Agricultural Marketing Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Forest Service
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Western Area Power Administration
Management and Budget Office
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Employment Standards Administration
Management and Budget Office
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway 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.
Office of Personnel Management.
Final rule.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing the final regulations that set forth rules for the administration of the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP).
Anne Easton, (202) 606-0770, or
On February 4, 2003, interim regulations (68 FR 5530) governing the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP) became effective. There was a 60-day comment period. Nine comments were received in all regarding the regulations.
One commenter suggested that OPM revise its regulations to include information and procedures relating to other Federal statutes and regulations. OPM declines to do so. These regulations are for the purpose of providing information and guidance regarding the FLTCIP and do not purport to address the applicability or inapplicability of other Federal statutes or regulations to the FLTCIP.
Two commenters suggested that we broaden the definition of “qualified relative” to include domestic partners of Federal employees. We have determined that at this time we are not going to add any additional groups to those defined in statute.
Five commenters requested that we delete or modify § 875.407, which states that the Carrier determines the insurability of all applicants and that the Carrier's decision may not be appealed to OPM. They state that the insurance underwriting and the Carrier-determined criteria are not consistent with the intent of the FLTCIP statute. However, we believe that Congressional intent is clear upon reading of the statute. Section 9002(e)(3) of title 5, United States Code, specifically states that “(n)othing in this chapter shall be considered to require that long-term care insurance coverage be guaranteed to an eligible individual.”
Our intent in administering this Program is to offer coverage to eligible individuals but also to maintain competitive premiums. To guarantee coverage to all eligible individuals or all members of the workforce, regardless of their health, would require significantly higher premiums than are now being charged. This could jeopardize the viability of the Program as the more healthy individuals may choose to purchase their coverage elsewhere.
Four commenters requested that OPM enact an appeal process for insurability decisions made by the Carrier. OPM believes the current process ensures that individuals with adequate training are able to conduct the proper review of appeals. In addition, appeals that go beyond the internal review processes of Long Term Care Partners are handled by an independent, third party vendor, approved by OPM. We believe it is in the best interest of the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program to leave insurability decisions to trained underwriters, as we do with the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Program.
One commenter suggested that we change § 875.104(c) to clarify the enrollee's right to appeal, specifically clarifying that any appeal of the Carrier's reconsideration decision is to be made directly to the Carrier and not OPM. We agree that this clarification is helpful, and are making the change. The same commenter also suggested that we change the term “misconduct” in § 875.210(b) (1) to “gross misconduct.” We decline to do so, since relevant Federal law and regulations refer to and describe “misconduct,” not “gross misconduct.”
We are also taking this opportunity to make several minor changes and clarifications to the regulation.
We are clarifying in § 875.101 the definition of “Actively at Work.” We are broadening paragraph (1)(i) of the definition in two areas. The interim regulations stated that to be considered actively at work, you must be reporting for work “at your usual place of employment or other location to which Government business requires you to travel.” We are clarifying the language to ensure that a day spent at a telecommuting location counts as reporting for work. Also, the interim regulations did not specifically state that the requirement to be reporting for work is met with one-half day of active work, although this is how the requirement has been administered. The new language makes this clear.
In addition, we are removing paragraph (1)(iii), which stated that any type of leave or absence from work does not count as being actively at work (except that an alternative work schedule's scheduled day off does count as a day actively at work). This deletion means that an alternative work schedule's scheduled day off will not count as a day actively at work. It is treated just as a day on any other type of leave would be treated; that is, a day not actively at work. However, to offset this change we are liberalizing the actively at work requirement in § 875.404(b)(2) to give employees an entire week, rather than one day, to meet the requirement. With that change, paragraph (b)(2)(iii) became redundant to paragraph (b)(2)(i); thus we deleted the entire paragraph for clarity's sake.
When the interim regulations were published, the FLTCIP law specifically excluded all District of Columbia employees from participation, even though some are eligible for FEHB coverage. The regulations made this exclusion clear. However, since that time, Public Law 108-7 went into effect. Section 138(a) of the law makes employees and annuitants of the D.C. Courts (and their qualified relatives) eligible to apply for insurance under the Program and we held an Open Season for them. We would have changed § 875.201(a)(1) to indicate that these groups became eligible to apply for insurance under the Program. However, later in 2003, Congress enacted Public Law 108-136, the National Defense Authorization Act, which included new provisions for the Federal Long Term
Section 561 of that law amends Section 9001(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code. Three additional groups, and their qualified relatives, are now eligible to apply for insurance under the Program:
• DC Government employees and retirees who were first employed by the DC Government before October 1, 1987,
• Separated Federal employees with title to a deferred annuity, even if they aren't yet receiving that annuity, and
• Retired “grey” reservists, even if they are not receiving retirement pay.
Another change occurred in legislation (Pub. L. 107-314) giving the Secretary of Defense the authority to determine that employees of a Non-Appropriated Fund (NAF) instrumentality are eligible to apply for insurance under the Federal Program. In § 875.201(a) we are adding language to treat eligible NAF employees and retirees the same as Federal civilian employees or retirees, as the case may be, for this Part.
Notwithstanding our ability to reflect the addition of groups that have been added by congressional action this past year, it has become clear that the regulations do not easily keep up with these legislative changes. Therefore, § 101, “workforce member” is being amended to make it clear that when a new group is added by law it is not necessary to amend the regulations to reflect this change. We are changing applicable references to Federal civilian and Postal employees and members of the uniformed services throughout the regulations to “active workforce member.” This is to reflect the likelihood in the future of the addition of other groups. The changes in the wording occur in the table of contents and in §§ 101, 201, 204, 206, 211, 404, 405, and 410.
We are changing § 875.208 pertaining to eligibility rules with respect to qualified relatives of deceased individuals. The adult child of a Federal civilian survivor annuitant is considered to be a qualified relative who can apply for coverage, as is the current spouse of that survivor. But this is not the case for qualified relatives of the surviving spouse of a deceased member or a deceased retired member of the uniformed services who is receiving a survivor annuity. Neither their adult children nor their current spouses are considered qualified relatives. We are changing the regulation to extend the same eligibility status to all adult children and current spouses of surviving spouses receiving an annuity, regardless of whether this is based on civilian or uniformed service status.
We are also adding a subsection (c) to § 402 to reflect that we provide an Open Season to employees of newly eligible groups that have been added to FLTCIP. Traditionally, this is a 60-day period where there is abbreviated underwriting (equivalent to what was done in 2002 when the Program first became available) for those active workforce members of the new group.
We are clarifying § 875.403 to state that there are two exceptions to the requirement for full underwriting outside of an open season. Those exceptions are described in § 875.206 and § 875.405 and are for new and newly eligible employees and their spouses, new and newly eligible active members of the uniformed services and their spouses, and the newly married spouses of eligible employees and active members of the uniformed services. They can apply with abbreviated underwriting within 60 days after becoming eligible.
As mentioned previously, we are changing the actively at work requirement in § 875.404(b) (2). An active workforce member who submits an abbreviated underwriting application must now be actively at work at least 1 day during the calendar week immediately before the week that contains the person's original effective date. Interim regulations required that the person be actively at work on the original effective date. If that date fell on a weekend or holiday, the person had to be actively at work on the last workday before that date for coverage to become effective. This change will make it easier for employees to meet the actively at work requirement and should result in fewer postponements of coverage effective dates.
This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866.
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects only Federal, Postal and D.C. Government employees and annuitants, active members of the uniformed services, retired members of the uniformed services, their qualified relatives, and the FLTCIP carrier(s).
Administrative practices and procedures, Employee benefit plans, Government contracts, Government employees, Health insurance, Military personnel, Organization and functions, Retirement.
5 U.S.C. 9008.
(1) That as an active workforce member other than a member of the uniformed services you meet all of the following conditions:
(i) You are reporting for work at an approved work location and you work at least one-half of your regularly scheduled hours for that day; and
(ii) You are able to perform all the usual and customary duties of your employment on your regular work schedule.
(2) For a member of the uniformed services, that you are on active duty and are physically able to perform the duties of your position.
(c) If the Carrier upholds its denial (or does not respond within 60 days), you have the right to appeal its reconsideration decision directly to the Carrier.* * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * * There is a related exception, however: D.C. government employees and retirees who were first employed by the D.C. government before October 1, 1987 are eligible to apply for coverage.
(3) If you are a Non-Appropriated Fund (NAF) employee or retiree you are eligible to apply when the Secretary of Defense determines such eligibility for the NAF instrumentality that employs you, and you will be treated the same as a Federal civilian employee or retiree (as applicable) under this Part.
* * * Separated Federal employees with title to a deferred annuity may apply for coverage, even if they are not yet receiving that annuity.
(c) You are eligible to apply for coverage as a retired (“grey”) reservist, even if not yet receiving retirement pay.
(a) As a new, newly eligible, or returning active workforce member, you may apply as follows:
(1) If you are a new active workforce member entering a position that conveys eligibility, you may apply for coverage within 60 days after becoming eligible.
(2) If you are entering a position that conveys eligibility as an active workforce member from a position that did not convey eligibility, you may apply for coverage within 60 days after becoming eligible.
(3) If you return to active service after a break in service of 180 days or more to a position that conveys eligibility, you may apply for coverage within 60 days after becoming eligible.
(c) The underwriting requirements that will be required will be those applicable to active workforce members and their spouses during the last open season for enrollment before the date of your application.
* * * In this case, your adult children and your current spouse are also considered to be qualified relatives.
(a) If you applied as an active workforce member, and separate from service under the MRA+10 provisions of 5 U.S.C. 8412(g), or retire after you submit an application for coverage, but before your coverage becomes effective, you must reapply as an annuitant and submit to full underwriting requirements.
(b) If you applied as an active workforce member, and otherwise separate from service, but you are a qualified relative of another workforce member, you must reapply based on the additional underwriting requirements specified for that type of qualified relative.
(c) In situations where new eligibility groups are added to the Program, and OPM determines that it is appropriate to have an open season, OPM will provide notice and set the requirements for a special open season limited to those eligible individuals.
* * * The only exceptions to the full underwriting requirements outside of an open season are described in § 875.206 and § 875.405.
(b) * * *
(2) If you are an active workforce member and you are applying for coverage under abbreviated underwriting, you also must be actively at work at least 1 day during the calendar week immediately before the week which contains your coverage effective date for your coverage to become effective. You must inform the Carrier if you do not meet this requirement. In the event you do not meet this requirement, the Carrier will issue you a revised effective date, which will be the 1st day of the next month. You also must meet the actively at work requirement for any revised effective date for coverage to become effective, or you will be issued another revised effective date in the same manner.
Merit Systems Protection Board.
Final rule.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or the Board) is amending its rules relating to Board organization in 5 CFR part 1200 to more accurately reflect the Board's staff organization and functions. The Board is also amending its rules of practice and procedure in 5 CFR part 1201 to correct statutory references and to clarify certain matters.
Effective May 27, 2005.
Bentley M. Roberts, Clerk of the Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20419; (202) 653-7200; fax: (202) 653-7130; or e-mail:
The Board is amending its rules relating to Board
1200.10(a)(8) and (b)(8) are amended to reflect the fact that the Financial and Administrative Management Division has been re-designated as the Office of Financial and Administrative Management;
1200.10(a)(9) and (b)(9) are amended to reflect the fact that the Information Resources Management Division has been re-designated as the Office of Information Resources Management;
1200.10(b)(8) is amended to reflect the fact that the Board's accounting functions are performed by the U.S. Department of Treasury's Bureau of Public Debt instead of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center;
1201.3(a)(2) is amended to correct a statutory reference by amending “5 U.S.C. 7512” to read “5 U.S.C. 7511-7514”;
1201.3(a)(19) is amended by adding the word “and” at the end of the paragraph;
1201.3(a)(20) is deleted because 5 U.S.C. 3592(a)(3) was repealed in Pub. L. 107-296, Title XIII, § 1321(a)(2)(A)(iii), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2297;
1201.3(a)(21) is re-designated as (a)(20) and is amended to correct a statutory reference by deleting “22 U.S.C. 4011” and replacing it with “22 U.S.C. 4010a”;
1201.53(c) is amended to clarify that the Clerk of the Board has authority to rule on requests for exceptions to the payment of costs for a hearing tape recording or transcript made after the initial decision is issued;
1201.56(a)(1)(i) is amended to delete a reference to 5 U.S.C. 3592(a)(3) as that statute was repealed by Pub. L. 107-296, Title XIII, § 1321(a)(2)(A)(iii), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2297;
1201.81(a) is amended to clarify the extent of the Board's subpoena authority under 5 U.S.C. 1204(b)(2)(A);
1201.103(c) is amended to delete a reference to the Board's standards of conduct (the Board has no such standards of conduct);
1201.112(a) is amended to clarify that judges do not have authority to rule on requests for exceptions to the payment of costs for a hearing tape recording or transcript made after the initial decision is issued;
1201.125(c)(1) is amended to add a reference to 5 U.S.C. 7323; and
1201.126(c) is amended to be more clear and to add references to 5 U.S.C. 7323 and 7324.
MSPB organization.
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Government employees.
5 U.S.C. 1204(h) and (j).
(a) * * *
(8) Office of Financial and Administrative Management.
(9) Office of Information Resources Management.
(b) * * *
(8) Office of Financial and Administrative Management. The Office of Financial and Administrative Management administers the budget, accounting, procurement, property management, physical security, and general services functions of the Board. It also develops and coordinates internal management programs and projects, including review of internal controls agencywide. It performs certain personnel functions, including policy, training, drug testing, and the Employee Assistance Program. It also administers the agency's cross-servicing arrangements with the U.S. Department of Treasury's Bureau of Public Debt for accounting services and with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center for payroll and personnel action processing services and with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's APHIS Business Services for most human resources management services.
(9) Office of Information Resources Management. The Office of Information Resources Management develops, implements, and maintains the Board's automated information systems.
5 U.S.C. 1204 and 7701.
(a) * * *
(2) Removal, reduction in grade or pay, suspension for more than 14 days, or furlough for 30 days or less for cause that will promote the efficiency of the service. (5 CFR part 752, subparts C and D; 5 U.S.C. 7511-7514);
(19) Employment practices administered by the Office of Personnel Management to examine and evaluate the qualifications of applicants for appointment in the competitive service (5 CFR 300.104); and
(20) Reduction-in-force action affecting a career or career candidate appointee in the Foreign Service (Pub. L. 103-236, § 181(a)(2), to be codified at 22 U.S.C. 4010a).
(c) Exceptions to payment of costs. A party may not have to pay for a hearing tape recording or written transcript if he has a good reason to support a request for an exception. If a party believes he has a good reason and the request is made before the judge issues an initial decision, the party must send the request for an exception to the judge. If the request is made after the judge issues an initial decision, the request must be sent to the Clerk of the Board, who shall have authority to grant or deny such requests. The party must clearly state the reason for the request in an affidavit or sworn statement.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) It is brought under 5 U.S.C. 4303 or 5 U.S.C. 5335 and is supported by substantial evidence; or
(a) Request. Parties who wish to obtain subpoenas that would require the attendance and testimony of witnesses, or subpoenas that would require the production of documents or other evidence under 5 U.S.C. 1204(b)(2)(A),
(c) * * *
(2) Other persons. The Board may invoke appropriate sanctions against other offending parties.
(a) After issuing the initial decision, the judge will retain jurisdiction over a case only to the extent necessary to:
(1) Correct the transcript; when one is obtained;
(2) Rule on a request by the appellant for attorney fees, consequential damages, or compensatory damages under subpart H of this part;
(3) Process any petition for enforcement filed under subpart F of this part;
(4) Vacate an initial decision before that decision becomes final under § 1201.113 in order to accept a settlement agreement into the record.
(c) * * *
(1) In a Special Counsel complaint seeking disciplinary action against a Federal or District of Columbia government employee for a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7323 or 7324, where the administrative law judge finds that the violation does not warrant removal, the administrative law judge will issue a recommended decision to the Board in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 557.
(c) In any Hatch Act action in which the administrative law judge, or the Board on petition for review, finds that a Federal or District of Columbia government employee has violated 5 U.S.C. 7323 or 7324 and that the violation warrants removal, the administrative law judge, or the Board on petition for review, will issue a written decision ordering the employee's removal. If the administrative law judge finds a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7323 or 7324 and determines that removal is not warranted, the judge will issue a recommended decision under § 1201.125(c)(1) of this part. If the Board finds a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7323 or 7324 and determines by unanimous vote that the violation does not warrant removal, it will impose instead a penalty of not less than 30 days suspension without pay. If the Board finds by majority vote that the violation warrants removal, it will order the employee's removal.
Department of Agriculture.
Final rule.
This document amends the delegations of authority from the Secretary of Agriculture in order to reflect the Secretary's designation of the General Counsel as the Department official responsible for delegating the authority to other Department heads for considering, ascertaining, adjusting, determining, compromising, and settling, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and regulations of the Attorney General, claims less than $2500 that allege the negligence or wrongful act of an employee of a certain agency.
Effective May 27, 2005.
Kenneth E. Cohen, Assistant General Counsel, General Law Division, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Agriculture, Room 3311-S, Washington, DC 20250, telephone 202-720-5565.
Under 28. U.S.C. 2672 of the FTCA, the head of each Federal agency, including the Secretary of Agriculture, is able to adjudicate FTCA claims brought against his or her respective agency. Furthermore, the FTCA states that an agency may effect a settlement equal to or less than $25,000, without the “prior written approval of the Attorney General or his designee.” Through 7 CFR 2.31, the Secretary of Agriculture has delegated to the General Counsel the authority to “[c]onsider, ascertain, adjust, determine, compromise, and settle claims pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, as amended (28 U.S.C. 2671-2680), and the regulations of the Attorney General contained in 28 CFR part 14* * *”
The National Performance Review (NPR) determined that this limited delegation posed a barrier to the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the USDA. Pursuant to the recommendations of NPR, on September 11, 1996, the Secretary of Agriculture enacted a pilot program, created under Secretary's Memorandum 1030-29, by delegating to the Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs and the Administrator of APHIS the authority to adjudicate claims under $2500 submitted pursuant to the FTCA. The pilot program proved to be highly successful. During this program, adjudication time for this type of FTCA claim was reduced from a period of three to six months to less than two weeks. Additionally, payment processing time was reduced from ten days to as little as one day.
Based on the success of this pilot program, the delegations of authority of the Department of Agriculture are amended so that the General Counsel is now able to delegate the authority to another agency head to consider, ascertain, adjust, determine, compromise, and settle, pursuant to the FTCA and regulations of the Attorney General, claims less than $2500 that allege the negligence or wrongful act of an employee of a particular USDA agency.
This rule relates to internal agency management. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, notice of proposed rule making and opportunity for comment are not required and this rule may be made effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Authority delegations (Government agencies).
7 U.S.C. 6912(a)(1), 5 U.S.C. 301; Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, 3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 1024.
(a) Consider, ascertain, adjust, determine, compromise, and settle claims pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, as amended (28 U.S.C. 2671-2680), and the regulations of the Attorney General contained in 28 CFR part 14; delegate the authority to consider, ascertain, adjust, determine, compromise, and settle, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act as amended (28 U.S.C. 2671-2680) and the regulations of the Attorney General contained in 28 CFR part 14, claims less than $2500 that allege the negligence or wrongful act of an employee of a USDA agency; and consider, ascertain, adjust, determine compromise, and settle claims pursuant to section 920 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Public Law 104-127 (7 U.S.C. 2262a).
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Interim final rule with request for comments.
This rule suspends indefinitely all remaining handling and most reporting requirements under Marketing Order No. 993, beginning August 1, 2005. The marketing order regulates the handling of dried prunes produced in California and is administered locally by the Prune Marketing Committee (committee). This rule also indefinitely extends the suspensions of the outgoing inspection and prune import regulations, and volume control regulations, currently temporarily suspended until August 1, 2006, and August 1, 2008, respectively.
Effective August 1, 2005; comments received by July 26, 2005 will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or E-mail:
Terry Vawter, Marketing Specialist, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street, Suite 102B, Fresno, California 93721; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906; or Kathy Finn, Formal Rulemaking Team Leader, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938.
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or E-mail:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 993, both as amended (7 CFR part 993), regulating the handling of dried prunes produced in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The marketing agreement and order are effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule suspends handling and reporting requirements under the marketing order and the prune import regulation, beginning with the 2005-2006 crop year, and continuing
Section 993.90(a) of the prune marketing order provides, in part, that the Secretary “shall terminate or suspend the operation of any or all of the provisions of this subpart, whenever he finds that such provisions do not tend to effectuate the declared policy of the “Act.” Information from the committee, or other sources, may be used by the Secretary in making that determination.
Being cognizant that some growers and packers believe the marketing order has become overly complex and restrictive in today's more technologically-advanced, global market, the committee has held task force meetings over the last two years to solicit input from the industry on amending the order. However, little progress has resulted from those meetings concerning the best method to streamline the existing order and update it to reflect modern packing methods and marketing strategies. Thus, at its meeting on March 15, 2005, the committee voted unanimously to recommend to USDA that the handling and reporting requirements, including the currently-suspended outgoing inspection and volume-control regulations, be suspended indefinitely.
Because the committee would need to obtain information on the tonnage received by each handler to properly allocate committee member and alternate positions, and to assess handlers for their prorata share of expenses, the committee has arranged with the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the California Dried Plum Board (CDPB) to receive such information as needed from the CDPB. The committee would enter into an agreement with the CDPB for this purpose.
On April 16, 2004, the committee approved a motion to submit a request to USDA no later than January 15, 2005, to suspend the marketing order for one year, effective August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006. At that time, the committee believed that the lead time provided by this recommended suspension permits the industry to consider what portions of the suspended Federal marketing order should be added to the California state marketing order for dried plums.
In accordance with the committee's April 16, 2004, resolution, on December 8, 2004, it recommended to USDA that the marketing order be suspended for one crop year, beginning August 1, 2005, and requested that the current committee members be appointed as trustees during the suspension period.
On February 23, 2005, the Executive Committee reconsidered their recommendation to suspend the entire order and have the current members named as trustees. The Executive Committee made a subsequent recommendation to the committee to rescind the December 8, 2004, recommendation. The Executive Committee then recommended that the handling and reporting requirements be suspended indefinitely, and forwarded that revised recommendation to the full committee, as well. The revised recommendation also included extending the temporary suspensions of outgoing inspection and volume control regulations, which would have ended on August 1 of 2006 and 2008, respectively. As stated earlier, on March 15, 2005, the committee revised its recommendation accordingly.
Section 8e of the Act provides that when certain domestically-produced commodities, including prunes, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of that commodity must meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements. Since this rule indefinitely suspends the handling regulations, including grade, size, and quality requirements, these requirements will continue to be suspended in the import regulations. Currently, the prune import regulations are suspended through July 31, 2006.
U.S. imports of dried prunes are insignificant compared to U.S. production. In 2002, while the U.S. produced 158,000 tons of dried prunes, only 616 tons were imported. In that year, the domestically-produced tonnage was over 250 times larger than the imported tonnage.
In recent years, as volumes of domestically-produced prunes have fluctuated imports have also fluctuated, but imported prunes continue to represent a very small portion of the available prune products in the U.S. market.
Argentina, Chile, France, Mexico, Iran, and Turkey export prunes to the United States, with Argentina accounting for approximately 90 percent of all U.S. imports.
Under the order, §§ 993.48 through 993.59, and § 993.62 authorize requirements upon handlers to meet grade and size requirements, obtain both incoming and outgoing inspection, label prunes appropriately, and hold a portion of the crop in reserve. The order's rules and regulations establish similar requirements.
Currently, the provisions for outgoing inspection and reserve disposition are suspended in both the order and the order's rules and regulations until August 1, 2006, and August 1, 2008, respectively. This rule suspends indefinitely all the remaining handling requirements.
Under §§ 993.71 through 993.75, the order also includes authority to require that handlers file reports with the committee on acquisitions, accountings, holdings, uses, sales, and shipments of prunes. The order's rules and regulations include similar requirements, except that some of these provisions are currently suspended, as they relate to volume control requirements.
This action suspends indefinitely those requirements, along with other handling requirements and the reporting requirements.
As stated previously, the committee would enter into an agreement with the CDPB to collect information necessary for allocating committee member and alternate member positions and for continuing assessments on a limited basis.
As noted, handling and reporting requirements will be suspended indefinitely. Included are provisions in the order regarding outgoing inspection and volume control regulations, which are currently temporarily suspended until August 1, 2006, and August 1, 2008, respectively.
In a conforming action, the provisions related to marketing policy are suspended, as well. Under the order, the committee is required to establish a marketing policy annually if handling requirements are recommended. If no handling regulations are recommended due to suspension, no marketing policy statement is required.
Certain provisions and parts of certain provisions are currently suspended until a specified time. This rule will indefinitely suspend those provisions or parts of certain provisions, as well as additional provisions. The following list
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 1,100 producers of dried prunes in the production area and approximately 22 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $6,000,000.
An industry profile shows that 8 out of 21 handlers (38 percent) shipped over $6,000,000 worth of dried prunes in 2003 and could be considered large handlers by the Small Business Administration. Thirteen of the 21 handlers (62 percent) shipped under $6,000,000 worth of prunes and could be considered small handlers. An estimated 32 producers, or less than 3 percent of the 1,100 total producers, would be considered large growers with annual incomes over $750,000. The majority of handlers and producers of California dried prunes may be classified as small entities.
In addition, there are an estimated 30 importers, and one third-party entity that performs inspections under the order. USDA does not have precise information on these entities, but believes that the majority of the importers and the third-party inspection agency are small entities.
As recommended by the Committee, this rule indefinitely suspends handling and reporting requirements under the marketing order, including extending the temporary suspensions of outgoing inspection requirements and reporting regulations and the import regulations.
This action reduces the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for California prune handlers and importers; and reduces the committee's, prune handlers”, and prune importers' associated administrative costs. This action also reduces the number of inspections performed by the inspection agency for both handlers and importers.
The benefits of this interim final rule are expected to accrue to all prune handlers and importers regardless of their size.
The deliberations about suspension of the marketing order for one year began at meetings held on April 3 and May 1, 2003, and continued to the present. In April 2004, the committee believed that such a suspension provides the industry with an opportunity to operate without regulation. For some members, a suspension was preferable to termination.
At the December 8, 2004, meeting, the committee discussed the impact of and alternatives to suspending the entire marketing order, and at the February 23,
At the March 15, 2005, committee meeting, the members received the recommendations of the Executive Committee and, being in unanimous accord, voted to rescind their previous recommendation to suspend the entire order in favor of recommending that the handling and reporting requirements be suspended indefinitely, including the currently-suspended outgoing inspection and volume control regulations.
The suspension permits the industry to operate for an indefinite period of time without most order requirements. This will allow growers and handlers time to consider which provisions in the marketing order might continue to meet their future needs.
This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California dried prune handlers. On the contrary, this action will remove reporting requirements on all prune handlers indefinitely. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
The Department has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this interim final rule.
In addition, the committee's meetings were widely publicized throughout the prune industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in committee deliberations on all issues at any meeting in the last two years, including task force meetings. Like all committee meetings, the April 16 and December 8, 2004, meetings; and the February 23 and March 15, 2005, meetings were public meetings; and all entities, both large and small, were encouraged to express views on this issue. The committee itself is composed of twenty-two members. Seven are handlers, fourteen are producers, and one is a public member. Moreover, the committee, its Executive Committee, and the marketing order task force, provide broad industry representation. Thus, this rule reflects their considerable deliberations and determinations. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
The U.S. Trade Representative has reviewed this interim final rule and concurs with its issuance.
This rule invites comments on changes to the handling and reporting requirements prescribed under the marketing order and the import regulation. Any comments timely received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that this interim final rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Marketing agreements, Plums, Prunes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dates, Filberts, Food grades and standards, Imports, Nuts, Plums, Prunes, Raisins, Reporting and recordingkeeping requirements, Walnuts.
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Turbomeca S.A. Arrius 1A turboshaft engines. This AD requires initial and repetitive testing of the Free Turbine Overspeed Protection System. This AD results from an investigation into the Digital Electronic Control Unit (DECU) that revealed a malfunction of the Free Turbine Overspeed Protection System. This malfunction can exist despite the DECU passing all functional tests
Effective June 13, 2005. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of June 13, 2005.
We must receive any comments on this AD by July 26, 2005.
Use one of the following addresses to comment on this AD:
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to
• Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001.
• Fax: (202) 493-2251.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; telephone 33 05 59 74 40 00, fax 33 05 59 74 45 15, for the service information identified in this AD.
Christopher Spinney, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone (781) 238-7175; fax (781) 238-7199.
The Direction Generale de L'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified us that an unsafe condition might exist on Turbomeca S.A. Arrius 1A turboshaft engines. The DGAC advises that an investigation into the DECU revealed a malfunction of the Free Turbine Overspeed Protection System. This malfunction can exist despite the DECU passing all functional tests specified in the Engine Maintenance Manual. A malfunction of this overspeed system could lead to uncontained engine failure if a free turbine overspeed occurs.
We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of Turbomeca Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin No. A319 77 0804, dated March 24, 2005, that describes procedures for testing the DECU Free Turbine Overspeed Protection System. The DGAC classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued AD F-2005-063, dated April 27, 2005, and AD UF-2005-063 R1, dated May 4, 2005, in order to ensure the airworthiness of these Arrius 1A engines in France.
This Turbomeca Arrius 1A engine is manufactured in France and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Under this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the findings of the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
The unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other Turbomeca Arrius 1A turboshaft engines of the same type design. This AD requires initial testing of the Free Turbine Overspeed Protection System within 25 flight hours of the effective date of the AD, and repetitive testing at each functional test of the DECU Free Turbine Overspeed Protection System. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained engine failure in the event of a free turbine overspeed. You must use the service information described previously to perform the actions required by this AD.
Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we have found that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD 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 was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
You may examine the docket that contains the AD, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the DMS Docket Offices between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 13, 2005.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Turbomeca S.A. Arrius 1A turboshaft engines. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Eurocopter AS355N Twinstar helicopters.
(d) This AD results from an investigation into the Digital Electronic Control Unit (DECU) that revealed a malfunction of the Free Turbine Overspeed Protection System can exist despite the DECU passing all functional tests specified in the Engine Maintenance Manual. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained engine failure in the event of a free turbine overspeed.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done.
(f) Within 25 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, test the DECU Free Turbine Overspeed Protection System, using paragraph 2.B. of the Instructions to be Incorporated of Turbomeca Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin No. A319 77 0804, dated March 24, 2005.
(g) If the DECU Free Turbine Overspeed Protection System fails the test specified in paragraph (f) of this AD, replace the DECU before further flight.
(h) Repeat the testing specified in paragraph (f) of this AD at each functional test of the DECU Free Turbine Overspeed Protection System. Information on the functional tests of the DECU Free Turbine Overspeed Protection System can be found in the Engine Maintenance Manual, Section 77-30-01. Recommended intervals for the functional test of the Turbine Overspeed Protection System can be found in the Engine Maintenance Manual, Section 05-10-02.
(i) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(j) DGAC airworthiness directive F-2005-063, dated April 27, 2005, and UF-2005, 063 R1, dated May 4, 2005, also address the subject of this AD.
(k) You must use Turbomeca Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin No. A319 77 0804, dated March 24, 2005, to perform the tests required by this AD. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service bulletin in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; telephone 33 05 59 74 40 00, fax 33 05 59 74 45 15, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001, on the Internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes. This AD requires replacing eight brake fuses of the hydraulic quantity limiter with new or modified and reidentified fuses. This AD is prompted by reports indicating that brake fuses of the hydraulic quantity limiter of the main landing gear have failed. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of both hydraulic and brake systems if one fuse on each hydraulic system were to fail simultaneously, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective July 1, 2005.
The incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 1, 2005.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024).
Albert Lam, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety/Mechanical and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5346; fax (562) 627-5210.
The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an AD for certain McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes. That action, published in the
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been submitted on the proposed AD.
One commenter supports the proposed AD.
One commenter has no technical objection to the proposed AD, but would like the vendor part numbers to be included with the Boeing part numbers in paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed AD. The commenter provided no justification for its request.
We do not agree. Paragraph (g) of the AD refers to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-32A0031, dated September 10, 2004, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required replacement. Note (a) of paragraph 2.C.1. of the service bulletin identifies the vendor part numbers that correspond to the Boeing part numbers referenced in the AD. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to specify vendor part numbers in either paragraph (g) or (h) of the AD when the referenced service bulletin contains that information. We have made no change to the AD in this regard.
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments that have been submitted, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.
There are about 133 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet and 103 airplanes on the U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Amendment 39-14105. Docket No. FAA-2004-19987; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-203-AD.
(a) This AD becomes effective July 1, 2005.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model 717-200 airplanes, fuselage numbers 5002 through 5134 inclusive; certificated in any category.
(d) This AD was prompted by reports indicating that brake fuses of the hydraulic quantity limiter of the main landing gear (MLG) have failed. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of both hydraulic and brake systems if one fuse on each hydraulic system
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) At the applicable time in Table 1 of this AD, do the action required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(g) Replace the eight brake fuses of the hydraulic quantity limiter by doing either Option 1 or Option 2 in Table 2 of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-32A0031, dated September 10, 2004.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-32A0031 refers to Parker Hannifin Corporation Stratoflex Products Division Service Bulletin 836SD-8-6-20, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2004, as an additional source of service information for modifying and reidentifying the brake fuses.
(h) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a brake fuse, P/N 7918282-5503, on any airplane.
(i) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(j) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-32A0031, dated September 10, 2004, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approves the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To get copies of the service information, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC. To review copies of the service information, go to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to certain Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. That AD currently requires inspections for fatigue cracking of the horizontal stabilizer pivot bulkhead, and repetitive inspections or other follow-on actions. That action also provides a permanent repair, which is optional for airplanes with no cracks, and, if accomplished, ends the repetitive inspections. For airplanes on which the permanent repair is not installed, this new AD requires repetitive inspections of the same and additional inspection locations at new inspection intervals; a one-time torque test; and related investigative and corrective actions. For airplanes on which the permanent repair is installed, this new AD would require repetitive inspections of the repaired area and, if necessary, corrective action. This AD is prompted by reports of loose tension bolts and crack indications in the fuselage skin. We are issuing this AD to find and fix fatigue cracking of the horizontal stabilizer pivot bulkhead and adjacent structure, which could result in loss of the horizontal stabilizer.
This AD becomes effective July 1, 2005.
The incorporation by reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0078, Revision 3, dated November 15, 2001; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0078, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2002, as listed in the AD is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 1, 2005.
On May 24, 2001 (66 FR 23538, May 9, 2001), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53-0078, Revision 2, dated April 19, 2001.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.
Suzanne Masterson, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 917-6441; fax (425) 917-6590.
The FAA proposed to amend part 39 of the
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been submitted on the proposed AD.
Two commenters request that we revise the compliance language in paragraph (n) of the proposed AD to specify that the earlier-occurring threshold determines the compliance time.
We agree that we inadvertently omitted the phrase “whichever occurs first” in paragraph (n)(1). We have revised the final rule accordingly.
One commenter, an operator, requests that we revise paragraph (n) of the proposed AD to add a grace period to the inspection threshold. The commenter reports that some of its airplanes could exceed the proposed thresholds and would consequently be grounded as of the effective date of the AD. The commenter recommends a grace period of 18 months.
We agree with the request. A substantial portion of the Model 767 fleet has accumulated more than 25,000 total flight cycles, and the cited service bulletin (767-53A0078) for this AD was originally issued October 15, 1998—more than 72 months ago. Therefore, some airplanes indeed could have already exceeded the thresholds in proposed paragraph (n). We find that an 18-month grace period will provide an acceptable level of safety. We have revised the final rule accordingly by adding the grace period in new paragraph (n)(3).
One commenter, an operator, has no objections to the proposed AD but notes a potential discrepancy in certain requirements. The commenter states that paragraphs (l)(1)(ii) and (o) of the proposed AD would require inspection of airplanes that meet certain criteria in the service bulletin but does not specify any requirement for airplanes that do not meet those criteria. The commenter requests that we clarify the proposed AD to address this case.
We agree that clarification might be necessary. Paragraph (l)(1)(i) of this AD is required for all airplanes; paragraph (l)(1)(ii) is an additional action for certain airplanes. Cracking cannot be reliably detected—using the inspections in paragraph (l)—at critical fastener locations hidden by external doublers, rub strips, or wear plates; therefore, the open-hole high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections are required only for those airplanes that meet those criteria. For those airplanes, the open-hole HFEC inspections are required in addition to the surface inspections (HFEC, low frequency eddy current, and detailed visual inspections) required by paragraph (l) of this AD. We have revised paragraphs (l)(1)(ii) and (o) of this final rule to include this information for clarification.
One commenter requests a revision to the section titled “Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin” in the preamble of the proposed AD. The commenter requests that we include a reference to the Boeing Airworthiness Representative (AR) in addition to the Designated Engineering Representative (DER).
We partially agree with the request. All active Boeing Company DERs on the Model 767 fleet have been converted to ARs. Although the referenced section of the preamble is not restated in a final rule, we have replaced the DER reference in paragraph (p)(3) of this final rule.
One commenter requests that we revise certain formatting for the paragraph designations in the proposed AD. Specifically, in the proposed requirement to “[d]o all the actions in paragraph (l)(1),” the commenter notes the potential confusion between the lower case letter “L” and the numeral “1,” and suggests that using italics could help the reader differentiate between the two forms.
We agree that certain paragraph designations might be difficult to distinguish. However, the
We have identified the inspections in paragraph (l)(1) in this final rule as “detailed” and “special detailed” inspections. New Note 3 in this final rule defines a special detailed inspection.
Boeing has received a Delegation Option Authorization (DOA). We have revised this final rule to delegate the authority to approve an alternative method of compliance for any repair required by this AD to the Authorized Representative for the Boeing DOA Organization rather than the Designated Engineering Representative (DER).
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments that have been submitted, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
This AD will affect about 699 airplanes worldwide. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective July 1, 2005.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 2001-09-13, amendment 39-12220.
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes, as listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0078, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2002; certificated in any category.
(d) This AD was prompted by reports of loose tension bolts and crack indications in the fuselage skin. We are issuing this AD to find and fix fatigue cracking of the horizontal stabilizer pivot bulkhead and adjacent structure, which could result in loss of the horizontal stabilizer.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) Prior to the accumulation of 8,000 total flight cycles, or within 90 days after May 24, 2001 (the effective date of AD 2001-09-13), whichever occurs later, perform detailed, surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC), and low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspections, as applicable, for cracking of the forward and aft outer chord, aft mid chord, and upper and lower intercostals of the Station 1809.5 bulkhead. Do the inspections per Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53-0078, Revision 2, dated April 19, 2001; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0078, Revision 3, dated November 15, 2001.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.”
(g) For areas where no cracking is found during the inspection per paragraph (f) of this AD: Repeat the inspections in paragraph (f) thereafter at the intervals specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, per Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53-0078, Revision 2, dated April 19, 2001; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0078, Revision 3, dated November 15, 2001; until paragraph (i), (l)(1), or (m) of this AD has been done.
(1) Repeat the detailed inspection every 3,000 flight cycles, or 18 months, whichever comes first.
(2) Repeat the surface HFEC and LFEC inspections every 6,000 flight cycles or 36 months, whichever comes first.
(h) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (f) or (g) of this AD, before further flight, repair per paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For cracking of the aft outer chord, aft mid chord, or any intercostal: Repair per a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For a repair method to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by this
(2) For cracking of the forward outer chord: Repair per Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53-0078, Revision 2, dated April 19, 2001; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0078, Revision 3, dated November 15, 2001; or Revision 4, dated September 26, 2002; except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD. Procedures for repair include open-hole HFEC inspections for cracking of certain fastener holes of the chord and longeron fitting, detailed inspections for cracking of adjacent structure, and installation of new chords, splices, fairings, and brackets. If the time-limited repair is done per the service bulletin, do a detailed inspection of the repaired area within 1,500 flight cycles or 9 months after installation of the temporary repair, whichever comes first, and do paragraph (h)(2)(i) or (h)(2)(ii) of this AD, per the service bulletin. As of the effective date of this AD, inspect only in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0078, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2002.
(i) If no cracking is found during the inspection of the repaired area: Within 3,000 flight cycles or 18 months after installation of the time-limited repair, whichever comes first, do paragraph (i), “Permanent Repair,” of this AD.
(ii) If any cracking is found during the inspection of the repaired area: Before further flight, do paragraph (i), “Permanent Repair,” of this AD.
(i) Except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD, installation of the permanent repair of the forward outer chord, including accomplishment of all actions specified in Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53-0078, Revision 2, dated April 19, 2001; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0078, Revision 3, dated November 15, 2001; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0078, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2002; terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, install the permanent repair only in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0078, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2002.
Installation of the permanent repair before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53-0078, dated October 15, 1998; Revision 1, dated September 9, 1999; is acceptable for compliance with paragraph (i) of this AD.
(j) For repairs of the forward outer chord: Where the service bulletin specifies to ask Boeing for repair data, repair per a method approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, or per data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such findings. For a repair method to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by this paragraph, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the Manager's approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
(k) For airplanes that have not had the permanent repair installed in accordance with paragraph (i) of this AD, at the later of the times in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD, do all the actions in paragraph (l) of this AD.
(1) Within 3,000 flight cycles or 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(2) Prior to the accumulation of 8,000 total flight cycles.
(l) Do all the actions in paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD in accordance with “Part 1—Inspection” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0078, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2002.
(1) Do a detailed inspection and applicable special detailed inspections (
For the purposes of this AD, a special detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. The examination is likely to make extensive use of specialized inspection techniques and/or equipment. Intricate cleaning and substantial access or disassembly procedure may be required.”
(i) Repeat the inspections, except for the open-hole inspections, at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles until the permanent repair in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD has been done.
(ii) For airplanes that meet the criteria in flag note 1 of Figure 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0078, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2002 (close ream fasteners, external doubler, rub strip, or wear plate installed): Repeat the open-hole HFEC inspections for cracking of the forward outer chord, splice fitting, tension fitting, and fuselage skin in Step 7, Figure 2, of the service bulletin at intervals not to exceed 9,000 flight cycles until the permanent repair in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD has been done. The open-hole HFEC inspections are required in addition to the surface inspections (HFEC, LFEC, and detailed visual inspections) required by paragraph (l)(1)(i) of this AD.
(2) Do a one-time torque test and related investigative and corrective actions of the tension bolt at lower stringer 12A. If any corrosion or damage is found in the bolt hole, and the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair per a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or per data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(m) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (l), (n) and (o) of this AD, before further flight, repair in accordance with paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For cracks found during the inspection required by paragraph (n) or (o) of this AD, or for cracks found in the aft outer chord, tension fitting, splice fitting, aft mid chord, or any intercostal: Before further flight, repair per a method approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO; or per data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(2) For cracks in the forward outer chord: Prior to further flight, do the time limited repair in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, or do the permanent repair in paragraph (i) of this AD. If the time limited repair is done, do the other applicable actions in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD at the times specified in that paragraph. As of the effective date of this AD, only repairs done per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0078, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2002, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
(n) For any airplane on which the permanent repair in paragraph (i) or (m)(2) of this AD is installed, at the latest of the times in paragraphs (n)(1), (n)(2), and (n)(3) of this AD: Do detailed, LFEC, and applicable HFEC inspections of the forward and aft outer chords, tension fitting, splice fitting, and splice angle for cracks; and a detailed inspection of the aft mid chord and aft upper and lower intercostals for cracks. Do the inspections in accordance with “Part 6—After Modification or After-Repair Inspection Program” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0078, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2002. Repeat each inspection, except as provided by paragraph (o) of this AD, thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles, or 36 months, whichever occurs first.
(1) Within 12,000 flight cycles or 72 months, whichever occurs first, after the repair accomplished in accordance with paragraph (i) or (m)(2) of this AD.
(2) Prior to the accumulation of 25,000 total flight cycles.
(3) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD.
(o) For any airplane on which the permanent repair in paragraph (i) or (m)(2) of
(p)(1) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Seattle ACO, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(2) AMOCs approved previously per AD 2001-09-13, amendment 39-12220, are approved as AMOCs with the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such findings.
(q) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, the actions must be done in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53-0078, Revision 2, dated April 19, 2001; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0078, Revision 3, dated November 15, 2001; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0078, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2002; as applicable.
(1) The incorporation by reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0078, Revision 3, dated November 15, 2001; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0078, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2002; is approved by the Director of the Federal Register, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) The incorporation by reference of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53-0078, Revision 2, dated April 19, 2001, was approved previously by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 24, 2001 (66 FR 23538, May 9, 2001).
(3) To get copies of the service information, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. You may view the AD docket at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC. To review copies of the service information, go to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604) airplanes modified by STC SA4900SW. This AD requires revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to require repetitive visual checks of the microphone jack assemblies on both control columns to detect damage that may interfere with movement of the control column. This AD also requires modification of the microphone jack assembly, related investigative actions, and corrective actions if necessary, which allows the AFM revision to be removed from the AFM. This AD is prompted by a report of a rejected take-off and subsequent runway overrun due to restricted movement of the co-pilot's control column, which resulted in collapse of the nose landing gear and consequent damage of the forward fuselage. We are issuing this AD to prevent a damaged microphone jack assembly from interfering with movement of the control column, which could result in loss of control of the airplane.
Effective May 27, 2005.
The incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 27, 2005.
We must receive comments on this AD by July 26, 2005.
Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this AD.
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to
• Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590.
• Fax: (202) 493-2251.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Raytheon Aircraft Company, P.O. Box 3356, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203; or Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada.
You can examine the contents of this AD docket on the Internet at
You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at
John Hardie, Aerospace Engineer, Special Certification Office, ASW-190, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137-4298; telephone (817) 222-5194; fax (817) 222-5785.
We have received a report indicating that a Bombardier Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplane experienced a rejected take-off and subsequently overran the runway. The nose landing gear collapsed, and the forward fuselage was damaged as a result of the incident. The
The microphone jack assembly on the affected airplane was installed incidental to Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA4900SW. Therefore, we find that all Bombardier Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604) airplanes modified by that STC may be subject to the same unsafe condition.
Raytheon has issued Service Bulletin SB 23-3727, dated May 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for modifying the microphone jack assembly, and performing related investigative actions and corrective actions if necessary. The related investigative actions include performing a general visual inspection of the cover of the pilot's and co-pilot's control columns for cracking around the existing fastener holes for the microphone bracket assembly; a Non-Destructive Test (NDT) of the microphone jack assembly for any damage, including cracks; and a measurement of the distance between existing fastener holes and the location of the new fastener holes. (The service bulletin specifies various alternatives for performing the NDT including dye-penetrant, ultrasonic, and eddy current methods.) The service bulletin specifies to contact Raytheon if any cracking or damage is found, or if the minimum distance between existing and new fastener holes is below a certain limit. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.
Bombardier Advisory Wire AW600-00-2247, Revision 2, dated March 24, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Section 3.0, Action, of the Advisory Wire recommends a repetitive inspection to “verify the security of the installation of the [microphone jack] receptacle.” The intent of this inspection is identical to that of the repetitive visual checks specified in the airplane flight manual (AFM) revision required by paragraph (f) of this AD.
These airplane models are manufactured in Canada and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of § 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. We have evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for products of this type design that are modified by STC SA4900SW and certificated for operation in the United States.
Therefore, we are issuing this AD to prevent a damaged microphone jack assembly from interfering with movement of the control column, which could result in loss of control of the airplane. This AD requires revising the AFM to require repetitive visual checks of the microphone jack assemblies on both control columns to detect damage that may interfere with movement of the control column. We have determined that the checks specified in the AFM revision must be performed by the flightcrew because of the possibility that damage to the microphone jack assembly may occur between the time an inspection is performed by maintenance personnel and the time the flightcrew enters the flight deck to prepare for the flight. (For example, a member of the flightcrew may inadvertently step on the microphone jack assembly, causing it to bend.) We have determined that it is possible for the flightcrew to perform the visual checks because the checks do not require tools, precision measuring equipment, training, or pilot logbook endorsements, or the use of or reference to technical data that are not contained in the body of the AD.
This AD also requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the AD and Service Information,” after which the AFM revision may be removed from the AFM.
Although the Raytheon service bulletin specifies that operators may contact the manufacturer for disposition of certain repair conditions, this proposed AD would require operators to repair those conditions according to a method approved by the FAA.
The Raytheon service bulletin recommends that the modification of the microphone jack assembly be accomplished before the next flight or within 15 days from receipt of the service bulletin, whichever is first. This AD specifies a compliance time for the modification of 15 flight hours or 15 days after the effective date of the AD, whichever is first. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, we considered the manufacturer's recommendation, the degree of urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, and the average utilization of the affected fleet. We also considered the recommendation for repetitive inspections in Bombardier Advisory Wire AW600-00-2247, Revision 2. (These repetitive inspections are similar to the repetitive visual checks specified in the AFM revision required by this AD.) In light of all of these factors, we find that, for the modification, a compliance time of 15 flight hours or 15 days, whichever is earlier, represents an appropriate interval of time for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety, provided that the microphone jack assembly is checked for damage before every flight. We find that this compliance time should provide an opportunity for affected operators to accomplish the modification without unnecessarily grounding airplanes. This difference has been coordinated with Raytheon.
Although the Accomplishment Instructions of the referenced service bulletin describe procedures for reporting accomplishment of the service bulletin, this AD does not require that action. We do not need this information from operators.
The Raytheon service bulletin includes a note in the Accomplishment Instructions to inform operators to contact Raytheon “should any difficulty be encountered” in accomplishing the service bulletin. We have included Note 3 in this proposed AD to clarify that any deviation from the instructions provided in the service bulletin must be approved as an alternative method of compliance under paragraph (i) of this proposed AD.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD; therefore, providing notice and opportunity for public comment before the AD is issued is impracticable, and good cause exists to make this AD effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment;
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 have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective May 27, 2005.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Bombardier Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604) airplanes; certificated in any category; modified by STC SA4900SW; excluding serial number (S/N) 3025; and including but not limited to the serial numbers listed in Table 1 of this AD.
(d) This AD was prompted by a report of a rejected take-off and subsequent runway overrun due to restricted movement of the control column, which resulted in collapse of the nose landing gear and consequent damage of the forward fuselage. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent a damaged microphone jack assembly from interfering with movement of the control column, which could result in loss of control of the airplane.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) Within 5 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Limitations and Normal Procedures section of the AFM to contain the following information. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM.
Bombardier Advisory Wire AW600-00-2247, Revision 2, dated March 24, 2005, provides additional information on damaged microphone jack assemblies and interference of damaged assemblies with movement of the control column.
(g) At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, modify the microphone jack assembly and do all related investigative actions and applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 23-3727, dated May 2005, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. Once this modification is complete, the AFM revision required by
(1) If damage that may interfere with the movement of the control column is found during any visual check performed in accordance with the AFM revision required by paragraph (f) of this AD: Before further flight.
(2) If no damage that may interfere with the movement of the control column is found during any visual check performed in accordance with the AFM revision required by paragraph (f) of this AD: Within 15 days or 15 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever is first.
(h) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by this AD, or if the distance between existing and new fastener holes is less than the limit specified in Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 23-3727, dated May 2005, and the service bulletin specifies contacting Raytheon for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the cracking or do other applicable corrective actions according to a method approved by the Manager, Special Certification Office, ASW-190, FAA. For a repair or corrective action method to be approved by the Manager, Special Certification Office, as required by this paragraph, the Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to this AD.
A note in the Accomplishment Instructions of the Raytheon service bulletin instructs operators to contact Raytheon if any difficulty is encountered in accomplishing the service bulletin. However, any deviation from the instructions provided in the service bulletin must be approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under paragraph (i) of this AD.
(i) The Manager, Special Certification Office, ASW-190, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(j) Bombardier Advisory Wire AW600-00-2247, Revision 2, dated March 24, 2005, addresses the subject of this AD.
(k) You must use Raytheon Service Bulletin SB 23-3727, dated May 2005, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approves the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To get copies of the service information, contact Raytheon Aircraft Company, P.O. Box 3356, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203; or Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW, room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC. To review copies of the service information, go to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; correction.
This document corrects information regarding the training course design for the repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) discussed in the preamble of the final rule, “Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft,” published in the
The final rule published at 69 FR 44772 (July 27, 2004) was effective September 1, 2004.
Michael W. Brown, Certification and General Aviation Operations Branch Manager (AFS-810), 202-267-8212.
In final rule FR Doc. 04-16577, beginning on page 44772 in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes a Class E surface area at Chillicothe, MO. It also modifies the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Chillicothe, MO.
The effect of this rule is to provide appropriate controlled Class E airspace for aircraft department from and executing instrument approach procedures to Chillicothe Municipal Airport and to segregate aircraft using instrument approach procedures in instrument conditions from aircraft operating in visual conditions.
Effective 0901 UTC, July 7, 2005.
Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2524.
On Tuesday, April 12, 2005, the FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 71 to establish a Class E surface area and to modify other Class E airspace at Chillicothe, MO (70 FR 19027). The proposal was to establish a Class E surface area at Chillicothe, MO. It was also to modify the Class E5 airspace area to bring it into compliance with FAA directives. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received.
This amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
This rule also revises the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Chillicothe, MO. An examination of this Class E airspace area for Chillicothe, MO revealed noncompliance with FAA directives. This corrects identified discrepancies by increasing the area from a 6.4-mile to a 6.9-mile radius of Chillicothe Municipal Airport, defining the extension to the airspace area in terms of the Chillicothe nondirectional radio beacon (NDB), modifying the bearing of the extension, correcting errors in the identified location of the Chillicothe NDB and defining airspace of appropriate dimensions to protect aircraft departing and executing instrument approach procedures to Chillicothe Municipal Airport. The airspace area is brought into compliance with FAA directives. Both areas will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts.
Class E airspace areas designated as surface areas are published in Paragraph 6002 of FAA Order 7400.9M, Airspace Designations and Reporting points, dated August 30, 2004, and effective September 16, 2004, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in Paragraph 6005 of the same Order. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
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 the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority since it contains aircraft executing instrument approach procedures to Chillicothe Municipal Airport.
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.
Within a 4.4-mile radius of Chillicothe Municipal Airport and within 2.5 miles each side of the 335° bearing from the Chillicothe NDB extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles northwest of the NDB.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of Chillicothe Municipal Airport and within 2.5 miles each side of the 335° bearing from the Chillicothe NDB extending from the 6.9-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles northwest of the NDB.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of an abbreviated new animal drug application (ANADA) filed by IMPAX Laboratories, Inc. The ANADA provides for veterinary prescription use of carprofen caplets in dogs for the relief of pain and inflammation associated with osteoarthritis.
This rule is effective May 27, 2005.
Daniel A. Benz, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-104), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0223, e-mail:
IMPAX Laboratories, Inc., 30831 Huntwood Ave., Hayward, CA 94544, filed ANADA 200-366 for veterinary prescription use of Carprofen Caplets in dogs for the relief of pain and inflammation associated with osteoarthritis. IMPAX Laboratories, Inc.'s Carprofen Caplets is approved as a generic copy of Pfizer, Inc.'s RIMADYL Caplets, approved under NADA 141-053. ANADA 200-366 is approved as of April 27, 2005, and 21 CFR 520.309 is amended to reflect the approval. The basis of approval is discussed in the freedom of information summary.
In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.
Animal drugs.
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(b)
(1) No. 000069 for use of products described in paragraph (a) of this section as in paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) No. 000115 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section as in paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2)(i), and (d)(3) of this section.
(d) * * *
(2)
(ii) For the control of postoperative pain associated with soft tissue and orthopedic surgery.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice.
Final rule.
The Department of Justice is amending the current regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to require licensed importers to identify by marking all explosive materials they import for sale or distribution. Licensed manufacturers currently are required to place identification markings on explosive materials manufactured in the United States. Similar marking requirements, however, do not currently exist for imported explosive materials. Identification markings are needed on explosives to help ensure that these materials can be effectively traced for criminal enforcement purposes. Although ATF does not have regulatory oversight over foreign manufacturers, it does have authority over licensed importers of explosive materials. This rule will impose identification requirements on licensed importers of explosive materials that are substantially similar to the marking requirements imposed on domestic manufacturers.
In addition, the final rule incorporates into the regulations the provisions of ATF Ruling 75-35, relating to methods of marking containers of explosive materials. This final rule also amends the regulations to remove the requirement that a licensee or permittee file for an amended license or permit in order to change the class of explosive materials described in their license or permit from a lower to a higher classification.
This rule is effective July 26, 2005.
James P. Ficaretta; Enforcement Programs and Services; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; U.S. Department of Justice; 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226, telephone (202) 927-8203.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is responsible for implementing Title XI, Regulation of Explosives (18 United States Code (U.S.C.) Chapter 40), of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. One of the stated purposes of the Act is to reduce the hazards to persons and property arising from the misuse of explosive materials. Under section 847 of title 18, U.S.C., the Attorney General “may prescribe such rules and regulations as he deems reasonably necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.” Regulations that implement the provisions of chapter 40 are contained in title 27, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 555 (“Commerce in Explosives”).
The term “explosive materials,” as defined in 27 CFR 555.11, means explosives, blasting agents, water gels, and detonators. The term includes, but is not limited to, all items in the “List of Explosive Materials” provided for in § 555.23. Section 555.202 provides for three classes of explosive materials: (1) High explosives (
Section 555.109 requires licensed manufacturers of explosive materials to legibly identify by marking all explosive materials manufactured for sale or distribution. The marks required by this section include the identity of the manufacturer and the location, date, and shift of manufacture. This section also provides that licensed manufacturers must place the required marks on each cartridge, bag, or other immediate container of explosive materials for sale or distribution, as well as on the outside container, if any, used for their packaging.
Exceptions to the marking requirements are set forth in § 555.109(b). This section provides that (1) licensed manufacturers of blasting caps are only required to place the required identification marks on the containers used for the packaging of blasting caps, (2) the Director may
The current regulations do not require the marking of imported explosive materials.
The Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) filed a petition with ATF, dated March 7, 2000, requesting an amendment of the regulations to require licensed importers to place the same identification marks on imported explosive materials that are currently required for explosive materials manufactured in the United States. As stated in the petition, IME is the safety association of the commercial explosives industry. Its mission is to promote safety and the protection of employees, users, the public and the environment, and to encourage the adoption of uniform rules and regulations in the manufacture, transportation, storage, handling, use, and disposal of explosive materials used in blasting and other operations.
According to the petitioner, commerce in explosives is a global enterprise and it expects the quantity of imported explosives to increase over time. For example, the petitioner stated that between 1994 and 1997, imports of high explosives increased 14-fold to account for approximately 17 percent of all high explosives used annually in the United States. IME further stated that while unmarked high explosives may have entered the United States over the years, it was not until 1999 that the association became aware of significant quantities of unmarked cast boosters being imported into the country. IME contended that, by the end of 1999, about two million unmarked units had been distributed in the United States. The petitioner further stated that many more thousands of tons of these high explosives were expected to be imported into the United States in the near future.
Without a change in the regulations, IME was concerned that these explosives would enter into the commerce of the U.S. without marks of identification, posing significant safety and security risks to the public. Although IME informed ATF that many of its member companies importing explosives into the U.S. mark their imported explosive materials in an effort to ensure the traceability and accountability of the materials, it believes that all imported explosive materials should be appropriately identified. Therefore, it petitioned ATF to amend the Federal explosives regulations.
By letter dated August 2, 2000, IME amended its petition to narrow its scope to importers of high explosives and blasting agents. IME stated that it did not understand that the scope of its initial petition would apply to importers of low explosives. IME noted that it has a specific standard recommending that high explosives and blasting agents be marked with a date/plant/shift code.
Based on IME's petition, ATF published in the
In response to Notice No. 906, ATF received three comments. Two commenters argued that licensed importers should place the same or similar identification marks on imported explosive materials that are currently required for explosive materials manufactured in the United States.
The petitioner, IME, submitted the third comment. IME reiterated its position that imported high explosives and blasting agents should contain the same identification markings prescribed in the regulations for domestically manufactured explosives. IME also included an attachment as part of its comment that provided responses to the questions posed by ATF in the advance notice.
On October 16, 2002, after consideration of the comments received in response to Notice No. 906, ATF published in the
In an effort to protect the public from the misuse of explosive materials, to more easily identify explosive materials, and to successfully trace misused explosive materials or explosive materials used in crimes, ATF proposed to amend § 555.109 to provide that licensed importers and permittees must identify by marking all explosive materials they import for sale or distribution, or import for their own use. The required marks must be legible and in the English language, using Roman letters and Arabic numerals. The marks must identify the importer's or permittee's name and address, the location (city and country) where the explosive materials were manufactured, as well as the date and shift of manufacture. ATF did not propose to require the name of the foreign manufacturer on imported explosives as requested by IME in its comments submitted in response to the advance notice. Instead, ATF proposed to require placement of the name of the importer on the explosive materials because ATF does not have regulatory oversight over foreign manufacturers, particularly with respect to their recordkeeping practices.
As proposed, the required marks must be placed on each cartridge, bag, or other immediate container of explosive materials that are imported, as well as on any outside container used for their packaging. This is consistent with current requirements for domestically manufactured explosives. The proposed regulations also provided that the required marks of identification must be placed on imported explosive materials within 24 hours of release from Customs custody.
In addition, under the proposed regulations, the exceptions to the marking requirements currently specified in the regulations would apply to imported explosive materials as well.
ATF also proposed other amendments to § 555.109. ATF clarified that licensed manufacturers must place the required marks of identification on the explosive
Section 555.55 provides that a licensee or permittee who intends to change the class of explosive materials described in his or her license from a lower to a higher classification (e.g., black powder to dynamite) must file an application on ATF Form 5400.13/ATF Form 5400.16 (Application for License or Permit) with the ATF National Licensing Center. If the change in class of explosive materials would require a change in magazines, the amended application must include a description of the type of construction as prescribed in part 555. Business or operations with respect to the new class of explosive materials may not be commenced before issuance of the amended license or amended permit. Finally, upon receipt of the amended license or amended permit, the licensee or permittee must submit his or her superseded license or superseded permit and any copies furnished with the license or permit to the ATF National Licensing Center.
ATF proposed to remove § 555.55. ATF believes that removing this section would provide more flexibility to the explosives industry in terms of the classes of explosive materials involved in their businesses, while not reducing the requirement to store explosive materials in accordance with the regulations contained in subpart K.
Section 555.41 provides general licensing and permit requirements under the Federal explosives laws. Technical amendments were made with respect to § 555.41 in order to be consistent with the proposed amendment of § 555.55.
The comment period for Notice No. 956 closed on January 14, 2003.
ATF received two comments in response to Notice No. 956. Trade associations, the IME (petitioner) and the American Pyrotechnics Association (APA), each submitted comments. IME stated that it represents United States manufacturers of high explosives and other companies that distribute explosives or provide related services. It also stated that over 2.5 million metric tons of explosives are consumed annually in the United States of which IME member companies produce over 95 percent and that the value of its shipments is estimated in excess of $1 billion annually. In addition, the commenter stated that part of its mission is “to encourage the adoption of uniform rules and regulations in the manufacture, transportation, storage, handling, use and disposal of explosive materials used in blasting and other essential operations.” IME expressed concerns that the proposed regulations would require different markings for imported and domestically manufactured explosives. It also requested clarification of some of ATF's statements in the proposed rule. IME's concerns and questions are discussed in the following paragraphs.
As stated in its comment, the APA is the principal industry trade association representing manufacturers, importers, and distributors of fireworks in the United States. It has over 260 member companies that are responsible for 90 percent of the fireworks displayed in the United States. The APA stated that while it shares the same public safety concerns as the petitioner (IME) for initiating this rulemaking proceeding, it believes that high explosives and low explosives (
The APA raised several concerns regarding the proposed regulations. Those concerns will also be addressed in the following paragraphs.
The current regulations at § 555.109(a) provide that “[e]ach licensed manufacturer of explosive materials shall legibly identify by marking all explosive materials he manufactures for sale or distribution.” The proposed regulations specified that licensed manufacturers and licensed importers must identify by marking all explosive materials they manufacture or import for sale, distribution, “or their own use.” The proposed regulations also specified that permittees must identify by marking all explosive materials they import for their own use. IME expressed concern that the proposed regulation “introduces a new requirement for licensees to mark explosives they will simply use, not distribute or sell.” The commenter stated that it views this new requirement as having an effect on three major aspects of the commercial explosives industry. First, IME stated that manufacturers and importers make or import explosive raw materials that may not be sold or distributed, but will be used to make a finished explosive product. IME supports the marking of these raw materials. In contrast, the APA argued that markings should not be required until the product is completed. It stated that many times an individual firework shell may consist of different pyrotechnic compositions and that it would be impossible for the manufacturer to document and detail the identification requirements for each component of an individual shell. The APA further stated that pyrotechnic compositions are generally made by the manufacturer and then incorporated into the shell. The APA is concerned about the marking of component parts, and the recording of the manufacture and use of said products, prior to assembly into the final product. The APA believes that these requirements would put an undue burden on the manufacturer who typically manufactures the pyrotechnic composition and incorporates it into a final shell the same day. The commenter suggests that only pyrotechnic compositions that will be sold by the manufacturer should be marked.
IME contended that the proposed amendment would also have an effect on the manufacture of experimental explosives. IME stated that manufacturers may make experimental explosives that will be used in tests. It supports marking experimental explosives if they are transported off the property of the manufacturing site. However, IME argues that experimental explosives that do not leave the property of the manufacturing site should not be required to have any markings.
Finally, IME stated that the proposed amendment would require manufacturers of binary explosives to place markings on the mixture. Like experimental explosives, IME argued that binary explosives should only be marked if they are transported off the property of the manufacturing site. The commenter recommended that the final regulations provide an exemption from the marking requirements for experimental and binary explosives that are not transported off the property of the manufacturing site.
Regarding the marking of manufactured and imported explosive materials that are not sold or distributed but will be used to make a finished explosive product, the Department recognizes the APA's concern and finds that the commenter has raised valid arguments. The Department does not believe that it is necessary to require the marking of pyrotechnic compositions that will be incorporated into a final shell. Such a requirement is unreasonable and would be unduly burdensome to the fireworks industry.
With respect to the marking of experimental and binary explosives, the Department believes that the arguments raised by IME also have merit. The Department recognizes that experimental and binary explosives tend to be manufactured or imported in small quantities and used fairly quickly after manufacture. As such, the Department believes that the possibility that the explosives may be stolen from the site prior to use is minimal. As to binary explosives, it is not feasible and serves no law enforcement purpose to mark explosives manufactured and used the same day at a blasting site.
Accordingly, based on the concerns expressed in the comments, this final rule does not adopt the proposal to require licensed manufacturers, licensed importers, and permittees to identify by marking all explosives they manufacture or import for their own use. Since permittees only import explosives for their own use, the reference to permittees in the final rule has been removed.
The proposed regulations provided that imported explosive materials must be marked with the name and address (city and state) of the importer. IME objected to this proposal, arguing that such a requirement “will eliminate nearly all off-the-shelf purchases of foreign-made explosives and force all imports to be specially made or remarked.” Furthermore, IME contended that in most cases the cost of manually placing the importer's name and address on off-the-shelf, foreign-made explosives would be prohibitive. IME did not provide any cost estimates concerning these costs. On the other hand, IME acknowledged ATF's need to conduct traces of explosive materials and that “a trace may be hampered by not knowing where to start the chain-of-custody trace.” The commenter suggested that ATF require importers to provide identifying information to it on imports that are not marked with the name and address of the importer. If all imports of commercial high explosives or blasting agents were reported to ATF along with the foreign manufacturer's marks of identification, IME estimates that ATF would receive these reports, “at most, once a week.” According to IME, ATF could file these reports and reference them to find the importer when needed.
As noted in the proposed rule, ATF does not have regulatory oversight over foreign manufacturers, particularly with respect to their recordkeeping practices. ATF maintains that the identity (name and address) of the importer is necessary to ensure that explosive materials can be effectively traced for criminal enforcement purposes. Not only would this information be invaluable when conducting a trace, but the name and address of the importer may be key information located during a post-blast investigation. Such markings may identify the source of the explosives used at a bomb scene and may provide valuable leads to solving the crime.
In addition, ATF's experience with tracing imported firearms indicates that relying upon the records of foreign manufacturers for tracing a firearm is ineffective. A significant number of countries either do not require manufacturers of firearms to retain records of production or require record retention for an insufficient period of time. Even where such records are retained and are available to a foreign manufacturer, cooperation of such manufacturers with foreign law enforcement is often sporadic or nonexistent. Thus, when importer's markings are missing, illegible, or inaccurate, ATF is frequently unable to trace a firearm by obtaining assistance from foreign firearms manufacturers. For this reason, ATF regulations implementing the marking requirements of the Gun Control Act of 1968 require importers to mark firearms with their name, city, and State, so that the tracing process begins with their records, rather than those of a foreign manufacturer.
ATF believes that reliance upon the markings of a foreign explosives manufacturer to trace explosives will pose the same problems as explained above in relation to firearms tracing. Accordingly, consistent with regulations in 27 CFR 478.92, this rule imposes a requirement on importers to mark the explosives they import with the name and address of the importer, the location of the foreign manufacturer, and the date and shift of manufacture.
Furthermore, an import report as suggested by IME would hinder ATF's ability to trace misused explosives, particularly in instances where there are multiple importers importing the same products. By having the importer's name and address on the misused product, ATF would not have to go through countless reports to determine the identity of the importer. Creating a tracing system for imported explosives by establishing an ATF database of import reports as suggested by IME would be more burdensome for both the industry and ATF. Instead of requiring the information to be placed on the explosives themselves, as is currently required for domestic explosives, such a system would require the completion of forms that provide detailed information on imported explosives that must be sent to ATF and maintained in a newly created ATF database. More significantly, such a tracing system would be inherently less reliable inasmuch as a mistake by an importer in entering the required information on the form would make a trace difficult or in some instances impossible. Requiring the information to be placed on the explosives would ensure that accurate information is available on the source of imported explosives, just as it is today for domestic explosives, through recovery of marked explosives or recovery of the marked component of the explosives at a crime scene. ATF believes that the ability to trace should be just as robust for imported explosives as it is for domestic explosives.
The Department recognizes that this requirement will add some additional costs to imported explosives that are not properly marked during the manufacturing process. However, IME's comments indicate this would likely be a very small percentage of the market. ATF's experience since 1971 indicates that most imported explosives are manufactured specifically for a particular domestic importer pursuant to a particular contract, rather than importers buying from a “spot market” of already existing foreign products. ATF has no specific information concerning the “spot market” in foreign explosives referenced in IME comments. If such a “spot market” exists, importers can require that the explosives from that market be marked properly in the foreign country prior to shipment in order to reduce the need to mark the explosives when they arrive in the United States. Explosives that arrive in the United States unmarked may be marked at a safe location by the importer after the explosives are released from Customs custody. In any event, ATF believes that the potential costs incurred, approximately 1 cent per pound according to IME, for this small category of imported explosives are outweighed by the law enforcement need to ensure the adequate ability to trace explosives. Accordingly, this final rule adopts the amendment as proposed.
The proposed regulations provided that imported explosive materials must be marked with the location (city and country) where the explosives were manufactured. IME objected to this proposal, arguing that it is unable to see the value of such a requirement, “especially since ATF claims it ‘has no regulatory oversight over foreign manufacturers.’ ”
While the Department acknowledges that ATF does not have regulatory oversight over foreign manufacturers, it does have authority over licensed importers of explosive materials. The placement of the identifying marks required by this rule, including the location of the manufacturer, will enable ATF to better trace misused materials by narrowing the search through the importer's records and through Customs documents. It is not uncommon for importers to bring the same product into the United States from a number of foreign sources. Thus, by requiring markings that include the name and location of the foreign manufacturer, ATF will be able to trace explosives more quickly, by asking the importer to locate records only for that particular product manufactured by a particular foreign manufacturer. In addition, Customs entry documents and databases list the country of manufacture. In the event that ATF uses Customs information to determine when a particular explosives product entered the United States, the name of the country of manufacture and name of the manufacturer would greatly assist in identifying the shipment. As previously described, this information on the explosives may also provide valuable leads during a post blast investigation. In addition, this requirement is similar to country of origin markings required under the Customs laws in 19 U.S.C. 1304. Accordingly, this final rule requires that imported explosives be marked with the location (city and country) where the explosive materials were manufactured, which is consistent with the way domestically manufactured explosives are marked, and with markings required for imported firearms under 27 CFR 478.92.
The proposed regulations specified that imported explosive materials must be marked within 24 hours of the date of release from Customs custody if such explosive materials did not bear the required markings at the time of their release. IME stated that this requirement is impractical for several reasons. First, the commenter noted that most ports of entry do not have locations where the imported explosives could be safely marked and it will often take more than 24 hours for the explosives to reach a safe location for marking. Second, IME stated that even if there were a safe location near the port, most shipments could not be marked in 24 hours. Finally, and according to IME most importantly, “any grace period exposes unmarked explosives to the risk of theft and degrades the effectiveness of the primary intent of the marking requirement.” Because of this last concern, IME suggested that ATF require imported explosives to be properly marked prior to entry into the United States, noting that “[t]his is consistent with the NPRM's requirement that domestic manufacturers place the markings on explosives ‘at the time of manufacture.’ ” The commenter further stated that “[t]here should be no concessions made to the security of imported explosives.”
The APA stated that while the fireworks industry generally supports the proposed importer identification requirement, it does not support the proposed timetable for compliance. The commenter reiterated its position regarding the unique circumstances involving the fireworks industry and requested that additional time be provided for marking imported explosives released from Customs custody. The APA provided the following justification for requesting additional time to mark imported explosives:
While the Department shares IME's concern regarding the risk of theft of imported explosives released from Customs custody without the proper identification markings, it disagrees with IME's suggestion that ATF should require imported explosives to be properly marked prior to the time of importation. The Department believes that such a requirement would be overly restrictive and unduly burdensome for importers, particularly small importers. Small importers may not have the financial means to have a run of explosives manufactured bearing their name and address. However, based on the comments, the Department recognizes that the proposed requirement to mark imported explosives within 24 hours of release from Customs custody may be overly restrictive and impractical, particularly with respect to importers who are geographically distant from the point of importation.
Accordingly, this final rule provides that licensed importers must place the required marks on all explosive materials imported prior to distribution or shipment for use, and in no event later than 15 days after the date of release from Customs custody. The Department believes that this is a sufficient amount of time for imported explosives to be marked without posing unnecessary and significant safety and security risks to the public. Furthermore, this is consistent with the marking requirements for imported firearms under 27 CFR 478.112(d). In the event additional time is needed to mark the imported explosives, the importer can request a variance
Additionally, the Department points out that 27 CFR 555.214(b) requires that “containers of explosive materials are to be stored so that marks are visible.” Therefore, all containers of explosive materials placed in storage must have proper marks of identification on the immediate outside containers. The marking of individual internal packages may occur within the 15-day period specified in the regulations.
As proposed, 27 CFR 555.109(c)(4) reads as follows:
IME stated that it is not entirely clear under what conditions a manufacturer or importer must seek the Director's approval for markings and it suggested that ATF “clarify exactly what conditions invoke the need for the Director's approval of coding systems.” IME stated that in 1971 its member companies implemented a product identification system for packaged explosives manufactured in the United States. The coding system utilizes a series of alpha and numeric characters to indicate the date, work shift, and location of the manufacturer. It does not indicate the name of the manufacturer. As an example, IME stated that a product manufactured on September 30, 1997, during the first shift at a plant that the manufacturer has assigned the letter “A” would be “30SE97A1.” IME asked if each licensee or permittee using the standard IME coding system would need the Director's approval. IME also asked if a licensee or permittee using a bar code system would need the Director's approval.
The current regulations specify that licensed manufacturers must place certain marks of identification on explosive materials they manufacture. The required marks of identification include the name of the manufacturer and the location, date, and shift of manufacture. This information must be legible, identifiable, and understandable. ATF Ruling 75-35 provides, in part, that where it is desired to utilize a coding system and omit printed markings on the container,
Accordingly, this final rule clarifies that if licensed manufacturers or licensed importers desire to use a coding system and omit printed markings on the container that show all the required information specified in the regulations, they must file with ATF a letterhead application displaying the coding that they plan to use and explaining the manner of its application. The Director must approve the application before the proposed coding can be used.
The APA expressed concern involving the required tracking of acquisition and disposition of explosive materials by date/shift code. In general, the APA agrees with the proposed markings for each individual aerial shell. It expressed concern, however, with tracking the distribution of shells by the date/shift code. The APA stated that fireworks package displays often contain shells of numerous sizes, colors and date/shift codes and that to track shells by date/shift code would pose an undue and unnecessary recordkeeping burden on industry members. The APA suggested that records of production and distribution for display fireworks should only show the number and size of the aerial shells. The commenter's suggestion is based on its belief that there is a low occurrence of display fireworks used in criminal activity and that most likely the criminal would transfer the explosive material from the shell to another container. Furthermore, the APA suggested that ATF require all shipping cartons of display fireworks to be marked with the name of the manufacturer or distributor and the date that the fireworks were shipped.
It is the Department's decision that failure to incorporate the date/shift code in the acquisition and disposition records would hinder the effectiveness and purpose of placing the markings on each individual shell. A shell could be traced to the manufacturer or importer but it would be difficult or impossible to trace the shell any further if the records only contained type and count information. The date/shift code is essential in narrowing the records search to the appropriate time period. Manufacturers and importers manufacture and import thousands of the same type of product, so that marking with the date of shipment alone will not narrow the records search to locate a particular explosive within a reasonable time period. When explosives are used in a criminal incident, time is of the essence. Undue delay in identifying the record of acquisition and disposition for a particular explosive product can interfere in investigating bombings and other criminal incidents using explosives. Placing a code of sorts in the shipping carton could offer some assistance, but would not be effective in instances where the shells are no longer in their shipping cartons. Accordingly, the Department is not adopting the APA's suggestion.
Another concern of the APA relates to computerized systems for tracking explosive materials. The APA stated that it is aware that some companies are currently using, or looking into the implementation of, systems that use bar coding to identify and track their products. The commenter believes that
The Department believes that the APA has raised a valid concern with respect to the use of computerized systems for tracking explosives. This issue is being addressed in another rulemaking proceeding (see Notice No. 968, January 29, 2003; 68 FR 4406). Until this rulemaking is completed, industry members may seek written authorization from ATF to use computerized recordkeeping systems that utilize bar coding or other computerized systems to streamline the process. As stated above, the use of coded marking requirements may also be approved through the variance process, and can be used in conjunction with a computerized recordkeeping system. The Department believes that the use of computerized recordkeeping systems will not negate the need to maintain the date shift codes in the records.
Section 555.52 provides for limitations on permits and licenses in respect to business activity or permitted operations and specified class of explosives materials allowed. A technical amendment is being made in this final rule with respect to § 555.52 in order to be consistent with the amendments made in §§ 555.55 and 555.41, which are also being adopted as proposed.
This final rule incorporates the provisions of ATF Ruling 75-35 (1975-ATF C.B. 65), relating to methods of marking containers of explosive materials. Accordingly, the provisions of ATF Ruling 75-35 become obsolete upon the effective date of this final rule.
This rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation. The Department of Justice has determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and accordingly this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. However, this rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million, nor will it adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health, or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities. Accordingly, this rule is not an “economically significant” rulemaking as defined by Executive Order 12866.
Further, the Department has assessed both the costs and benefits of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866, section 1(b)(6), and has made a reasoned determination that the benefits of this regulation justify its costs. The Department believes that the costs associated with compliance with the final regulations are minimal. Comments received in response to the ANPRM and the notice of proposed rulemaking indicate that in all likelihood the foreign manufacturer, rather than the U.S. importer, will place the required marks on explosives that are imported into the United States.
However, some importers may not have the financial means to have a run of explosives manufactured bearing their name and address. ATF estimates that a very small percentage (one percent) of the approximately 413 Federally licensed importers will need to mark imported explosives. In general, the IME stated that marking costs are less than approximately one percent of the product cost, ranging from $.002/lb. to $.01/lb. ATF estimates that approximately five percent of imported explosives would need to be marked. To illustrate, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 155,240,707 pounds of explosives were imported into the United States in 2003. Based on IME's information, the marking costs associated with 7,762,035 pounds of imported explosives (five percent of 155,240,707 pounds) would range from approximately $15,524 to $77,620.
This regulation 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. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, the Attorney General has determined that this regulation does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. The Attorney General has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Most U.S. importers should not be significantly affected by the final regulations because the foreign-manufactured explosives they import will already be marked in accordance with the provisions of 27 CFR 555.109. ATF estimates that a very small percentage (one percent) of the approximately 413 Federally licensed importers will need to mark imported explosives. In general, the IME stated that marking costs are less than approximately one percent of the product cost, ranging from $.002/lb. to $.01/lb. ATF estimates that approximately five percent of imported explosives would need to be marked. To illustrate, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 155,240,707 pounds of explosives were imported into the United States in 2003. Based on IME's information, the marking costs associated with 7,762,035 pounds of imported explosives (five percent of 155,240,707 pounds) would range from approximately $15,524 to $77,620. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.
This rule will not 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, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The collections of information contained in this final regulation have been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) under control number 1140-0055. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.
The collections of information in this regulation are in 27 CFR 555.109(b)(2). This information is required to properly identify imported explosive materials. The collections of information are mandatory. The likely respondents are businesses.
The estimated average annual burden associated with the collections of information in this final rule is 46 hours.
Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and suggestions for reducing this burden should be directed to the Chief, Document Services Branch, Room 3110, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503.
Copies of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received in response to the NPRM, and this final rule will be available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at: ATF Reference Library, Room 6480, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226, telephone (202) 927-7890.
The author of this document is James P. Ficaretta; Enforcement Programs and Services; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations, Customs duties and inspection, Explosives, Hazardous materials, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Security measures, Seizures and forfeitures, Transportation, and Warehouses.
18 U.S.C. 847.
(e) For requirements relating to the marking of imported explosive materials, see § 555.109.
(a)
(b)
(i) The name of the manufacturer; and
(ii) The location, date, and shift of manufacture. Where a manufacturer operates his plant for only one shift during the day, he does not need to show the shift of manufacture.
(2)
(A) The name and address (city and state) of the importer; and
(B) The location (city and country) where the explosive materials were manufactured, date, and shift of manufacture. Where the foreign manufacturer operates his plant for only one shift during the day, he does not need to show the shift of manufacture.
(ii) Licensed importers must place the required marks on all explosive materials imported prior to distribution or shipment for use, and in no event later than 15 days after the date of release from Customs custody.
(c)
(2) The required marks prescribed in this section must be in the English language, using Roman letters and Arabic numerals.
(3) Licensed manufacturers and licensed importers must place the required marks on each cartridge, bag, or other immediate container of explosive materials that they manufacture or import, as well as on any outside container used for the packaging of such explosive materials.
(4) Licensed manufacturers and licensed importers may use any method, or combination of methods, to affix the required marks to the immediate container of explosive materials, or outside containers used for the packaging thereof, provided the identifying marks are legible, permanent, show all the required information, and are not rendered unreadable by extended periods of storage.
(5) If licensed manufacturers or licensed importers desire to use a coding system and omit printed markings on the container that show all the required information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, they must file with ATF a letterhead application displaying the coding that they plan to use and explaining the manner of its application. The Director must approve the application before the proposed coding can be used.
(d)
(2)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters within Tampa Bay, Florida, including Sparkman Channel, Garrison Channel (east of the Beneficial Bridge), Ybor Turning Basin, and Ybor Channel. The safety zone is needed to ensure the safety of all mariners from hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry into this zone is prohibited to all vessels and persons without the prior permission of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Tampa or designated representative.
This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. until 9:20 p.m. on May 29, 2005.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket [COTP TAMPA 05-062] and are available for inspection or copying at Marine Safety Office Tampa, 155 Columbia Drive, Tampa, Florida 33606-3598 between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Lieutenant Junior Grade Jennifer Andrew at Marine Safety Office Tampa (813) 228-2191 Ext. 8203.
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 necessary details for the final date of the fireworks demonstration and the location of the safety zone surrounding it were not provided with sufficient time remaining to publish an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM and delaying its effective date would be contrary to the public interest since immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the public during the fireworks demonstration. The Coast Guard will issue a broadcast notice to mariners to advise mariners of the restriction.
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
Downtown Tampa Attractions Association is scheduled to conduct a fireworks display on May 29, 2005, in Tampa Bay, Florida. This safety zone is being established to ensure the safety of life during the event, as the public is invited to attend the fireworks display, and falling debris may present a danger to life and property.
The safety zone encompasses the following waters within Tampa Bay: Sparkman Channel, Garrison Channel (east of the Beneficial Bridge), Ybor Turning Basin, and Ybor Channel. Vessels are prohibited from anchoring, mooring, or transiting within this zone, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Tampa or designated representative. The zone is effective from 8:30 p.m. until 9:20 p.m. on May 29, 2005.
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. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Coast Guard expects the impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary, because the safety zone will be in effect for only 50 minuets during a time when vessel traffic is limited. Moreover, vessels may enter the zone with the express permission of the Captain of the Port Tampa or designated representative.
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 will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit Sparkman Channel, Garrison Channel (east of the Beneficial Bridge), Ybor Turning Basin, and Ybor Channel from 8:30 p.m. until 9:20 p.m. on May 29, 2005. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for only 50 minutes late in the evening when vessel traffic is extremely low. Additionally, traffic will be allowed to enter the zone with the permission of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Tampa or designated representative.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small entities may contact the person listed under
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).
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 (
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. This rule is a safety zone and therefore fits the category described in paragraph (34)(g). Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule.
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(g), 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)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule; change in effective period.
The Coast Guard is extending the effective period of a safety zone in the waters surrounding the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge across the Sloop Channel in Town of Hempstead, New York. This change will extend the effective period of the temporary final rule until December 31, 2005, allowing time for the completion of the bascule bridge being constructed over the Sloop Channel. This rule will continue to prevent vessels from transiting the Sloop Channel within 300 yards of the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge and continues to be necessary in order to protect vessels transiting in the area from hazards imposed by construction barges and equipment. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Long Island Sound, New Haven, Connecticut.
The extended period of § 165.T01-155 is effective from 12 a.m. on June 1, 2005 until 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2005.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD01-05-050 and will be available for inspection or copying at Group/MSO Long Island Sound, New Haven, CT, between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Lieutenant A. Logman, Chief, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Group/Marine Safety Office Long Island Sound at (203) 468-4429.
On January 12, 2005 we published a temporary final rule (TFR entitled “Safety Zone: Wantagh Parkway 3 Bridge Over the Sloop Channel, Town of Hempstead, NY” in the
Any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date would be impracticable and contrary to public interest since immediate action is needed to restrict and control maritime traffic transiting in the vicinity of the Sloop Channel under the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge in the Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, Long Island, New York. In 2003, the Coast Guard approved bridge construction and issued a permit for bridge construction for the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge over the Sloop Channel. Contractors began work constructing the two bascule piers for the new bridge in early June 2004. A safety zone was not deemed necessary at the inception of the construction, as this channel is primarily used by smaller recreational vessels, which could maneuver outside of the channel. However, bridge construction equipment that remains under the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge poses a potential hazard greater than originally anticipated. A safety zone was deemed necessary and was established on October 9, 2004 through December 31, 2004, the date when construction impacting the navigable channel was estimated to be complete. A second safety zone was implemented from January 1, 2005 until May 31, 2005, after the New York State Department of Transportation advised the Coast Guard that construction of the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge was experiencing delays, requiring equipment to be in the channel in a manner that would leave the waterway unsafe to marine traffic until May 31, 2005. In a letter dated April 8, 2005, the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) again requested an extension of the safety zone surrounding in the Sloop Channel until December 31, 2005. The contractor for this project has experienced significant delays in bridge construction. In order to continue construction in a more rapid and safe manner, barges will need to continuously block the channel under the bridge.
The delay inherent in the NPRM process is contrary to the public interest and impracticable, because immediate action is needed to extend this safety zone to continue to prevent accidents by vessels transiting the area with the construction equipment. This is acutely necessary during the summer months, when recreational traffic will significantly increase in this area.
Currently, there is a fixed bridge, the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge over the Sloop Channel in the Town of Hempstead, New York. New York Department of Transportation determined that a moveable bridge would benefit the boating community. In 2003, the Coast Guard approved bridge construction and issued a permit for bridge construction for the Wantagh Parkway Number 3 Bridge over the Sloop Channel. Contractors began work constructing the two-bascule piers for the new bridge in early June 2004. The equipment necessary for the construction of the bridge occupies the entire navigable channel. While there are side channels, which can be navigated, the equipment in the channel is extensive and poses a hazard to recreational vessels attempting to transit the waterway via the side channels under the bridge. Construction, requiring equipment in the navigable channel, was originally scheduled to end on December 31, 2004. A second safety zone was established until May 31, 2005 after the Coast Guard was notified that the project had experienced delays in construction. Significant additional delays in construction require this equipment to occupy the navigable channel until December 31, 2005. To ensure the continued safety of the boating community, the Coast Guard is extending the safety zone in place in all waters of the Sloop Channel within 300 yards of the bridge. This safety zone is necessary to protect the safety of the boating community who wish to utilize the Sloop Channel. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the safety zone during the effective dates of the safety zone, allowing navigation in the Sloop Channel, except the portion delineated by this rule.
This regulation extends the effective period of a temporary safety zone on the waters of the Sloop Channel within 300-yards of the Wantagh Parkway Bridge. This action is intended to prohibit vessel traffic in a portion of the Sloop Channel in the Town of Hempstead, New York to provide for the safety of the boating community due to the hazards posed by significant construction equipment and barges located in the waterway for the construction of a new bascule bridge. The safety zone is being extended until 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2005. Marine traffic may continue to transit safely outside of the safety zone during the effective dates of the safety zone, allowing navigation in the Sloop Channel, except the portion delineated by this rule. Vessels may utilize the Goose Neck Channel as an alternative route to using the Sloop Channel, adding minimal additional transit time. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound.
Any violation of the safety zone described herein is punishable by, among others, civil and criminal
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. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this rule will be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This regulation may have some impact on the public, but the potential impact will be minimized for the following reasons: Vessels may transit in all areas of the Sloop Channel and other than the area of the safety zone, and may utilize other routes with minimal increased transit time.
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 the Sloop Channel in the Town of Hempstead, New York covered by the safety zone. 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 subsection 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 A. Logman, Waterways Management Officer, Group/Marine Safety Office Long Island Sound, at (203) 468-4429.
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).
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 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.
To help the Coast Guard establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian and Alaskan Native tribes, we published a notice in the
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. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 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
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A Categorical Exclusion Determination 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 and 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(b)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone surrounding the El Segundo offshore marine terminal near Los Angeles, California. This action is necessary to ensure public safety and reduce the likelihood of a collision or other casualty involving a tank vessel moored at the offshore marine terminal. Entry into this zone will be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Los Angeles-Long Beach.
This rule is effective June 27, 2005.
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 COTP Los Angeles-Long Beach 03-002 and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office/Group Los Angeles-Long Beach, Waterways Management Division, 1001 South Seaside Avenue, Building 20, San Pedro, California, 90731 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Lieutenant Peter Gooding, Chief of Waterways Management Division, (310) 732-2020.
On July 10, 2003, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Safety Zone; Offshore Marine Terminal, El Segundo, CA” in the
The Chevron Texaco Shipping Company requested that the Coast Guard establish a safety zone around the El Segundo offshore marine terminal near Los Angeles, California, to promote the safety of life and property at the facility and on the adjacent waters within the safety zone—including tank vessels and their crews, their apparatuses, and attending vessels and their crews.
El Segundo offshore marine terminal is located approximately 1 nautical mile offshore El Segundo in Santa Monica Bay, between Marina Del Rey and Redondo Beach, California. The offshore marine terminal consists of several tanker mooring buoys and seafloor pipelines connected to the mainland terminal. Large tank vessels are secured to tanker mooring buoys using multiple sets of mooring lines. Underwater pipelines that extend seaward from the mainland terminal rise up from the ocean bottom and are secured to both the buoys and the tankers. As a result, there are numerous mooring lines, pipelines, and other critical apparatuses that exist above, below, and on the surface of the water presenting an especially hazardous condition for other vessels transiting through this area. The hazards have contributed to vessel casualties resulting in pollution and in at least one case, a fatality. These conditions are present at all times, whether or not a tanker is in the offshore marine terminal.
The Coast Guard received a total of nine letters in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. What follows is a review of, and the Coast Guard's response to, the issues and questions that were presented by these commenters concerning the proposed regulations.
(1) Four commenters indicated that buoys should be placed at the corners of the safety zone to give a visual indication to boaters passing nearby.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) publishes charts of this area. A notation of the safety zone will be placed on the chart to advise mariners of the safety zone. In addition, NOAA is publishing a new chart for the El Segundo area that will show much greater detail of the surrounding area. This chart should provide sufficient aid for boaters to identify the safety zone without the placement of buoys which may interfere with vessels permitted to enter the zone.
(2) Two commenters indicated that publication of the safety zone needed to be widespread to ensure boaters are aware of the new zone.
In addition to appearing in the
(3) Two commenters indicated that the enforcement of the safety zone would not be adequate to keep vessels out of the zone.
As stated in the Background and Purpose section above, this zone is for the safety of the vessels transiting in the vicinity of the offshore moorings. It is not envisioned that enforcement of the safety zone will be a heavy burden on the Coast Guard.
(4) One commenter indicated that the safety zone should only be in place while tank vessels are present.
The presence of large mooring buoys, approximately 13 feet long and 6 feet in diameter, are hazardous to vessels operating in this area. These conditions are present at all times, whether or not a tanker is in the offshore marine terminal.
(5) One commenter indicated that the size of the safety zone should be larger than proposed and that it should extend to shore.
We feel as though the area prescribed is large enough to provide safe operations, while allowing a corridor for vessels to safely pass between the safety zone and the shoreline.
After reviewing all comments, we made no changes in the rule. Our final rule remains the same as our proposed rule.
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. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
This safety zone will encompass only a small portion of the waterway and vessel traffic can pass safely around the affected area. In addition, vessels may be allowed to enter this zone on a case-by-case basis with permission of the Captain of the Port.
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. We expect this rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of private and commercial vessels intending to transit or anchor in Santa Monica Bay near El Segundo. The impact to these entities will not, however, be significant since this zone encompasses a small portion of the waterway and vessels may safely pass around the affected area. In addition, vessels may be allowed to enter this zone on a case-by-case basis with permission of the Captain of the Port.
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 the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. However, we received no requests for assistance from any small entities.
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, 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 because we are proposing to establish a safety zone.
A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “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(g), 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)
(i) Commercial vessels authorized to use the offshore marine terminal for loading or unloading;
(ii) Commercial tugs, lighters, barges, launches, or other vessels authorized to engage in servicing the offshore marine terminal or vessels therein;
(iii) Public vessels of the United States.
(2) Persons desiring to transit the area of the safety zone may contact the Captain of the Port at telephone number 1-800-221-8724 or on VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as relieving the owner or person in charge of any vessel from complying with the Navigation Rules as defined in 33 CFR chapter I, subchapters D and E and safe navigation practice.
Centers for Medicare Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Interim final rule with comment period.
This interim final rule with comment period revises the existing effective date by which all organ procurement organizations (OPOs), rural health clinics (RHCs), Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), and community mental health centers (CMHCs) are required to submit their Medicare cost reports in a standardized electronic format from cost reporting periods ending on or after December 31, 2004 to cost reporting periods ending on or after March 31, 2005.
This interim final rule with comment does not affect the current cost reporting requirement for hospices and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) facilities. Hospices and ESRD facilities are required to continue to submit cost reports under the Medicare regulations in a standardized electronic format for cost reporting periods ending on or after December 31, 2004.
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-1199-IFC. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of three ways (no duplicates, please):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
(Because access to the interior of the HHH Building is not readily available to persons without Federal Government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and could be considered late. All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
Darryl E. Simms, (410) 786-4524.
On August 23, 2003, we published in the
The provider's electronic program must be capable of producing the CMS standardized output file in a form that can be read by the fiscal intermediary's automated system. This electronic file, which must contain the input data required to complete the cost report and to pass specified edits, must be forwarded to the fiscal intermediary for processing through its system.
These facilities are generally paid under the Medicare program for the reasonable costs of the covered items and services they furnish to Medicare beneficiaries. Sections 1815(a) and 1833(e) of the Social Security Act (the Act) provided that no payments will be made to a provider unless it has furnished the information, requested by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary), needed to determine the amount of payments due the provider.
In general, providers submit this information through cost reports that cover a 12-month period. Regulations governing the submission of cost reports are set forth in § 413.20 and § 413.24. Section 413.20(a) specifies that all providers participating in the Medicare program are required to maintain sufficient financial records and statistical data for proper determination of costs payable under the Medicare program. In addition, providers must use standardized definitions and follow accounting, statistical, and reporting practices that are widely accepted in the health care industry and related fields. In § 413.20(b) and § 413.24(f), providers are required to submit cost reports annually, with the reporting period based on the provider's accounting year. Section 412.52 specifies that all hospitals participating in the prospective payment system must meet cost reporting requirements set forth at § 413.20 and § 413.24.
Section 1886(f)(1)(B)(i) of the Act requires the Secretary to establish a standardized electronic cost reporting system for all hospitals participating in the Medicare program. This provision was effective for hospital cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 1989. On January 2, 1997, we published a final rule in the
The required cost reports must be electronically transmitted to the intermediary in American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) format. In addition to the electronic file, hospitals, SNFs, and HHAs were initially required to submit a hard copy of the full cost report. The January 2, 1997 final rule revised § 413.24(f)(4)(iv) to state that providers were required to submit, instead, a hard copy of a one-page settlement summary, a statement of certain worksheet totals found in the electronic file, and a statement signed by the provider's administrator or chief financial officer certifying the accuracy of the electronic file. To preserve the integrity of the electronic file, in the January 2, 1997 final rule we specified procedures regarding the processing of electronic cost reports once they are submitted to the intermediary.
This interim final rule revises the existing effective date for submission of electronic cost reports for OPOs, RHCs, FQHCs, and CMHCs from cost reporting periods ending on or after December 31, 2004 to cost reporting periods ending on or after March 31, 2005. As a result of the delays in the availability of the CMS free cost reporting software and commercially available cost reporting software, OPOs, RHCs, FQHCs, and CMHCs will now be required to file their cost reports in a standardized electronic format effective for cost reporting periods ending on or after March 31, 2005. This is a change from the August 23, 2003 final rule that established the electronic filing requirement for cost reporting periods ending on or after December 31, 2004.
Hospices and ESRD facilities will continue to be subject to the electronic filing requirements as referenced in the August 23, 2003 final rule as software for these provider types is available. Therefore, all hospices and ESRD facilities are still required to submit standardized electronic cost reports for cost reporting periods ending on or after December 31, 2004. Standardized electronic cost reports have been in place since October 1989. Since that time, the accuracy of cost reporting has increased. Under this interim final rule, the only change is to the effective date for submission of electronic cost reporting for OPOs, RHCs, FQHCs, and CMHCs. These providers will still be given a transition period (described in the August 23, 2003 final rule (68 FR 50717)) beginning with the new effective date and are still required to provide a hard copy of the settlement summary, statement of certain worksheet totals, and a statement signed by the administrator or chief financial officer certifying the accuracy of the electronic file or the manually prepared cost report under the new effective date.
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on
We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Because of the delay in the availability of the requisite cost reporting software (CMS-provided and commercially available) needed to comply with the effective date provisions of the August 23, 2003 final rule, OPOs, RHCs, FQHCs, and CMHCs are not able to submit cost reports in a standardized electronic format for cost reporting periods ending December 31, 2004. These cost reports are due to their respective fiscal intermediaries (FIs) 150 days or 5 months following the close of the cost reporting period which is May 31, 2005. Revising the reporting requirement to be effective for cost reporting periods ending on or after March 31, 2005, provides the time for the contractors to develop the requisite cost reporting software. The new electronic filing requirement for cost reporting periods ending on or after March 31, 2005 requires OPOs, RHCs, FQHCs, and CMHCs, with a March 31, 2005 cost reporting ending date to submit cost reporting data to FIs by August 31, 2005. We find the notice-and-comment procedure impracticable since it is not feasible for these providers to meet the current effective date as the technology to meet the reporting requirement is not available. Also, this interim final rule with comment does not impose any additional requirements, but merely extends the effective date of the existing reporting requirement until the software is available. Therefore, we find good cause to waive notice-and-comment procedures and to issue this final rule on an interim basis. However, we are providing a 60-day public comment period.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are required to provide 60-day notice in the
Currently § 413.24 requires hospitals, to submit cost reports in a standardized electronic format for cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 1989. SNFs, and HHAs must submit cost reports in a standardized electronic format for cost reporting periods ending on or after December 31, 1996. Hospices, ESRD facilities, OPOS, RHCs, FQHCs and CMHCs must submit cost reports in a standardized electronic format for cost reporting periods ending on or after December 31, 2004. These reporting requirements are currently approved as described below.
This interim final rule revises the dates by which OPOs, RHCs, FQHCs, and CMHCs must submit cost reports in a standardized electronic format. Under the revised requirements OPOs, RHCs, FQHCs, and CMHCs must now submit cost reports in a standardized electronic format for cost reporting periods ending on or after March 31, 2005, rather than December 31, 2004. This change does not impose any new burden.
As noted above, while all the above reporting requirements are subject to the PRA, they are currently approved under OMB approval numbers 0938-0050, “Hospital/Healthcare Complex Cost Report,” with a current expiration date of November 30, 2005, 0938-0463; “Skilled Nursing Facility Cost Report,” with a current expiration date of April 30, 2007; 0938-0022, “Home Health Agency Cost Report,” with a current expiration date of April 30, 2007; 0938-0758, “Hospice Cost Report,” with a current expiration date of January 31, 2008; 0938-0102, “Organ Procurement Agency/Laboratory Statement of Reimbursable Costs,” with a current expiration date of August 31, 2006; 0938-0107, “Independent Rural Health Clinic/Freestanding Federally Qualified Health Center Cost Report,” with a current expiration date of October 31, 2005; 0938-0236, “Medicare Independent Renal Dialysis Facility Cost Report,” with a current expiration date of June 30, 2007; and 0938-0657, “End Stage Renal Disease Network Cost Report,” with a current expiration date of September 30, 2006.
If you comment on these information collection and recordkeeping requirements, please mail copies directly to the following:
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 Act), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132.
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). This rule does not reach the economic threshold and thus is not considered a major 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 government agencies. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of $6 million to $29 million in any 1 year. Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. We are not preparing an analysis for the RFA because we have determined that this rule 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
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in expenditure in any 1 year by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $110 million. This rule will have no consequential effect on the governments mentioned or on the private sector.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it publishes 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.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Health facilities, Kidney diseases, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Secs. 1102, 1812(d), 1814(b), 1815, 1833(a), (i), and (n), 1871, 1881, 1883 and 1886 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395dd(d), 1395f(b), 1395g, 1395l(a), (i) and (n), 1395hh, 1395rr, 1395tt, and 1395ww).
The revisions read as follows:
(f) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) Effective for cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 1989 for hospitals, cost reporting periods ending on or after December 31, 1996 for skilled nursing facilities and home health agencies, cost reporting periods ending on or after December 31, 2004 for hospices, and end-stage renal disease facilities, and cost reporting periods ending on or after March 31, 2005 for organ procurement organizations, rural health clinics, Federally qualified health centers, and community mental health centers, a provider is required to submit cost reports in a standardized electronic format. The provider's electronic program must be capable of producing the CMS standardized output file in a form that can be read by the fiscal intermediary's automated system. This electronic file, which must contain the input data required to complete the cost report and to pass specified edits, must be forwarded to the fiscal intermediary for processing through its system.
(iv) Effective for cost reporting periods ending on or after September 30, 1994 for hospitals, cost reporting periods ending on or after December 31, 1996 for skilled nursing facilities and home health agencies, cost reporting periods ending on or after December 31, 2004 for hospices and end-stage renal disease facilities, and cost reporting periods ending on or after March 31, 2005 for organ procurement organizations, rural health clinics, Federally qualified health centers, and community mental health centers, a provider must submit a hard copy of a settlement summary, a statement of certain worksheet totals found within the electronic file, and a statement signed by its administrator or chief financial officer certifying the accuracy of the electronic file or the manually prepared cost report. During a transition period (first two cost-reporting periods on or after December 31, 2004 for hospices and end-stage renal disease facilities, and the first two cost-reporting periods on or after March 31, 2005 for organ procurement organizations, rural health clinics, Federally qualified health centers, community mental health centers) providers must submit a hard copy of the completed cost report forms in addition to the electronic file. The following statement must immediately precede the dated signature of the provider's administrator or chief financial officer:
I hereby certify that I have read the above certification statement and that I have examined the accompanying electronically filed or manually submitted cost report and the Balance Sheet Statement of Revenue and Expenses prepared by _____ (Provider Name(s) and Number(s)) for the cost reporting period beginning ___ and ending ___ and that to the best of my knowledge and belief, this report and statement are true, correct, complete and prepared from the books and records of the provider in accordance with applicable instructions, except as noted. I further certify that I am familiar with the laws and regulations regarding the provision of health care services, and that the services identified in this cost report were provided in compliance with such laws and regulations.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Interim rule.
This interim rule lists communities where modification of the Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates will be
These modified BFEs are currently in effect on the dates listed in the table and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map(s) (FIRMs) in effect prior to this determination for each listed community.
From the date of the second publication of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90) days in which to request through the community that the Director reconsider the changes. The modified elevations may be changed during the 90-day period.
The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Doug Bellomo, P.E., Hazard Identification Section, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2903.
The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations are available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration must be based upon knowledge of changed conditions, or upon new scientific or technical data.
The modifications are made pursuant to Section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These modified elevations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, state or regional entities.
The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Flood insurance, floodplains, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Final rule.
Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated on the table below.
The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Doug Bellomo, P.E., Hazard Identification Section, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2903.
FEMA makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Mitigation Division Director of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final rule is issued in accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR Part 67.
The Agency has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR Part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community.
The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.
Administrative practice and procedure, flood insurance, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 4001
Office of Personnel Management.
Proposed rule.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing to amend its regulations concerning agency reporting requirements on training. The purpose of the revision is to assist agencies to effectively collect information that supports agency determinations of its workforce training needs, and document the results of training and development programs implemented to address those needs, by requiring input into the OPM Governmentwide electronic data collection system.
Comments must be received on or before July 26, 2005.
Send, deliver, or fax written comments to Mark Doboga, Deputy Associate Director for Talent and Capacity Policy, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Room 6551, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415-9700; e-mail:
Loretta L. Reeves by telephone at (202) 606-2419, by fax at (202) 606-2329, by TDD at (202) 418-3134, or by e-mail at
OPM is issuing proposed regulations to amend the rules in 5 CFR part 410, subparts C, D, and G, which address agency training records and reporting requirements. OPM is creating a Governmentwide electronic system to capture employee human resource information, which will include training data. This system is explained and agency reporting requirements defined in the
To support this data collection, OPM is clarifying established policy to ensure that agencies maintain records of their training plans and to require that they report training data in the form as prescribed by the OPM Governmentwide Electronic Data Collection System. The Governmentwide system will allow agencies to maintain accurate records to facilitate reporting on a regular basis as prescribed by the
We seek comments from reviewers as to whether the proposed regulation clarifies agency's responsibility to reporting data to the governmentwide system and to assure the guides listed assist agencies with implementation processes for reporting the data elements.
This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866.
I certify that these regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they would apply only to Federal agencies and employees.
Education, Government employees.
Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend part 410 of 5 CFR as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 410 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 4101,
2. Remove § 410.311.
3. Remove § 410.406.
4. In subpart G, revise the subpart title to read as set forth above.
5. Revise § 410.701 to read as follows:
(a) Each agency shall maintain records of training plans, expenditures, and activities in such form and manner as necessary to submit the recorded data to the Office of Personnel Management through the OPM Governmentwide Electronic Data Collection System.
(b) Each agency shall report the training data for its employees' training and development at such times and in such form as required for the OPM Governmentwide Electronic Data Collection System which is explained in the
(c) Each agency shall establish a Schedule of Records for information required to be maintained by this chapter in accordance with regulations promulgated by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This rule invites comments on revisions to the Certificate of Privilege (COP) requirements currently prescribed under the Florida tomato marketing order (order). The order regulates the handling of tomatoes grown in Florida and is administered locally by the Florida Tomato Committee (Committee). This rule
Comments received by July 26, 2005, will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection burden must be received by July 26, 2005.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposal. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938, or E-mail:
William G. Pimental, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 799 Overlook Drive, Suite A, Winter Haven, Florida 33884-1671; Telephone: (863) 324-3375; Fax: (863) 325-8793; or George Kelhart, Technical Advisor, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491; Fax: (202) 720-8938.
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or E-mail:
This proposal is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 125 and Marketing Order No. 966, both as amended (7 CFR part 966), regulating the handling of tomatoes grown in Florida, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This proposal will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule would revise the COP requirements currently prescribed under the order. This action would require all parties interested in receiving Florida tomatoes shipped under a COP to apply to the Committee to become an approved receiver. This change would assist the Committee in preventing tomatoes shipped under a COP from entering unauthorized outlets. This rule would also clarify the definitions for processing and pickling as used in the rules and regulations under the order. The Committee unanimously recommended these changes at a meeting held on September 9, 2004.
Section 966.54 of the order provides authority for the modification, suspension, and termination of regulations to facilitate the handling of tomatoes for special purposes such as export, charity, processing, or other purposes as specified by the Committee and approved by USDA. Section 966.56 of the order provides authority for the application of adequate safeguards to prevent tomatoes handled pursuant to § 966.54 from entering channels of trade for other than the specified purpose or purposes. Sections 966.120-123 of the order's rules and regulations specify the provisions required under a COP to allow tomatoes for pickling, processing, charity, relief, export, or experimental purposes to be shipped free from certain order requirements. The COP procedures include safeguards to ensure that the tomatoes are shipped for these purposes. The safeguards are also highlighted in § 966.323(c). Section 966.323(g) provides the definition of processing.
This rule would add a new § 966.124 to the order's rules and regulations. This section would require that handlers could only ship tomatoes under a COP to receivers approved by the Committee and would outline the receiver application procedures. Section 966.323(c) would also be modified to reflect the new COP requirements.
The COP provisions allow tomatoes for pickling, processing, charity, relief, export, or experimental purposes to be shipped free from certain order requirements. Consequently, it is important that adequate safeguards exist to assure that such tomatoes are disposed of properly. For example, the Committee noted that tomatoes shipped during the 2003-04 season under a COP for processing were being shipped into the domestic fresh market and not for the intended COP purpose.
The volume of tomatoes shipped for processing under COPs is significant enough to negatively impact the market for fresh tomatoes if these tomatoes are utilized in markets other than those specified in the COP. Last season, nearly 500,000 25-pound equivalent units of Florida tomatoes were shipped under COPs. Consequently, the Committee agreed that additional steps need to be taken to ensure that tomatoes shipped under a COP are only utilized for the purposes specified.
Last season, when the issue with COP tomatoes surfaced, the Committee staff looked for ways to address the problem. Using the current safeguard procedures, those handlers who had shipped to receivers that had used tomatoes shipped under a COP for purposes different than specified had their COPs canceled. Some handlers noted that they had shipped the tomatoes to their receiver in good faith, and that the receiver was responsible for the problem. Further, because the handlers had used COPs to ship to more than one receiver, those handlers affected were no longer able to take advantage of the exemptions provided under the COP provisions.
Considering this, the Committee believes one way to help ensure that tomatoes shipped under a COP are not being misused is to provide for
Should a receiver utilize the tomatoes for purposes other than specified under the COP, their status as an approved receiver with the Committee would be rescinded. As a result, such a receiver would no longer be eligible to receive tomatoes from any handler under a COP, but would only be able to receive tomatoes meeting the existing grade and size requirements under the order.
Under the provisions that would be added by this rule, anyone interested in receiving tomatoes under a COP would have to file an application with the Committee for review and approval. This would include persons acquiring tomatoes for processing or pickling, as well as tomatoes acquired for relief or charity, for export, for experimental purposes, or for other purposes specified by the Committee. This application would include the name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address of applicant (receiver), the purpose for which the COP tomatoes would be used, physical address where the stated privilege purpose would be accomplished, an indication of whether or not the receiver packs, repacks, or sells fresh tomatoes, a statement that the tomatoes obtained would only be used for the purposes stated in the COP, a statement agreeing to undergo random inspections by the Committee, and an agreement to submit reports as required. The Committee believes that this additional information would be valuable in helping to verify legitimate receivers.
The Committee staff would use the information in the application to investigate and approve receivers wanting to receive tomatoes under COPs. The approved receivers and the tomatoes shipped under the COP provisions would be monitored throughout the year. If during the season an approved receiver is found to be handling tomatoes in ways other than specified under the COP, that receiver's approval would be rescinded. The Committee believes this change would help it better assure that COP tomatoes were shipped into the intended COP outlets. Moreover, handlers who may have shipped to non-compliant receivers would still be able to ship to other approved COP receivers.
This rule also would amend the definition for processing contained in § 966.323 and would add a definition for pickling. Over the past few years, there have been an increasing number of questions surrounding what constitutes a fresh product and what constitutes processing. To help reduce any confusion and to ensure uniformity, the Committee believes it is important to make the definitions for processing and pickling in the order's rules and regulations as clear as possible.
Currently, processing is defined as the manufacture of any tomato product which has been converted into juice, or preserved by any commercial process, including canning, dehydrating, drying, and the addition of chemical substances. This rule would amend this definition to specify further that all processing procedures must result in a product that does not require refrigeration until opened.
In addition to the changes to the definition for processing, a specific definition for pickling would also be added. Pickling would be defined as tomatoes preserved in a brine or vinegar solution. These clarifications should lessen the chance of confusion between handlers and purchasers regarding tomatoes covered under a COP.
The Committee believes this rule would strengthen the existing safeguard provisions and would help deter the use of Florida COP tomatoes for unauthorized purposes. By requiring persons who wish to receive tomatoes under COPs to apply to the Committee to become approved receivers, the Committee would have additional information regarding receivers and the ability to rescind their approved receiver status, if necessary. The Committee also believes enhancing the definitions for processed and pickled tomatoes would help further clarify the appropriate uses of tomatoes shipped under a COP. Therefore, the Committee voted unanimously to make these changes.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 100 producers of tomatoes in the production area and approximately 80 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $6,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201). Currently, there are about 20 receivers who obtain tomatoes under COPs.
Based on industry and Committee data, the average annual price for fresh Florida tomatoes during the 2003-04 season was approximately $8.04 per 25-pound container, and fresh shipments for the 2003-04 season totaled 57,989,624 25-pound cartons of tomatoes. Committee data indicates approximately 25 percent of the handlers handle 94 percent of the total volume shipped outside the regulated area. Based on the average price, about 75 percent of handlers could be considered small businesses under SBA's definition. Therefore, the majority of Florida tomato handlers may be classified as small entities. It is believed that the majority of Florida tomato receivers and producers may be classified as small entities.
This rule would revise the COP requirements currently prescribed under the order. This rule would require those interested in receiving Florida tomatoes shipped under a COP to apply to the Committee to become an approved receiver. This change would assist the Committee in assuring that tomatoes shipped under COPs are used for the intended COP purposes. This rule would also clarify the definitions for processing and pickling as used in the rules and regulations under the order. These clarifications would help reduce confusion between handlers and purchasers of tomatoes covered under a COP. The Committee unanimously recommended these changes at a meeting held on September 9, 2004. This rule would add a new § 966.124 to the rules and regulations, amend the safeguard provisions specified in § 966.323(c), and revise the definitions specified in § 966.323(g). Authority for these actions is provided for in §§ 966.54 and 966.56 of the order.
It is not anticipated that these changes would result in any increased costs for growers, handlers, or receivers who comply with COP requirements. The Committee recommended these changes to improve compliance with the provisions established under COPs.
This action would have a beneficial impact on producers, handlers, and receivers in that it would continue to allow approved receivers to obtain COP tomatoes. Handlers shipping to approved COP receivers also would benefit because the non-compliant receivers would be removed from the Committee's approved receiver list and the handler could continue to take advantage of the exemptions by shipping to other approved COP receivers. Clarifying the definitions of processing and pickling would also help alleviate some of the questions and any confusion concerning what constitutes these procedures. The opportunities and benefits of this rule are expected to be equally available to all tomato handlers and growers regardless of their size of operation.
However, requiring receivers to register with the Committee would impose an additional reporting burden on both small and large receivers. Requiring receivers to apply annually would increase the annual burden by five minutes per receiver, for a total burden of 1.67 hours (5 minutes per response × 1 response per receiver × 20 receivers). Although this action would place an additional burden on receivers of Florida COP tomatoes, the benefits of having the additional information regarding receivers would outweigh the increase in reporting burden.
The Committee discussed alternatives to this action. One alternative considered was to further restrict handlers when shipping tomatoes under a COP. The Committee recognized that some industry members have developed markets for these tomatoes, which would otherwise be discarded. Therefore, the Committee voted to make the changes in this rule rather than further restricting this outlet. Another alternative considered was to only require processors and picklers to apply to the Committee. However, the Committee believed that the application process should be applicable to all parties receiving tomatoes under a COP. Consequently, this alternative was rejected.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
The Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the tomato industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the September 9, 2004, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
As mentioned previously, this action would require an additional collection of information. These information collection requirements are discussed in the following section.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
On September 9, 2004, the Committee unanimously recommended revising the order's administrative rules and regulations to require persons wishing to receive Florida tomatoes exempt from certain order requirements under a COP to register with the Committee annually and provide information on their facilities. This information would be reported on form number FTC-111, “Application for Registration as an Approved Receiver of Special Purpose Shipments.” This form would be filled out by persons wishing to receive tomatoes shipped under a COP, and would be submitted to the Committee to obtain approval as a receiver of special purpose shipments. The estimated increase in burden due to the new form required from each entity annually is 5 minutes per person, with a total increased burden estimated at 1.67 hours.
The form is needed so the Committee can collect information on persons wishing to receive shipments of COP tomatoes. The Committee would evaluate this information and determine whether an entity is qualified to receive COP tomatoes. This form would help ensure compliance with the regulations and assist the Committee and the USDA with oversight and planning.
The information collected would be used only by authorized representatives of USDA, including AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs regional and headquarters staff, and authorized Committee employees. Authorized Committee employees would be the primary users of the information and AMS would be the secondary user.
The request for approval of the revised information collection under the order is as follows:
Comments should reference OMB No. 0581-NEW and the Florida tomato marketing order, and be sent to USDA in care of the Docket Clerk at the previously mentioned address. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
In addition to the information collection burden, this rule also invites comments on revising the regulations concerning the COP requirements. A 60-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposal. All written comments timely received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.
Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tomatoes.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 966 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 966 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
2. In Part 966, a new § 966.124 is added to read as follows:
(a)
(1) Name, address, contact person, telephone number, and e-mail address of applicant;
(2) Purpose of shipment;
(3) Physical address of where manufacturing or other specified purpose is to occur;
(4) Whether or not the receiver packs, repacks or sells fresh tomatoes;
(5) A statement that the tomatoes obtained exempt from the fresh tomato regulations will not be resold or transferred for resale, directly or indirectly, but will be used only for the purpose specified in the corresponding certificate of privilege;
(6) A statement agreeing to undergo random inspection by the committee;
(7) A statement agreeing to submit such reports as is required by the committee.
(b) The committee, or its duly authorized agents, shall give prompt consideration to each application for an approved receiver and shall determine whether the application is approved or disapproved and notify the applicant accordingly.
(c) The committee, or its duly authorized agents, may rescind a person's approved receiver status upon proof satisfactory that such a receiver has handled tomatoes contrary to the provisions established under the Certificate of Privilege. Such action rescinding approved receiver status shall apply to and not exceed a reasonable period of time as determined by the committee or its duly authorized agents. Any person who has been denied as an approved receiver or who has had their approved receiver status rescinded, may appeal to the committee for reconsideration. Such an appeal shall be made in writing.
3. In § 966.323, a new paragraph (c)(5) is added and paragraph (g) is amended by removing the last three sentences and adding five new sentences in their place to read as follows:
(c)* * *
(5) Make shipments only to those who have qualified with the committee as approved receivers.
(g)* * *
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to revise an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for Turbomeca S.A. Arrius Models 2B, 2B1, and 2F turboshaft engines. That AD currently requires replacing the right injector half manifold, left injector half manifold, and privilege injector pipe. This proposed AD would require the same actions, but relaxes the compliance time for the repetitive replacements on Arrius 2F engines. This proposed AD results from Turbomeca relaxing the repetitive replacement interval for Arrius 2F engine fuel nozzles based on review of returned fuel nozzles to Turbomeca. We are proposing this AD to prevent engine flameout during rapid deceleration, or the inability to maintain the 2.5 minutes one engine inoperative (OEI) rating, and to prevent air path cracks due to blockage of the fuel injection manifolds.
We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by July 26, 2005.
Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD:
• By mail: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NE-12-AD, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299.
• By fax: (781) 238-7055.
• By e-mail:
You can get the service information identified in this proposed AD from Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; telephone: (33) 05 59 64 40 00; fax: (33) 05 59 64 60 80.
You may examine the AD docket, by appointment, at the FAA, New England
Christopher Spinney, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone: (781) 238-7175; fax: (781) 238-7199.
We invite you to submit any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
You may examine the AD Docket (including any comments and service information), by appointment, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
On April 16, 2001, we issued AD 2001-08-14, Amendment 39-12218 (66 FR 20910, April 26, 2001). That AD requires replacing the right injector half manifold, left injector half manifold, and privilege injector pipe. That AD results from reports from the Direction Generale de L'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, of partially or totally blocked fuel injection manifolds, which were found during inspections at a repair workshop.
Since we issued AD 2001-08-14, we became aware that Turbomeca S.A. has relaxed the repetitive replacement interval for the right injector half manifold, left injector half manifold, and privilege injector pipe, on Arrius 2F engines, from within 200 hours time-in-service (TIS) since last replacement, to within 400 hours TIS since last replacement.
Turbomeca has issued six revisions to alert service bulletin (ASB) No. A319 73 2012, for Arrius 2B and 2B1 turboshaft engines and has issued seven revisions to ASB No. A319 73 4001 for Arrius 2F turboshaft engines. These ASBs require the replacement of the right injector half manifold, left injector half manifold, and privilege injector pipes, based on operating hours and power check performance. When replacing the manifolds for the first time, the ASBs also require a borescope inspection of the flame tube and the high pressure turbine (HPT) area. The DGAC classified the original ASBs as mandatory and issued AD 1999-217(A) and AD 1999-233(A) in order to assure the airworthiness of these Turbomeca turboshaft engines in France.
These Turbomeca Arrius Models 2B, 2B1, and 2F turboshaft engines are manufactured in France and are type-certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of § 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept us informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DGAC's findings, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
We are proposing this AD, which would:
• Relax the repetitive replacement compliance time for Arrius 2F engines in AD 2001-08-14, from 200 hours TIS to 400 hours TIS; and
• As in AD 2001-08-14, replace the right injector half manifolds, left injector half manifolds, and privilege injector pipes with 200 or more hours TIS on the effective date of the proposed AD within 30 days after the effective date of the proposed AD; and
• As in AD 2001-08-14, thereafter, for Arrius Models 2B and 2B1 turboshaft engines, replace injector manifolds within 200 hours TIS since last replacement.
The proposed AD would require you to use the service information described previously to perform these actions.
There are about 266 Turbomeca S.A. Arrius Models 2B, 2B1, and 2F turboshaft engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. We estimate that 124 of these engines are installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about two work hours per engine to perform the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $14,320 per engine. The manufacturer has advised the DGAC that it may provide the parts at no cost to the operator, thereby substantially reducing the cost of this proposed rule. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators, to replace all of the affected parts one time, to be $1,791,800.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this proposal and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-12218 (66 FR 20910, April 26, 2001) and by adding a new airworthiness directive, to read as follows:
This airworthiness directive (AD) is applicable to Arrius Models 2B, 2B1, and 2F engines. These engines are installed on but not limited to Eurocopter France Model EC120B and Eurocopter Deutschland EC135 T1 rotorcraft.
This AD applies to each engine identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For engines that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
Compliance with this AD is required as indicated, unless already done.
To prevent engine flameout and the inability to maintain the 2.5 minutes one engine inoperative (OEI) rating due to blockage of the fuel injection manifolds, do the following:
(a) If not already done in accordance with Turbomeca Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. A319 73 2012, Revision 2, dated May 25, 1999, or Revision 3, dated July 21, 2000, or ASB No. A319 73 4001, Revision 3, dated May 25, 1999 or Revision 4, dated October 20, 2000, replace injector manifolds and borescope-inspect the flame tube and the high pressure turbine area within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, or prior to exceeding 200 hours time-in-service (TIS), whichever is later. Do these in accordance with Instructions 2.A. through 2.C. of Turbomeca ASB No. A319 73 2012, Revision 6, dated August 14, 2004 for Arrius 2B and 2B1 turboshaft engines, and ASB No. A319 73 4001, Revision 7, dated August 14, 2004, for Arrius 2F turboshaft engines, except that replacement may be done at any appropriately rated repair shop.
(b) Thereafter, replace injector manifolds, in accordance with Instructions 2.A. through 2.C. of Turbomeca ASB No. A319 73 2012, Revision 6, dated August 14, 2004 for Arrius 2B and 2B1 turboshaft engines, and ASB No. A319 73 4001, Revision 7, dated August 14, 2004, for Arrius 2F turboshaft engines, except that replacement may be done at any appropriately rated repair shop, as follows:
(1) For Arrius 2B and 2B1 engines, replace within 200 hours TIS since last injector manifolds replacement.
(2) For Arrius 2F engines, replace within 400 hours TIS since last injector manifolds replacement.
(3) For all engines, replace injector manifolds before further flight after performing the applicable flight manual or overhaul manual power check if that check shows a negative turbine outlet temperature (TOT) margin or negative T4 margin.
(c) For the purposes of this AD, time-in-service (TIS) is defined as the number of engine operating hours on the manifolds since the manifolds were new or since the manifolds were refurbished.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Engine Certification Office. Operators shall submit their request through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Engine Certification Office.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive, if any, may be obtained from the Engine Certification Office.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for Rolls-Royce plc (RR) models RB211 Trent 875-17, Trent 877-17, Trent 884-17, Trent 884B-17, Trent 892-17, Trent 892B-17, and Trent 895-17 turbofan engines with low pressure (LP) compressor fan blades, part number (P/N) FW18548 installed. That AD currently requires LP compressor fan blade replacement with new or previously reworked blades, or rework of the existing LP compressor fan blades. This proposed AD would require the same actions but at reduced compliance times for certain airplane and engine rating combinations and certain maximum gross weight limits. This proposed AD results from a number of new production LP compressor blades found with surfaces formed outside of design intent. We are proposing this AD to prevent possible multiple uncontained LP compressor fan blade failure, due to cracking in the blade root caused by increased stresses in the shear key slots.
We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by July 26, 2005.
Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD:
• By mail: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003-NE-38-AD, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299.
• By fax: (781) 238-7055.
• By e-mail:
You can get the service information identified in this proposed AD from
You may examine the AD docket, by appointment, at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA.
Christopher Spinney, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine And Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park; Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone (781) 238-7175; fax (781) 238-7199.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
You may examine the AD Docket (including any comments and service information), by appointment, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
On July 14, 2004, we issued AD 2004-15-02, Amendment 39-13736 (69 FR 44925, July 28, 2004). That AD requires LP compressor fan blade replacement with new or previously reworked blades, or rework of the existing LP compressor fan blades. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom (U.K.), notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Trent 800 Series turbofan engines. The CAA advises that RR has introduced revised rework lives for LP compressor fan blades, P/N FW18548, in redefined airplane and engine rating combinations. These rating combinations also take into account the airplane gross weight.
We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of RR Service Bulletin (SB) No. RB.211-72-E044, Revision 2, dated October 8, 2004, that describes procedures for inspecting and reworking LP compressor fan blades P/N FW18548, that utilize the shear key blade retention device. The CAA classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued AD G-2004-0030, dated December 23, 2004, in order to ensure the airworthiness of these RB211 Trent 800 series turbofan engines in the U.K.
This engine model is manufactured in the U.K. and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of Section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. In keeping with this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the findings of the CAA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require at or before the accumulation of certain cycles-since-new based on airplane and engine rating combinations and airplane gross weight, replacement of LP compressor fan blades with new or previously reworked LP compressor fan blades, or rework of the existing blades. The proposed AD would require that you do these actions using the service information described previously.
About 392 RR RB211 Trent 800 series turbofan engines of the affected design are in the worldwide fleet. We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 106 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that about 100 work hours per engine are needed to perform blade rework, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $689,000.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this proposal and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-13736 (69 FR 44925, July 28, 2004) and by adding a new airworthiness directive, to read as follows:
(a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by July 26, 2005.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 2004-15-02, Amendment 39-13736.
(c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) models RB211 Trent 875-17, Trent 877-17, Trent 884-17, Trent 884B-17, Trent 892-17, Trent 892B-17, and Trent 895-17 turbofan engines, with low pressure (LP) compressor fan blades, part number FW18548 installed. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 777 series airplanes.
(d) This AD results from a number of new production LP compressor blades found with surfaces formed outside of design intent. We are issuing this AD to prevent possible multiple uncontained LP compressor fan blade failure, due to cracking in the blade root caused by increased stresses in the shear key slots.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done.
(f) Replace LP compressor fan blades with new or previously reworked LP compressor blades before accumulating the specified cycles-since-new (CSN) in the following Table 1, or rework the existing blades as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
(g) Rework LP compressor fan blades at or before accumulating the specified CSN in Table 1 of this AD. Follow paragraphs 3.B.(1) through 3.B.(22) of Accomplishment Instructions of RR service bulletin (SB) No. RB.211-72-E044, Revision 2, dated October 8, 2004, to do the blade rework.
(h) For engines moved between configurations, calculate the cycles remaining using either of the following:
(1) Subtract the total CSN from the most limiting configuration's limit from Table 1 of this AD; or
(2) Calculate the cycles remaining using the following equation:
(i) Information on the source life of the cycle limits in Table 1 of this AD can be found in RR Alert SB No. RB.211-72-AE055, Revision 3, dated May 28, 2004.
(j) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(k) CAA airworthiness directive G-2004-030, dated December 23, 2004, and RR Alert SB No. RB.211-72-AE055, Revision 4, dated December 9, 2004, pertain to the subject of this AD.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
This notice extends the comment period on an advance notice of proposed rulemaking addressing potential regulatory and policy changes that would effect existing BIS deemed export licensing practices. BIS is continuing to seek comments on how these revisions would impact industry, the academic community, and U.S. government agencies involved in research. The new comment period deadline is June 27, 2005.
Comments must be received by June 27, 2005.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0694-AD29, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• E-mail to
• Fax: 202-482-3355.
• Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Regulatory Policy Division, 14th Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2705, Washington, DC 20230, ATTN: RIN 0694-AD29.
Alex Lopes, Director, Deemed Exports and Electronics Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Telephone: (202) 482-4875, or e-mail:
On March 28, 2005 the Bureau of Industry and Security published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that addresses possible regulatory and policy changes would revise the Export Administration Regulations by adopting recommendations from a report by the Office of Inspector General (OIG). Adopting the OIG's recommendations would entail regulatory or other administrative action related to clarifying the definition of “use” technology subject to the EAR, evaluating a foreign national's successive citizenship or permanent residency, and modifying regulatory guidance on licensing technology to foreign nationals working with government-sponsored and university-based research.
The deadline for public comment was May 27, 2005 (70 FR 15607). The Bureau is now extending the comment period until June 27, 2005, to allow the public more time to comment on this proposed rule.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of meeting.
The Coast Guard will hold a public meeting to provide a forum for citizens to provide oral comments relating to the “2005 Piankatank River Race”, a marine event proposed to be held over the waters of the Piankatank River in Gloucester County, Virginia on July 23, 2005. The meeting will be open to the public.
This public meeting will be on Wednesday, June 29, 2005, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. The meeting may close early if all business is finished. Written material and requests to make oral presentations should reach the Coast Guard on or before June 24, 2005.
The Coast Guard public meeting will be held at the Gloucester County Library, 6920 Main Street, Gloucester, VA, 23061. Send written material and requests to make oral presentations to Dennis Sens, Commander (oax), U.S. Coast Guard Fifth District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23321.
Dennis Sens, Recreational Boating Safety Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, telephone 757-398-6204, Fax 757-398-6203.
This notice of meeting is in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking, (NPRM), published in the
The agenda includes the following:
(1) Introduction of panel members.
(2) Overview of meeting format.
(3) Background on proposed marine event.
(4) Statements from citizens. Statements may be delivered in written form at the public meeting and made part of the docket or delivered orally not to exceed 10 minutes.
The meeting is open to the public. Please note that the meeting may close early if all business is finished. Members of the public may make oral presentations during the meeting. If you would like to make an oral presentation at the meeting, please notify the meeting coordinator at the address listed under
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the meeting coordinator as soon as possible.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary safety zone for the Yankee Homecoming Fireworks in Newburyport, Massachusetts. The safety zone is necessary to protect the life and property of the maritime public from the potential hazards posed by a fireworks display. The safety zone would temporarily prohibit entry into or movement within this portion of the Merrimack River during its effective period.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 27, 2005.
You may mail comments and related material to Sector Boston 427 Commercial Street, Boston, MA. Sector Boston maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. 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 CGD01-05-044 and are available for inspection or copying at Sector Boston, 427 Commercial Street, Boston, MA between the hours of 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Chief Petty Officer Paul English, Sector Boston, Waterways Management Division, at (617) 223-3010.
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for the rulemaking (CGD01-05-044), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related materials in an unbound format, no larger than 8.5 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know that your submission reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.
We do not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Sector Boston at the address under
This proposed rule would establish a safety zone on the waters of the Merrimack River Bay within a two hundred yard radius of Cashman Park located at approximate position 42°48.58″ N, 070°52.41″ W. The safety zone would be in effect from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on August 6, 2005.
This safety zone is necessary to protect the life and property of the maritime public from the dangers posed by this fireworks display. It would protect the public by temporarily prohibiting entry into or movement within this portion of the Merrimack River.
The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary safety zone in a portion of the Merrimack River. The temporary safety zone would be in effect from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. EDT on August 6, 2005. Marine traffic may transit safely outside of the safety zone during the event thereby allowing navigation of the Merrimack River except for the portion delineated by this rule. This safety zone will control vessel traffic during the fireworks event to protect the safety of the maritime public.
Given the limited time frame of the firework display and because the zone leaves the majority of the Merrimack River open for navigation, the Captain of the Port anticipates minimal negative impact on vessel traffic due to this event. Public notifications will be made prior to the effective period via local media, local notice to mariners and marine information broadcasts.
This proposed 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. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
Although this regulation prevents vessel traffic from transiting into a portion of the Merrimack River during this event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant for several reasons: Vessels will be excluded from the area of the safety zone for only two hours; vessels will be able to operate in the majority of the Merrimack River during this time period; and advance notifications will be made to the local maritime community by marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast Guard considered whether this proposed 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 proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the effected portion of the Merrimack River from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. EDT August 6, 2005.
This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Vessel traffic can safely pass outside of the safety zone during the effective period, the period is limited in duration, and advance notification via safety marine informational broadcast and local notice to mariners.
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 (Public Law 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 effect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Chief Petty Officer Paul English at the address listed under
This rule would call 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
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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 pose an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Considering 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 (
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Coast Guard 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 concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule is 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.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 165 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add temporary § 165.T01-044 to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) All vessel operators shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or the designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel. On-scene Coast Guard patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Proposed rule.
Technical information or comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual chance)
The comment period is ninety (90) days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in each community.
The proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Doug Bellomo, P.E., Hazard Identification Section, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2903.
FEMA proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed base flood and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, state or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings.
Administrative practice and procedure, flood insurance, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 67 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments
NMFS proposes to require sea turtle conservation measures for all sea scallop dredge vessels fishing in the mid-Atlantic from May 1 through November 30 each year. The proposed rule would require all vessels with a sea scallop dredge and which are required to have a Federal Atlantic sea scallop fishery permit, regardless of dredge size or vessel permit category, to modify their dredge(s) when fishing south of 41° 9.0′ N. latitude, from the shoreline to the outer boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone. Any incidental take of threatened sea turtles in sea scallop dredge gear in compliance with this proposed gear modification requirement and other applicable requirements would be exempted from the prohibition against takes. This action is necessary to help reduce the take of sea turtles in scallop dredge gear and conserve loggerhead sea turtles, listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Comments on the proposed rule must be received by 5 p.m. EST on June 27, 2005.
Written comments on this action may be submitted on this proposed rule, identified by RIN 0648-AS92, by any one of the following methods:
(1) NMFS/Northeast Region Website:
(2) E-mail: scallopchainmat@noaa.gov Please include the RIN 0648-AS92 in the subject line of the message.
(3) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
(4) Mail: Mary A. Colligan, Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS, Northeast Region, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, ATTN: Sea Turtle Conservation Measures, Proposed Rule
(5) Facsimile (fax): 978-281-9394, ATTN: Sea Turtle Conservation Measures, Proposed Rule
Copies of the Draft Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review and documents cited in the proposed rule can be obtained from
Ellen Keane (ph. 978-281-9300 x6526, fax 978-281-9394) or Barbara Schroeder (ph. 301-713-1401, fax 301-713-0376).
All sea turtles that occur in U.S. waters are listed as either endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The Kemp's ridley (
Under the ESA and its implementing regulations, taking sea turtles under NMFS' jurisdiction, even incidentally, is prohibited, with exceptions identified in 50 CFR 223.206. The incidental take of endangered species may only legally be exempted by an incidental take statement or an incidental take permit issued pursuant to section 7 or 10 of the ESA, respectively. Existing sea turtle conservation regulations at 50 CFR 223.206(d) exempt fishing activities and scientific research from the prohibition on takes of threatened sea turtles under certain conditions. This proposed rule would add an additional requirement with which vessels with sea scallop dredge gear must comply in order to have any incidental takes of threatened sea turtles exempted from the prohibition on takes.
The incidental take and mortality of sea turtles as a result of scallop dredging has been documented in the mid-Atlantic. Based on the available information, NMFS has determined that the use of a dredge modified with a chain mat would sharply reduce the capture of sea turtles in the dredge itself, as well as any ensuing injuries and mortalities that occur as a result of being caught in the dredge (
Based on the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) Observer Program data, a total of 62 observed sea turtle takes were attributed to the Atlantic sea scallop dredge fishery during normal fishery operations from March 1, 1996 through October 31, 2004. “Observed” or “observed take” means seen and documented by a NMFS-approved observer. Of these, 43 were identified as loggerheads; the remaining animals were hard-shelled sea turtles that could not be positively identified. Four of the sea turtles were fresh dead upon retrieval or died on the vessel, 1 was alive but required resuscitation, 25 were alive but injured, 20 were alive with no apparent injuries, and 12 were listed as alive but condition unknown because the observer did not have sufficient opportunity to examine the turtle.
In 2004, the NEFSC completed an assessment of sea turtle bycatch in the 2003 scallop dredge fishery in the mid-Atlantic (Long Island, New York to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina). Total estimated bycatch of sea turtles in this fishery from June 1 through November 30, 2003 was 749 animals (C.V. = 0.28).
A Biological Opinion on the Atlantic sea scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP), issued on December 15, 2004, anticipates the take of up to 749 loggerhead sea turtles annually as a result of the continued operation of the scallop dredge fishery with up to 479 of these takes resulting in injuries that would lead to death or an inability of the turtle to reproduce.
The only species positively identified by the NEFSC Observer Program to have been captured in sea scallop dredge gear is the loggerhead sea turtle; however, hardshell turtles were caught and not
There are at least five western Atlantic loggerhead subpopulations. The south Florida nesting group is the largest known loggerhead nesting assemblage in the Atlantic and one of only two loggerhead nesting assemblages worldwide that have greater than 10,000 females nesting per year. The northern subpopulation is the second largest loggerhead nesting assemblage within the United States. The remaining three subpopulations (the Dry Tortugas, Florida Panhandle, and Yucatan) are much smaller subpopulations with nest counts ranging from roughly 100 - 1,000 nests per year. To date, analysis of nesting data from the Index Nesting Beach Survey Program indicates that there is no discernable trend in abundance for the south Florida, northern or Florida Panhandle subpopulations. No conclusions can be made from nesting data on the Dry Tortugas and Yucatan nesting subpopulations at this time.
Cohorts from each of the subpopulations are expected to occur in the action area. Genetic analysis of samples collected from benthic immature loggerhead sea turtles captured in pound nets in the Pamlico-Albemarle Estuarine Complex in North Carolina from September-December of 1995-1997 indicated that cohorts from all five western Atlantic subpopulations were present (Bass
The distribution of loggerhead sea turtles overlaps seasonally with the distribution of scallop fishing effort from the southern boundary of the management area from approximately the North Carolina/South Carolina border to Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Hard-shelled turtles have been injured and killed as a result of being captured in sea scallop dredge gear. Of the 62 turtles observed taken in the scallop dredge fishery, excluding the experimental fishery, 43 were positively identified as loggerhead sea turtles. The remaining animals were hard-shelled turtles that could not be positively identified. All loggerhead sea turtles are still listed as threatened under the ESA as populations have not yet recovered. Reducing sea turtle mortality will help subpopulations to recover. NMFS must protect and conserve loggerhead sea turtle populations under the ESA.
In response to the increase in observed takes, NMFS worked with the scallop fishing industry and Virginia Institute of Marine Science to investigate the use of a modified sea scallop dredge to keep sea turtles from being captured in the dredge bag. The modified dredge uses a chain mat configuration consisting of evenly spaced “tickler” (horizontal) and “vertical” (up and down) chains hung forward of the sweep, between the cutting bar and the sweep. This is a modified rock chain arrangement constructed of lighter, but stronger chain (DuPaul et al. 2004a).
Preliminary trials of the chain mat gear were conducted in 2002, and an experimental fishery to test the gear was conducted from July 17, 2003 - October 9, 2004. Trained observers were not present during the preliminary trials. During the preliminary trials, side-by-side testing of the gear was performed; in each tow, only one of the vessel's two dredges was modified with the chain mat. In these preliminary trials, there were two interactions with sea turtles. DuPaul
Twelve different vessels participated in the 2003-2004 field evaluations of the chain mats. In each tow, the vessels fished with two sea scallop dredges, one unmodified on one side of the vessel and the other modified with the chain mat on the other side of the vessel. The trials were performed with dredges measuring between 11 and 15 ft (3.35 - 4.57 m) wide. For 14 ft (4.27 m) and 15 ft (4.57 m) dredges, 11 vertical and 6 horizontal chains were used; for smaller dredges, 9 verticals were used (DuPaul et al. 2004a). Evenly spaced on a normal sweep arrangement, this should give about a 12-inch (30.5-cm) to 13-inch (33.0-cm) square pattern.
In total, side-by-side testing was conducted on 22 fishing trips, encompassing 277 fishing days and 3,248 tows (of which 2,823 tows were observed). A total of eight turtle interactions occurred (six of which were observed), all with the unmodified scallop dredge. Of the eight sea turtles caught, three were alive with no apparent injuries, three were alive released with injuries, one was killed when the dredge frame fell on the turtle, and one was killed prior to coming aboard. The six observed interactions were with loggerhead sea turtles. One of the unobserved interactions was reported by the fisherman as a loggerhead sea turtle. The second unobserved interaction was reported by the fisherman as a leatherback. NEFSC's general protocol for confirmation of at-sea species identification requires that the species be considered as unknown unless either the observer is experienced in sea turtle identification and has confidence in the identification, or the observer is inexperienced and has provided supporting information (i.e. photos, tissue samples). For both of
With respect to the catch of sea scallops, the modified chain mat dredge caught 6.71 percent less scallops than the unmodified dredge (DuPaul et al. 2004a). DuPaul et al. (2004a) concluded that the chain mats can be effective in eliminating the incidence of sea turtle bycatch in the dredge without substantial reductions in the harvest of sea scallops.
On June 17, 2004, NMFS received a petition from the Fisheries Survival Fund and the Garden State Seafood Association requesting that NMFS promulgate an emergency rule pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) that would require scallop dredges to be modified with additional chains as in the experimental fishery and scallop trawls to be modified by installation of a Turtle Excluder Device when fishing south of Long Island, New York and north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina during the period May 1 - October 15 each year. On July 7, 2004, NMFS published a Notice of Receipt of the petition in the
Risks to sea turtles from capture in dredge gear include forced submergence and injury. Sea turtles forcibly submerged in any type of restrictive gear would eventually suffer fatal consequences from prolonged anoxia and/or seawater infiltration of the lung (Lutcavage
The NEFSC estimated, in the 2003 fishing year, there were 749 sea turtles taken in the mid-Atlantic sea scallop fishery. According to the December 15, 2004 biological opinion, the agency anticipates that up to 749 sea turtles will be taken each year without the chain mat configuration in place, and up to 479 of these (approximately 64 percent) are expected to sustain injuries leading to death or failure to reproduce. With the chain mat installed over the opening of the dredge bag, it is reasonable to assume that up to 749 sea turtles will come into contact with the chain mat (at least). Data do not exist on the percentage of sea turtles interacting with the chain mat-modified gear that will be unharmed, sustain minor injuries, or sustain serious injuries that will result in death or failure to reproduce. However, there are several assumptions that can be made to help estimate the degree of interaction. The first assumption is that sea turtles likely interact with scallop dredge gear both on the sea floor as the gear is being fished and in the water column as the gear is hauled back to the vessel. This is a reasonable assumption, because sea turtles have been observed in the area in which scallop gear operates and they have been seen near scallop vessels when they are fishing or hauling gear. In addition, sea turtles generally are known to forage and rest on the sea floor as part of their normal behavior.
The second assumption relates to the apportionment of the seriousness of the interaction between sea turtles and the modified gear. For this, we start with the assumption that up to 749 sea turtles will still interact with the chain mat-modified gear, and the estimate that up to 479 sea turtles will be seriously injured/killed and 270 will be unharmed/slightly injured without the chain mat. There are two scenarios in which sea turtles may sustain serious injuries that lead to death or the failure to reproduce interactions on the sea floor or interactions in the water column.
With the chain mat in place, it is reasonable to assume that the sea turtles on the sea floor would still interact with the gear, but that the nature of the interaction would be different. NMFS assumes that some portion of the 479 seriously injured sea turtles are taken on the bottom. The precise number, however, cannot be quantified. As the dredge is fished on the bottom, sea turtles may be passed over with the dredge frame and cutting bar, which weigh thousands of pounds. Without the chain mat modification, the sea turtle may be swept into the dredge bag, forcibly submerged for the remainder of the tow, and will be at risk of further injury due to being tumbled around or hit by debris inside the bag or being crushed when the catch is dumped on the vessel's deck. With the modified gear, the sea turtles may still be hit by the leading edge of the frame and cutting bar and would likely be forced down to the sea floor rather then swept into the dredge bag. Since the turtles are not swept into the bag, they would be run over by the aft portion of the dredge including the bag which constitutes a crushing weight. As a result, sea turtles on the bottom that interact with the modified dredge would probably fare just as poorly as those that interact with the unmodified dredge. Given the nature of the bottom interaction without the chain mat, it is reasonable to assume that the same portion of the 479 sea turtles interacting with the gear on the
NMFS assumes that the remaining portion of the 479 seriously injured sea turtles are taken in the water column. Again, the precise number cannot be quantified. Any injuries due to an interaction in the water column during haul back with the chain mat-modified gear are likely to be non-serious. The chain mat would prevent serious injuries, since the turtles would not be able to get into the dredge bag; therefore, they would not be dumped on the deck from height or crushed by falling gear. Once off the bottom, the gear is hauled back through the water column at a slow speed (1 to 4 miles per hour (1.6-6.5 km/hr)), so NMFS assumes that any turtle hitting the chain mat in the water column would not be hit with great force and would likely be able to swim away without serious injury. During the preliminary trials of the chain mat configuration, one turtle was observed “hanging onto” the chain mat, perhaps held by water pressure, and subsequently swimming away. NMFS has no indication that this interaction, or this type of interaction, would result in serious injury. NMFS' assumption about this type of interaction is that the animal is being held against the gear by water pressure as the gear moves through the water during haul back. The vessel often continues to move forward as the gear is hauled. Once the gear stops moving and the pressure is relieved, the animal would be able to swim away without serious injury. Therefore, NMFS assumes that the portion of the 479 sea turtles taken in the water column are unlikely to be seriously injured. NMFS also assumes that the 270 unharmed/slightly injured sea turtles are taken in the water column and that serious injury to these turtles caused by the chain mat is unlikely for the reasons listed above.
In summary, the chain mat can logically be assumed to prevent serious injury leading to death or failure to reproduce caused by the dumping of turtles on the vessel's deck and crushing them by the falling gear following an interaction in the water column interaction. The chain mat would also prevent serious injuries from dumping/crushing on deck of sea turtles following an interaction on the sea floor. However, we have made the conservative assumption that a turtle in a bottom interaction sustains serious injuries on the bottom, so, under this conservative assumption, there would not be a benefit from the chain mat for bottom interactions. This assumption, however, may be too conservative in that it is possible that turtles in a bottom interaction only receive minor injuries.
NMFS recognizes that the specific nature of the interaction between sea turtles and sea scallop dredge gear remains unknown, as sea turtles could be taken when the dredge is fished on the bottom or during haul back and NMFS cannot conclude that the modified dredge eliminates interactions with sea turtles. The chain mat sharply reduces the capture of sea turtles in the dredge bag and, therefore, sharply reduces drowning and serious injuries that result from such capture. NMFS does not know how sea scallop dredge gear (with or without the modification) may interact with sea turtles on the ocean bottom. DuPaul
To conserve sea turtles, NMFS proposes that all vessels required to have a Federal Atlantic sea scallop fishery permit and using Atlantic sea scallop dredge gear, regardless of dredge size or vessel permit category, be required to modify their dredge(s) when fishing south of 41° 9.0′ N. lat., from the shoreline to the outer boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone, from May 1 through November 30 each year. All dredges used for fishing must be modified with evenly spaced “tickler” (horizontal) chains and “vertical” (up-and-down) chains in the following configuration, which is dependent on the size of the dredge frame width. Dredges with a frame width of greater than 13 ft (3.96 m) would be required to use 11 vertical and 6 tickler chains; dredges with a frame width of 11 to 13 ft (3.35 to 3.96 m) would be required to use 9 vertical and 5 tickler chains; dredges with a frame width of 10 ft (3.05 m) to less than 11 ft (3.35 m) would be required to use 7 vertical and 4 tickler chains; and dredges with a frame width of less than 10 ft (3.05 m) would be required to use 5 vertical and 3 tickler chains. If a vessel elects to use a different configuration, the length of each side of the squares formed by the chain must be less than or equal to 14 inches (35.5 cm).
Interactions have been observed in the sea scallop fishery from New Jersey south through the Virginia/North Carolina border from late June to late October and the potential for interactions exists during May and November due to the overlap in distribution of loggerhead sea turtles and dredge fishing effort in the southern range of the fishery (Shoop and Kenney 1992; Braun-McNeill and Epperly 2004). Implementation of the proposed gear restrictions from May through November is expected to increase protection of sea turtles. The scallop management area defined in the FMP consists of the resource throughout its range in waters under the jurisdiction of the U.S. NMFS does not anticipate any fishing south of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina due to a lack of scallop resources. Thus, the timing of these proposed measures are based on Cape Hatteras as the lower boundary. Should scallop fishing occur south of this boundary or if observer records indicate interactions north of Long Island, New York, NMFS may reconsider the timing and area of the conservation measures.
As described above the proposed rule would require the use of the chain mat on sea scallop dredge vessels when fishing south of 41° 9.0′ N. latitude, from the shoreline to the outer boundary of the EEZ. While NMFS is proposing using the 200-nautical mile limit of the EEZ as the eastern boundary for the gear modification, NMFS is considering replacing the eastern EEZ boundary with a north-south (longitudinal) line so as to separate the Mid-Atlantic sea scallop fishing area from the Southern New England sea scallop fishing area. NMFS is considering an eastern boundary at 70° 20′ W. long. (the western edge of the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area) as well as any options proposed during the public comment period. NMFS has analyzed the physical, biological, and socio-economic impacts that this proposed rule would have based on the outer boundary of the EEZ as the eastern boundary. If the EEZ
The proposed rule has been determined to be significant by the Office of Management and Budget for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS has prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the
The fishery affected by this proposed rule is the mid-Atlantic sea scallop dredge fishery. The proposed action requires all vessels, regardless of dredge size or vessel permit category, to modify their dredge gear from May 1 through November 30 when fishing south of 41° 9.0′ N. lat., from the shoreline to outer boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone. The proposed gear modification is fairly inexpensive (between $177.37 and $778.44 per vessel). Therefore, NMFS assumes that a vessel will convert their gear and continue fishing in the area. According to Vessel Trip Report (VTR) Data for 2003, 314 vessels fished in the mid-Atlantic from May 1 through November 30. Of these, 277 were limited access vessels and 37 were general category vessels. In 2003, the 314 affected vessels earned approximately 221.4 million dollars in revenues using a total of 40,888 days at sea. The 277 limited access vessels earned approximately 98 percent of the total industry revenues and 95 percent of the industry revenues were earned using scallop dredge gear. On average, limited access vessels earned between $441,800 and $895,100 per year and general category vessels earned between $46,700 and $162,000 per year.
Using the materials recommended in DuPaul
Of the 314 affected vessels, 193 vessels may have their revenues reduced by 5 percent or less, 116 vessels may have their revenues reduced between 5 and 10 percent, and 5 vessels may have their revenues reduced by greater than 10 percent. Of the 121 vessels that may have revenue reductions exceeding 5 percent, 27, 29, 29, and 22 of the vessels are registered to the state of Massachusetts, New Jersey, Virginia, and North Carolina, respectively. Annual industry revenues would be reduced by 4.3 percent (=$9.6 million/$221.4 million).
Five alternatives were evaluated: (1) The preferred alternative (PA) is to require the chain mat modification on all vessels with a Federal Atlantic sea scallop fishery permit and a sea scallop dredge, regardless of dredge size or vessel permit category, when fishing south of 41° 9.0′ N latitude, from the shoreline to the outer boundary of the EEZ from May 1 through November 30 each year ; (2) non-preferred alternative 1 (NPA 1) is exactly the same as the PA; however, the gear modifications are only required from May 1 through October 15; (3) non-preferred alternative 2 (NPA 2) is exactly the same as the PA; however, the gear modification is only required for vessels that have dredge frames greater than 11 ft (3.35 m) wide; (4) non-preferred alternative 3 (NPA 3) prohibits the use of all sea scallop dredge gear south of 41° 9.0′ N. lat. from May 1 through November 30; and (5) the no-action alternative. All business entities participating in the sea scallop dredge fisheries are considered small business entities. Under the no action alternative, fishing practices would not be restricted or modified; therefore, there is no economic impact on the individual or industry. The reduction in annual revenues per vessel is expected to range from 3.0 to 7.8 percent for the PA, 3.0 to 7.6 percent for NPA 1, 4.4 to 4.5 percent for NPA 2 and 31.8 to 65.2 percent for NPA 3. NPA 3 has the greatest economic impact and all 314 affected vessels can expect revenue reductions greater than 5 percent. The PA has the next lowest economic impact (121 vessels with annual revenue reductions greater than 5 percent), followed by NPA 1 (54 vessels), and NPA 2 with the lowest economic impact (35 vessels). The PA, NPA 1, and NPA 2 could be considered to have similar economic impacts since the differential is so small. Under the PA, 314 vessels are affected and industry revenues are reduced by 4.3 percent. Under NPA 1 and NPA 3, 314 vessels are affected, and industry revenues are reduced by 3.7 percent and 63.6 percent, respectively. Under NPA 2, 234 vessels are affected and industry revenues are reduced by 3.9 percent. In summary, NPA 3 has the
Bass, A. L., S. P. Epperly, and J. Braun-McNeill. 2004 Multi-year analysis of stock composition of a loggerhead sea turtle (
Braun-McNeill, J. and S. P. Epperly. 2004. Spatial and temporal distribution of sea turtles in the western North Atlantic and the U.S. Gulf of Mexico from Marine Recreational Statistic Survey (MRFSS). Marine Fisheries Review. 64(4)50-56.
Bowen, B. W., A. L. Bass, S. Chow, M. Bostrom, K. A. Bjorndal, A. B. Bolten, T. Okuyama, B. M. Bolker, S. P. Epperly, E. LaCasella, D. Shaver, M. Dodd, S. R. Hopkins-Murphy, J. A. Musick, M. Swingle, K. Rankin-Baransky, W. Teas, W. N. Witzell, and P. H. Dutton. 2004. Natal homing in juvenile loggerhead turtles (
DuPaul, W. D. 2004a. Industry trials of a modified sea scallop dredge to minimize the catch of sea turtles. Final Report. November 2004. VIMS Marine Resources Report, No. 2004-12. 35 pp.
DuPaul, W. D. 2004b .Industry trials of a modified sea scallop dredge to minimize the catch of sea turtles. Draft Final Report. August 2004. Contract Number PO#EA 133F-03-SE-0235. 11 pp.
Epperly, S. P. and J. Braun-McNeill. 2002. The use of AVHRR imagery and the management of sea turtles interactions in the mid-Atlantic bight. NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Unpublished.
Keinath, J. A., J. A. Musick, and R. A. Byles. 1987. Aspects of the biology of Virginia's sea turtles: 1979-1986. Virginia J. Sci. 38(4): 329-336.
Lutcavage, M. E. and J. A. Musick. 1985. Aspects of the biology of sea turtles in Virginia. Copeia. 2:449-456.
Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P.L. Lutz. 1997. Human impacts on sea turtle survival.
Morreale, S. J. and E. A. Standora. 1998. Early life stage ecology of sea turtles in northeastern U.S. waters. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFSC-413. 49 pp.
Murray, K. T. 2004. Bycatch of sea turtles in the mid-Atlantic sea scallop (
Shoop, C.R. and R.D. Kenney. 1992. Seasonal distributions and abundance of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles in waters of the northeastern United States. Herpetol. Monogr. 6: 43-67.
Spotila, J.R., P.T. Plotkin, and J.A. Keinath. 1998 In water population survey of sea turtles in Delaware Bay. Unpublished Report. Final report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources for work conducted under contract number 43AANF600211 and NMFS permit number 1007 by Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA. 21 pp.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Transportation.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 222 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 222 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1531
2. In § 222.102, the definition of “Chain mat” and “Dredge or dredge gear” are added in alphabetical order to read as follows:
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, § 223.12 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361
2. In § 223.205, paragraph (b)(16) is redesignated as (b)(17); paragraph (b)(15) is revised and new paragraph (b)(16) is added to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(15) Fail to comply with the restrictions set forth in § 223.206(d)(10) regarding pound net leaders;
(16) Fail to comply with the restrictions set forth in § 223.206(d)(11) regarding sea scallop dredges; or
3. In § 223.206, paragraph (d) introductory text is revised and paragraph (d)(11) is added to read as follows:
(d)
(11)
(ii) Any vessel that harvests sea scallops in or from the waters described in (d)(11)(i) must have the chain mat configuration installed on all dredges for the duration of the trip.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS issues this proposed rule to implement Amendment 6 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP), as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). This proposed rule would require an owner or operator of a trawler that harvests or possesses brown, pink, or white shrimp (penaeid shrimp) in or from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the southern Atlantic states to obtain a commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic penaeid shrimp; require an owner or operator of a vessel in the South Atlantic rock shrimp or penaeid shrimp fishery to submit catch and effort reports and to carry an observer on selected trips; and require bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) in nets in the rock shrimp fishery. Amendment 6 also proposes to establish stock status determination criteria for South Atlantic penaeid shrimp; revise the specifications of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and optimum yield (OY) for South Atlantic rock shrimp; revise the stock status determination criteria for South Atlantic rock shrimp; revise the bycatch reduction criterion for the certification of BRDs; and transfer from the Council to the Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS (RA), responsibilities for the specification of the protocol for testing BRDs. Finally, NMFS proposes to remove provisions of the regulations applicable to other fisheries off the southern Atlantic states that are no longer applicable and to make minor corrections. The intended effects of this rule are to provide additional information for, and improve the effective management of, the shrimp fisheries off the southern Atlantic states and to correct and clarify the regulations applicable to other southern Atlantic fisheries.
Written comments on this proposed rule must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern time, on July 11, 2005.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule by any of the following methods:
• E-mail:
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
• Mail: Steve Branstetter, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL 33702.
• Fax: 727-824-5308.
Copies of Amendment 6, which includes a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a Regulatory Impact Review, and a Social Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement, may be obtained from the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, One Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407-4699; phone: 843-571-4366 or 866-SAFMC-10 (toll free); fax: 843-769-4520; e-mail:
Comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted in writing to Beverly Smith at the Southeast Regional Office address (above) and to David Rostker, OMB, by e-mail at
Steve Branstetter, telephone: 727-570-5796; fax: 727-570-5583; e-mail:
The shrimp fishery off the southern Atlantic states is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. NMFS issues this proposed rule to implement Amendment 6 to the FMP.
For a person aboard a trawler to fish for penaeid shrimp in the South Atlantic EEZ or possess penaeid shrimp in or from the South Atlantic EEZ, this rule would require that a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic penaeid shrimp be issued to the vessel and be on board.
An owner of a vessel who desires a commercial vessel permit would be required to obtain a permit application form from and submit it to the RA. Information on the application form would consist of the standard information and documentation required for commercial vessel permits issued by the RA, as specified at 50 CFR 622.4(b)(3). There would be no earned income or landing requirements for these permits. Penaeid shrimp permits would be required in the fishery 120 days after the final rule containing the requirement for permits is published. This time period is considered adequate for vessel owners currently in the fishery to obtain, complete, and submit applications and for the RA to process the applications and issue permits.
As specified at 50 CFR 622.4(d), a fee would be charged for each application for a permit or written request for replacement or transfer of a permit. The applicable fee would be specified on the appropriate form.
Information from permit applications would provide data on the universe of trawlers in the fishery. Such data, in combination with the proposed requirement for the submission of catch and effort reports and the proposed requirement for vessels to carry observers, when requested, would comprise part of the program to monitor and assess bycatch, including protected resources, in the South Atlantic shrimp fisheries. In addition, a known universe of permittees would enhance the ability of fishermen to form constituencies and would contribute to improved communication with owners and operators regarding changes to the regulations, research, and outreach.
Vessel identification requirements apply to all vessels that have been issued permits by the RA. Thus, a vessel that obtains a permit for the South Atlantic penaeid shrimp fishery would be required to display and maintain its official number in the manner prescribed at 50 CFR 622.6(a).
This proposed rule would require owners and operators of vessels with permits for South Atlantic rock shrimp or South Atlantic penaeid shrimp who are selected by the Science and Research Director, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, NMFS (SRD) to maintain and submit catch and effort reports. Forms for such reporting would be available from the SRD.
Similarly, this proposed rule would require owners and operators of vessels with permits for South Atlantic rock shrimp or South Atlantic penaeid shrimp to carry NMFS-approved observers on trips selected by the SRD.
Information from permit applications, required reporting, and observers would provide information necessary for effective management of the South Atlantic shrimp fisheries. Those information sources would also comprise part of the program to monitor and assess bycatch in the Atlantic shrimp fisheries. NMFS would also rely on state cooperation, specifically funded projects, and the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program's Release, Discard and Protected Species Module, as that module is implemented.
The Council has found that the current regulations do not minimize bycatch in the South Atlantic rock shrimp fishery to the extent practicable, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Accordingly, Amendment 6 and this rule would require the use of BRDs in that fishery. BRDs are currently required when the on-board or landed catch of penaeid shrimp by a trawler is more than 1 percent, by weight, of all fish comprising its on-board or landed catch. Because most of the trawlers in the South Atlantic rock shrimp fishery exceed this criterion, they are already using BRDs. Thus, this new requirement would impose an additional burden on few vessels.
Currently, the criterion for certification of a BRD for use in the South Atlantic penaeid shrimp fishery is its reduction of bycatch of Spanish mackerel and weakfish when tested under the
Currently, under the BRD certification framework in the FMP, changes to the BRD testing protocol require considerable Council action, including involvement of Council advisory panels and committees. The Council has concluded that revisions to the BRD testing protocol, including experimental design issues and statistical procedures, are technical matters that can be addressed appropriately and more efficiently within the expertise of NMFS. Thus, Council consideration of these matters is burdensome, time consuming, and unnecessary. Amendment 6 would revise the BRD certification framework to remove the Council's responsibility for initiating action on these matters and transfer that responsibility to NMFS.
In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Council proposes to establish objective and measurable criteria for identifying when stocks are overfished and when overfishing is occurring (referred to as stock status determination criteria). Stock status determination criteria consist of a maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) (the level beyond which overfishing is considered to exist) and a minimum stock size threshold (MSST) (the level below which a stock is considered to be overfished). Accordingly, Amendment 6 proposes such criteria as follows.
Based on the established values of MSY and OY for brown, pink, and white shrimp, the Council proposes as MFMT a fishing mortality rate that diminishes the stock below the stock abundance that will produce MSY (B
Brown shrimp - 2.000 individuals per hectare.
Pink shrimp - 0.461 individuals per hectare.
White shrimp - 5.868 individuals per hectare.
These proxies are based on the lowest values that produced catches meeting MSY in the following year, as determined using catch per unit of effort information in the 1990-2003 time period.
The Council proposes to revise MSY and OY for rock shrimp so that MSY equals OY and is 4,912,927 lb (2,228,466 kg), heads on, which is the mean total landings of South Atlantic rock shrimp for the period 1986 through 2000. The Council also proposes as MFMT a fishing mortality rate that would lead to annual landings larger than two standard deviations above MSY (14,687,774 lb (6,662,262 kg), heads on) for two consecutive years and as MSST a stock size less than ½ B
Additional background and rationale for the measures discussed above are
As general housekeeping changes, NMFS proposes to make a minor correction and remove regulatory language that is no longer applicable, as follows:
1. In § 622.4 paragraph (a)(2)(viii)(B) and in § 622.9 paragraph (a), effective date language is no longer applicable and would be removed.
2. In § 622.4 paragraph (r)(12) explains the requirements and procedures for obtaining an initial charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic coastal migratory pelagic fish. Since these initial procedures have been completed, paragraph (r)(12) would be deleted.
3. In § 622.7 paragraph (cc), in the prohibition regarding the required use of permitted operators, the references would be corrected to include all pertinent paragraphs of the regulatory text.
4. In § 622.17 paragraph (a), the provisions for additional permits in the southern zone in the South Atlantic golden crab fishery under the controlled access system have expired and would be removed.
5. Under §§ 622.18 and 622.19, all initial permits for the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery and the South Atlantic rock shrimp fishery under their limited access systems have been issued. Accordingly, language regarding initial eligibility and applications would be removed.
6. In Table 4 of Appendix A to Part 622, the listing of South Atlantic snapper-grouper species combines sea basses and groupers under Serranidae. Although both sea basses and groupers are Serranidae, management measures distinguish between them. Accordingly, this rule would separate the Serranidae into Serranidae—Groupers and Serranidae—Sea Basses.
7. At various locations in 50 CFR part 622, “jewfish” would be changed to “goliath grouper” to conform to the current name for that fish.
At this time, NMFS has not determined that Amendment 6 is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment periods on Amendment 6 and this proposed rule.
This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Council prepared an FSEIS for Amendment 6; a notice of availability was published on March 25, 2005 (70 FR 15316). The FSEIS evaluates the environmental effects of a number of actions proposed to improve the conservation and management of shrimp stocks. The analysis indicates the preferred alternatives will benefit the quality of the human environment over the long term by simplifying the administrative process associated with approving new bycatch reduction devices, advancing understanding of bycatch and fishery participants, and providing reference points to use in evaluating stock status and fishery performance.
NMFS prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, for this proposed rule. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the
To satisfy the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Council has proposed eight actions to amend the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan of the South Atlantic Region. These actions are intended to improve the identification and quantification of bycatch from brown, pink, or white shrimp (penaeid shrimp) and rock shrimp trawls; improve the identification and quantification of the known universe of penaeid shrimp vessels; reduce the bycatch from rock shrimp trawls; promote the use of more effective BRDs by amending the BRD framework system; and establish status determination criteria, or proxies thereof, as necessary, for penaeid and rock shrimp stocks.
This proposed rule would: (1) require an owner or operator of a trawler that harvests or possesses penaeid shrimp in or from the EEZ off the southern Atlantic states to obtain a commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic penaeid shrimp; (2) require an owner or operator of a vessel in the South Atlantic rock shrimp or penaeid shrimp fishery to submit catch and effort reports and to carry an observer on selected trips; and (3) require BRDs in nets in the rock shrimp fishery. In addition, Amendment 6 would establish stock status determination criteria for South Atlantic penaeid shrimp; revise the specifications of maximum sustainable yield and optimum yield for South Atlantic rock shrimp; revise the stock status determination criteria for South Atlantic rock shrimp; revise the bycatch reduction criterion for the certification of BRDs; and transfer from the Council to the Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS (RA), responsibilities for the specification of the protocol for testing BRDs. NMFS also proposes to remove provisions of the regulations applicable to other fisheries off the southern Atlantic states that are no longer applicable, and proposes to make minor corrections. The intended effects of this rule are to provide additional information for, and otherwise improve the effective management of, the shrimp fisheries off the southern Atlantic states, and to correct and clarify the regulations applicable to other southern Atlantic fisheries. The Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended, provides the legal basis for the rule.
The proposed rule would require that any trawler fishing for or in possession of penaeid shrimp in or from Federal waters be required to possess a Federal penaeid shrimp permit and to provide the information specified on the permit application. Selected vessels would also have to complete logbook forms at the end of each trip. The information required for the permit application and logbook are standard information and data elements necessary for the routine operation of a fishing business and are not expected to impose any special reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified.
The measures in this proposed rule would apply to the commercial harvesting sector active in the penaeid and rock shrimp fisheries in the South Atlantic. The Small Business Administration defines a small business that engages in commercial fishing as a firm that is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation, and has annual receipts up to $3.5 million per year.
It is estimated that there were at least 2,129, 1,835, and 1,731 commercial entities harvesting shrimp in the South Atlantic during 2000, 2001, and 2002, respectively. The average annual gross revenue per vessel from all commercial fishing activities by these vessels for 2000-2002 is estimated to be $76,879,
The proposed actions to implement a Federal penaeid shrimp permit program, require logbook reporting, and require the use of BRDs on the rock shrimp vessels are expected to have direct impacts on the entities that participate in these fisheries. All the other proposed actions are either administrative or establish fishery benchmark criteria that would not directly affect fishery participants.
The requirement for permits in the penaeid shrimp fishery is expected to affect 1,380 to 1,898 vessels. The lower bound assumes that only those commercial shrimp vessels that operate in state offshore and Federal waters in the South Atlantic would apply for the permit, and is the average number of vessels estimated to operate in these waters per year during 2000-2002. The upper bound assumes that all commercial shrimp vessels that operate in the South Atlantic, regardless of whether they typically fish in inshore or offshore waters, would apply for the permit, and is the average number of vessels estimated to operate per year during 2000-2002. It is expected that all rock shrimp vessels would apply for the penaeid shrimp permit, and the estimates include these vessels. The cost of the penaeid shrimp permit would be either $50 or $20, depending upon whether the permit is the only permit held by the vessel, therefore costing $50, or whether it represents an additional permit, thus costing only $20. Since all vessels operating in the rock shrimp fishery are currently already required to have a rock shrimp permit, the penaeid shrimp permit would cost only $20 for these vessels.
Under the proposed rule, a sample of vessels that are issued the Federal penaeid shrimp permit would be selected for reporting through a logbook program. The sample size has not been determined and, hence, it is unknown how many small entities would have to comply with this new reporting requirement. A final logbook form for this fishery has not been developed. Potential data elements would be expected to include, but not necessarily be limited to, vessel name, vessel identifier, number of nets, type of net, size of net, type of bycatch reduction device, number of tows, length of tows (in hours), location of tow (either in terms of latitude and longitude or statistical area and depth), and an estimate of catch. The logbook would be completed on a daily basis. Completion of the logbook is estimated to take 10 minutes per daily form. Based on data from the Florida trip ticket program, the average east coast shrimp vessel averages 61.5 fishing days per year. At 10 minutes per day to complete the logbook, the average annual reporting burden per vessel would be 615 minutes, or 10.25 hours. Using the average wage of first line supervisors/managers in the fishing, forestry, and farming industries from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, $18.14, the average annual opportunity cost per vessel for logbook reporting would be approximately $185.94 ($18.14/hour X 10.25 hours). Completion of the form is not expected to adversely affect other trip or maintenance activities.
The proposed action to require BRDs in the rock shrimp fishery is expected to affect the profitability of an estimated 43 vessels, or approximately 30 percent of this sub-sector of the shrimp fishery. The other vessels in this sub-sector are assumed to already utilize BRDs due to their concurrent participation in the penaeid shrimp fishery, which already requires the use of BRDs if the proportion of penaeid shrimp exceeds 1 percent. The use of BRDs is estimated to result in a maximum of 3 percent shrimp loss on rock shrimp trips. This amounts to a reduction of $1,382 in gross revenue per vessel, or 0.6 percent reduction in revenue per affected vessel in the rock shrimp fishery.
The determination of significant economic impact can be ascertained by examining two issues: disproportionality and profitability. The disproportionality question is: Will the regulations place a substantial number of small entities at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities? All entities participating in the respective shrimp fisheries are considered small entities, so the issue of disproportionality does not arise. However, there is a high degree of diversity among the vessels in the shrimp fleet in terms of vessel length, and variation in overall gross fishing income, vessel operating and fixed costs, and dependence on income from shrimp harvest are all related to vessel length. Nevertheless, as discussed below, the costs of the proposed actions are not expected to be great enough to affect competitive advantage.
The profitability question is: Do the regulations significantly reduce profit for a substantial number of small entities? The current profitability of vessels in the commercial shrimp fishery that are likely to be affected by the measures in this amendment is unknown. Existing studies on the shrimp fleet in the South Atlantic are dated and not reflective of the current conditions in this fishery. Imports have had a substantial negative effect on the profitability of vessels in the domestic shrimp industry since the 1990s. A study on the penaeid shrimp fishery off South Carolina during 1999 indicated that many vessels were operating on break-even levels of activity. This fishery was classified into three operational size categories based on differences in operating costs, profit margins, and ability of the vessel owner to make input substitutions. Small vessels (less than 30 ft (9 m)) had an average annual profitability of $2,533, medium vessels $10,086, and large vessels $8,639. It is not known whether these data were representative of the shrimp fleet in the other South Atlantic states. Regardless, current profit margins are expected to be lower as a result of the decline in prices since 1999 and increases in fuel prices and other input costs.
The average annual revenue from all commercial fishing activities for shrimp vessels operating in the South Atlantic during 2000-2002 ranged from $70,749 for vessels that fished in either or both inshore and offshore waters to $81,362 for vessels that operated only in offshore waters. The annual cost of a permit would be only $50 if the vessel obtained a single permit, or $20 if the vessel possessed multiple permits and thus would represent a small additional operational cost. A time burden would also be imposed in order to complete the permit application form. This time burden is estimated to be 0.33 hours per application, with an opportunity cost of approximately $6. There would not, however, be any additional actual expenditures other than to cover
The proposed BRD requirement for the rock shrimp sector is expected to impact those vessels that do not currently utilize BRDs. As previously stated, it is estimated that the majority of vessels in this fishery currently have BRDs, but that an estimated 43 vessels would be affected by the proposed action. The estimated cost of the BRD-induced shrimp loss is $1,382 in gross revenue per vessel, or a 0.6 percent reduction in revenue per affected vessel. Additionally, BRDs are estimated to cost $20-$100 each, or $80-$400 per vessel since most rock shrimp vessels pull four nets. Combining the revenue loss ($1,382) and penaeid shrimp permit cost ($20 since the vessel would already have the rock shrimp permit), and assuming the maximum BRD cost ($400), these 43 rock shrimp vessels would be expected to incur $1,802 in reduced revenues or increased costs, an amount less than 1 percent of average annual revenues. It should be noted, however, that ex-vessel shrimp price reductions and fuel price increases since 2002 have substantially reduced the profitability of shrimp vessels, thereby increasing the potential net impact of the BRD requirements of the proposed action.
Three alternatives were considered to the proposed action to require a penaeid shrimp permit. The status quo alternative would not require a permit and, therefore, would eliminate all costs associated with the permit. This alternative, however, would not meet the Council's objective of allowing for the efficient and accurate identification of vessels in the shrimp fishery, and the indirect economic benefits from better data collection and management would not be realized. Two alternatives to the proposed action would require shrimp trawlers to purchase a Federal penaeid shrimp permit, like the proposed action, but would allow exemptions for vessels in transit with properly stowed gear. These two alternatives, however, differ in the qualification requirements, one alternative granting a permit for anyone who applied, as would the proposed action, while the other alternative would require documentation of a state permit. Neither of these alternatives would reduce the costs to those who operate in the South Atlantic fishery but would eliminate the additional permit cost for vessels that operate outside the region and wish only to transit or land shrimp in the South Atlantic. Both alternatives, however, would produce law enforcement loopholes that could lower compliance rates, thus jeopardizing the expected benefits of the proposed action and failing to meet the Council's objectives.
Three alternatives were considered to the proposed logbook requirement. The status quo alternative would not support the collection of necessary bycatch information and would not, therefore, meet the Council's objectives. The remaining two alternatives would impose time costs on the fishery participants comparable to those of the proposed action and, thus, would not lessen the impact on the small business entities. The proposed action, however, would provide a more systematic interim data collection approach until the more comprehensive Atlantic coast-wide bycatch program developed by the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program is funded and implemented.
Four alternatives were considered to the proposed BRD requirement for rock shrimp vessels. The no action alternative would not provide any reduction in bycatch and would not, therefore, meet the Council's objectives. The remaining three alternatives would impose seasonal closures (fall, winter, or summer) to address the bycatch problem. Each of these alternatives would result in greater economic losses than the proposed action, ranging from a $5,901 reduction in gross revenues per vessel per year for a winter closure to $42,363 for a summer closure, compared to an estimated maximum loss of $1,382 under the proposed BRD requirement. The projected losses under the summer and fall closures would likely be sufficiently great to force some vessels to exit the industry. While seasonal closures would likely result in larger total bycatch reductions than the proposed action, the proposed action better meets the Council's objectives while minimizing the social and economic consequences.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the PRA applicable to vessels in the South Atlantic shrimp fishery--namely, requirements for: (1) submission of applications for commercial vessel permits for the penaeid shrimp fishery; (2) identification of such permitted vessels, i.e., vessel marking requirements; (3) submission of logbooks by permitted vessels in the rock shrimp and penaeid shrimp fisheries; (4) notification of vessel trips in the rock shrimp and penaeid shrimp fisheries related to vessel observers; and (5) applications for testing proposed bycatch reduction devices, conducting such tests, and reporting the results of tests, as prescribed by the
Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
2. In § 622.2, the definition of “Penaeid shrimp trawler” is revised and the definition of “Penaeid shrimp” is added in alphabetical order to read as follows:
(1) Brown shrimp,
(2) Pink shrimp,
(3) White shrimp,
3. In § 622.4, in the first sentence of paragraph (a)(2)(viii)(B), the phrase “effective July 15, 2003,” is removed; paragraph (r)(12) is removed; and paragraph (a)(2)(xiii) is added to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(xiii)
4. In § 622.5, the first sentence of paragraph (a)(2)(i) is revised and paragraph (a)(1)(vii) is added to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii)
(2) * * *
(i) Completed fishing records required by paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (ii), (iv), (vi), and (vii) of this section must be submitted to the SRD postmarked not later than 7 days after the end of each fishing trip. * * *
5. In § 622.7, paragraphs (aa) and (cc) are revised to read as follows:
(aa) Falsify information submitted regarding an application for testing a BRD or regarding testing of a BRD, as specified in §§ 622.41(g)(3)(i) or (h)(3).
(cc) Operate or own a vessel that is required to have a permitted operator aboard when the vessel is at sea or offloading without such operator aboard, as specified in § 622.4(a)(5)(i) through (iv).
6. In § 622.8, paragraph (a)(3) is added to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3)
7. In § 622.9, the first sentence of paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
(a)
8. In § 622.17, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
(a)
(1) The RA will issue up to two new vessel permits for the northern zone. Selection will be made from the list of historical participants in the South Atlantic golden crab fishery. Such list was used at the October 1995 meeting of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and was prioritized based on pounds of golden crab landed, without reference to a specific zone. Individuals on the list who originally received permits will be deleted from the list.
(2) The RA will offer in writing an opportunity to apply for a permit for the northern zone to the individuals highest on the list until two individuals accept and apply in a timely manner. An offer that is not accepted within 30 days after it is received will no longer be valid.
(3) An application for a permit from an individual who accepts the RA's offer must be received by the RA no later than 30 days after the date of the individual's acceptance. Application forms are available from the RA.
(4) A vessel permit for the northern zone issued under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and any successor permit, may not be changed to another zone. A successor permit includes a permit issued to that vessel for a subsequent owner and a permit issued via transfer from that vessel to another vessel.
9. § 622.18 is revised to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(1)
(ii) A transferable permit may be transferred upon a change of ownership of a permitted vessel with such permit from one to another of the following: husband, wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, or father.
(iii) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, a person desiring to acquire a limited access, transferable permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper must obtain and exchange two such permits for one new permit.
(iv) A transfer of a permit that is undertaken under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section will constitute a transfer of the vessel's entire catch history to the new owner.
(2)
(c)
10. § 622.19 is revised to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
11. In § 622.41, paragraph (g) is revised to read as follows:
(g)
(i) On a penaeid shrimp trawler in the South Atlantic EEZ, each trawl net that is rigged for fishing and has a mesh size less than 2.50 inches (6.35 cm), as measured between the centers of opposite knots when pulled taut, and each try net that is rigged for fishing and has a headrope length longer than 16.0 ft (4.9 m), must have a certified BRD installed.
(ii) On a vessel that fishes for or possesses rock shrimp in the South Atlantic EEZ, each trawl net or try net that is rigged for fishing must have a certified BRD installed.
(iii) A trawl net or try net is rigged for fishing if it is in the water, or if it is shackled, tied, or otherwise connected to a sled, door, or other device that spreads the net, or to a tow rope, cable, pole, or extension, either on board or attached to a shrimp trawler.
(2)
(i) Extended funnel.
(ii) Expanded mesh.
(iii) Fisheye.
(iv) Gulf fisheye.
(v) Jones-Davis.
(3)
(ii) For a new BRD to be certified, it must be statistically demonstrated that in testing under the
(iii) If a BRD meets the certification criterion, as determined under the testing protocol, NMFS will publish a notice in the
(4)
12. In Table 4 of Appendix A to Part 622—South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper, the heading and species listed under Serranidae—Sea Basses and Groupers are revised to read as follows:
13. In part 622, revise all references to “jewfish” to read “goliath grouper”.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; public hearings.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene public hearings to solicit comments on the Draft Amendment to the FMPs for Reef Fish (Amendment 25) and Coastal Migratory Pelagics (CMP) (Amendment 17) for extending the Charter Vessel/Headboat Permit Moratorium and Draft Amendment 18A to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico, and to conduct a workshop on potential interim measures to reduce recreational red grouper harvest in the Gulf of Mexico, with associated impacts on gag and other groupers.
The public hearings and workshops will be held from June 13 through June 29, 2005, at 10 locations throughout the Gulf of Mexico. For specific dates and times see
Mr. Stu Kennedy, Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: 813.228.2815.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene pubic hearings to solicit comments on two issues in the following order:
1. Draft Amendment to the FMPs for Reef Fish (Amendment 25) and Coastal Migratory Pelagics (Amendment 17) for extending the Charter Vessel/Headboat Permit Moratorium. Amendments establishing the charter vessel/headboat permit moratorium for the CMP fishery and the Reef Fish fishery that were approved by NOAA Fisheries on May 6, 2003, and implemented on June 16, 2003 (68 FR 26280). The intended effect of these Amendments was to cap the number of for-hire vessels operating in these two fisheries at the current level (as of March 29, 2001) while the Council evaluated whether limited access programs were needed to constrain effort. In this amendment, the Council is considering allowing the permit to expire on June 16, 2006 or extending the moratorium on for-hire Reef Fish and CMP permits for a finite period of time or indefinitely.
2. Draft Amendment 18A to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico: Reef Fish Amendment 18A deals with enforcement and monitoring issues, including simultaneous commercial and recreational harvest on a vessel (to improve enforceability of prohibition on sale of recreationally caught reef fish), maximum crew size on a Coast Guard inspected vessel when fishing commercially (to resolve a conflict between NMFS maximum crew size and USCG minimum crew size regulations), use of reef fish for bait, and vessel monitoring system (VMS) requirements on commercial reef fish vessels. Amendment 18A also addresses administrative changes to the framework procedure for setting total allowable catch (TAC) of reef fish, and measures to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality of endangered sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish taken inadvertently in the commercial and charter/headboat reef fish fishery.
After the public hearings, workshops will be held to address potential interim measures to reduce recreational red grouper harvest in the Gulf of Mexico, with associated impacts on gag and other groupers: Secretarial Amendment 1 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan of the Gulf of Mexico established a rebuilding plan and 6.56 mp GW allowable biological catch for red grouper. During 2003 and 2004, recreational red grouper landings exceeded the 1.25 mp GW recreational allocation. In March 2005, the Gulf Council requested NMFS implement an interim rule to reduce the 2005 recreational red grouper harvest to levels in Secretarial Amendment 1. The purpose of this action is to establish interim regulations that reduce the likelihood overfishing for red grouper will occur in 2005. Possible measures include changes to the red grouper and aggregate grouper bag limits, changes in
The public hearings and workshops will begin at 6 p.m. and conclude no later than 10 p.m. at each of the following locations:
A copy of the Amendments and related materials can be obtained by calling the Council office at 813.228.2815.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Dawn Aring at the Council (see
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice informs the public of the sanitary and phytosanitary standard-setting activities of the CodexAlimentarius Commission (Codex), in accordance with section 491 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended, and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Public Law 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809. This notice also provides a list of other standard-setting activities of Codex, including commodity standards, guidelines, codes of practice, and revised texts. This notice, which covers the time periods from June 1, 2004, to May 31, 2005, and June 1, 2005, to May 31, 2006, seeks comments on standards currently under consideration and recommendations for new standards.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Mail, including floppy disks or CD-ROM's, and hand-or courier-delivered items: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 300 12th Street, SW., Room 102 Cotton Annex, Washington, DC 20250.
All submissions received must include the Agency name and docket number 05-003N. Please state that your comments refer to Codex and, if your comments relate to specific Codex committees, please identify those committees in your comments and submit a copy of your comments to the delegate from that particular committee. All comments submitted will be available for public inspection in the FSIS Docket Room at the address listed above between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The comments also will be posted on the Agency's Web site at
F. Edward Scarbrough, Ph.D., United States Manager for Codex, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, Room 4861, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700; (202) 205-7760. For information pertaining to particular committees, the delegate of that committee may be contacted. (A complete list of U.S. delegates and alternate delegates can be found in Attachment 2 to this notice.) Documents pertaining to Codex are accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address:
The World Trade Organization (WTO) was established on January 1, 1995, as the common international institutional framework for the conduct of trade relations among its members in matters related to the Uruguay Round TradeAgreements. The WTO is the successor organization to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). U.S. membership in the WTO was approved and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act was signed into law by the President on December 8, 1994. The Uruguay Round Agreements became effective, with respect to the United States, on January 1, 1995. Pursuant to section 491 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended, the President is required to designate an agency to be responsible for informing the public of the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standard-setting activities of each international standard-setting organization, Codex, World Organization for Animal Health, and the International Plant Protection Convention. The President, pursuant to Proclamation No. 6780 of March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15845), designated the U.S. Department of Agriculture as the agency responsible for informing the public of SPS standard-setting activities of each international standard-setting organization. The Secretary of Agriculture has delegated to the Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the responsibility to inform the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex. The FSIS Administrator has, in turn, assigned the responsibility for informing the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex to the U.S. Codex Office, FSIS.
Codex was created in 1962 by two U.N. organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Codex is the principal international organization for encouraging fair international trade in food and protecting the health and economic interests of consumers. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to ensure that the world's food supply is sound, wholesome, free from adulteration, and correctly labeled. In the United States, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) manage and carry out U.S. Codex activities.
As the agency responsible for informing the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex, FSIS publishes this notice in the
1. The SPS standards under consideration or planned for consideration; and
2. For each SPS standard specified:
a. A description of the consideration or planned consideration of the standard;
b. Whether the United States is participating or plans to participate in the consideration of the standard;
c. The agenda for United States participation, if any; and
d. The agency responsible for representing the United States with respect to the standard.
To obtain Copies of those Standards listed in Attachment 1 that are under
The United States' delegate will facilitate public participation in the United States Government's activities relating to Codex Alimentarius. The United States' delegate will maintain a list of individuals, groups, and organizations that have expressed an interest in the activities of the Codex committees and will disseminate information regarding United States' delegation activities to interested parties. This information will include the current status of each agenda item; the United States Government's position or preliminary position on the agenda items; and the time and place of planning meetings and debriefing meetings following Codex committee sessions. In addition, the U.S. Codex Office makes much of the same information available through its web page,
The information provided in Attachment 1 describes the status of Codex standard-setting activities by the Codex Committees for the time periods from June 1, 2004 to May 31, 2005, and June 1, 2005 to May 31, 2006. In addition, the following attachments are included:
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that the public and in particular minorities, women, and persons with disabilities, are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS web page located at
FSIS also will make copies of this
In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail subscription service which provides an automatic and customized notification when popular pages are updated, including
The Codex Alimentarius Commission will hold its Twenty-EighthSession July 4-9, 2005 in Rome, Italy. At that time it will consider procedural matters, and the standards, codes of practice, and related matters brought to its attention by the general subject committees, commodity committees,
Prior to the Commission meeting, the Executive Committee will have met at its Fifty-fifth Session on February 9-11, 2005 and its Fifty-sixth Session on June 30-July 2, 2005. It is composed of the chairperson, vice-chairpersons, seven members elected from the Commission, one from each of the following geographic regions: Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, Near East, North America, and South-West Pacific. In addition, regional coordinators from the six regional committees attend as observers. It will consider the Codex Strategic Plan 2008-1013; review the Codex committee structure and mandate of Codex committees and task forces; review matters arising from reports of Codex Committees, proposals for new work, and standards management issues; consider the implementation of the Joint FAO/WHOEvaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and other FAO and WHO Work on Food Standards; and review the Trust Fund for the Participation of Developing Countries and Countries in Transition in the Work of the Codex Alimentarius.
The Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods determines priorities for the consideration of residues of veterinary drugs in foods and recommends Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for veterinary drugs. A veterinary drug is defined as any substance applied or administered to a food producing animal, such as meat or dairy animals, poultry, fish or bees, for therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic purposes or for modification of physiological functions or behavior.
A Codex Maximum Limit for Veterinary Drugs (MRLVD) is the maximum concentration of residue resulting from the use of a veterinary drug (expressed in mg/kg or ug/kg on a fresh weight basis) that is adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to be permitted or recognized as acceptable in or on a food. An MRLVD is based on the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) and indicates the amount of residue in food that is considered to be without appreciable toxicological hazard. An MRLVD also takes into account other
Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI): An estimate by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) of the amount of a veterinary drug, expressed on a body weight basis, that can be ingested daily over a lifetime without appreciable health risk (standard man = 60 kg).
The committee met in Arlington, VA (USA), October 25-28, 2004. The following will be under consideration by the Commission at its 28th Session in July 2005. The relevant document is ALINORM 5/28/31.
Draft MRLs at Step 8:
• Cyhalothrin.
• Flumequine.
• Neomycin.
• Dicyclanil.
Proposed Draft MRLs at Step 5/8:
• Imidocarb.
Proposed Draft Code of Practice to Minimize and Contain Antimicrobial Resistance at Step 5/8.
Proposed Draft MRLs at Step 5:
• Flumequine (in black tiger shrimp).
• Pirlimycin.
• Cypermethrin and alpha-cypermethrin.
• Doramectin (in cow's milk).
The Committee continues to work on:
• Draft MRLs for Trichlorfon (metrifonate) at step 7.
• Proposed Draft MRLs for Ractopamine at step 4.
• Proposed Draft Revised Guidelines for the Establishment of a Regulatory Program for Control of Veterinary Drug Residues in Foods.
• Discussion paper on Risk Management Methodologies, including Risk Assessment Policies in the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods.
• Proposed Draft Revised Part I, II, III of Guidelines for the Establishment of a Regulatory Program for the Control of Veterinary Drug Residues in Foods.
• Priority List of Veterinary Drugs Requiring Evaluation or Reevaluation.
• List of Methods of Analysis for Veterinary Drug Residues and Identification of Routine Methods of Analysis.
• Recommendations on Residues of Veterinary Drugs withoutADI/MRL (Prioritization of work).
The Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC) (a) establishes or endorses permitted maximum or guideline levels for individual food additives, contaminants, and naturally occurring toxicants in food and animal feed; (b) prepares priority lists of food additives and contaminants for toxicological evaluation by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA); (c) recommends specifications of identity and purity for food additives for adoption by the Commission; (d) considers methods of analysis for food additives and contaminants; and (e) considers and elaborates standards and codes for related subjects such as labeling of food additives when sold as such and food irradiation. The committee met in The Hague, TheNetherlands, April 25-29, 2005. The following matters are under consideration by the Commission at its 28th Session in July 2005. The relevant document is ALINORM 5/28/12.
• Revised Terms of Reference of the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants.
• Terms of Reference for the FAO/WHO Joint Expert Consultation to Conduct a Comprehensive Assessment of Use of Active Chlorine.
To be considered at Step 8:
• General Standard for Food Additive (GSFA): Draft Food Additive Provisions in Tables 1 and 2.
• Amendment to Annex B (Food Category System) of the GSFA (coconut water).
To be considered at Step 5/8:
• General Standard for Food Additives: Proposed Draft FoodAdditive Provisions in Tables 1, 2 and 3.
• Advisory Specifications for the Identity and Purity of Food Additives.
• Proposed Draft Revisions to the Codex International Numbering System for Food Additives.
To be considered at Step 5:
• Proposed Draft Revised Preamble to the GSFA, including diagram.
To be considered for Revocation and Discontinuation of work:
• General Principles for the Use of Food Additives.
• Proposed Amendments to the Codex Procedural Manual related to the revocation of the General Principles for the Use of Food Additives.
• Proposed Draft and Draft Food Additive Provisions in the GSFA.
To be considered for New Work:
• Revision of Class Names and the International NumberingSystem for Food Additives.
The Committee is continuing work on:
• General Standard for Food Additives: Draft Food Additive Provisions (in Tables 1, 2 and 3).
• General Standard for Food Additives: Revisions to the Preamble to clarify relationship between the General Standard and commodity standards.
• International Numbering System.
• Specifications for the Identity and Purity of Food Additives.
• Inventory of Processing Aids.
• Discussion Paper on Flavoring Agents.
To be considered at Step 8:
• Draft Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Aflatoxin Contamination in Tree Nuts.
• Draft Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Inorganic Tin Contamination in Canned Foods.
• Draft Maximum Levels for Cadmium in wheat grain, potato, stem and root vegetables, leafy vegetables, and other vegetables.
To be considered at Step 5/8:
• Proposed Amendment to the Preamble of the Codex GeneralStandard for Contaminants and Toxins in Foods (GSCTF).
To be considered at Step 5:
• Proposed Draft Maximum Level for Aflatoxin in unprocessed almonds, hazelnuts and pistachios.
• Proposed Draft Maximum Levels for Cadmium in rice, cephalopod (excluding viscera), and marine bivalve mollusks (excluding oysters and scallops).
To be considered for Revocation:
• List of Maximum Levels for Contaminants and Toxins Contained in Codex Commodity Standards and Relevant Standards and Texts.
To be considered for New Work:
• Appendix to the Code of Practice for the Prevention andReduction of Aflatoxin Contamination in Tree Nuts to address additional measures for the prevention and reduction of aflatoxins in Brazil nuts.
The Committee is continuing work on:
• Maximum levels for aflatoxin in processed almonds, hazelnuts, and pistachios.
• Discussion Paper on Aflatoxin Contamination in Brazil Nuts.
• Proposed draft sampling plan for Aflatoxin contamination in Almonds, Brazil nuts, Hazelnuts and Pistachios.
• Discussion paper on Deoxynivalenol (DON) Contamination in Cereals.
• Maximum Level for lead in fish.
• Proposed Draft Code of Practice for Source Directed Measures to Reduce Dioxin and Dioxin-like PCB Contamination in Foods.
• Discussion paper with proposals for maximum levels for 3-monochloropropanediol in acid-hydrolyzed vegetable protein (acid-HVP) and acid-HVP containing foods.
• Discussion paper on acrylamide, including a project paper for new work and an outline of a proposed draft code of practice.
• Draft Revised Guideline Levels for Radionuclides in Foods Following Accidental Nuclear Contamination for Use in International Trade, Including Guideline Levels for Long-Term Use.
• Discussion paper on polyaromatic hydrocarbons, including a project paper for new work and an outline of a proposed draft code of practice.
• Discussion paper on methylmercury in fish.
• Discussion paper on Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Ochratoxin A (OTA) Contamination in Coffee and Cocoa.
• Discussion paper on Maximum level of Ochratoxin A in Wine.
• Priority List of Food Additives, Contaminants and Naturally Occurring Toxicants Proposed for Evaluation by JECFA.
The Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues recommends to the Codex Alimentarius Commission establishment of maximum limits for pesticide residues for specific food items or in groups of food. A Codex Maximum Residue Limit for Pesticide (MRLP) is the maximum concentration of a pesticide residue(expressed as mg/kg), recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to be legally permitted in or on food commodities and animal feeds. Foods derived from commodities that comply with the respective MRLPs are intended to be toxicologically acceptable, that is, consideration of the various dietary residue intake estimates and determinations both at the national and international level in comparison with the ADI,
Codex MRLPs are primarily intended to apply in international trade and are derived from reviews conducted by the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) following:
(a) Review of residue data from supervised trials and supervised uses including those reflecting national good agricultural practices (GAP). Data from supervised trials conducted at the highest nationally recommended, authorized, or registered uses are included in the review. In order to accommodate variations in national pest control requirements,Codex MRLPs take into account the higher levels shown to arise in such supervised trials, which are considered to represent effective pest control practices, and
(b) Toxicological assessment of the pesticide and its residue.
The committee met in The Hague, The Netherlands, April 18-23, 2005. The following items will be considered by the Commission at its 28th Session in July 2005. The relevant document is ALINORM 05/28/24.
To be considered at Step 8:
• Draft and Draft Revised Maximum Residue Limits.
To be considered at Step 8(I):
Bifenazate.
Fludioxonil.
Trifloxystrobin.
To be considered at Step 5/8:
• Proposed Draft and Proposed Draft Revised MaximumResidue Limits including Proposed Draft MRLs for Spices.
• Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Use of Mass Spectrometry (MS) for Identification, Confirmation and Quantitative Determination of Residues.
• Proposed New Food Classification Codes for Commodities with Adopted MRLs.
To be considered at Step 5:
• Proposed Draft and Proposed Draft Revised MaximumResidue Limits including Proposed Draft MRLs for Dried Chili Peppers.
• Proposed Draft Guidelines on Estimation of Uncertainty of Results.
• Proposed Draft Risk Analysis Principles Applied by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues.
To be considered for Revocation:
• Codex CLX-Ds.
The committee is continuing work on:
• Pilot Project for the examination of national MRLs as Interim Codex MRLs for safer replacement pesticides.
• Revision of the List of Recommended Methods of Analysis for Pesticide Residues.
• Criteria for Prioritization Process to Recommend Compounds for Evaluation by JMPR.
• Revision of the Codex Priority List of Pesticides for review by JMPR.
• MRLs for Processed or Ready-to-Eat Foods.
*Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of a chemical is the daily intake which, during an entire lifetime, appears to be without appreciable risk to the health of the consumer on the basis of all the known facts at the time of the evaluation of the chemical by the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues. It is expressed in milligrams of the chemical per kilogram of body weight.
The Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling:
(a) Defines the criteria appropriate to Codex Methods of Analysis and Sampling;
(b) Serves as a coordinating body for Codex with other international groups working in methods of analysis and sampling and quality assurance systems for laboratories;
(c) Specifies, on the basis of final recommendations submitted to it by the other bodies referred to in (b) above, Reference Methods of Analysis and Sampling appropriate to Codex Standards which are generally applicable to a number of foods;
(d) Considers, amends, if necessary, and endorses, as appropriate, methods of analysis and sampling proposed by Codex (Commodity) Committees, except that methods of analysis and sampling for residues of pesticides or veterinary drugs in food, the assessment of microbiological quality and safety in food, and the assessment of specifications for food additives do not fall within the terms of reference of this Committee;
(e) Elaborates sampling plans and procedures, as may be required;
(f) Considers specific sampling and analysis problems submitted to it by the Commission or any of its Committees; and
(g) Defines procedures, protocols, guidelines or related texts for the assessment of food laboratory proficiency, as well as quality assurance systems for laboratories.
The 26th Session of the Committee met in Budapest, Hungary, on April 4-8, 2005. The relevant document is ALINORM 05/28/23. The following will be considered by the Commission at its 28th Session in July 2005.
To be considered at Step 5:
• Proposed Draft Guidelines for Evaluating Acceptable Methods of Analysis.
The Committee will continue work on:
• Criteria for Evaluating Acceptable Methods of Analysis.
• Proposed Draft Guidelines for Settling of Disputes on Analytical (test) Results.
• Consideration of the Fitness-For-Purpose Approach to Evaluating Methods of Analysis.
• Further Review of the
• Endorsement of Methods of Analysis and Sampling Provisions in Codex Standards.
• Criteria for Methods of Analysis for the Detection andIdentification of Foods derived from Biotechnology
• Methods of Analysis for the determination of dioxins andPCBs.
The Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems is charged with developing principles and guidelines for food import and export inspection and certification systems to protect consumers and to facilitate trade. Additionally, the Committee develops principles and guidelines for the application of measures by competent authorities to provide assurance that foods comply with essential requirements, especially statutory health requirements. This encompasses work on: Equivalence of food inspection systems including equivalence agreements, processes and procedures to ensure that sanitary measures are implemented; guidelines on food import control systems; and guidelines on food product certification and information exchange. The development of guidelines for the appropriate utilization of quality assurance systems to ensure that foodstuffs conform to requirements and to facilitate trade also are included in the Committee's terms of reference. The reference document is ALINORM 05/28/30. The committee met in Melbourne, Australia, on December 6-10, 2004. The following will be considered for adoption by the Commission at its 28thSession in July 2005.
To be considered at step 5/8:
• Draft Principles for Electronic Certification.
The committee is continuing work on:
• Proposed Draft Appendices to the
(a) Determining an “objective basis of comparison”
(b) Details on the process of determining equivalence.
(c) Documentation for evaluation of submissions of requests for equivalence determinations.
• Proposed Draft Guidelines for Risk-based Inspection of Imported Foods.
New work:
• Develop principles for product tracing/traceability within the context of food inspection and certification systems.
• Revise the Codex
The Codex Committee on General Principles deals with procedure and general matters as are referred to it by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The 21st Session addressed issues related to decisions made by the Commission regarding the FAO/WHO Codex Evaluation. The 22nd Session which met on April 11-15, 2005 in Paris, France, considered the regular work of the Committee. The relevant documents are ALINORM 05/28/33 and ALINORM 05/28/33A. Matters to be considered for adoption by the 28th Commission in July 2005:
To be considered at Step 8:
• Draft Risk Analysis Principles Applied by the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC).
• Draft CCFAC Policy for Exposure Assessment.
For consideration by the Commission:
• Proposed amendments concerning the enlargement of the Executive Committee, the functions of the Executive Committee and matters related to budget and expenses.
• Proposed Amendments to Rule VIII.5—Observers.
• Proposed Amendment on the Right to Address the Chair.
• Draft Revised Criteria for the Establishment of Work Priorities.
• Draft Guidelines on Physical Working Groups.
• Draft Guidelines on Electronic Working Groups.
• Draft Revised Principles concerning the Participation of International Non-Governmental Organizations in the Work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
• Proposed Amendments to the Procedural Manual to eliminate the acceptance procedures for Codex Standards.
• Draft Guidelines for Cooperation with International Intergovernmental Organizations.
The Committee continued work on:
• Proposed Draft Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Food Safety (Guidance to National Governments).
• Proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure: Duration of the terms of the Members of the Executive Committee.
• Possible reorganization of the structure, content and presentation of the Procedural Manual.
• Changes in the Elaboration Procedures.
• Clarification of the term “interim” as used for the adoption of Codex standards at Step 8.
• Possible definitions of “science-based” and “risk-based”.
• Management of the work in the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene.
The Codex Committee on Food Labelling is responsible for drafting provisions on labelling issues assigned by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The reference document is ALINORM 04/27/22. The Committee held its Thirty-third Session in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, on May 9-13, 2005. It considered the following items:
• Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods ProposedRevised Sections: Annex 2—Tables 3 and 4, Revision to Table 1 (Natural Sodium Nitrate).
• Draft Amendment to the
• Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Labelling of Food and food Ingredients obtained through certain Techniques of Genetic Modification/Genetic Engineering: Labelling Provisions.
• Proposed Draft Amendment to the
• Country of Origin Labelling.
• Discussion paper on Advertising.
The Codex Committee on Food Hygiene has four primary responsibilities. First, to draft basic provisions on food hygiene applicable to all food. These provisions normally take the form of Codes of Hygienic Practice for a specific commodity (
To be considered at Step 5:
• Proposed Draft Guidelines on the Application of the General Principles of Food Hygiene to the Control of
• Proposed Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Eggs andEgg Products.
• Proposed Draft Principles and Guidelines for the Conduct of Microbiological Risk Management.
The committee continues to work on:
• Proposed Draft Guidelines for Validation of Food Hygienic Control Measures.
• Proposed Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Powdered Formulae for Infants and Children.
• Endorsement of Hygiene Provisions in Codex Standards and Codes of Practice.
• Annexes to the step 5 documents.
• Proposals/risk profiles:
• Guidelines for the Application of the General Principles of Food Hygiene to the Risk-Based Control of Enterohemorrhagic
• Guidelines for the Application of the General Principles of Food Hygiene to the Risk-Based Control of Salmonella spp. in Broiler Chickens.
• Guidelines for Risk Management Options for
•
• Viruses in Food.
The Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables is responsible for elaborating world-wide standards and codes of practice for fresh fruits and vegetables. The Committee met in Mexico City, Mexico, on May 16-20, 2005. At the session they discussed the following items:
• Draft Standard for Tomatoes at Step 7.
• Draft Standard for Table Grapes retained at Step 7.
• Proposed Draft Standard for Rambutan at Step 3.
• Proposed Draft Standard for Apples at Step 3.
• Section 2.1.1 (Maturity Requirements) and Annex on Small-berry Varieties (Section 3.1) (draft Codex Standard for Table Grapes).
• Guidelines for the Quality Control of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables.
• Standard Layout for Codex Standards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables.
• Priority List.
The Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) is responsible for studying nutritional problems referred by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The Committee also drafts general provisions, as appropriate, on nutritional aspects of all foods and develops standards, guidelines, or related texts for foods for special dietary uses. The committee met in Bonn, Germany, November 1-4, 2004. The relevant document is ALINORM 05/28/26. The following items will be considered by the 28th Session of the Commission in June 2005.
To be adopted at Step 8:
• Draft Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements.
The Committee continues work on:
• Draft Revised Standard for Gluten-Free Foods at Step 7.
• Draft Revised Standard for Processed Cereal-Based.Foods for Infants and Young Children at Step 6.
• Draft Revised Standard for Infant Formula and Formulas for Special Medical Purposes Intended for Infants at Steps 3 (Section A) and 6 (Section B).
• Guidelines for Use of Nutrition Claims Draft Table of Conditions for Nutrient Content Claims (Part B containing Provisions on Dietary Fibre) at Step 6.
• Proposed Draft Revision of the Advisory Lists of Nutrient Compounds for Use in Foods for Special Dietary Uses Intended for Use by Infants and Young Children.
• Proposed Draft Recommendations on the Scientific Basis of Health Claims.
• Discussion Paper on the Application of Risk Analysis to the Work of the CCNFSDU.
• Discussion Paper on Proposals for Additional or Revised Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs).
The Fish and Fishery Products Committee is responsible for elaborating standards for fresh, frozen and otherwise processed fish, crustaceans and mollusks. The committee met in Capetown, South Africa, February 28-March 4, 2005. The following will be considered by the 28th Session of the Commission when it meets in July 2005. The relevant document is ALINORM 05/28/18.
To be considered at Step 8:
• Draft Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (Aquaculture).
• Draft Amendment to the Standard for Salted Fish and Dried Salted Fish.
To be considered at Step 5/8:
• Proposed Draft Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (Shrimps and Prawns; Cephalopods; Transport; Retail; and relevant Definitions).
To be considered at Step 5:
• Proposed Draft Standard for Sturgeon Caviar New work:
• Revision of the Procedure for the Inclusion of Species.
• Amendment of the Standard for Canned Sardines and Sardine-Type Products.
The Committee continues work on the following:
• Proposed Draft Standard for Live and Processed Bivalve Mollusks.
• Proposed Draft Standard for Smoked Fish.
• Proposed Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Scallop Adductor Muscle Meat.
• Proposed Draft Code of Practice on the Processing of Scallop Meat.
• Proposed Draft Code of Practice for Fish and Fishery Products (other sections).
• Proposed Draft Amendment of the Standard for Canned Sardines and Sardine-Type Products (Clupea bentincki).
The Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products is responsible for establishing international codes and standards for milk and milk products. The Committee held its 6th Session in Auckland, NZ on April 26-30, 2004. The relevant document is ALINORM 04/27/11.
For discussion at the 28th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in July 2005.
• Proposal for a new standard for Parmesan Cheese At its 7th Session, the Committee will continue work on the following:
At Step 6:
• Draft Standard for a Blend of Evaporated Skimmed Milk and Vegetable Fat.
• Draft Standard for a Blend of Skimmed Milk and Vegetable Fat in Powdered Form.
• Draft Standard for a Blend of Sweetened Condensed Skimmed Milk and Vegetable Fat.
• Draft Revised Standard for Whey Cheese.
• Draft Revised Standards for Cheddar (C-1) and Danbo (C-3).
Other work of the committee:
• Proposed Draft Revised Standards for Individual Cheeses at Step 4.
• Proposed Template for Fermented Milk Drinks Provisions.
• Proposed Draft Model Export Certificate for Milk and Milk Products.
• Methods of Analysis and Sampling for Milk Products.
• Proposed Draft Revised Standard for Processed Cheese.
• Proposed Draft Revised Standard for Dairy Spreads.
• Discussion paper on Proposed Revision of the Codex Standard for Extra Hard Grating Cheese.
• Discussion paper on the Issue of Naming Non-standardized Dairy Products.
The Codex Committee on Fats and Oils is responsible for elaborating standards for fats and oils of animal, vegetable, and marine origin. The committee met in London, U.K., February 21-25, 2005. The relevant document is 05/28/17. The following will be considered by the Commission at its July 2005 session.
To be considered at Step 5/8:
• Proposed Draft Amendments to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils: Sesameseed Oil.
To be considered at Step 5:
• Proposed Draft Amendments to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils: Rice Bran Oil.
To be considered at Step 5 of the Accelerated Procedure:
• Proposed Draft Revised Table 1 of the Recommended International Code of Practice for the Storage and Transport of Edible Fats and Oils in Bulk.
New Work:
• Amendment of the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils.
• Mid-oleic sunflowerseed oil.
• Mid-oleic acid soya bean oil.
• Low linolenic acid soya bean oil.
• Unbleached palm oil: total carotenoids.
The Committee continues work on:
• Draft Standard for Fat Spreads and Blended Spreads: Food additives.
• Draft List and Proposed Draft List of Acceptable Previous Cargoes.
• Proposed Draft Amendment to the Standard for Olive Oil: Linolenic Acid content.
• Criteria for the Revision of Named Vegetable oils.
• Consideration of ISO proposal to amend the nomenclature of oils.
The Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables is responsible for elaborating standards for Processed Fruits and Vegetables. After having been adjourned
To be considered at Step 5:
• Processed Tomato Concentrates.
• Preserved (Canned) Tomatoes.
• Certain Canned Citrus Fruits.
The committee is continuing work on:
• Draft Codex Standard for Pickled Fruits and Vegetables.
• Proposed Draft Codex Standards for:
• Jams, Jellies and Marmalades.
• Certain Canned Vegetables and Guidelines for Packing Media for Canned Vegetables.
Other work:
• Methods of Analysis for Processed Fruits and Vegetables.
• Priority List for the Standardization of Processed Fruits and Vegetables.
Discontinued work in this committee:
• Proposed Draft Standard for Soy Sauce.
The 24th Session of the Commission decided to reactivate the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene with New Zealand as HostGovernment. The Terms of Reference were amended to reflect the inclusion of poultry in its mandate. The Committee completed its work at its 11th Session and requested the Commission that it be adjourned
To be considered at Step 8:
• Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat.
The 26th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Standard for Instant Noodles at Step 5, on the recommendation of the Coordinating Committee for Asia, and advanced it to Step 6 for consideration by the Committee on Cereals, Pulses and Legumes by correspondence. The United States, as host government, has circulated the Draft Standard for two rounds of comments. Consideration of the additives provisions will take place in the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants.
Several Codex Alimentarius Commodity Committees have adjourned
•
•
•
•
The Commission at its 23rd Session established the Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Animal Feeding to develop guidelines or standards as appropriate on good animal feeding practices. The Revised
• Revised Draft Code of Practice for Good Animal Feeding (definition of “feed additive” and paragraphs 11, 12, and 13).
The Commission at its 23rd Session established this Task Force to revise and consolidate the existing Codex standards and guidelines for fruit and vegetable juices and related products, giving preference to general standards. These standards were originally developed by the Joint UNECE/Codex Group of Experts on the Standardization of Fruit Juices which had been abolished by its parent organizations. The Task Force held its fourth and final session in Fortaleza, Brazil, on October 11-15, 2004. The Task Force completed the work assigned to the Task Force in its Terms of Reference.
For Adoption at Step 8:
• Draft Codex General Standard for Fruit Juices and Nectars.
• Draft Minimum Brix Level for Reconstituted Juice and Reconstituted Pure and Minimum Juice and/or Pure Content for Fruit Nectars (%v/v)—grapes, guava, mandarine/tangerine, mango, passion fruit and tamarind (Indian date) juices/nectars.
For Adoption at Step 5/8:
• Proposed Draft Minimum Brix Level for ReconstitutedJuice and Reconstituted Pure and Minimum Juice and/orPurée Content for Fruit nectars (%v/v)—orange, lemon, lime, and pineapple juices/nectars.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission is made up of an Executive Committee, as well as approximately 30 subsidiary bodies. Included in these subsidiary bodies are coordinating committees for groups of countries located in proximity to each other who share common concerns. There are currently six Regional Coordinating Committees:
• Coordinating Committee for Africa.
• Coordinating Committee for Asia.
• Coordinating Committee for Europe.
• Coordinating Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean.
• Coordinating Committee for the Near East.
• Coordinating Committee for North America and the South-West Pacific.
The United States participates as an active member of the Coordinating Committee for North America and the South-West Pacific, and is informed of the other coordinating committees through meeting documents, final reports, and representation at meetings. Each regional committee:
• Defines the problems and needs of the region concerning food standards and food control;
• Promotes within the committee contacts for the mutual exchange of information on proposed regulatory initiatives and problems arising from food control and stimulates the strengthening of food control infrastructures;
• Recommends to the Commission the development of world-wide standards for products of interest to the region, including products considered by the committee to have an international market potential in the future; and
• Serves a general coordinating role for the region and performs such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the Commission.
The Coordinating Committee is responsible for defining problems and needs concerning food standards and food control of all Codex member countries of the region. Items coming before the Commission in July include the following. The committee met in Apia, Samoa, on October 19-22, 2004. The relevant document is ALINORM 05/28/32.
• Recommendation that Samoa be reappointed as Regional Coordinator.
• Support the development of a new Standard for Parmesan cheese and adopt the amendment of the Codex Standard for Canned Sardines and Sardine-Type Products.
Items on the agenda for the next meeting may include:
• Codex working documents of special interest to regional member states.
• Joint FAO/WHO Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and other FAO and WHO Work on Food Standards.
• Strategic Plan for the Coordinating Committee for North America and the Southwest Pacific.
• Trust Fund for the participation of Developing Countries in Codex.
The Coordinating Committee met in Jeju-Do, Republic of Korea on September 7-10, 2004. The relevant document is ALINORM—5/15.
To be considered at Step 5:
• Proposed Draft Standard for Ginseng Products.
New work:
• Refrigerated, Non-fermented Soybean Products.
Dr. Karen Hulebak,Chief Scientist,Office of Public Health Science,Food Safety and Inspection Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture,1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,Room 3130, South Building,Washington, DC 20250-3700,Phone: (202) 720-5735,Fax: (202) 720-2980.E-mail:
Mr. David L. Priester, Head, Standardization Section,AMS Fruit Vegetable Programs,Fresh Products Branch,U.S. Department of Agriculture,Room 1661, South Building,1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC 20250-0240.Phone: (202) 720-2185.Fax: (202) 720-8871.E-mail:
Dr. Stephen F. Sundlof, Director,Center for Veterinary Medicine,Food and Drug Administration,7500 Standish Place (HFV-1),Rockville, MD 20855,Phone: (301) 827-2950,Fax: (301) 827-8401,E-mail:
Mr. Steven N. Tanner, Director,Technical Services Division,Grain Inspection, Packers Stockyards Administration,U.S. Department of Agriculture,10383 N. Executive Hills Boulevard,Kansas City, MO 64153-1394,Phone: (816) 891-0401,Fax: (816) 891-0478,E-mail:
Dr. Steven D. Vaughn,Director,Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation,Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration,7500 Standish Place,Rockville, MD 20855,Phone: (301) 827-1796,Fax: (301) 594-2297,E-mail:
Dr. Alice Thaler, Staff Director, Animal and Egg Production Food Safety Staff, Food Safety and Inspection Service,1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC 20250,Phone: (202) 690-2683,Fax: (202) 720-8213,E-mail:
Dr. Terry C. Troxell,Director,Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages,Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-300),Food and Drug Administration, Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building,5100 Paint Branch Parkway,College Park, MD 20740-3835,Phone: (301) 436-1700,Fax: (301) 436-2632,E-mail:
Dr. Dennis M. Keefe, Office of Food Additive Safety,Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration,Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building,5100 Paint Branch Parkway,College Park, MD 20740-3835,Phone: (301) 436-1284,Fax: (301) 436-2972,E-mail:
Lois Rossi, Director of Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Ariel Rios Building,1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,Washington, DC 20460,Phone: (703) 305-5035,Fax: (703) 305-5147,E-mail:
Dr. Robert Epstein, Associate Deputy Administrator,Science and Technology, Agricultural Marketing Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture,P.O. Box 96456, Room 3522S, Mail Stop 0222,1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC 20090,Phone (202) 720-2158,Fax: (202) 720-1484,E-mail:
Dr. Gregory Diachenko,Director,Division of Chemistry Research and Environmental Review,Office of Food Additive Safety,Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN),Food and Drug Administration (HFS-245),Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building,5100 Paint Branch Parkway,College Park, MD 20740-3835,Phone (301) 436-1898,Fax: (301) 436-2364,E-mail:
Mr. Donald C. Kendall, Technical Services Division,Grain, Inspection, Packers Stockyards Administration,U.S. Department of Agriculture,10383 N. Ambassador Drive,Kansas City, MO 64153-1394,Phone: (816) 891-0463,Fax: (816) 891-0478,E-mail:
Dr. Catherine Carnevale,Director,Office of Constituent Operations,Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition,Food and Drug Administration (HFS-550),Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building,5100 Paint Branch Parkway,College Park, MD 20740-3835,Phone: (301) 436-2380,Fax: (301) 436-2612,E-mail:
Karen Stuck, Chief, International Policy Staff, Food Safety and Inspection Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture,Room 2137, South Building,1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC 20250-3700,Phone: (202) 720-3470,Fax: (202) 720-7990,E-mail:
A member of the Steering Committee heads the delegation to meetings of the General Principles Committee.
Leslye Fraser, J.D.,Director,Office of Regulations and Policy,Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA,5100 Paint Branch Parkway (HFS-004),College Park, MD 20740,Phone: (301) 436-2378,Fax: (301) 436-2637,E-mail:
Ms. Danielle Schor, Chief of Staff, Office of the Administrator,Food Safety and Inspection Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture,1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC 20250-1400,Phone: (202) 720-6618,Fax: (202) 720-7771,E-mail:
Dr. Robert L. Buchanan,Director, Office of Science,Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition,Food and Drug Administration (HFS-006),Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building,5100 Paint Branch Parkway,College Park, MD 20740-3835,Phone: (301) 436-2369,Fax: (301) 436-2642,E-mail:
Dr. Daniel Engeljohn, Deputy Assistant Administrator,Office of Policy, Program, and Employee Development,Room 3149, South Building,U.S. Department of Agriculture,1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC 20250,Phone: (202) 205-0495,Fax: (202) 401-1760,E-mail:
Dr. Rebecca Buckner, Consumer Safety Officer, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition,Food and Drug Administration,Room 3B-0033 Harvey Wiley Building,5100 Paint Branch Parkway,College Park, MD 20740,Phone: (301) 436-1486,Fax: (301) 436-2632,E-mail:
Barbara O. Schneeman, PhD,Director,Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements,Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA,5100 Paint Branch Highway,College Park, MD 20740,Tel: (301) 436-2373,Fax: (301) 436-2636,E-mail:
Patricia McKinney, Senior Program Analyst, Office of Analysis, Nutrition Service,Food and Nutrition Service, USDA,3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014,Alexandria, VA 22302,Tel: (703) 305-2126,Fax: (703) 305-2576,E-mail:
Dorian LaFond, International Standards Coordinator,Fruit and Vegetables Program,Agricultural Marketing Service,Room 2086, South Building,1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC 20250,Phone (202) 690-4944,Fax: (202) 720-4722,E-mail:
Vacant.
Mr. Philip C. Spiller,Director, Office of Seafood,Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition,Food and Drug Administration (HFS-400),Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building,5100 Paint Branch Parkway,College Park, MD 20740-3835,Phone: (301) 436-2300,Fax: (301) 436-2599,E-mail:
Mr. Richard V. Cano, Acting Director, National Seafood Inspection Program,NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce,1315 East-West Highway,Silver Spring, MD 20910,Phone: (301) 713-2355,Fax: (301) 713-1081,E-mail:
Mr. Charles W. Cooper,Director, International Activities Staff,Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition,Food and Drug Administration (HFS-585),Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building,5100 Paint Branch Parkway,College Park, MD 20740-3835,Phone: (301) 436-1714,Fax: (301) 436-2612,E-mail:
Mr. David Shipman, Deputy Administrator, Federal Grain Inspection Division,Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration,U.S. Department of Agriculture,Room 1661, South Building,1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC 20250,Phone: (202) 720-9170,Fax: (202) 205-9237,E-mail:
Mr. Duane Spomer,Associate Deputy Administrator for Standards and Grading,Dairy Programs,Agricultural Marketing Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture,Room 2746, South Building,1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,Washington, DC 20250,Phone: (202) 720-3171,Fax: (202) 720-2643,E-mail:
John F. Sheehan, Director, Division of Dairy and Egg Safety,Office of Plant and Dairy Foods,Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-306),Food and Drug Administration,Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building,5100 Paint Branch Parkway,College Park, MD 20740,Phone: (301) 436-1488,Fax: (301) 436-2632,E-mail:
Mr. Charles W. Cooper,Director, International Activities Staff,Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition,Food and Drug Administration (HFS-585),Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building,5100 Paint Branch Parkway,College Park, MD 20740-3835,Phone: (301) 436-1714,Fax: (301) 436-2612,E-mail:
Ms. Kathleen Warner, U.S. Department of Agriculture,1815 N. University Street,Peoria, IL 61604,Phone (309) 681-6584,Fax: (309) 681-6668,E-mail:
Mr. Charles W. Cooper,Director, International Activities Staff,Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition,Food and Drug Administration (HFS-585),Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building,5100 Paint Branch Parkway,College Park, MD 20740-3835,Phone: (301) 436-1714,Fax: (301) 436-2612,E-mail:
Dr. Michelle Smith, Food Technologist, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-306), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: 301-436-2024, Fax: 301-436-2651, E-mail:
Dr. Thomas L. Tew, Research Geneticist, Sugarcane Research Unit, Agricultural Research, USDA—FSIS, 5883 USDA Road, Houma, LA 70360, Phone: (504) 872-5042, Fax: (504) 868-8369, E-mail:
Dr. Dennis M. Keefe, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-265), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: (301) 436-1284, Fax: (301) 436-2972,E-mail:
Dorian Lafond, International Standards Coordinator, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,Room 2086, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: (202) 690-4944, Fax: (202) 720-0016, E-mail:
Mr. Charles W. Cooper, Director, International Activities Staff, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-585), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway,College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: (301) 436-1714, Fax: (301) 436-2612, E-mail:
Dr. Wilda H. Martinez, Area Director, ARS North Atlantic Area, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, 600 E. Mermaid Lane, Wyndmoor, PA 19038, Phone: (215) 233-6593, Fax: (215) 233-6719, E-mail:
Dr. Jeanne Rader, Director, Division of Research and Applied Technology,Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: (301) 436-1786, Fax: (301) 436-2640, E-mail:
Dr. Perfecto Santiago, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Food Security and Emergency Preparedness, Room 3130, South Building, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: (202) 205-0452, Fax: (202) 690-5634.
Dr. William O. James, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of International Affairs, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 3143, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700, Phone: (202) 720-5362, Fax: (202) 690-3856, E-mail:
Dr. Terry C. Troxell, Director, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages, Center for Food Safety Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-300), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: (301) 436-1700, Fax: (301) 436-2632, E-mail:
Ms. Shellee Anderson, Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and DietarySupplements, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-830), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building,5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: (301) 436-1491, Fax: (301) 436-2636, E-mail:
Mr. Martin Stutsman, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration (HFS-306),Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone: (301) 436-1642, Fax: (301) 436-2651,E-mail:
Vacant.
Bernice Slutsky, Ph.D., Special Assistant to the Secretary for Biotechnology, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture,1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: (202) 720-3631, Fax: (202) 720-6314, E-mail:
Eric Flamm, Ph.D., Senior Advisor, Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Room 1561 Parklawn Building, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 827-0591, FAX: (301) 827-4774, E-mail:
Words and phrases have specific meanings when used by the Codex Alimentarius.
For the purposes of Codex, the following definitions apply:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Authorized safe uses are determined at the national level and include nationally registered or recommended uses, which take into account public and occupational health and environmental safety considerations.
Actual conditions include any stage in the production, storage, transport, distribution and processing of food commodities and animal feed.
8.
Codex MRLPs, which are primarily intended to apply in international trade, are derived from reviews conducted by the JMPR following:
(a) Toxological assessment of the pesticide and its residue, and
(b) Review of residue data from supervised trials and supervised uses including those reflecting national good agricultural practices. Data from supervised trials conducted at the highest nationally recommended, authorized, or registered uses are included in the review. In order to accommodate variations in national pest control requirements, Codex MRLPs take into account the higher levels shown to arise in such supervised trials, which are considered to represent effective pest control practices.
Consideration of the various dietary residue intake estimates and determinations both at the national and international level in comparison with the ADI, should indicate that foods complying with Codex MRLPs are safe for human consumption.
9.
10.
11.
An MRLVD is based on the type and amount of residue considered to be without any toxological hazard for human health as expressed by the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), or on the basis of a temporary ADI that utilizes an additional safety factor. An MRLVD also takes into account other relevant public health risks as well as food technological aspects.
When establishing an MRLVD, consideration is also given to residues that occur in food of plant origin and/or the environment. Furthermore, the MRLVD may be reduced to be consistent with good practices in the use of veterinary drugs and to the extent that practical and analytical methods are available.
12.
13.
(1) The Commission decides, taking into account the “Criteria for the Establishment of Work Priorities and for the Establishment of Subsidiary Bodies,” to elaborate a Worldwide Codex Standard and also decides which subsidiary body or other body should undertake the work. A decision to elaborate a Worldwide Codex Standard may also be taken by subsidiary bodies of the Commission in accordance with the above-mentioned criteria, subject to subsequent approval by the Commission or its Executive Committee at the earliest possible opportunity. In the case of Codex Regional Standards, the Commission shall base its decision on the proposal of the majority of members belonging to a given region or group of countries submitted at a session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
(2) The Secretariat arranges for the preparation of a proposed draft standard. In the case of Maximum Limits for Residues of Pesticides or Veterinary Drugs, the Secretariat distributes the recommendations for maximum limits, when available from the Joint Meetings of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues (JMPR), or the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). In the cases of milk and milk products or individual standards for cheeses, the Secretariat distributes the recommendations of the International Dairy Federation (IDF).
(3) The proposed draft standard is sent to members of the Commission and interested international organizations for comment on all aspects including possible implications of the proposed draft standard for their economic interests.
The comments received are sent by the Secretariat to the subsidiary body or other body concerned which has the power to consider such comments and to amend the proposed draft standard.
The proposed draft standard is submitted through the Secretariat to the Commission or to the Executive Committee with a view to its adoption as a draft standard. When making any decision at this step, the Commission or the Executive Committee will give due consideration to any comments that may be submitted by any of its members regarding the implications which the proposed draft standard or any provisions of the standard may have for their economic interests. In the case of Regional Standards, all members of the Commission may present their comments, take part in the debate and propose amendments, but only the majority of the Members of the region or group of countries concerned attending the session can decide to amend or adopt the draft. When making any decisions at this step, the members of the region or group of countries concerned will give due consideration to any comments that may be submitted by any of the members of the Commission regarding the implications which the proposed draft standard or any provisions of the proposed draft standard may have for their economic interests.
The draft standard is sent by the Secretariat to all members and interested international organizations for comment on all aspects, including possible implications of the draft standard for their economic interests.
The comments received are sent by the Secretariat to the subsidiary body or other body concerned, which has the power to consider such comments and amend the draft standard.
The draft standard is submitted through the Secretariat to the Commission together with any written proposals received from members and interested international organizations for amendments at Step 8 with a view to its adoption as a Codex Standard. In the case of Regional standards, all members and interested international organizations may present their comments, take part in the debate and propose amendments but only the majority of members of the region or group of countries concerned attending the session can decide to amend and adopt the draft.
(1) The Commission or the Executive Committee between Commission sessions, on the basis of a two-thirds majority of votes cast, taking into account the “Criteria for the Establishment of Work Priorities and for the Establishment of Subsidiary Bodies”, shall identify those standards which shall be the subject of an accelerated elaboration process. The identification of such standards may also be made by subsidiary bodies of the Commission, on the basis of a two-thirds majority of votes cast, subject to confirmation at the earliest opportunity by the Commission or its Executive Committee by a two-thirds majority of votes cast.
(2) The Secretariat arranges for the preparation of a proposed draft standard. In the case of Maximum Limits for Residues of Pesticides or Veterinary Drugs, the Secretariat distributes the recommendations for maximum limits, when available from the Joint Meetings of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues
(3) The proposed draft standard is sent to Members of the Commission and interested international organizations for comment on all aspects including possible implications of the proposed draft standard for their economic interests. When standards are subject to an accelerated procedure, this fact shall be notified to the Members of the Commission and the interested international organizations.
The comments received are sent by the Secretariat to the subsidiary body or other body concerned which has the power to consider such comments and to amend the proposed draft standard.
In the case of standards identified as being subject to an accelerated elaboration procedure, the draft standard is submitted through the Secretariat to the Commission together with any written proposals received from Members and interested international organizations for amendments with a view to its adoption as a Codex standard. In taking any decision at this step, the Commission will give due consideration to any comments that may be submitted by any of its Members regarding the implications which the proposed draft standard or any provisions thereof may have for their economic interests.
Codex standards contain requirements for food aimed at ensuring for the consumer a sound, wholesome food product free from adulteration, and correctly labelled. A Codex standard for any food or foods should be drawn up in accordance with the Format for Codex Commodity Standards and contain, as appropriate, the criteria listed therein.
The name of the standard should be clear and as concise as possible. It should usually be the common name by which the food covered by the standard is known or, if more than one food is dealt with in the standard, by a generic name covering them all. If a fully informative title is inordinately long, a subtitle could be added.
This section should contain a clear, concise statement as to the food or foods to which the standard is applicable unless the name of the standard clearly and concisely identifies the food or foods. A generic standard covering more than one specific product should clearly identify the specific products to which the standard applies.
This section should contain a definition of the product or products with an indication, where appropriate, of the raw materials from which the product or products are derived and any necessary references to processes of manufacture. The description may also include references to types and styles of product and to type of pack. The description may also include additional definitions when these additional definitions are required to clarify the meaning of the standard.
This section should contain all quantitative and other requirements as to composition including, where necessary, identity characteristics, provisions on packing media and requirements as to compulsory and optional ingredients. It should also include quality factors that are essential for the designation, definition, or composition of the product concerned. Such factors could include the quality of the raw material, with the object of protecting the health of the consumer, provisions on taste, odor, color, and texture which may be apprehended by the senses, and basic quality criteria for the finished products, with the object of preventing fraud. This section may refer to tolerances for defects, such as blemishes or imperfect material, but this information should be contained in appendix to the standard or in another advisory text.
This section should contain the names of the additives permitted and, where appropriate, the maximum amount permitted in the food. It should be prepared in accordance with guidance given on page of the Codex Procedural Manual and may take the following form:
A tabulation should then follow, viz.:
“
(a)
(b)
A tabulation should then follow, viz.:
“
Any specific mandatory hygiene provisions considered necessary should be included in this section. They should be prepared in accordance with the guidance given in the Codex Procedural Manual. Reference should also be made to applicable codes of hygienic practice. Any parts of such codes, including in
This section should include all provisions, other than labelling provisions, relating to weights and measures,
This section should include all the labelling provisions contained in the standard and should be prepared in accordance with the guidance given in the Codex Procedural Manual. Provisions should be included by reference to the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods. The section may also contain provisions which are exemptions from, additions to, or which are necessary for the interpretation of the General Standard in respect of the product concerned provided that these can be justified fully. The following statement should also appear:
This section should include, either specifically or by reference, all methods of analysis and sampling considered necessary and should be prepared in accordance with the guidance given in the Codex Procedural Manual. If two or more methods have been proved to be equivalent by the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling, these could be regarded as alternatives and included in this section either specifically or by reference. The following statement should also appear:
Forest Service, USDA.
Revised notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact statement on a proposal to implement multiple resource management actions within the Dean Area as directed by the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The Dean Project Area covers about 12,468 acres of National Forest System land and about 2,256 acres of interspersed private land within the Redwater Creek watershed directly north of Sundance, Wyoming. Proposed actions would modify the structure of forest stands across the planning area to reduce fuel loads, potential for uncharacteristically intense wildfire behavior, and risk of insect outbreaks; provide for diverse wildlife habitat and restore hardwood; and provide a mix of motorized and non-motorized use opportunities. This revised Notice of Intent is being issued because of a change in the designated responsible official.
Scoping was conducting as described in the Notice of Intent of November 24, 2004 (69 FR 68303). Comments submitted during scoping for the proposed action are part of the project record and were considered in developing the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS was issued in March 2005 (70 FR 12211), and the comment period was extended once (70 FR 19951). Comments were accepted through May 2, 2005. These comments are being considered during completion of the Final EIS. The Final environmental impact statement is expected in June 2005.
Janis Bouma, Project Coordinator, Black Hills National Forest, Bearlodge Ranger District, 121 S. 21st Street, Sundance, Wyoming 82729, phone (307) 283-1361.
The actions are proposed in direct response to management direction provided by the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The site-specific actions are based on Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines to promote existing resource conditions in the Dean Project Area toward meeting Forest Plan Goals and Objectives. The project area lies in the Bear Lodge Mountains in the Black Hills National Forest, directly north of Sundance, Wyoming. Issues considered include: Fire and fuel hazard reduction; impacts of vegetation treatment and multiple forest uses on wildlife and fish habitat; and travel management and recreation.
There is a need to reduce the potential for uncharacteristically intense wildfire behavior and insect infestation, provide diverse wildlife habitat, and manage motorized recreation in the Dean Project Area. This project will address Forest Plan Goal 2 (providing for biologically diverse ecosystems) and Goal 3 (providing for sustained commodity uses) consistent with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.
Actions proposed in the Dean Project Area include:
• Modifying stand structure across the planning area to reduce potential for uncharacteristically intense wildfire behavior and benefit wildlife. This action includes thinning the forest, removing conifers from stands of hardwoods such as aspen, bur oak, and birch, and expanding and/or creating meadows.
• Reducing fuel loads by decreasing the volume and arrangement of both existing fuels and those resulting from other vegetation treatment activities. Treatment could include lopping, chipping, crushing, piling and burning, and prescribed burning on up to 2,971 acres.
• Reducing the density of pine stands on up to 4,840 acres to decrease the potential for spreading crown fires, increase tree growth and vigor, and lessen the risk of insect infestation and disease. This may be done by using commercial timber harvest to thin out merchantable trees and using other methods to thin small, unmerchantable trees. These actions would provide wood fiber to local industry and would require construction of up to 5.7 miles of new specified roads.
• Modifying the Forest Plan through a non-significant amendment to change Management Area (MA) designation in part of the project area to better reflect actual conditions. The entire project area is currently in MA 5.4 (Big Game
• Providing a mix of motorized and non-motorized opportunities and protecting wildlife in the area by closing the project area to off-road motorized travel and restricting ATV use to designated routes. Main system routes currently open to motorized travel would remain open. Approximately 23.5 miles of roads would also be decommissioned.
Four alternatives were analyzed in detail in the Draft EIS. These alternatives were:
• Alternative A, No Action—Proposed actions would be deferred at this time.
• Alternative B—Promote late succession habitat and increase diversity while reducing fuels and insect infestation risk; amend the Forest Plan to allow deviations from thermal cover and goshawk standards.
• Alternative C—Proposed Action—Aggressively treat forest vegetation to reduce fire and fuels hazards; prohibit off-road motorized travel in the project area; amend the Forest Plan to allow for a change in management area designation and deviations from thermal cover and goshawk standards.
• Alternative D—Focus treatments near private lands and in other strategic locations; de-emphasize the use of commercial timber harvest and feature broadcast burning and fuel breaks; amend the Forest Plan to allow deviations from thermal cover guidelines.
Alternative C was the preferred alternative in the Draft EIS.
Marisue Hilliard, Acting Forest Supervisor, Black Hills National Forest, is the responsible official. The address is Black Hills National Forest, 25041 N. Highway 16, Custer, South Dakota 57730. The telephone is (605) 673-9200.
The decisions to be made are whether or not to implement the proposed action or alternatives at this time; and, whether to amend the Revised Forest Plan to allow a change in management area designation for part of the project area, deviations in guidelines for thermal cover, and deviations in goshawk habitat standards.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Kootenai National Forest's Lincoln County Resource Advisory Committee will meet on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 at 6 p.m. at the Supervisor's Office in Libby, Montana for a business meeting. The meeting is open to the public.
June 1, 2005.
Kootenai National Forest, Supervisor's Office, 1101 U.S. Hwy 2, West, Libby, Montana.
Barbara Edgmon, Committee Coordinator, Kootenai National Forest at (406) 293-6211, or e-mail
Agenda topics include acceptance of project proposals for funding in fiscal year 2006, status of approved projects, and receiving public comment. If the meeting date or location is changed, notice will be posted in the local newspapers, including the Daily Interlake based in Kalispell, Montana.
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletion from Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List products and a service to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and to delete a service previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Sheryl D. Kennerly, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or e-mail
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a) (2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and service to the Government.
2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.
The following products and service are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the service to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the service proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.
The following service is proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to and deletions from Procurement List.
This action adds to the Procurement List services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes from the Procurement List products and services previously furnished by such agencies.
June 26, 2005.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-3259.
Sheryl D. Kennerly, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or e-mail
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following services are added to the Procurement List:
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the product and services deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product and services are deleted from the Procurement List:
U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of inquiry.
This notice is to advise the public that the National Defense Stockpile Market Impact Committee, co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and State, is seeking public comments on the potential market impact of proposed changes in the disposal levels of excess Chromium Metal, Ferrochromium, and Tungsten ores and concentrates under the Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 Annual Materials Plan (AMP).
Comments must be received by June 27, 2005.
Written comments should be sent to either William J. Denk, Co-chair, National Defense Stockpile Market Impact Committee, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Room 3876, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; Fax: (202) 482-5650; E-mail:
Eddy Aparicio, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, telephone: (202) 482-8234; e-mail:
Under the authority of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act of 1979, as amended, (50 U.S.C. 98
The Committee is comprised of representatives from the Departments of Commerce, State, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Treasury, and Homeland Security, and is co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and State. The FY 1993 NDAA directs the Committee to “consult from time to time with representatives of producers, processors and consumers of the types of materials stored in the stockpile.”
The National Defense Stockpile Administrator is proposing revisions of the previously approved FY 2006 Annual Materials Plan (“AMP”) quantities for three materials, (1) Chromium Metal, from the previously approved 500 short tons to the newly proposed 1000 short tons, (2) Ferrochromium, from the previously approved 110,000 short tons to the newly proposed 150,000 short tons, and lastly (3) Tungsten ores and concentrates from the previously approved 5,000,000 pounds to the newly proposed 20,000,000 pounds. The Committee is seeking public comments on the potential market impact of the sale of these three materials at the newly proposed levels for the FY 2006 AMP.
The AMP quantities are not targets for either sale or disposal. They are only a
The Committee requests that interested parties provide written comments, supporting data and documentation, and any other relevant information on the potential market impact of the sale of these commodities. Although comments in response to this Notice must be received by June 27, 2005, to ensure full consideration by the Committee, interested parties are encouraged to submit comments and supporting information at any time thereafter to keep the Committee informed as to the market impact of the sale of these commodities. Public comments are an important element of the Committee's market impact review process.
Public comments received will be made available at the Department of Commerce for public inspection and copying. Anyone submitting business confidential information should clearly identify the business confidential portion of the submission and also provide a non-confidential submission that can be placed in the public record. The Committee will seek to protect such information to the extent permitted by law.
The records related to this Notice will be made accessible in accordance with the regulations published in Part 4 of Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR 4.1,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Initiation of Anticumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part.
The Department of Commerce has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with April anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews. The Department of Commerce also received a request to revoke one antidumpting duty order in part.
May 27, 2005.
Holly A. Kuga, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone (202) 482-4737.
The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2002), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with April anniversary dates. The Department also received a timely request to revoke in part the antidumping duty order on Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey.
In accordance with section 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than April 30, 2006.
During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under section 351.211 or a determination under section 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.
These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce received a request on March 23, 2005, to conduct a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(d), we are initiating a new shipper review for the company that requested such a review: Shanxi Zhongding Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (“Shanxi Zhongding”), which is a producer and exporter of brake rotors from the PRC.
May 27, 2005.
Edward Jacobson or Brian Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5460 or (202) 482-1766, respectively.
The Department received a timely request on March 23, 2005, from Shanxi Zhongding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC, which has an April anniversary month. In response to the Department's April 14, 2005, request, Shanxi Zhongding provided supplemental information on April 29, 2005.
Shanxi Zhongding identified itself as the producer of the brake rotors it exports. As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i) and (iii)(A), Shanxi Zhongding has certified that it did not export brake rotors to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”), and that it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer which did export brake rotors during the POI (
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(b), and based on our analysis of the information and documentation provided with the new shipper review request, as well as our analysis of proprietary import data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), we find that Shanxi Zhongding has met the requirements for the Department to initiate a new shipper review (for more details,
In cases involving non-market economies, it is the Department's normal practice to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate provide
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we are initiating a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC. Normally, we would issue the preliminary results of this review not later than 180 days after the date on which the review is initiated. However, on April 29, 2005, Shanxi Zhongding agreed to waive the time limits in order that the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3), may conduct this review concurrent with the eighth administrative review of this order for the period April 1, 2004-March 31, 2005, which is being conducted pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, we intend to issue the preliminary results of this review not later than 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month.
We will instruct CBP to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise from Shanxi Zhongding. This action is in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because Shanxi Zhongding has certified that it both produces and exports the subject merchandise, the sale of which was the basis for its new shipper review request, we will apply the bonding privilege only to entries of subject merchandise for which it is both the producer and exporter.
Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.
This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d).
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Notice of open meeting.
June 10, 2005.
9-11:30 a.m.
Hotel George, 15 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001. Tel: (202) 347-4213.
The United States Travel and Tourism Promotion Advisory Board (Board) will hold a Board meeting on June 10, 2005 at the Hotel George, 15 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001.
The Board will discuss the results of the international advertising and promotion campaign launched in the United Kingdom in 2004/2005, which sought to encourage individuals to travel to the United States for the express purpose of engaging in tourism. The meeting will be open to the public. Time will be permitted for public comment. To sign up for public comment, please contact Julie Heizer at least 24 hours before the start of the meeting.
Julie Heizer may be contacted at U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 5204, Washington, DC 20230; via fax at (202) 482-2887; or, via e-mail at
Written comments concerning Board affairs are welcome anytime before or after the meeting. Written comments should be directed to Julie Heizer. Minutes will be available within 60 days of this meeting.
The Board is mandated by Public Law 108-7, Section 210. As directed by Public Law 108-7, Section 210, the Secretary of Commerce shall design, develop and implement an international advertising and promotional campaign, which seeks to encourage individuals to travel to the United States. The Board shall recommend to the Secretary of Commerce the appropriate coordinated activities for funding. This campaign shall be a multi-media effort that seeks to leverage the Federal dollars with contributions of cash and in-kind products unique to the travel and tourism industry. The Board was chartered in August of 2003 and will expire on August 8, 2005.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to OTTI.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability of draft conservation plan; reopening of public comment period.
NMFS is reopening the comment period for the draft conservation plan for Cook Inlet beluga whales. The initial comment period ended May 16, 2005. The draft conservation plan is intended to promote the conservation and recovery of these whales so they are no longer considered depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Written comments and information must be received by June 27, 2005.
Copies of the draft conservation plan may be reviewed and/or copied at NMFS, Protected Resources Division, 222 W. 7th Ave., (room 517), Anchorage, AK 99513; or at the NMFS Alaska Regional Office, Protected Resources Division, 709 W. 9th St., P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802. It is available on the Internet at the following address:
Comments on the draft conservation plan should be sent to the above addresses or may be submitted by email to the following address:
Kaja Brix, NOAA/NMFS, Alaska Region, (907)586-7235, or Brad Smith, NOAA/NMFS, Alaska Region, Anchorage Field Office, (907)271-5006.
On March 16, 2005, NMFS announced the availability of a draft conservation plan for Cook Inlet beluga whales for public review and comment (70 FR 12853). The comment period for the draft plan ended May 16, 2005. During the comment period, several parties requested additional time to review the document and develop comments. Pursuant to these requests, NMFS is reopening the comment period for the draft plan for an additional 30-day period.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of issuance of an incidental take permit.
In accordance with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to The Boeing Company (Boeing) to take marine mammals by harassment incidental to harbor activities related to the Delta IV/Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) at south Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA (VAFB).
Effective from May 20, 2005, through May 19, 2006.
A copy of the IHA and the application are available by writing to Steve Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation, and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225, or by telephoning the contact listed here. A copy of the
Jolie Harrison, (301) 713-2289, ext. 166 or Monica DeAngelis, (562) 980-3232.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have no more than a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as:
an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except for certain categories of activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:
any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [“Level A harassment”]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [“Level B harassment”].
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization.
On December 21, 2004, NMFS received an application from Boeing requesting a renewal of an authorization for the harassment of small numbers of Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi) and California sea lions (
A notice of receipt of the Boeing application and proposed IHA was published in the
The taking by serious injury or death of any marine mammal is not authorized by this IHA and would result in the modification, suspension or revocation of this Authorization. NMFS anticipates that Boeing's harbor activities will result in no more than Level B Harassment that is limited to short term and localized behavioral changes, such as startle reactions or flushes of low numbers of individuals from haul-out sites.
The schedule for dredging is also addressed in the 2001 USAF EA. Using methods outlined in a Water Quality Management Plan, dredging is expected to proceed at a rate of 2,000 cubic yards per day (maximum total removal of 3,000 cubic yards per maintenance dredge), which would take a maximum of 2 days. A five-day buffer was added to allow for bad weather or other problems. Additionally, it takes approximately 1 week to stage the equipment prior to dredging and approximately 1 week to demobilize the operation after the dredging.
In the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program (1998), alternate sites to VAFB for the whole program were considered.
To continue to accommodate the
A more detailed description of the work proposed for 2005 is contained in the application which is available upon request (see
The marine mammal species likely to be harassed incidental to harbor activities at south VAFB are the Pacific harbor seal and the California sea lion. The most recent estimate of the Pacific harbor seal population in California is 27,863 seals. Since 1990 there has been no net population growth along the mainland or the Channel Islands. The decrease in population growth rate has occurred at the same time as a decrease in human-caused mortality and may indicate that the population has reached its environmental carrying capacity (Carretta et al., 2004). The total population of harbor seals on VAFB is now estimated to be 1,099 (maximum of 515 seals hauled out at one time on south VAFB) based on sighting surveys and telemetry data (SRS Technologies, 2003).
The daily haul-out behavior of harbor seals along the south VAFB coastline is primarily dependent on time of day. The highest number of seals haul-out at south VAFB between 1100 through 1600 hours. In addition, haul-out behavior at all sites seems to be influenced by environmental factors such as high swell, tide height, and wind. The combination of all three may prevent seals from hauling out at most sites. The number of seals hauled out at any site can vary greatly from day to day based on environmental conditions. Harbor seals occasionally haul out at a beach 250 ft (76.2 m) west of the south VAFB
Several factors affect the seasonal haul-out behavior of harbor seals including environmental conditions, reproduction, and molting. Harbor seal numbers at VAFB begin to increase in March during the pupping season (March to June) as females spend more time on shore nursing pups. The number of hauled-out seals is at its highest during the molt which occurs from May through July. During the molting season, tagged harbor seals at VAFB increased their time spent on shore by 22.4 percent; however, all seals continued to make daily trips to sea to forage. Molting harbor seals entering the water because of a disturbance are not adversely affected in their ability to molt and do not endure thermoregulatory stress. During pupping and molting season, harbor seals at the south VAFB sites expand into haul-out areas that are not used the rest of the year. The number of seals hauled out begins to decrease in August after the molt is complete and reaches the lowest number in late fall and early winter.
During the wharf modification activity in June-July 2002, California sea lions were observed hauling out on the breakwater in small numbers (up to 6 individuals). Although this is considered to be an unusual occurrence and is possibly related to fish schooling in the area, Boeing included sea lions in their request.
California sea lions range from British Columbia to Mexico. The most recent population estimates for the California sea lions range from 237,000 to 244,000 individuals (Caretta et al., 2004). Between 1975 and 2001, the population growth rate was 5.4-6.1 percent. A 1985-1987 population survey indicated that most individuals on the Northern Channel Islands were on San Miguel Island, with the population ranging from 2,235 to over 17,000. The largest numbers of California sea lions in the VAFB vicinity occur at Lion Rock, 0.4 mi (0.64 km) southeast of Point Sal. This area is approximately 1.5 mi (2.41 km) north of the VAFB boundary. At least 100 sea lions can be observed during any season at this site. The Point Arguello beaches and the rocky ledges of South Rocky Point on south VAFB are haulout areas that may be used by California sea lions. In 2003, at least 145 sea lions were observed at Rocky Point, including five pups that did not survive due to abandonment shortly after birth. This was thought to be an El Nino effect, as there had never been any previously reported sea lion births at VAFB (Thorson, 2003).
Each year, small groups of sea lions have been observed heading south along the VAFB coastline in April and May (Tetra Tech, 1997). Starting in August, large groups of sea lions can be seen moving north, in groups varying in size from 25 to more than 300 (Roest, 1995). This concurs with established migration patterns (Reeves et al., 1992; Roest, 1995). Juvenile sea lions can be observed hauled-out with harbor seals along the South Base sites from July through September (Tetra Tech, 1997). Starving and exhausted subadult sea lions are fairly common on central California beaches during the months of July and August (Roest, 1995).
During the breeding season, most of California sea lions inhabit southern California and Mexico. Rookery sites in southern California are limited to San Miguel Island and to the southerly Channel Islands of San Nicolas, Santa Barbara, and San Clemente. Breeding season begins in mid-May, occurring within 10 days of arrival at the rookeries. Molting occurs gradually over several months in the late summer and fall. Because the molt is not catastrophic, the sea lions can enter the water to feed.
Male California sea lions migrate annually. In the spring they migrate southward to breeding rookeries in the Channel Islands and Mexico, then migrate northward in the late summer following breeding season. Females appear to remain near the breeding rookeries. The greatest number on land occurs in September and October during the post-breeding dispersal, although many of the sea lions, particularly juveniles and sub-adult and adult males, may move north away from the Channel Islands.
Other pinniped species are rare to infrequent along the south VAFB coast and are unlikely to be harassed by Boeing's activities. These four species are: the northern elephant seal, the northern fur seal (
Southern sea otters have occasionally been observed foraging in the kelp beds in the VAFB harbor. Potential take of sea otters during Boeing's harbor activities was addressed by the USFWS in their 2001 Biological Opinion, which found that Boeing's harbor activities will not jeopardize the continued existence of the southern sea otter.
Acoustic and visual stimuli generated by the use of heavy equipment during the
Based on the measured sounds of construction equipment, such as might be used during Boeing's activities, sound level intensity decreases proportional to the square root of the distance from the source. A dredging crane at the end of the dock producing 88 dBA of noise would be approximately 72 dBA at the nearest beach or the end of the breakwater, roughly 250 ft (76.2 m) away. The EPT produces approximately 85 dBA, measured less than 20 ft (6 m) from the engine exhaust, when the engine is running at mid speed. The EPT operation procedure requires two short beeps of the horn (approximately 1/3 of a second each) prior to starting the ignition. Sound level measurements for the horn ranged from 84 to 112 dBA at
Pinnipeds sometimes show startle reactions when exposed to sudden brief sounds. An acoustic stimulus with sudden onset (such as a sonic boom) may be analogous to a “looming” visual stimulus (Hayes and Saif, 1967), which may elicit flight away from the source (Berrens
According to the MMPA, if harbor activities disrupt the behavioral patterns of harbor seals, these activities would take marine mammals by Level B harassment. In general, if the received level of the noise stimulus exceeds both the background (ambient) noise level and the auditory threshold of the animals, and especially if the stimulus is novel to them, there may be a behavioral response. The probability and degree of response will also depend on the season, the group composition of the pinnipeds, and the type of activity in which they are engaged. Minor and brief responses, such as short-duration startle or alert reactions, are not likely to constitute disruption of behavioral patterns, such as migration, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (i.e., Level B harassment) and would not cause serious injury or mortality to marine mammals.
On the other hand, startle and alert reactions accompanied by large-scale movements, such as stampedes into the water, may rise to the level of Level B harassment and could result in injury of individuals. In addition, such large-scale movements by dense aggregations of marine mammals or on pupping sites could potentially lead to takes by serious injury or death. However, there is no potential for large-scale movements leading to serious injury or mortality near the south VAFB harbor, because on average the number of harbor seals hauled out near the site on average is less than 30 and there is no pupping at nearby sites. The effects of the harbor activities are expected to be limited to short-term startle responses and localized behavioral changes.
According to the June 2002 dock modification construction report (ENSRI, 2002), the maximum number of harbor seals hauled out each day ranged from 23 to 25 animals. There were 15 occasions in which construction noise, vehicle noise, or noise from a fishing boat caused the seals to lift their heads. Flushing only occurred due to fishing activities which were unrelated to the construction activities. The sea lions were less reactive to the construction noise than the harbor seals. None of the construction activities caused any of the sea lions to leave the jetty rocks and there was only one incident of a head alert reaction.
The report from the December 2002 dredging activities show that the number of Pacific harbor seals ranged from 0 to 19 and that California sea lions did not haul out during the monitoring period. On 10 occasions, harbor seals showed head alerts although two of the alerts were for disturbances that were not related to the project. No harbor seals flushed during the activities on the dock.
For a further discussion of the anticipated effects of the planned activities on harbor seals in the area, please refer to the application and NMFS' 2005 Environmental Assessment. Information contained in the application and referenced sources as updated by recent monitoring reports is adopted by NMFS as the best information available on this subject.
To reduce the potential for disturbance from visual and acoustic stimuli associated with the activities Boeing will undertake the following marine mammal mitigating measures:
(1) If activities occur during nighttime hours, lighting will be turned on before dusk and left on the entire night to avoid startling harbor seals at night.
(2) Activities will be initiated before dusk.
(3) Construction noises must be kept constant (i.e., not interrupted by periods of quiet in excess of 30 minutes) while harbor seals are present.
(4) If activities cease for longer than 30 minutes and harbor seals are in the area, start-up of activities will include a gradual increase in noise levels.
(5) A NMFS-approved marine mammal observer will visually monitor the harbor seals on the beach adjacent to the harbor and on rocks for any flushing or other behaviors as a result of Boeing's activities (see Monitoring).
(6) The Delta Mariner and accompanying vessels will enter the harbor only when the tide is too high for harbor seals to haul-out on the rocks and the vessel will reduce speed 1.5 to 2 knots (1.5-2.0 nm/hr; 2.8-3.7 km/hr) once the vessel is within 3 mi (4.83 km) of the harbor. The vessel will enter the harbor stern first, approaching the wharf and mooring dolphins at less than 0.75 knot (1.4 km/hr).
(7) As alternate dredge methods are explored, the dredge contractor may introduce quieter techniques and equipment.
As part of its 2002 application, Boeing provided a proposed monitoring plan for assessing impacts to harbor seals from the activities at south VAFB harbor and for determining when mitigation measures should be employed. NMFS proposes the same plan for this IHA.
A NMFS-approved and VAFB-designated biologically trained observer will monitor the area for pinnipeds during all harbor activities. During nighttime activities, the harbor area will be illuminated, and the monitor will use a night vision scope. Monitoring activities will consist of:
(1) Conducting baseline observation of pinnipeds in the project area prior to initiating project activities.
(2) Conducting and recording observations on pinnipeds in the vicinity of the harbor for the duration of the activity occurring when tides are low enough for pinnipeds to haul out
(2 ft, 0.61 m, or less).
(3) Conducting post-construction observations of pinniped haul-outs in the project area to determine whether animals disturbed by the project activities return to the haul-out.
Boeing will notify NMFS 2 weeks prior to initiation of each activity. After each activity is completed, Boeing will provide a report to NMFS within 90 days. This report will provide dates and locations of specific activities, details of seal behavioral observations, and estimates of the amount and nature of all takes of seals by harassment or in other ways. In addition, the report will include information on the weather, the tidal state, the horizontal visibility, and the composition (species, gender, and age class) and locations of haul-out group(s). In the unanticipated event that any cases of pinniped injury or mortality are judged to result from these activities, this will be reported to NMFS immediately.
Boeing estimates that a maximum of 43 harbor seals per day may be hauled out near the south VAFB harbor, with a
During wharf modification activities, a maximum of six California sea lions were seen hauling out in a single day. Based on the above-mentioned calculation, NMFS believes that a maximum of 219 California sea lions and 10 northern elephant seals (because they may be in nearby waters) may be subject to Level B harassment.
Boeing anticipates no loss or modification to the habitat used by Pacific harbor seals or California sea lions that haul out near the south VAFB harbor. The harbor seal and sea lion haul-out sites near south VAFB harbor are not used as breeding, molting, or mating sites; therefore, it is not expected that the activities in the harbor will have any impact on the ability of Pacific harbor seals or California sea lions in the area to reproduce.
Boeing anticipates unavoidable kelp removal during dredging. This habitat modification will not affect the marine mammal habitat. However, Boeing will mitigate for the removal of kelp habitat by placing 150 tons of rocky substrate in a sandy area between the breakwater and the mooring dolphins to enhance an existing artificial reef. This type of mitigation was implemented by the Army Corps of Engineers following the 1984 and 1989 dredging. A lush kelp bed adjacent to the sandy area has developed from the efforts. The substrate will consist of approximately 150 sharp-faced boulders, each with a diameter of about 2 ft (0.61 m) and each weighing about one ton. The boulders will be brought in by truck from an off-site quarry and loaded by crane onto a small barge at the wharf. The barge is towed by a tugboat to a location along the mooring dolphins from which a small barge-mounted crane can place them into the sandy area. Boeing plans to perform the reef enhancement in conjunction with the next maintenance dredging event in order to minimize cost and disturbances to animals. Noise will be generated by the trucks delivering the boulders to the harbor and during the operation of unloading the boulders onto the barges and into the water.
There are no subsistence uses for Pacific harbor seals in California waters, and thus, there are no anticipated effects on subsistence needs.
NMFS has determined that the impact of conducting harbor activities related to the Delta IV/EELV at VAFB, including: transport vessel operations, cargo movement activities, harbor maintenance dredging, and kelp habitat mitigation would result in the harassment of small numbers of Pacific harbor seals, California sea lions, and northern elephant seals; would have no more than a negligible impact on these marine mammal stocks; and would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of marine mammal stocks for subsistence uses. Northern fur seals, Guadalupe fur seals, and Steller sea lions are unlikely to be found in the area and, therefore, will not be affected. While behavioral modifications may be made by harbor seals and California sea lions to avoid the resultant acoustic and visual stimuli, there is no potential for large-scale movements, such as stampedes, since these species haul out in such small numbers near the site (maximum number of harbor seals hauled out in one day estimated at 43 seals, averaging at 21 seals per day, maximum number of California sea lions hauled out in one day is estimated at six). The effects of Boeing's harbor activities are expected to be limited to short-term and localized behavioral changes.
Due to the localized nature of these activities, the number of marine mammals potentially taken by harassment are estimated to be small. In addition, no take by injury or death is anticipated, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is unlikely given the low noise levels expected at the site. No rookeries, mating grounds, areas of concentrated feeding, or other areas of special significance for marine mammals occur within or near south VAFB harbor.
This action will not affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that are under the jurisdiction of NMFS. VAFB formally consulted with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in 1998 on the possible take of southern sea otters during Boeing's harbor activities at south VAFB. A Biological Opinion was issued by the USFWS in August 2001, which found that Boeing's harbor activities will not jeopardize the continued existence of the southern sea otter. The activities covered by this IHA are analyzed in that Biological Opinion, and this IHA does not modify the action in a manner that was not previously analyzed.
In 2001, the USAF prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for Harbor Activities Associated with the Delta IV Program at Vandenberg Air Force Base. In 2005, NMFS prepared an EA supplementing the information contained in the USAF EA and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact on the issuance of an IHA for Boeing's harbor activities in accordance with section 6.01 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6 (Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, May 20, 1999). Accordingly, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
NMFS has issued an IHA to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting harbor activities at VAFB to Boeing for a 1-year period, provided the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are undertaken.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meetings.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and its Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish Committee; its Tilefish Committee; its Ecosystems Committee; and, its Executive Committee will hold public meetings.
The meetings will be held on Tuesday, June 14, 2005, through
Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: 302-674-2331, ext. 19.
Agenda items for the Council's committees and the Council itself are: on Tuesday, June 14, 2005, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.; the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Committee will meet to review the Monitoring Committee's recommendations for 2006 quota levels and associated management measures, and develop recommendations for 2006 quota specifications and associated management measures for Council consideration and action. The Tilefish Committee and its advisors will meet from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m., to review and discuss comments received during the scoping process, review and discuss Amendment 1 options paper, and select management measures for inclusion in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in support of Amendment 1. On Wednesday, June 15, the Council will convene from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., to review the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Committee's recommendations and develop and adopt 2006 quota specifications and associated management measures; from 10:30 a.m. to 12 noon, the Council will approve the May Council meeting minutes and action items from the May Council meeting. The Council will also hear organizational and liaison reports, the Executive Director's report, and a report on the status of the MAFMC's FMPs. From 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., the Council will hold its first meeting for Framework 6 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP to review options regarding sub-regionalization of state jurisdictions for the recreational fishery and utilization of multiple years for data analyses, and review and address compatibility with ASMFC's Addendum 17; from 3 p.m. to 3:15 p.m., the Council will approve Framework 1 to the Spiny Dogfish FMP for submission to the Secretary; and, the Ecosystems Committee will meet from 3:15 p.m. to 5 p.m., to review draft background information for the public meeting document. On Thursday, June 16, the Executive Committee will meet from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m., to review the Statement of Operating Practices and Procedures (SOPP) for needed changes; the Council will meet from 9 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., to develop and adopt multi-year quota specifications and associated management measures for surfclams and ocean quahogs; and at 11:30 a.m., will hear Committee reports, and entertain any new and/or continuing business.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, these issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council(s intent to take final actions to address such emergencies.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Collins (302-674-2331) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meetings.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory entities will hold public meetings.
The Council and its advisory entities will meet June 12-17, 2005. The Council meeting will begin on Monday, June 13, at 1 p.m., reconvening each day through Friday. All meetings are open to the public, except a closed session will be held at 1 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Monday, June 13 to address litigation and personnel matters. The Council will meet as late as necessary each day to complete its scheduled business.
The meetings will be held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, 1221 Chess Drive, Foster City, CA 94404; telephone: 650-570-5700.
Dr. Donald O. McIsaac, Executive Director; telephone: 503-820-2280.
The following items are on the Council agenda, but not necessarily in this order:
1. Opening Remarks, Introductions
2. Roll Call
3. Executive Director's Report
4. Approve Agenda
1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes
2. Legislative Matters
3. Appointments to Advisory Bodies, Standing Committees, and Other Forums
4. Work Load Priorities and Draft September 2005 Council Meeting Agenda
1. Preparatory Informational Briefing on Trawl Individual Quota (TIQ) Program Development
2. Initial Consideration of Opening Date of California Shore-based Whiting Fishery
3. Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Environmental Impact Statement - Final Preferred Alternative
4. Status of 2005 Groundfish Fisheries and Consideration of Inseason Adjustments
5. TIQ Program Development
6. Rebuilding Plan Revision Rules
7. Final Consideration of Inseason Adjustments, if necessary
1. Technical Basis for the Klamath River Fall Chinook Conservation Objective
2. Status Report on Reinitiation of Consultation for California Coastal Chinook
1. NMFS Report
2. Draft Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Resolution on Albacore Tuna
3. Status of Fisheries and Preliminary Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report
4. Response to Overfishing of Bigeye Tuna
5. Exempted Fishing Permits
6. Management Regime for High Seas Longline Fishery
1. Pacific Mackerel Harvest Guidelines for 2005/06 Fishery
2. Fishery Management Plan Amendment 11 - Sardine Allocation
3. SAFE Document and Five-Year EFH Review
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Carlos Diez, Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Abmientales de Puerto Rico, P.O. Box 9066600, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00906-6600, has applied in due form for a permit to take hawksbill (
Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before June 27, 2005.
The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and
Southeast Region, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2432; phone (727)570-5301; fax (727)570-5320.
Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate.
Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period.
Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing email comments is
Patrick Opay or Amy Sloan, (301)713-2289.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant proposes to annually capture up to 250 green and 320 hawksbill sea turtles to provide information on the ecology and population dynamics of these species. The research would take place in the waters surrounding Puerto Rico and its adjacent islands including Mona, Monito, Desecheo, Caja-de-Muertos, Vieques and Culebra. Researchers would identify marine habitat, determine distribution and abundance, determine sex ratios, evaluate the extent of ingestion of marine debris, determine growth rates and sexual maturity, and quantify threats. All turtles would be measured, weighed, tagged, and blood sampled. A subset of animals would be lavaged and have transmitters attached to them. The permit would be issued for 5 years.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Issuance of permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that Sea World, Inc., 7007 Sea World Drive, Orlando, FL 32821, has been issued an amendment to public display Permit No. 116-1742-00 to extend the expiration date through May 21, 2006.
The amendment and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)713-0376; and
Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562)980-4001; fax (562)980-4018.
Jennifer Skidmore or Amy Sloan, (301)713-2289.
On May 27, 2004, notice was published in the
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA)
Request for public comments concerning a petition for a determination that certain compacted, plied, ring spun cotton yarns cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the CBTPA and the ATPDEA.
On May 23, 2005, the Chairman of CITA received a petition from AMS Trade Service, L.L.P., on behalf of their client, Galey and Lord, Inc., alleging that certain compacted, plied, ring spun cotton yarns, with yarn counts in the range from 42 to 102 metric, classified in subheadings 5205.42.0020, 5205.43.0020, 5205.44.0020, 5205.46.0020, 5205.47.0020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. The petition requests that men's and boys' woven cotton trousers and shirts and women's and girls' woven cotton trousers, shirts and blouses from U.S.-formed fabrics containing such yarns be eligible for preferential treatment under the CBTPA and the ATPDEA. CITA hereby solicits public comments on this request, in particular with regard to whether such yarns can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be submitted by
Richard Stetson, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-2582.
Section 213(b)(2)(A)(v)(II) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, as added by Section 211(a) of the CBTPA; Section 6 of Executive Order No. 13191 of January 17, 2001; Presidential Proclamation 7351 of October 2, 2000; Section 204 (b)(3)(B)(ii) of the ATPDEA; Presidential Proclamation 7616 of October 31, 2002, Executive Order 13277 of November 19, 2002, and the United States Trade Representative's Notice of Further Assignment of Functions of November 25, 2002.
The CBTPA and the ATPDEA provide for duty-free treatment for qualifying textile and apparel products. Such treatment is generally limited to products manufactured from yarns and fabrics formed in the United States or a beneficiary country. The CBTPA and the ATPDEA also provide for duty-free treatment for apparel articles that are both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more beneficiary countries from fabric or yarn that is not formed in the United States, if it has been determined that such fabric or yarn cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. In Executive Order No. 13191 (66 FR 7271) and pursuant to Executive Order No. 13277 (67 FR 70305) and the United States Trade Representative's Notice of Redelegation of Authority and Further Assignment of Functions (67 FR 71606), the President delegated to CITA the authority to determine whether yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the CBTPA or the ATPDEA. On March 6, 2001, CITA published procedures that it will follow in considering requests (66 FR 13502).
On May 23, 2005, the Chairman of CITA received a petition from AMS Trade Service, L.L.P., on behalf of their client, Galey and Lord, Inc., alleging that certain compacted, plied, ring spun cotton yarns, with yarn counts in the range from 42 to 102 metric, classified in HTSUS subheadings 5205.42.0020, 5205.43.0020, 5205.44.0020, 5205.46.0020, 5205.47.0020, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. It requests duty-free treatment under the CBTPA and the ATPDEA for men's and boys' woven cotton trousers and shirts and women's and girls' woven cotton trousers, shirts and blouses that are both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn in one or more CBTPA or ATPDEA beneficiary countries from U.S.-formed fabrics containing such yarns.
CITA is soliciting public comments regarding this request, particularly with respect to whether this yarn can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Also relevant is whether other
If a comment alleges that this yarn can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner, CITA will closely review any supporting documentation, such as a signed statement by a manufacturer of the yarn stating that it produces the yarn that is the subject of the request, including the quantities that can be supplied and the time necessary to fill an order, as well as any relevant information regarding past production.
CITA will protect any business confidential information that is marked “business confidential” from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law. CITA generally considers specific details, such as quantities and lead times for providing the subject product as business confidential. However, information such as the names of domestic manufacturers who were contacted, questions concerning the capability to manufacture the subject product, and the responses thereto should be available for public review to ensure proper public participation in the process. If this is not possible, an explanation of the necessity for treating such information as business confidential must be provided. CITA will make available to the public non-confidential versions of the request and non-confidential versions of any public comments received with respect to a request in room 3100 in the Herbert Hoover Building, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Persons submitting comments on a request are encouraged to include a non-confidential version and a non-confidential summary.
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Designation.
May 27, 2005.
CITA has determined that certain colored, open-end spun yarns, ranging in size from 6/1 to 18/1 English count (10.16/1 to 30.47/1 metric) of a blend of reclaimed and reprocessed cotton and not less than 35 percent nor more than 49 percent by weight of Outlast licensed phase change acrylic staple fibers, produced under license from Outlast, classified in subheadings 5206.11.00.00 and 5206.12.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), for use in chief weight cotton sweaters, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the CBTPA. CITA hereby designates chief weight cotton sweaters, made from knit fabrics formed in the United States or an eligible beneficiary CBTPA country from such yarns, that are both cut and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more eligible CBTPA beneficiary country as eligible to enter free of quotas and duties under HTSUS subheading 9820.11.27, provided all other yarns used in the referenced apparel articles are U.S. formed and all other fabrics used in the referenced apparel articles are U.S. formed from yarns wholly formed in the United States.
Janet Heinzen, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202)482-3400.
Section 211(a) of the CBTPA, amending Section 213(b)(2)(A)(v)(II) of the Caribbean Basin Recovery Act (CBERA); Executive Order No. 13191 of January 17, 2001; Presidential Proclamation 7351 of October 2, 2000.
The commercial availability provision of the CBTPA provides for duty-free and quota-free treatment for apparel articles that are both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more beneficiary countries from fabric or yarn that is not formed in the United States if it has been determined that such yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and certain procedural requirements have been met. In Presidential Proclamation 7351, the President proclaimed that this treatment would apply to such apparel articles from fabrics or yarns designated by the appropriate U.S. government authority in the
On January 14, 2005, CITA received a request alleging that certain colored, open end spun yarns, of a blend of reclaimed and reprocessed cotton and not less than 35 percent nor more than 49 percent by weight of Outlast licensed phase change acrylic staple fibers, described above, for use in chief weight cotton sweaters, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the CBTPA. It requested that such apparel articles, made from knit fabrics formed in the United States or an eligible beneficiary CBTPA country of such yarns, be eligible for preferential treatment under the CBTPA. On January 25, 2005, CITA requested public comment on the petition. See
Based on the information and advice received and its understanding of the industry, CITA determined that the yarns set forth in the request cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. On March 15, 2005, CITA and USTR submitted a report to the Congressional Committees that set forth the action proposed, the reasons for such action, and advice obtained. A period of 60 calendar days since this report was submitted has expired, as required by the CBTPA.
CITA hereby designates chief weight cotton sweaters that are both cut and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more eligible beneficiary CBTPA beneficiary country, from knit fabrics formed in the United States or a beneficiary CBTPA country, from the yarns specified below, as eligible to enter free of quotas and duties under HTSUS subheading 9820.11.27, provided all other yarns used in the referenced apparel articles are U.S. formed and all other fabrics used in the referenced apparel articles are U.S. formed from yarns wholly formed in the United States, subject to the special rules for findings and trimmings, certain interlinings and de minimis fibers and yarns under section 211(vii) of the CBTPA, and that such articles are imported directly into the customs territory of the United States from an eligible CBTPA beneficiary country. The knit fabric used in the chief weight cotton sweaters is made from colored, open-end spun yarns, ranging in size from 6/1 to 18/1 English count (10.16/1 to 30.47/1 metric) of a blend of reclaimed and reprocessed cotton and not less than 35 percent nor more than 49 percent by weight of Outlast licensed phase change acrylic staple fibers, produced under license from Outlast, classified in HTSUS subheadings 5206.11.0000 and 5206.12.0000.
An “eligible CBTPA beneficiary country” means a country which the President has designated as a CBTPA beneficiary country under section 213(b)(5)(B) of the CBERA (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)(5)(B)), and which has been the subject of a finding, published in the
Department of Energy.
Notice of inquiry.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking comments and information from the public to assist DOE in developing a possible advance notice of proposed rulemaking or notice of proposed rulemaking concerning the loan guarantee provisions of the “Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act.” The Act authorizes the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) to issue Federal loan guarantees to facilitate the construction of a pipeline or liquefied natural gas project to bring natural gas from the Alaska North Slope to the continental United States.
Interested persons must submit written comments by July 26, 2005. Comments may be mailed to the address given in the
Office of the General Counsel, GC-72, Attention: Lawrence R. Oliver, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 6B-256, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. DOE requires, in hard copy, a signed original and three copies of all comments.
Lawrence R. Oliver, Esq., Assistant General Counsel, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9507,
On October 13, 2004, the “Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act,” Division C of Pub. L. 108-324 (the “Act”), was enacted as part of the Military Construction Appropriations and Emergency Hurricane Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2005. The Act, as amended, generally is intended to expedite regulatory consideration, approval and construction of a pipeline or liquefied natural gas (LNG) project that would be used to transport Alaska North Slope natural gas to the continental United States, and provide financial incentives in the form of Federal loan guarantees for construction of such a pipeline or project.
Section 116 of the Act authorizes the Secretary to enter into Federal loan guarantee agreements (LGAs) for a “Qualified Infrastructure Project” (1) with one or more holders of a final certificate issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under either section 103(b) of the Act or section 9 of the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 719g), and (2) with one or more owners of the Canadian portion of a “Qualified Infrastructure Project,” for up to $18 billion total, but no more than 80 percent of the capital costs of a project. Section 114 of Title I of Division J of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub. L. 108-447) amended section 116 of the Act to add authority for the Secretary to enter into LGAs with an entity the Secretary determines is qualified to construct and operate an LNG project to transport LNG from “Southcentral Alaska to West Coast States.” The Act also authorizes the Secretary to issue loan guarantee regulations. The definition of “qualified lender” in the Act does not include the Federal Financing Bank.
DOE may issue regulations implementing the Act's loan guarantee authority and is currently analyzing this authority in the context of the Act's other provisions. Since the Act is silent on many of the customary loan guarantee requirements, DOE is considering the development and issuance of regulations that would establish certain minimum requirements or terms for such LGAs. In an effort to identify issues potentially affecting implementation of the loan guarantee authority, DOE invites interested members of the public, including lending and other financial institutions, potential project sponsors, and individuals to comment, in writing, on the following questions and to provide DOE with other information or analyses potentially relevant to the development of loan guarantee regulations and the implementation of the loan guarantee provisions in the Act.
1.
Under these provisions the Secretary may not enter into an LGA (a negotiated document which sets forth in writing
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC). Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Wednesday, June 15, 2005; 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Marriott Crystal Gateway, 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
Brenda L. May, U.S. Department of Energy; SC-26/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290; Telephone: 301-903-0536.
• Reports from Department of Energy and National Science Foundation
• Perspectives from Department of Energy and National Science Foundation
• Presentation of the Implementation of the 2002 Long Range Plan Subcommittee Report
• Public Comment (10-minute rule)
Take notice that El Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso), Post Office Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 80944, filed in Docket No. CP05-353-000 on May 16, 2005, an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), for authorization to abandon, in place, its Benson Compressor Station facilities, with appurtenances, located in Cochise County, Arizona. El Paso states that this station which has approximately 13,340 horsepower has become functionally obsolete and is no longer required for natural gas service, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may be also viewed on the Web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Richard Derryberry, Director, Regulatory Affairs, El Paso Natural Gas Company, P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 80944, at (719) 520-3782 or facsimile at (719) 667-7534.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
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.
Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
Gexa Energy LLC (Gexa) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule. The proposed rate schedule provides for the sales of capacity and energy at market-based rates. Gexa also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, Gexa requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Gexa.
On May 18, 2005, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development—South, granted the request for blanket approval under part 34. The Director's order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protest is June 17, 2005.
Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above, Gexa are authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Gexa, 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 approval of Gexa's issuances of securities or assumptions of liability.
Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Gulf States Wholesale Equity Partners, LP and Gulf States Wholesale Equity Partners II, LP (together, Applicants) filed an application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariffs. The proposed rate tariffs provide for the sales of capacity and energy at market-based rates. Applicants also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, Applicants requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Applicants.
On May 17, 2005, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development—South, granted the request for blanket approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protest is June 16, 2005.
Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above, Applicants are authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of Applicants, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approval of Applicants issuances of securities or assumptions of liability.
Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification.
Take notice that on May 2, 2005 American Electric Power Service Corporation, (AEP), on behalf of Public Service Company of Oklahoma,
Take notice that on April 28, 2005, Virginia Electric and Power Company, (Dominion Virginia Power) submitted amendments to its Generator Interconnection and Operating Agreements with Industrial Power Generating Corporation.
Take notice that on May 13, 2005, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's order issued February 11, 2005, in Docket Nos. RT04-1-005 and ER04-48-005, 110 FERC ¶ 61,137.
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 a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all parties to 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
The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification.
On April 22, 2005, the Commission issued a Notice of Filing (Filing) regarding the application filed on April 18, 2005 by Neptune Regional Transmission System, LLC (Neptune) on behalf of Atlantic Energy Partners LLC (AEP), NewCo LLC (NewCo), EIF Neptune, LLC (EIF) and Starwood Energy Investors L.L.C. (Starwood) (collectively with Neptune, the Applicants) on April 18, 2005, requesting all necessary authorizations under section 203 of the Federal Power Act, for a transfer of jurisdictional facilities to facilitate financing and investment arrangements and for a Commission determination that AEP, EIF and Starwood are not public utilities under the Federal Power Act.
The Commission has determined that Docket No. EL05-116-000 should be assigned to the April 18, 2005 filing. Accordingly, by this notice Docket No. EL05-116-000 is added to the caption of the April 22, 2005 Notice.
Take notice that on May 17, 2005, Baja California Power, Inc. (BCP), La Rosita Energy, B.V. (La Rosita), InterGen Aztec Energy III B.V. (InterGen Aztec) and Ocean Star V.O.F. (collectively, the Applicants) submitted an application pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act for authorization of an indirect disposition of jurisdictional facilities. The Applicants state that the proposed indirect disposition of jurisdictional facilities will occur in connection with the sale by Shell Generating (Holding) B.V. and Bechtel Enterprises Energy B.V. to Ocean Star V.O.F. of all of their interests in InterGen N.V. InterGen N.V. indirectly owns all of the equity interests of BCP, La Rosita and InterGen Aztec, which own and operate a six mile electric transmission line interconnecting certain generating facilities in Mexico with the San Diego Gas and Electric transmission grid.
Take notice that on May 17, 2005, Klondike Wind Power LLC (Klondike I) and Klondike Wind Power II LLC (Klondike II) (collectively, Applicants) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Part 33 of the Commission's regulations for authorization of a change in ownership of jurisdictional facilities. Applicants states that they seek Commission authorization to complete a proposed transaction relating to certain jurisdictional interconnection facilities located in Sherman County, Oregon.
Take notice that on May 13, 2005, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) tendered for filing a Petition requesting that the Commission issue a Declaratory Order finding that changes to the selection process for the CAISO Board of Governors (Board) recently adopted by the Board result in a CAISO governance structure that is acceptable to the Commission.
The CAISO states that this filing has been served upon the Public Utilities Commission, the California Energy Commission, the California Electricity Oversight Board, and all parties with effective Scheduling Coordinator Agreements under the CAISO Tariff.
Take notice that on May 12, 2005, PTO Administrative Committee (PTO AC), an informational filing was made by the New England Participating Transmission Owners Administrative Committee updating informational filings related to regional transmission charges previously submitted by the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) on December 9, 2004 under the NEPOOL Open Access Transmission Tariff. The PTO AC states that the informational filing identifies adjustments to regional transmission service charges under section II of the ISO New England Inc. Transmission Markets and Services Tariff, designated FERC Electric Tariff No. 3 (ISO Tariff) permitted by the Commission to become effective as of February 1, 2005.
The PTO AC states that copies of these materials were sent to the New England state regulatory commissions, NECPUC, the Power Planning Committee of the New England Governors, ISO New England, Inc., and NEPOOL.
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 a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all parties to this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For Assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification.
Take notice that on May 18, 2005, Worthington Generation, LLC (Worthington) submitted an application pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act for authorization of a disposition of jurisdictional facilities whereby Worthington, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Hoosier), proposes to transfer title to certain generator step-up transformers to Hoosier without consideration.
Take notice that on May 2, 2005, Deer Park Energy Center Limited Partnership (Applicant) filed with the Commission an amendment to its application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
Applicant states that copies of the amendment were served upon the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Public Utility Commission of Texas.
Take notice that on May 16, 2005, Pacific Gas Electric Company (PGE) submitted notification of a change in status due to Pacific Gas Electric's recent execution (and receipt of regulatory and bankruptcy court approval) of a power purchase contract (the Second Wraparound Agreement) with Mirant Corporation and its affiliates.
Take notice that on May 19, 2005, Bellows Falls Power Company, LLC (BFPC or Applicant) filed an amendment to its April 4, 2005, application for a determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to section 365.5 of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 365.5 (2004).
BFPC is a Delaware limited liability company that will lease and operate the Bellows Falls Hydroelectric Project from the Town of Rockingham, Vermont.
Take notice that on May 16, 2005, the Midwest Independent Transmission system Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) submitted revisions to its open access transmission and energy tariff pursuant the Commission's order issued April 15, 2005.
The Midwest ISO states that it has electronically served a copy of this filing, with attachments, upon all Midwest ISO Tariff Customers, Midwest ISO Members, Member representatives of Transmission Owners and Non-Transmission Owners, the Midwest ISO Advisory Committee participants, as well as all state commissions within the region. In addition, the Midwest ISO also states that the filing has been posted electronically on the Midwest ISO's Web site at
Take notice that on May 16, 2005, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) submitted an informational filing in compliance with the Commission's March 16, 2005, order in this proceeding,
The Midwest ISO states that it has served a copy of this filing electronically, including attachments, upon all Tariff Customers under the Energy Markets Tariff, Midwest ISO members, Member representatives of Transmission Owners and Non-Transmission Owners, the Midwest ISO Advisory Committee participants, as well as all state commissions within the Region. In addition, the Midwest ISO states that the filing has been electronically posted on the Midwest ISO's Web site at
Take notice that on May 16, 2005, the Midwest Independent Transmission system Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) and Mid-Continent Area Power Pool (MAPP) (jointly, the Parties), submitted for filing a revised seams operating agreement between The Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. and MAPPCOR. The Parties request an effective date of March 1, 2005.
The Parties state that it has served a copy of this filing electronically, including attachments, upon all Tariff Customers under the EMT, Midwest ISO Members, Member representatives of Transmission Owners and Non-Transmission Owners, the Midwest ISO Advisory Committee participants, as well as all State commissions within the region. In addition, the Parties state that the filing has been posted electronically on the Midwest ISO's Web site at
Take notice that on May 10, 2005, American Electric Power Service Corporation, (AEPSC) on behalf of the AEP operating companies in its East Zone, (namely Appalachian Power Company, Columbus Southern Power Company, Indiana Michigan Power Company, Kentucky Power Company, Kingsport Power Company, Ohio Power Company, and Wheeling Power Company), submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's order issued March 9, 2005, in Docket Nos. ER05-31-000, ER05-31-001 and EL05-70-000, 110 FERC ¶ 61,276 (2005).
AEPSC states that copies of the filing were served on all parties on the official service lists in these proceedings.
Take notice that on May 13, 2005, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), pursuant to the Commission's deficiency letter issued April 28, 2005, submitted an amendment to its March 11, 2005, filing of revisions to Schedule 2 of the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff.
PJM states that copies of this filing have been served on all parties on the service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For Assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the 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: Ms. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC, 20426. Please include the project number (P-2221-034) on any comments or motions filed. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages e-filings.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
p. Agency Comments—Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described applications. A copy of the applications may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
A technical conference will be held June 16, 2005, to discuss the capacity market construct currently in use in the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) region. The technical conference is intended to provide a forum through which Federal and State regulators and participants in the PJM market may come to a common understanding of the current PJM capacity situation, the problems perceived in the market and what deficiencies, if any, exist in the current PJM market construct that contribute to, or do not properly address, those perceived problems, and potential alternative solutions.
The conference will be held from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (e.d.t.) in the meeting room of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. Members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, state public utilities commissions and their respective staffs are expected to participate. The Commission will issue a supplemental notice with the detailed agenda prior to the conference.
The conference is open for the public to attend. Transcripts of the conference will be immediately available from Ace Reporting Company (202-347-3700 or 1-800-336-6646) for a fee. They will be available for the public on the Commission's eLibrary system seven calendar days after FERC receives the transcript. Additionally, Capitol Connection offers the opportunity for remote listening and viewing of the conference. It is available for a fee, live over the Internet, by phone or via satellite. Persons interested in receiving the broadcast or who need information on making arrangements should contact David Reininger or Julia Morelli at the Capitol Connection (703-993-3100) as soon as possible or visit the Capitol Connection Web site at
FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an e-mail to accessibility@ferc.gov or call toll free 866-208-3372 (voice) or 202-208-1659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations.
For additional information, please contact Morris Margolis at (202) 502-8611;
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received in the Office of the Secretary. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission’s Web site at
On May 17, 2005, the Commission held a technical conference on the above-captioned docket to receive further comments on the Natural Gas Council's reports:
Chairman Wood further stated that the Commission would also entertain comment on a petition for rulemaking filed by the Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA) in the captioned docket. Comments on the NGSA petition for rulemaking also will be accepted for twenty-one days.
Comments requested by this Notice should be filed no later than twenty-one days from the date of this Notice, as indicated by the comment date below. The Commission encourages electronic submission of comments in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Note that also there is an “eSubscription” link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
Notice of intent.
The Western Area Power Administration (Western), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the construction and operation of the proposed Big Stone II Power Plant and Transmission Project (Project) in South Dakota and Minnesota. The Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (RUS), will participate as a cooperating agency. Missouri River Energy Services (MRES, Applicant), on behalf of the Big Stone II Project co-owners, has applied to interconnect the proposed Project to Western's power transmission system. The EIS will address the construction and operation of the proposed Project, which includes a nominal 600 megawatt (MW) (net) coal-fired power plant and ancillary equipment and facilities in eastern South Dakota, upgrades of existing transmission lines and facilities, and up to 129 miles of new transmission lines in South Dakota and Minnesota. Western will hold a 60-day scoping period and scoping meetings near the Project area to receive input on the scope of the EIS.
Open-house public scoping meetings will be held June 14-16, 2005, between 5 and 8 p.m. Written comments on the scope of the EIS must be received by 11:59 p.m., July 26, 2005 which marks the end of the EIS scoping period.
The open-house public scoping meetings will be held in South Dakota and Minnesota. The June 14, 2005, meeting will be held at the Lantern Inn, 1010 S. Dakota Street in Milbank, South Dakota. On June 15, 2005, the meeting will be held at the Best Western Prairie Inn, 200 E. Highway 28 in Morris, Minnesota. The June 16, 2005, meeting will be held at the Kilowatt Community Center, 600 Kilowatt Drive in Granite Falls, Minnesota. Written comments regarding the scoping process should be addressed to NEPA Document Manager, Big Stone II EIS, A7400, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 281213, Lakewood, CO 80228-8213, telephone (800) 336-7288, fax (720) 962-7263 or 7269, e-mail
NEPA Document Manager, Big Stone II EIS, A7400, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 281213, Lakewood, CO 80228-8213, telephone (800) 336-7288, fax (720) 962-7263 or 7269, e-mail
Western intends to prepare an EIS on the proposal by the Project co-owners to construct and operate the Project in eastern South Dakota and western Minnesota. The Project co-owners include:
• Otter Tail Corporation dba Otter Tail Power Company, lead developer, Fergus Falls, Minnesota
• Missouri River Energy Services, applicant, Sioux Falls, South Dakota
• Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, Blue Earth, Minnesota
• Great River Energy, Elk River, Minnesota
• Heartland Consumers Power District, Madison, South Dakota
• Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., a Division of MDU Resources Group, Inc., Bismarck, North Dakota
• Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, Rochester, Minnesota
The EIS will address the construction and operation of the proposed Project, which includes a nominal 600 MW (net) coal-fired power plant and ancillary equipment and facilities in eastern South Dakota, upgrades of existing transmission lines and facilities, and up to 129 miles of new transmission lines in South Dakota and Minnesota. In addition to the proposed action, the no-action alternative, and any action alternatives defined as a result of the EIS scoping process will also be addressed in the EIS. The EIS process will comply with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, as amended), Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and DOE NEPA implementing procedures (10 CFR part 1021).
MRES has applied to interconnect the proposed Project to Western's power transmission system. Western is a power marketing agency of DOE that markets Federal electric power to municipalities, public utilities, and Native American tribes. Western offers capacity on its transmission system to deliver electricity when such capacity is available, under Western's Open Access Transmission Service Tariff (63 FR 5376). The Tariff has been approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) as meeting or exceeding the requirements of the Commission's Final Order Nos. 888, 888A, 888B and 888C, which are intended to ensure non-discriminatory transmission system access. Pursuant to the Commission's Order Nos. 2003, 2003-A and 2003-B, Western submitted revisions to its non-jurisdictional Tariff on January 25, 2005, to the Commission. The purpose of the filing was to revise certain terms of Western's original Tariff and to incorporate the Large Generator Interconnection Procedures, and a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement. Western needs to grant or deny MRES's interconnection request under the provisions of its revised Tariff.
Seven co-owners are proposing to construct a second electric generating unit, named Big Stone II, on an industrial site adjacent to the existing Big Stone Plant (unit 1) located in Grant County east of Milbank and northwest of Big Stone City, South Dakota. On-site construction is proposed to begin in the spring of 2007, with proposed commercial operation in 2011. The Project would serve the co-owners' customer base loads.
The existing Big Stone Plant is located on an approximately 2,200-acre site. Otter Tail Power Company owns a 295-acre parcel adjacent to the existing site and has under option to purchase, on behalf of the Project, an additional 625 acres. Based on preliminary project engineering, the Project co-owners have legal access to all plant site property that is necessary to complete Big Stone II construction. A portion of the existing Big Stone Plant site is leased to the Northern Lights Ethanol Plant and provides steam and process water to that facility.
Constructing Big Stone II at the site of an existing facility would considerably reduce the construction costs of a new plant. The proposed plant would share existing infrastructure, including cooling water intake structure, pumping system, and delivery line; plant road and rail spur; coal unloading facilities; and solid waste disposal facilities. The existing plant road and rail spur would provide site access. No changes are expected to these existing features to accommodate the Project.
The Project co-owners would construct a nominal 600 MW (net) electric generating station using a single pulverized coal fired steam generator (boiler) with balanced-draft combustion and a single reheat steam turbine. The plant would be designed to burn approximately 2.5 to 3 million tons of Powder River Basin sub-bituminous coal annually. This fuel is relatively high-moisture, low-sulfur coal with excellent combustion but low grindability qualities. Big Stone II would be designed to normally operate at its maximum continuous rating output. The Project would serve the co-owners' customer base loads.
Subject to a final design and regulatory approval, emissions control equipment would likely include selective catalytic reduction for nitrogen oxide reduction, a fabric filter (baghouse) for particulate collection, followed by a wet scrubber for sulfur dioxide removal. The proposed emission control technologies are configured to provide the greatest mercury emission reductions.
Treated cooling water for the water-cooled surface condenser at the proposed plant would be provided from a closed-loop circulating water system that includes a new mechanical draft cooling tower and circulating water pumps. Raw water for the cooling system would be supplied from the existing Big Stone Plant cooling pond. The water for the cooling pond would be supplied from Big Stone Lake via an existing water line and intake structure. Potable water for drinking fountains, washrooms, showers, and toilet facilities would be supplied from the area's rural water system.
The design of the wastewater treatment system for Big Stone II would maintain the “zero discharge” design of the existing Big Stone Plant. Design features would include containment areas around equipment, oil/water separator, brine concentrator, and on-site storm water collection system. In addition, oil collected from the oil/water separator and other plant-generated waste oils would be burned in one of the two coal-fired boilers for energy recovery. Sanitary waste from showers, wash basins, and toilets would be collected for treatment in the existing Big Stone Plant treatment system.
The Project co-owners intend to market ash as a commodity suitable for use in a number of applications including replacement of Portland cement in concrete, soil stabilization, and structural fill. Excess ash, and ash not meeting marketable specifications, would be disposed of in the existing Big Stone Plant on-site ash landfill. The existing Big Stone Plant and the proposed Big Stone II would produce approximately 300,000 to 350,000 cubic yards of ash annually, based on expected average coal characteristics. Operating both units until 2040 could require development of approximately 95 acres of new landfill.
Electric output from the proposed Big Stone II would be stepped up to 230 kilovolts (kV) and interconnected to the transmission system at the existing Big Stone Plant site. The existing plant site currently has four transmission outlets. Two of these outlets are operated at 230 kV, one terminates north of the existing plant site near Hankinson, North Dakota, and the other terminates south of the existing plant site near Blair, South Dakota. The other two transmission outlets are operated at 115 kV; one terminates north of Big Stone City on the Graceville-Morris 115-kV line, and the other terminates at Western's Granite Falls Substation in Minnesota.
The Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO) conducted an Interconnection Study for the Project (MISO project number G392, queue number 38020-01) that outlines required upgrades for interconnecting the proposed Big Stone II to the current interstate transmission system. The study proposed two different interconnection alternatives to meet the steady-state system requirements:
A. Alternative A would include approximately 56 miles of new transmission line and approximately 80 miles of line upgrades: A new 230-kV line from the existing Big Stone Plant site to Ortonville, Minnesota (about seven miles) with an upgrade of the Ortonville to Johnson Junction to Morris, Minnesota line (about 41 miles) from 115 kV to 230 kV, and a new 230-kV line from the existing Big Stone Plant site to Canby, Minnesota (about 49 miles) with an upgrade of the Canby to Granite Falls, Minnesota line (about 39 miles) from 115 kV to 230 kV. The lines would interconnect at Western's Morris and Granite Falls substations, and modifications to these substations would be required.
B. Alternative B would include approximately 129 miles of new transmission line and approximately 39 miles of line upgrades: a new 230-kV line from the existing Big Stone Plant site to just east of Spicer, Minnesota (about 80 miles), and a new 230-kV line from the existing Big Stone Plant site to Canby (about 49 miles) with an upgrade of the Canby to Granite Falls, Minnesota line from 115 kV to 230 kV (about 39 miles). Western is the owner of the Granite Falls Substation where the latter line would interconnect. Modifications to the Granite Falls Substation and a new substation at Spicer would be required.
Under the current MISO tariff and Western interconnection requirements, further analysis is required before firm transmission service can be granted for the Project. This analysis will be performed through a System Impact (or “Delivery Service”) Study. The results of this study and other regional planning may also identify additional transmission system improvements or other design criteria needed to accommodate the reliable delivery of the electric output from the Project to the co-owners' systems. These additional improvements would be analyzed for environmental impacts. Any necessary transmission line construction would be owned and maintained by one or more of the Project co-owners.
The states of Minnesota and South Dakota require the project co-owners to meet certain requirements for siting private transmission lines within their states. In Minnesota, a Certificate of Need from the Public Utilities Commission and a Route Permit for a Large High-Voltage Transmission Line from the Environmental Quality Board for the portion of the transmission lines located in Minnesota would be required. In South Dakota, a Transmission Facility Route Permit for the portion of the transmission lines in South Dakota would be required.
Interconnection of the proposed Big Stone II Project would incorporate a major new generation resource into Western's power transmission system, including upgrades to existing substations and construction of new transmission lines. Therefore, Western has determined that an EIS is required under DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures, 10 CFR part 1021, Subpart D, Appendix D, class of action D6. Western will be the lead Federal agency for preparing the EIS, as defined at 40 CFR 1501.5. In addition, Great River Energy anticipates applying for a loan from the RUS to finance its portion of the proposed Project, so RUS has been
Full public participation and disclosure are planned for the entire EIS process. Western anticipates the EIS process will take about 15 months, and will include the open-house public scoping meetings; consultation and involvement with appropriate Federal, state, local, and tribal governmental agencies; public review and hearings on the published draft EIS; a review period; a published final EIS; and publication of a record of decision expected in mid-summer 2006. Additional informal public meetings may be held in the proposed Project area if public interest and issues indicate a need. Western will also mail newsletters to the proposed Project mailing list to communicate Project status and developments.
Western will hold a 60-day scoping period to ensure that interested members of the public and representatives of groups, and Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies have an opportunity to provide input on the scope of the process and the alternatives that will be addressed in the EIS. Western will also hold public open-house scoping meetings near the Project area during the scoping period. The purpose of the scoping meetings will be to provide information about the proposed Project, answer questions, and take written comments from interested parties.
The open-house public scoping meetings will be held on June 14, 2005, at the Lantern Inn, 1010 S. Dakota Street, Milbank, South Dakota; on June 15, 2005, at the Best Western Prairie Inn, 200 E. Highway 28, Morris, Minnesota; and on June 16, 2005, at the Kilowatt Community Center, 600 Kilowatt Drive, Granite Falls, Minnesota. Members of the public and representatives of groups, Federal, state, local and tribal agencies are invited to attend anytime between 5 and 8 p.m. Attendees at the scoping meetings will have the opportunity to view proposed Project and NEPA process displays and other information. The open-house scoping meetings will be informal, with Western and Project representatives available for one-on-one discussions with attendees. Written comments regarding the scoping process may be left with one of Western's representatives at the scoping meetings, or may be provided by fax, e-mail or U.S. Postal Service mail to Western as noted above.
Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under section 309 of the Clean Air Act and section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at 202-564-7167.
An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in the
Rating EO2.
Rating LO.
Rating EC1.
Rating EC1.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The June 14 - 15, 2005, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) meeting to consider and review issues related to the carbamate dietary exposure assessment incorporating cholinesterase recovery into CARES-compatible modules has been cancelled. For further information, please notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO) listed under
Joseph E. Bailey, Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2045; fax number: (202) 564-8382; e-mail address:
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In accordance with section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of requests by the endosulfan registrant(s) to voluntarily amend their registrations to terminate use of certain products on succulent beans, succulent beans, spinach, grapes,
Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP-2002-0262, must be received on or before June 27, 2005.
Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
Meghan French, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8004; fax number: (703) 308-8005; e-mail address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternatives.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
This notice announces receipt by EPA of requests from registrants Bayer Crop Science, Makhteshim North America, Fuller Systems, and Drexel Chemicals to amend to terminate uses of 13 endosulfan product registrations. Endosulfan is a broad spectrum contact insecticide used on a variety of foods (vegetables, fruits and some grains) and non-food use crops (cotton and nursery stock)
.EPA received requests to amend registrations to terminate uses of pesticide product registrations identified in this notice (Table 1) from Bayer Crop Science, Makhteshim North America, Fuller Systems, and Drexel Chemicals. Specifically, registrants requested the termination of use on succulent beans and peas, grapes, pecans and spinach and will remove these uses from all endosulfan products registered in the United States, or the last pesticide products registered in the United States for these uses.
This notice announces receipt by EPA of requests from Bayer Crop Science, Makhteshim-Agan North America, Fuller System, Inc., and Drexel Chemicals to terminate uses of endosulfan product registrations. The affected products and the registrants making the requests are identified in Table 1 of this unit.
Under section 6(f)(1)(A) of FIFRA, registrants may request, at any time, that their pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more pesticide uses. Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, section 6(f)(1)(C) of FIFRA requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless:
1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or
2. The Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
In this case, endosulfan registrants requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. EPA will therefore provide a 30-day comment period on the proposed requests.
Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant within 30-days of publication of this notice, or if the Agency determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further review of this request, an order will be issued amending the affected registrations.
Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for the registrants of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation must submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action.
If the request for voluntary cancellation of uses is granted as discussed above, the Agency intends to issue a cancellation order that will allow persons other than the registrant to continue to sell and/or use existing stocks of cancelled products until such stocks are exhausted, provided that such use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the cancelled product. The order will specifically prohibit any use of existing stocks that is not consistent with such previously approved labeling. If, as the Agency currently intends, the final cancellation order contains the existing stocks provision just described, the order will be sent only to the affected registrants of the cancelled products. If the Agency determines that the final cancellation order should contain existing stocks provisions different than the ones just described, the Agency will publish the cancellation order in the
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces receipt of applications to register pesticide products containing new active ingredients not included in any previously registered products pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c)(4) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended.
Written comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number OPP-2005-0113, must be received on or before June 27, 2005.
Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
Tessa Milofsky, Regulatory Action Leader, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-0455; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture pesticides or apply pesticides to growing crops. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Crop production
• Animal production
• Food manufacturing
• Pesticide manufacturing
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternative ways to improve the registration activity.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA received applications as follows to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any previously registered products pursuant to the provision of section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on the applications.
1.
2.
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory) to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3) of TSCA, EPA is required to publish a notice of receipt of a premanufacture notice (PMN) or an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), and to publish periodic status reports on the chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from April 28, 2005 to May 10, 2005, consists of the PMNs pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.
Comments identified by the docket identification (ID) number OPPT-2005-0031 and the specific PMN number or TME number, must be received on or before June 27, 2005.
Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7408M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; e-mail address:
This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the premanufacture notices addressed in the action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number and specific PMN number or TME number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the technical person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action and the specific PMN number you are commenting on in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
Section 5 of TSCA requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3) of TSCA, EPA is required to publish a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish periodic status reports on the chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from April 28, 2005 to May 10, 2005, consists of the PMNs
This status report identifies the PMNs pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period. If you are interested in information that is not included in the following tables, you may contact EPA as described in Unit II. to access additional non-CBI information that may be available.
In Table I of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the PMNs received by EPA during this period: the EPA case number assigned to the PMN; the date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.
In Table II of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the Notices of Commencement to manufacture received:
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Premanufacturer notices.
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
Notice; correction.
The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) published a document in the
Maria A Fried, Federal Register Liaison at 202-606-8090.
In the
The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) is publishing the final Fiscal Year 2005 Program Guidelines/Application Solicitation for the Labor-Management Cooperation Program to inform the public. The program is supported by Federal funds authorized by the Labor-Management Cooperation Act of 1978, subject to annual appropriations. This solicitation contains a change in the application process in an effort to maximize participation under current budget constraints. In the past, applicants were required to submit applications by a fixed date. In Fiscal Year 2005, the date for application submission will be open, contingent upon fund availability. Applications will be accepted for consideration after May 15, 2005 and continued to do so until July 31, 2006, or until all FY 2005 grant funds are obligated, with awards being made by September 30, 2006.
In the
The Application for Federal Assistance (SF-24) form must be signed by both a labor and management representative. In lieu of signing the SF-424 form, representatives may type their name, title, and organization on plain bond paper with a signature line signed and dated, in accordance with block 18 of the SF-424 form. The individual listed as a contact person in block 6 on the application form will generally be the person with whom FMCS will communicate during the application review process. Please be sure that person is available once the application has been submitted. Additionally, it is the applicant's responsibility to notify FMCS in writing of any changes (
We will accept applications beginning May 15, 2005, and continue to do so until July 31, 2006 or until all FY 2005 funds are obligated, with awards being made by September 30, 2006. While proposals may be accepted at anytime between May 15, 2005 and July 31, 2006, proposals received late in the cycle have a greater risk of not being funded due to unavailability of funds. Once your application has been received and acknowledged by FMCS, no applications or supplementary materials will be accepted thereafter. Applicants are highly advised to contact the grants office prior to committing any resources to the preparation of a proposal.
An original application containing numbered pages, plus three copies should be addressed to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Labor-Management Grants Program, 2100 K Street, NW., Washington, DC
All eligible applications will be reviewed and scored preliminarily by one or more Grant Review Boards. The Board(s) will recommend selected applications for rejection or further funding consideration. The Director or their designee, will finalize the scoring and selection process. All FY 2005 grant applications will be notified of results and all grants awards will be made by September 30, 2006. Applications that fail to adhere to eligibility or other major requirements will be administratively rejected.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 20, 2005.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 23, 2005.
Federal Trade Commission.
11 a.m., Friday, June 10, 2005.
Federal Trade Commission Building, Room 532, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Part of this meeting will be open to the public. The rest of the meeting will be closed to the public.
(1) Oral Argument in the matter of North Texas Specialty Physicians, Docket 9312.
(2) Executive Session to follow Oral Argument in North Texas Speciality Physicians, Docket 9312.
Mitch Katz, Office of Public Affairs: (202) 326-2180. Recorded Message: (202) 326-2711.
Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer, GSA.
Notice of request for comments regarding a renewal to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the General Services Administration will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a renewal of a currently approved information collection requirement regarding identification of products with environmental attributes.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
Submit comments on or before: July 26, 2005.
Linda Nelson, Procurement Analyst, Contract Policy Division, at telephone (202) 501-1900 or via email at
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the Regulatory Secretariat (VIR), General Services Administration, Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0262, Identification of Products with Environmental Attributes, in all correspondence.
General Services Administration (GSA) requires contractors submitting Multiple Award Schedule Contracts to identify in their GSA price lists those products that they market commercially that have environmental attributes. The identification of these products will enable Federal agencies to maximize the use of these products to meet the responsibilities expressed in statutes and executive orders.
Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer, GSA.
Notice of request for comments regarding a renewal to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the General Services Administration will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a renewal of a currently approved information collection requirement regarding contract administration, and quality assurance. A request for public comments was published at 70 FR 8589, February 22, 2005. No comments were received.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
Submit comments on or before: June 27, 2005.
Ms. Jeritta Parnell, Procurement Analyst, Contract Policy Division, at telephone (202) 501-4082 or via e-mail to
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Ms. Jeanette Thornton, GSA Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the Regulatory Secretariat (VIR), General Services Administration, Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0027, Contract Administration, Quality Assurance (GSAR Parts 542 and 546; GSA Form 1678, DD Form 250, and GSA Form 308), in all correspondence.
Under certain contracts, because of reliance on contractor inspection in lieu of Government inspection, GSA's Federal Supply Service (FSS) requires documentation from its contractors to effectively monitor contractor performance and ensure that it will be able to take timely action should that performance be deficient.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden
We are, however, requesting an emergency review of the information collection referenced below. In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we have submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following requirements for emergency review. We are requesting an emergency review because the collection of this information is needed before the expiration of the normal time limits under OMB's regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. This is necessary to ensure compliance with an initiative of the Administration. We cannot reasonably comply with the normal clearance procedures. The use of normal clearance procedures is reasonably likely to cause a statutory deadline to be missed.
This survey will support the required evaluation of the Medicare Home Health Independence Demonstration mandated under Section 702 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). Section 702 of the MMA requires the Secretary to collect data on effects of the demonstration on quality of care, patient outcomes, and any additional costs to Medicare. One year after the project's termination (currently projected to be October, 2006), the Secretary is to submit a report including recommendations to exempt permanently and severely disabled homebound beneficiaries from the traditional homebound restrictions. The purpose of this survey is to develop the information Congress seeks, and to provide CMS with a sound basis for making the mandated recommendations. This survey is designed to study the health and quality of life impacts of changing the eligibility requirement, and to provide descriptive information about the demonstration's target population.
CMS is requesting OMB review and approval of this collection by June 27, 2005, with a 180-day approval period. Written comments and recommendation will be accepted from the public if received by the individuals designated below by June 27, 2005.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS' Web site address at
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden or any other aspect of these collections of information requirements. However, as noted above, comments on these information collection and recordkeeping requirements must be mailed and/or faxed to the designees referenced below by June 27, 2005:
Centers for Medicare Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice solicits interested parties to submit requests for review of the appropriateness of the payment amount for a particular intraocular lens furnished by an ambulatory surgical center.
Requests for review must be received at the address provided no later than 5 pm E.S.T. on June 27, 2005.
Mail requests for review (one original and three copies) to the Centers for Medicare Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: Michael Lyman, Mailstop C1-09-06, 7500 Security Blvd., Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.
Michael Lyman, (410) 786-6938.
On October 31, 1994, the Social Security Act Amendments of 1994 (SSAA 1994) (Pub. L. 103-432) were enacted. Section 141(b)(1) of SSAA 1994 required us to develop and implement a process under which interested parties may request a review of the appropriateness of the payment amount for intra