must not be listed on:
(i) The General Services Administration's Suspension and Debarment List;
(ii) HUD's Limited Denial of Participation List; or
(iii) HUD's Credit Alert Interactive Voice Response System.
(d)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Interim rule.
This rule makes two technical changes to HUD's Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) program. First, the rule extends the date for calculating the maximum claim amount in the HECM program from the date of the underwriter's receipt of the appraisal report to the date of closing. This change provides a more easily verifiable and more easily identifiable date. Second, this rule corrects an unintended consequence that results in a situation where HECM loans that are not in default but have been assigned pursuant to regulatory provisions, and remain in effect, are not eligible to be refinanced with a discounted initial mortgage insurance premium (MIP). This rule would permit such HECM loans to be eligible for the discounted initial MIP upon refinancing, in accordance with the purpose of the HECM program, which is to improve the financial situation of elderly homeowners.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule to the Office of General Counsel, Rules Docket Clerk, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0001. Communications should refer to the above docket number and title.
James Beavers, Deputy Director, Single Family Program Development, Office of Single Family Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone number (202) 708-2121 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
Section 255 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-20) (the Act) authorizes the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to insure HECM loans to enable elderly homeowners to convert the equity in their homes to streams of income or lines of credit. Section 255(g) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-20(g)) provides that “in no case may the benefits of insurance under this section exceed the maximum dollar amount established under section 203(b)(2) of the Act for one-family residences in the area in which the dwelling subject to the mortgage under this section is located.”
HUD's HECM regulations are found in 24 CFR part 206. HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 206.3 defines “Maximum claim amount” as the “lesser of the appraised value of the property or maximum dollar amount for an area established by the Secretary for a one-family residence under section 203(b)(2) of the Act (as adjusted where applicable under section 214 of the Act).” Section 203(b)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(b)(2)) provides for maximum mortgage amounts. Section 203(b)(2)(A) provides that the maximum insurable amount is the lesser of: (1) In the case of a one-family residence, 95 percent of the median one-family house price in the area, as determined by the Secretary; or (2) 87 percent of the dollar amount limitation determined under section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act (Freddie Mac) for a residence of similar size, as specified in 12 U.S.C. 1709(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Finally, section 203(b)(2)(B) of the Act provides for a ceiling amount based on the sum of the amount of the mortgage insurance premium paid at the time the mortgage is insured and a percentage of the appraised value of the property.
This interim rule revises the point in time at which the appraised value of the property and the maximum dollar amount for an area under 12 U.S.C. 1709(b)(2) are compared to determine the maximum claim amount. The definition of “maximum claim amount” currently codified in HUD's regulations in 24 CFR 206.3 provides that both of these values “must be as of the date the Direct Endorsement Lender or Lender Insurance Underwriter receives the appraisal report.” Experience, however, has shown that the appraisal report received date is not the best date to use as a benchmark for property valuation for mortgage insurance purposes. This is because HUD's reporting systems do not capture the date the appraisal report is received by the Direct Endorsement underwriter or Lender Insurance underwriter, which means the date cannot be later audited or verified. The date of closing is a more practical and verifiable benchmark date. Additionally, using the closing date will automatically allow for larger equity payments when FHA's mortgage limits increase between the date the case number is assigned and the date the loan closes, in cases where the property's appraised value meets or exceeds the new jurisdictional FHA maximum mortgage. This rule would therefore change the calculation date for determining the maximum claim amount to the closing date. The rule revises only the calculation date. There is no change to when the appraisal report is submitted and no requirement, under this regulatory revision, for a second appraisal. Additionally, this rule, upon becoming effective, would not result in an increased maximum claim amount for
Section 201 of the American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-569, approved December 27, 2000) amended section 255(k) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-20(k)) to authorize the refinancing of existing HECM loans by adding the following at 12 U.S.C. 1715z-20(k)(1):
The Secretary may, upon application by a mortgagee, insure under this subsection any mortgage given to refinance an existing home equity conversion mortgage insured under this section.
In addition, 12 U.S.C. 1715z-20(k)(4) was added to permit the Secretary to reduce the initial MIP for refinanced HECM loans.
Following the statutory change, HUD published a proposed rule seeking public comment on a new 24 CFR 206.53. Proposed § 206.53(a) provided for refinancings of HECM loans “presently insured” under 24 CFR part 206. The preamble of the proposed rule indicates that this section is meant to provide for the refinancing of “an existing HECM.” (See 66 FR 30278, June 5, 2001.) The proposed rule did not include a provision for a discounted initial MIP for refinanced HECM loans.
HUD followed this proposed rule with an interim rule on March 25, 2004 (69 FR 15586), which took into account public comments received on the proposed rule. In response to public comment requesting that HUD exercise its statutory authority, the interim rule provided for a discounted initial MIP and for additional public comments on the discounted initial MIP, because of the absence of that provision from the proposed rule. (See 69 FR 15587, 15591.) The preamble to the interim rule refers to this discounted MIP as being applicable to “the existing HECM loan being refinanced.” (See 69 FR 15587.) However, the interim rule retained the regulatory text language of § 206.53(a) providing for refinancing of “presently insured” HECM loans (69 FR 15591). This interim rule was inadvertently made final, without change to the regulatory text referring to “presently insured,” by final rule published on December 15, 2004 (69 FR 75204).
It is the phrase “presently insured” (where the statute itself only speaks in terms of loans that are “insured” by HUD) in § 206.53(a) that gives rise to the issue addressed in this rule. In the HECM context, the phrase has the unintended consequence of excluding certain loans from consideration for the reduced initial MIP. The March 2004 interim rule provided in § 206.53(c) for a reduced initial MIP for HECM loans that are refinanced. (See 69 FR 15591.) However, because the language of § 206.53(a) limits refinancings under section 255(k) of the Act to HECM loans “presently insured,” the interim rule unintentionally created a class of HECM loans that are existing loans but are considered not eligible for the favorable MIP under the HECM refinancing regulations.
The issue that there is a category of HECM loans that may not be viewed as eligible for the reduced initial MIP arises from the fact that the HECM program permits certain assignments of notes to HUD. These notes are not in default, but are assigned to HUD under the regulatory provisions at 24 CFR 206.107(a)(1) and 206.121(b). Nonetheless, the phrase “presently insured” in § 206.53(a) is viewed as excluding these mortgages from the lower MIP for HECM loan refinancings. These loans are not in default status and, therefore, are “existing HECM loans” that the preambles to both the 2001 proposed rule and the 2004 interim rule indicate are intended to be covered by the favorable HECM refinancing provisions.
The regulatory sections under which these non-default assignments take place are 24 CFR 206.107(a)(1) and 206.121(b). Under § 206.107(a)(1), the mortgagee may elect to assign the mortgage to HUD if the mortgage balance is equal to or greater than 98 percent of the maximum claim amount, and if certain other conditions are met, as stated in the regulation. Under the assignment in § 206.121(b), the assignment may occur when the mortgagee fails to make timely payments. In either case, the loan continues in existence, and should be eligible for the discounted initial MIP for HECM refinancings. Instead, loans in this status are now considered only eligible for the more expensive MIPs for regular loans. HECM borrowers are in these cases unintentionally penalized by an assignment action and prevented from refinancing with the benefits of a statutorily authorized reduced MIP.
In order to establish a more rational date for the calculation of the maximum claim amount, the rule removes the second sentence of the definition of “maximum claim amount” in 24 CFR 206.3, which currently reads:
Both the appraised value and the maximum dollar amount for the area must be as of the date the Direct Endorsement Lender or Lender Insurance Underwriter receives the appraisal report.
In order to address the unintended consequences of the terminology restricting the provisions relating to insurance of refinanced HECM loans to “presently insured” loans rather than to all existing HECM loans, the rule revises the last sentence of § 206.53(a) to remove the term “presently” and clarify that the refinancing provisions apply to “existing” HECM loans, including those assigned under §§ 206.107(a)(1) and 206.121(b). This change makes these HECM loans eligible for the reduced MIP rate for refinanced HECM loans.
HUD generally publishes regulatory changes for public comment before issuing them for effect, in accordance with its own regulations on rulemaking in 24 CFR part 10. Part 10, however, does provide in § 10.1 for exceptions from that general rule where the Department finds good cause to omit advance notice and public participation. The good cause requirement is satisfied when the prior public procedure is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Department finds that good cause exists to publish this interim rule for effect without first soliciting public comment.
The change being made to the maximum claim amount date is a procedural one, which creates no detriment or presents any administrative burden to HECM-insured borrowers or the public generally. HUD's regulations require the date that the maximum claim amount is to be established, but the date currently in the regulations is not one that is normally documented in HUD's systems. Moving the date the maximum claim amount is calculated to the date of closing would have no adverse consequences and would provide a more precise date that can be tracked by the Federal Housing Administration's systems. Since this is merely a procedural matter, advance public comment is not necessary.
Similarly, the eligibility of non-default HECM loans assigned to HUD under provisions particular to the HECM program has no potential risk of
The interim rule involves external administrative or fiscal requirements or procedures that are related to loan limits and rate or cost determinations and that do not constitute a development decision affecting the physical condition of specific project areas or building sites. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6), this rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This proposed rule would not have a significant impact on entities because the establishment of a date of maximum claim amount is an automated process and merely changing the date as of which the calculation is made imposes no additional burden on any entity. Allowing for discounted MIPs for refinancings provides a benefit to borrowers and presents no impact on any business entities.
Accordingly, the undersigned certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Notwithstanding HUD's determination that this rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, HUD specifically invites comments regarding any less burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's objectives, as described in the preamble to this rule.
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule would not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and on the private sector. This proposed rule will not impose any federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, within the meaning of UMRA.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Program number is 14.183.
Aged, Condominiums, Loan programs—housing and community development, Mortgage insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
12 U.S.C. 1715b, 1715z-1720; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
(a) * * * HUD may, upon application by a mortgagee, insure any mortgage given to refinance an existing home equity conversion mortgage insured under this part, including loans assigned to the Secretary as described in § 206.107(a)(1) and § 206.121(b) under this part.