Forest Service
Rural Utilities Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Navy Department
Presidential Documents
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Employment and Training Administration
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Final rule.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA or Agency) is amending its regulations to change the titles of certain SBA officials mentioned in the regulations. These nomenclature changes within SBA's management will conform SBA's management titles to those commonly used across the Federal Government. No changes will be made to the responsibilities, reporting relationship, or other regulatory duties of the SBA officials whose titles are changed.
This final rule is effective August 30, 2007.
Richard L. Brechbiel, Chief Human Capital Officer, Office of Human Capital Management, Office of Management and Administration, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416. Tel: (202) 205–6780.
SBA is amending its regulations to reflect the new titles of certain SBA officials. The new titles conform SBA's management titles with those commonly used across the Federal Government. No changes are made to the responsibilities, reporting relationship, or other regulatory duties of the SBA officials whose titles are changed.
Basically, the title “Associate Deputy Administrator” is retired and replaced with the title “Associate Administrator.” All current Associate Administrators will also receive new titles. Heads of program offices that report directly to the Office of the Administrator will receive the title “Assistant Administrator.” Heads of program offices that do not report directly to the Office of the Administrator, and report through a new Associate Administrator, will receive the title of “Director” of their respective offices.
The nomenclature changes will help clarify and add transparency to a management structure that has become unwieldy and opaque to our customers, partners, and the public. Almost all of these changes can be made administratively.
SBA has asked for Congressional assistance with changing the few statutory titles that would require legislation to conform to SBA's new title procedures. The statutory titles for SBA officials are: (1) Associate Administrator for Investment; (2) Associate Administrator for Minority Small Business (MSB) and Capital Ownership Development (COD); (3) Associate Administrator for Veterans Business Development (VBD); (4) Associate Administrator for Small Business Development Centers (SBDC); (5) Assistant Administrator for Women's Business Ownership (WBO); (6) Director of the Division of Program Certification and Eligibility; (7) Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman; (8) Director of Office of Rural Affairs (ORA); and (9) Chief Counsel for Advocacy.
This rule shall constitute notice that all references to the old titles cited in SBA rules affected by this Final Rule in any documents, statements, or other communications, in any form or media, and whether made before, on, or after the effective date of this rule, shall be deemed to be references to the new titles. Any actions undertaken in the name of or on behalf of these SBA officials under the old title, whether taken before, on, or after the effective date of this rule, shall be deemed to have been taken in the name of the SBA official under the new title.
The final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, for the purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA determines that this final rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule does not constitute a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action meets applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.
SBA has determined that this final rule does not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
The provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553), requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this rule involves a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 5 U.S.C. or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601,
Although there is no formal comment period, public comments on this rule are welcome on a continuing basis. Comments should be submitted to Richard L. Brechbiel, Chief Human Capital Officer, Office of Human Capital Management, Office of Management and Administration, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW.,
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Conflicts of interest.
Claims, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small business, Surety bonds.
Civil rights, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Community development, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small business.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Government property, Grant programs-business, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small business.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Minority businesses, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small business, Technical assistance.
Government contracts, Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small business, Technical assistance.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small business.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Organization and functions (Government agencies).
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Federal buildings and facilities.
Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs, Loan programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
5 U.S.C. 552 and App. 3, secs. 2, 4(a), 6(a), and 9(a)(1)(T); 15 U.S.C. 633, 634, 687; 31 U.S.C. 6506; 44 U.S.C. 3512; E.O. 12372 (July 14, 1982), 47 FR 30959, 3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 197, as amended by E.O. 12416 (April 8, 1983), 48 FR 15887, 3 CFR, 1983 Comp., p. 186.
5 U.S.C. 7301; 15 U.S.C. 634, 637(a)(18) and (a)(19), 642, and 645(a).
5 U.S.C. app 3; 15 U.S.C. 687b, 687c, 694a, 694b; 694b note, Pub. L. 106–554.
Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. 6101,
15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6), 636(a) and (h), 696(3), and 697(a)(2).
15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 636(b), 637(a), 644, and 662(5); and Pub. L. 105–135, sec. 401
15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6), 636(j), 637(a), 637(d) and Pub. L. 99–661, sec. 1207, Pub. L. 100–656, Pub. L. 101–37, Pub. L. 101–574, and 42 U.S.C. 9815.
15 U.S.C. 632(p), (q); 634(b)(6); 637; 644 and 657(f).
15 U.S.C. 632(a), 632(j), 632(p) and 657a.
“D/BD means SBA's Director, Office of Business Development”;
“D/HUB means SBA's Director Office of HUBZone”;
“AA/GC&BD means Associate Administrator, Office of Government Contracting & Business Development”.
5 U.S.C. 504; 15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 637(a), 648(l), 656(i), and 687(c); E.O. 12549, 51 FR 6370, 3 CFR 1986 Comp., p. 189.
29 U.S.C. 794.
5 U.S.C. 301
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
Two A330 operators have reported uncontained APU (auxiliary power unit) generator failures on ground.
Preliminary investigations confirmed an uncontained APU Generator failure with subsequent aircraft structural damages to the APU compartment and, in one case, to the stabiliser compartment.
Loose APU generator parts can lead to damage to the APU fire wall which might reduce its fire extinguishing capability, possibly leading to a temporary uncontrolled fire which constitutes an unsafe condition.
This AD requires actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.
This AD becomes effective September 14, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of September 14, 2007.
On June 26, 2007 (72 FR 31973, June 11, 2007), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications.
We must receive comments on this AD by October 1, 2007.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2797; fax (425) 227–1149.
On May 30, 2007, we issued AD 2007–12–10, Amendment 39–15088 (72 FR 31973, June 11, 2007). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
Since we issued AD 2007–12–10, it has been determined that the drive end bearing (DEB) failures did not occur instantly, and small debris in the filter could be detected before collapse of the DEB. The one-time inspection mandated by AD 2007–12–10 only detects large debris.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive (EAD) 2007–0188R1, dated July 24, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Two A330 operators have reported uncontained APU (auxiliary power unit) generator failures on ground.
Preliminary investigations confirmed an uncontained APU Generator failure with subsequent aircraft structural damages to the APU compartment and, in one case, to the stabiliser compartment.
Loose APU generator parts can lead to damage to the APU fire wall which might reduce its fire extinguishing capability, possibly leading to a temporary uncontrolled fire which constitutes an unsafe condition.
Further detailed investigations are ongoing to determine the root causes. It has been evidenced that for both events, this unknown root cause initiates a collapse of the Drive End Bearing (DEB) leading to an uncontained failure. Evidence shows also that the DEB failures were not instantaneous, and therefore, the detection of small debris could indicate early stage of DEB failure.
A one-time inspection for detection of large-scale debris in the Generator Scavenge inlet screen (last chance filter) of the APU allowing to identify APU Generator in a state close to failure has been rendered mandatory by Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2007–0080–R1 [that AD corresponds to FAA AD 2007–12–10].
The original Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2007–0188–E mandated a repetitive inspection of the APU Generator Scavenge filter element and filter housing and APU Generator Drain plug for signs of small debris coming from the APU Generator and therefore to detect any APU Generator failure in an early stage.
The corrective action includes retaining the requirements of the existing AD (a one-time inspection of the inlet screen and, for certain airplanes, a check of the differential pressure indicator button, and applicable corrective actions). The corrective action adds repetitive inspections of the APU Generator scavenge oil filter element and housing and the APU Generator drain plug for signs of metallic debris, and applicable corrective actions. Those corrective actions include shipping the debris to Airbus or Goodrich. The corrective actions also include the following:
• Replacing the APU generator scavenge oil filter for airplanes on which metallic debris is found.
• Inspecting the inside filter element and outer diameter of the filter housing for damage to the packing and replacing the packing if damaged.
• Cleaning the generator drain plug and reinstalling the plug with a new seal for airplanes on which no metallic debris or metallic debris within acceptable criteria is found.
• Keeping the APU inoperative.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
Airbus has issued All Operators Telexes (AOTs) A330–24A3044 and A340–24A5021, both Revision 01, both dated July 20, 2007; and AOT A340–24A4057, Revision 02, dated August 14, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because an uncontained APU failure can lead to damage to the APU fire wall, which might reduce its fire extinguishing capability, possibly leading to an uncontrolled fire. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective September 14, 2007.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 2007–12–10.
(c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A330 and A340 airplanes; certificated in any category; all certified models, all serial numbers.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24: Electrical power.
(e) The mandatory continued airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
Two A330 operators have reported uncontained APU (auxiliary power unit) generator failures on ground.
Preliminary investigations confirmed an uncontained APU Generator failure with subsequent aircraft structural damages to the APU compartment and, in one case, to the stabilizer compartment.
Loose APU generator parts can lead to damage to the APU fire wall which might reduce its fire extinguishing capability, possibly leading to a temporary uncontrolled fire which constitutes an unsafe condition.
Further detailed investigations are ongoing to determine the root causes. It has been evidenced that for both events, this unknown root cause initiates a collapse of the Drive End Bearing (DEB) leading to an uncontained failure. Evidence shows also that the DEB failures were not instantaneous, and therefore, the detection of small debris could indicate an early stage of DEB failure.
A one-time inspection for detection of large-scale debris in the Generator Scavenge inlet screen (last chance filter) of the APU allowing to identify APU Generator in a state close to failure has been rendered mandatory by Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2007–0080–R1 [that AD corresponds to FAA AD 2007–12–10].
The original Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2007–0188–E mandated a repetitive inspection of the APU Generator Scavenge filter element and filter housing and APU Generator Drain plug for signs of small debris coming from the APU Generator and therefore to detect any APU Generator failure in an early stage.
The corrective action includes retaining the requirements of the existing AD (a one-time inspection of the inlet screen and, for certain airplanes, a check of the differential pressure indicator button, and applicable corrective actions). The corrective action adds repetitive inspections of the APU Generator scavenge oil filter element and housing and the APU Generator drain plug for signs of metallic debris, and applicable corrective actions. Those corrective actions include shipping the debris to Airbus or Goodrich. The corrective actions also include the following: Replacing the APU generator scavenge oil filter for airplanes on which metallic debris is found; inspecting the inside filter element and outer diameter of the filter housing for damage to the packing and replacing the packing if damaged; cleaning the generator drain plug and reinstalling the plug with a new seal for airplanes on which no metallic debris or metallic debris within acceptable criteria is found; or keeping the APU inoperative.
(f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1) For airplanes on which the date of issuance of the original French standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original French export certificate of airworthiness is before March 1, 2007: Within 63 days after June 26, 2007, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT) A330–24A3042, A340–24A4056, or A340–24A5020, all Revision 02, all dated April 12, 2007; as applicable: Inspect the inlet screen (last chance filter) for the generator scavenge-oil pump for signs of debris and, as applicable, apply all associated corrective actions before further flight.
(2) For Model A330 aircraft operating under MMEL (master minimum equipment list) Item 24–22–01 “AC Main Generation” or MMEL Item 36–11–01 “Bleed Air Supply System Failure” and on which the date of issuance of the original French standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original French export certificate of airworthiness is before March 1, 2007: As of June 26, 2007, before each flight, perform a check of the differential pressure indicator button on the lube filter and the generator scavenge filter in accordance with the instructions of Airbus AOT A330–24A3042, Revision 02, dated April 12, 2007, until accomplishment of paragraph (g)(5) of this AD.
The repetitive checks before each flight specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD are not required for airplanes operated under
(3) Actions done before June 26, 2007, in accordance with the applicable Airbus service information in Table 1 of this AD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding provisions of paragraph (f) of this AD.
(g) Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1) For airplanes on which the date of issuance of the original French standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original French export certificate of airworthiness is on or before July 1, 2007: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, in accordance with the instructions of paragraph 4.2.1 of the applicable Airbus service information specified in Table 2 of this AD: Clean and inspect the APU Generator scavenge oil filter element and housing and inspect the APU generator drain plug to detect metallic debris, and apply all applicable associated corrective actions before further flight.
(2) Within 450 aircraft flight hours or 200 APU operating hours, whichever occurs later, after accomplishing the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, in accordance with the instructions of paragraph 4.2.2 of the applicable Airbus service information specified in Table 2 of this AD: Inspect the APU generator scavenge oil filter element and housing and the APU generator drain plug to detect metallic debris; and apply all applicable associated corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 450 aircraft flight hours or 200 APU operating hours, whichever occurs later.
(3) For airplanes on which the date of issuance of the original French standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original French export certificate of airworthiness is after July 1, 2007: Within 450 aircraft flight hours or 200 APU operating hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, in accordance with the instructions of paragraph 4.2.2 of the applicable Airbus service information specified in Table 2 of this AD: Inspect the APU generator scavenge oil filter element and housing and the APU generator drain plug to detect metallic debris; and apply all applicable associated corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 450 aircraft flight hours or 200 APU operating hours, whichever occurs later.
(4) Actions done before the effective date of this AD, in accordance with the applicable Airbus service information in Table 3 of this AD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(5) For Model A330 aircraft operating under MMEL Item 24–22–01, “AC Main Generation,” or MMEL Item 36–11–01, “Bleed Air Supply System Failure”: Unless the APU generator has been deferred in accordance with the MMEL by deactivation (quill shaft removed) or removal, the inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) or (g)(3), as applicable, of this AD must be performed prior to the first flight of the specified MMEL repair time interval. Accomplishing the actions in this paragraph terminates the actions required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.
For A330 aircraft, MMEL Item 24–22–01 (AC Main Generation) and/or MMEL Item 36–11–01 (Bleed Air Supply System Failure) require that the APU be used during the entire flight.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences.
(h) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive (EAD) 2007–0188R1, dated July 24, 2007, and the AOTs specified in Table 2 of this AD, for related information.
(j) You must use the applicable Airbus service information specified in Table 4 of this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. (Only the first page of these documents contains the document number, revision level, and date; no other pages of these documents contain this information.)
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the Airbus service information specified in Table 5 of this AD under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the incorporation by reference of the Airbus service information specified in Table 6 of this AD on June 26, 2007 (72 FR 31973, June 11, 2007).
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.
(4) You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action will establish Class E surface airspace at Hailey, ID. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Required Navigational Performance (RNP) Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP) at Friedman Memorial Airport, Hailey, ID.
Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Area Office, System Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 917–6726.
On June 1, 2007, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9P dated September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace at Hailey, ID. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate IFR aircraft at Friedman Memorial Airport, Hailey, ID.
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.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 5.5-mile radius of Friedman Memorial Airport, and within 2 miles west and 5.5 miles east of the 328° bearing from the airport extending from the 5.5-mile radius to 10 miles northwest of the airport, and within 2 miles west and 4 miles east of the 159° bearing from the airport extending from the 5.5-mile radius to 15.5 miles southeast of the airport; that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 44°00′00″ N., long. 114°55′00″ W., thence to lat. 44°00′00″ N., long. 113°53′00″ W., thence to lat. 43°00′00″ N., long. 113°49′00″ W., thence to lat. 43°00′00″ N., long. 114°55′00″ W., thence to point of beginning.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Final rule.
The Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury is revising the general license for certain publishing activities contained in the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, Burmese Sanctions Regulations, Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, and Iranian Transactions Regulations.
Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622–2480, Assistant Director for Compliance, Outreach & Implementation, tel.: 202/622–2490, Assistant Director for Policy, tel.: 202/622–4855, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622–2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220 (not toll free numbers).
This document and additional information concerning the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) are available from OFAC's Web site (
On December 17, 2004, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) of the Department of the Treasury amended the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 CFR Part 515 (the “CACR”), the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR Part 538 (the “SSR”), and the Iranian Transactions Regulations, 31 CFR Part 560 (the “ITR”), to authorize certain activities related to publishing. See 69 FR 75468 (December 17, 2004). OFAC added §§ 515.577, 538.529, and 560.538 to the CACR, SSR, and ITR, respectively, to authorize by general license transactions not already exempt from regulation that support the publishing and marketing of manuscripts, books, journals, and newspapers in paper and electronic format (“written publications”). On August 16, 2005, OFAC amended and reissued the Burmese Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR Part 537 (the “BSR”) including, at § 537.526, a general license for the same publishing-related transactions.
OFAC is amending these general licenses in various places to authorize the augmentation of written publications in electronic format through the addition of embedded software necessary for reading, browsing, navigating, or searching the written publications as well as the exportation of such embedded software provided certain conditions are met. These amendments also clarify that the term “written publications” used in the general licenses includes manuscripts, books, journals, and newspapers even if they are published solely in electronic format. A note is added to each general license clarifying that the importation and exportation of information or informational materials are exempt from the prohibitions and regulations contained in the CACR, SSR, and ITR and, in the case of the BSR, clarifying that the importation of informational materials is authorized and the exportation of informational materials is exempt from the prohibitions and regulations of the BSR. These amendments also make various other technical corrections, clarifications, and conforming changes.
Because the CACR, BSR, SSR, and ITR involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of Executive Order 12866
The collections of information related to 31 CFR parts 515, 537, 538, and 560 are contained in 31 CFR part 501. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505–0164. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.
Administrative practice and procedure, Cuba, Exports, Foreign trade, Imports, Information.
Administrative practice and procedure, Burma, Exports, Foreign trade, Imports, Information.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Foreign trade, Imports, Information, Sudan.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Foreign trade, Iran, Imports, Information.
18 U.S.C. 2332d; 22 U.S.C. 2370(a), 6001–6010; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. App 1–44; Pub. L. 101–410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 106–387, 114 Stat. 1549; E.O. 9193, 7 FR 5205, 3 CFR, 1938–1943 Comp., p. 1147; E.O. 9989, 13 FR 4891, 3 CFR, 1943–1948 Comp., p. 748; Proc. 3447, 27 FR 1085, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 157; E.O. 12854, 58 FR 36587, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 614.
(a) To the extent that such activities are not exempt from this part, and subject to the restrictions set forth in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are authorized to engage in all transactions necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of manuscripts, books, journals, and newspapers in paper or electronic format (collectively, “written publications”).
This section does not apply if the parties to the transactions described in this paragraph include the Government of Cuba. For the purposes of this section, the term “Government of Cuba” includes the state and the Government of Cuba, as well as any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including the Central Bank of Cuba; any person occupying the positions identified in § 515.570(a)(3); employees of the Ministry of Justice; and any person acting or purporting to act directly or indirectly on behalf of any of the foregoing with respect to the transactions described in this paragraph. For the purposes of this section, the term “Government of Cuba” does not include any academic and research institutions and their personnel. Pursuant to this section, the following activities are authorized, provided that persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States ensure that they are not engaging, without separate authorization, in the activities identified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section:
(1) Commissioning and making advance payments for identifiable written publications not yet in existence, to the extent consistent with industry practice;
(2) Collaborating on the creation and enhancement of written publications; (3)(i) Augmenting written publications through the addition of items such as photographs, artwork, translation, explanatory text, and, for a written publication in electronic format, the addition of embedded software necessary for reading, browsing, navigating, or searching the written publication;
(ii) Exporting embedded software necessary for reading, browsing, navigating, or searching a written publication in electronic format, provided that, to the extent a license is required under the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730 through 774 (the “EAR”), the exportation is licensed or otherwise authorized by the Department of Commerce under the provisions of the EAR;
(4) Substantive editing of written publications;
(5) Payment of royalties for written publications;
(6) Creating or undertaking a marketing campaign to promote a written publication; and
(7) Other transactions necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of written publications as described in this paragraph (a).
(b) This section does not authorize transactions involving the provision of goods or services not necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of written publications as described in paragraph (a) of this section. For example, this section does not authorize persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States:
(1) To provide or receive individualized or customized services (including, but not limited to, accounting, legal, design, or consulting services), other than those necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of written publications, even though such individualized or customized services are delivered through the use of information and informational materials;
(2) To create or undertake for any person a marketing campaign with respect to any service or product other than a written publication, or to create or undertake a marketing campaign of any kind for the benefit of the Government of Cuba;
(3) To engage in the exportation or importation of goods to or from Cuba other than the exportation of embedded software described in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section;
(4) To operate a publishing house, sales outlet, or other office in Cuba; or
(5) To engage in transactions related to travel to, from, or within Cuba.
The importation from Cuba and the exportation to Cuba of information or informational materials, as defined in § 515.332, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, are exempt from the prohibitions and regulations of this part. See § 515.206(a).
(c) This section does not authorize persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to engage the services of publishing houses or translators in Cuba unless such activity is primarily for the dissemination of written publications in Cuba.
(d) This section does not authorize:
(1) Transactions for the development, production, or design of software;
(2) Transactions for the development, production, design, or marketing of technology specifically controlled by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 22 CFR parts 120 through 130 (the “ITAR”), the EAR, or the Department of Energy Regulations set forth at 10 CFR part 810.
(3) The exportation of information or technology subject to the authorization requirements of 10 CFR part 810, or Restricted Data as defined in section 11 y. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or of other information, data, or technology the release of which is controlled under the Atomic Energy Act and regulations therein;
(4) The exportation of any item (including information) subject to the EAR where a U.S. person knows or has reason to know that the item will be used, directly or indirectly, with respect to certain nuclear, missile, chemical, or biological weapons or nuclear-maritime end-uses as set forth in part 744 of the EAR. In addition, U.S. persons are precluded from exporting any item subject to the EAR to certain restricted end-users, as set forth in part 744 of the EAR, as well as certain persons whose export privileges have been denied pursuant to parts 764 or 766 of the EAR, without authorization from the Department of Commerce; or
(5) The exportation of information subject to licensing requirements under the ITAR, or exchanges of information that are subject to regulation by other government agencies.
(e) Pursuant to § 515.564, specific licenses may be issued on a case-by-case basis authorizing the travel-related transactions set forth in § 515.560(c) and such additional transactions that are directly incident to attendance of professional meetings that are necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of written publications.
3 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601–1651, 1701–1706; Sec. 570 Pub. L. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009; Pub. L. 108–61, 117 Stat. 864; Pub. L. 109–177, 120 Stat. 192; E.O. 13047, 62 FR 28301, 3 CFR 1997 Comp., p. 202; E.O. 13310, 68 FR 44853, 3 CFR 2004 Comp., p. 241l.
(a) To the extent that such activities are not exempt from this part, and subject to the restrictions set forth in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, U.S. persons are authorized to engage in all transactions otherwise prohibited by § 537.201 or § 537.202 that are necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of manuscripts, books, journals, and newspapers in paper or electronic format (collectively, “written publications”). This section does not apply if the parties to the transactions described in this paragraph include the State Peace and Development Council of Burma or the Union Solidarity and Development Association of Burma; any successor entity to any of the foregoing entities; or any person, other than personnel of academic and research institutions, acting or purporting to act directly or indirectly on behalf of the foregoing entities with respect to the transactions described in this paragraph. Pursuant to this section, transactions incident to the following activities are authorized, provided they do not involve any importations prohibited by § 537.203 that are not authorized by another section of this part 537, and further provided that U.S. persons ensure that they are not engaging, without separate authorization, in the activities identified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section:
(1) Commissioning and making advance payments for identifiable written publications not yet in existence, to the extent consistent with industry practice;
(2) Collaborating on the creation and enhancement of written publications;
(3)(i) Augmenting written publications through the addition of items such as photographs, artwork, translation, explanatory text, and, for a written publication in electronic format, the addition of embedded software necessary for reading, browsing, navigating, or searching the written publication;
(ii) Exporting embedded software necessary for reading, browsing, navigating, or searching a written publication in electronic format, provided that, to the extent a license is required under the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730 through 774 (the “EAR”), the exportation is licensed or otherwise authorized by the Department of Commerce under the provisions of the EAR;
(4) Substantive editing of written publications;
(5) Payment of royalties for written publications;
(6) Creating or undertaking a marketing campaign to promote a written publication; and
(7) Other transactions necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of written publications as described in this paragraph (a).
(b) This section does not authorize transactions constituting the exportation or reexportation of financial services from the United States or by U.S. persons to Burma that are not necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of written publications as described paragraph (a) of this section. For example, this section does not authorize U.S. persons to transfer funds to Burma relating to the following:
(1) The provision or receipt of individualized or customized services (including, but not limited to, accounting, legal, design, or consulting services), other than those necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of written publications, even though such individualized or customized services are delivered through the use of information and informational materials;
(2) The creation or undertaking of a marketing campaign for any person with respect to any service or product other than a written publication, or the creation or undertaking of a marketing campaign of any kind for the benefit of the State Peace and Development Council of Burma or the Union Solidarity and Development Association of Burma; or
(3) The operation of a publishing house, sales outlet, or other office in Burma.
The importation of information or informational materials, as defined in § 537.308, that are products of Burma is authorized by the general license set forth in § 537.515. The exportation to Burma of information or informational materials, as defined in § 537.308, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, is exempt from the prohibitions and regulations of this part. See § 537.210(b).
(c) This section does not authorize U.S. persons to engage in transactions constituting the exportation or reexportation of financial services to Burma that relate to the services of publishing houses or translators in Burma unless such activity is primarily for the dissemination of written publications in Burma.
(d) This section does not authorize:
(1) The importation into the United States of any article that is a product of Burma.
The importation of information or informational materials, as defined in § 537.308, that are products of Burma is authorized by the general license set forth in § 537.515.
(2) Transactions constituting the exportation or reexportation of financial services from the United States or by U.S. persons to Burma that relate to the development, production, design, or marketing of technology specifically controlled by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 22 CFR parts 120 through 130 (the “ITAR”), the EAR, or the Department of Energy Regulations set forth at 10 CFR part 810.
(3) Transactions constituting the exportation or reexportation of financial services from the United States or by U.S. persons to Burma that relate to the exportation of information or technology subject to the authorization requirements of 10 CFR part 810, or Restricted Data as defined in section 11y. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or of other information, data, or technology the release of which is controlled under the Atomic Energy Act and regulations therein;
(4) Transactions constituting the exportation or reexportation of financial services from the United States or by U.S. persons to Burma that relate to the exportation of any item (including information) subject to the EAR where a U.S. person knows or has reason to know that the item will be used, directly or indirectly, with respect to certain nuclear, missile, chemical, or biological weapons or nuclear-maritime end-uses as set forth in part 744 of the EAR. In addition, U.S. persons are precluded from exporting any item subject to the EAR to certain restricted end-users, as set forth in part 744 of the EAR, as well as certain persons whose export privileges have been denied pursuant to parts 764 or 766 of the EAR, without authorization from the Department of Commerce; or
(5) Transactions constituting the exportation or reexportation of financial services from the United States or by U.S. persons to Burma that relate to the exportation of information subject to licensing requirements under the ITAR or exchanges of information that are subject to regulation by other government agencies.
3 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 18 U.S.C. 2339B, 2332d; 50 U.S.C. 1601–1651, 1701–1706; Pub. L. 106–387, 114 Stat. 1549; Pub. L. 109–177, 120 Stat. 192; E.O. 13067, 62 FR 59989; 3 CFR, 1997 Comp., p. 230.
(a) To the extent that such activities are not exempt from this part, and subject to the restrictions set forth in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, U.S. persons are authorized to engage in all transactions necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of manuscripts, books, journals, and newspapers in paper or electronic format (collectively, “written publications”). This section does not apply if the parties to the transactions described in this paragraph include the Government of Sudan. For the purposes of this section, the term “Government of Sudan” includes the state and the Government of Sudan, as well as any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including the Central Bank of Sudan, and any person acting or purporting to act directly or indirectly on behalf of any of the foregoing with respect to the transactions described in this paragraph. For the purposes of this section, the term “Government of Sudan” does not include any academic and research institutions and their personnel. Pursuant to this section, the following activities are authorized, provided that U.S. persons ensure that they are not engaging, without separate authorization, in the activities identified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section:
(1) Commissioning and making advance payments for identifiable written publications not yet in existence, to the extent consistent with industry practice;
(2) Collaborating on the creation and enhancement of written publications;
(3)(i) Augmenting written publications through the addition of items such as photographs, artwork, translation, explanatory text, and, for a written publication in electronic format, the addition of embedded software necessary for reading, browsing, navigating, or searching the written publication;
(ii) Exporting embedded software necessary for reading, browsing, navigating, or searching a written publication in electronic format, provided that the software is classified as “EAR 99” under the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730–774 (the “EAR”), or is not subject to the EAR;
(4) Substantive editing of written publications;
(5) Payment of royalties for written publications;
(6) Creating or undertaking a marketing campaign to promote a written publication; and
(7) Other transactions necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of written publications as described in this paragraph (a).
(b) This section does not authorize transactions involving the provision of goods or services not necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of written publications as described in paragraph (a) of this section. For example, this section does not authorize U.S. persons:
(1) To provide or receive individualized or customized services (including, but not limited to, accounting, legal, design, or consulting services), other than those necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of written publications, even though such individualized or customized services are delivered through the use of information and informational materials;
(2) To create or undertake for any person a marketing campaign with respect to any service or product other than a written publication, or to create or undertake a marketing campaign of any kind for the benefit of the Government of Sudan;
(3) To engage in the exportation or importation of goods to or from Sudan other than the exportation of embedded software described in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section; or
(4) To operate a publishing house, sales outlet, or other office in Sudan.
The importation from Sudan and the exportation to Sudan of information or informational materials, as defined in § 538.306, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, are exempt from the prohibitions and regulations of this part. See § 538.211(c).
(c) This section does not authorize U.S. persons to engage the services of publishing houses or translators in Sudan unless such activity is primarily for the dissemination of written publications in Sudan.
(d) This section does not authorize:
(1) The exportation from or importation into the United States of
(2) Transactions for the development, production, design, or marketing of technology specifically controlled by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 22 CFR parts 120 through 130 (the “ITAR”), the EAR, or the Department of Energy Regulations set forth at 10 CFR part 810.
(3) The exportation of information or technology subject to the authorization requirements of 10 CFR part 810, or Restricted Data as defined in section 11 y. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or of other information, data, or technology the release of which is controlled under the Atomic Energy Act and regulations therein;
(4) The exportation of any item (including information) subject to the EAR where a U.S. person knows or has reason to know that the item will be used, directly or indirectly, with respect to certain nuclear, missile, chemical, or biological weapons or nuclear-maritime end-uses as set forth in part 744 of the EAR. In addition, U.S. persons are precluded from exporting any item subject to the EAR to certain restricted end-users, as set forth in part 744 of the EAR, as well as certain persons whose export privileges have been denied pursuant to parts 764 or 766 of the EAR, without authorization from the Department of Commerce; or
(5) The exportation of information subject to licensing requirements under the ITAR or exchanges of information that are subject to regulation by other government agencies.
3 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 2339B, 2332d; 22 U.S.C. 2349aa–9; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601–1651, 1701–1706; Pub. L. 101–410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 106–387, 114 Stat. 1549; E.O. 12613, 52 FR 41940, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 256; E.O. 12957, 60 FR 14615, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 332; E.O. 12959, 60 FR 24757, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 365; E.O. 13059, 62 FR 44531, 3 CFR, 1997 Comp., p. 217.
(a) To the extent that such activities are not exempt from this part, and subject to the restrictions set forth in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, U.S. persons are authorized to engage in all transactions necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of manuscripts, books, journals, and newspapers in paper or electronic format (collectively, “written publications”). This section does not apply if the parties to the transactions described in this paragraph include the Government of Iran. For the purposes of this section, the term “Government of Iran” includes the state and the Government of Iran, as well as any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, which includes the Central Bank of Islamic Republic of Iran, and any person acting or purporting to act directly or indirectly on behalf of any of the foregoing with respect to the transactions described in this paragraph. For the purposes of this section, the term “Government of Iran” does not include any academic and research institutions and their personnel. Pursuant to this section, the following activities are authorized, provided that U.S. persons ensure that they are not engaging, without separate authorization, in the activities identified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section:
(1) Commissioning and making advance payments for identifiable written publications not yet in existence, to the extent consistent with industry practice;
(2) Collaborating on the creation and enhancement of written publications;
(3)(i) Augmenting written publications through the addition of items such as photographs, artwork, translation, explanatory text, and, for a written publication in electronic format, the addition of embedded software necessary for reading, browsing, navigating, or searching the written publication;
(ii) Exporting embedded software necessary for reading, browsing, navigating, or searching a written publication in electronic format, provided that the software is classified as “EAR 99” under the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730 through 774 (the “EAR”), or is not subject to the EAR;
(4) Substantive editing of written publications;
(5) Payment of royalties for written publications;
(6) Creating or undertaking a marketing campaign to promote a written publication; and
(7) Other transactions necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of written publications as described in this paragraph (a).
(b) This section does not authorize transactions involving the provision of goods or services not necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of written publications as described in paragraph (a) of this section. For example, this section does not authorize U.S. persons:
(1) To provide or receive individualized or customized services (including, but not limited to, accounting, legal, design, or consulting services), other than those necessary and ordinarily incident to the publishing and marketing of written publications, even though such individualized or customized services are delivered through the use of information and informational materials;
(2) To create or undertake for any person a marketing campaign with respect to any service or product other than a written publication, or to create or undertake a marketing campaign of any kind for the benefit of the Government of Iran;
(3) To engage in the exportation or importation of goods to or from Iran other than the exportation of embedded software described in paragraph (a)(3)(ii); or
(4) To operate a publishing house, sales outlet, or other office in Iran.
The importation from Iran and the exportation to Iran of information or informational materials, as defined in § 560.315, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, are exempt from the prohibitions and regulations of this part. See § 560.210(c).
(c) This section does not authorize U.S. persons to engage the services of publishing houses or translators in Iran unless such activity is primarily for the dissemination of written publications in Iran.
(d) This section does not authorize:
(1) The exportation from or importation into the United States of services for the development, production, or design of software;
(2) Transactions for the development, production, design, or marketing of technology specifically controlled by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 22 CFR parts 120 through 130 (the “ITAR”), the EAR, or the Department of Energy Regulations set forth at 10 CFR part 810.
(3) The exportation of information or technology subject to the authorization requirements of 10 CFR part 810, or Restricted Data as defined in section 11 y. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or of other information, data, or technology the release of which is
(4) The exportation of any item (including information) subject to the EAR where a U.S. person knows or has reason to know that the item will be used, directly or indirectly, with respect to certain nuclear, missile, chemical, or biological weapons or nuclear-maritime end-uses as set forth in part 744 of the EAR. In addition, U.S. persons are precluded from exporting any item subject to the EAR to certain restricted end-users, as set forth in part 744 of the EAR, as well as certain persons whose export privileges have been denied pursuant to parts 764 or 766 of the EAR, without authorization from the Department of Commerce; or
(5) The exportation of information subject to licensing requirements under the ITAR or exchanges of information that are subject to regulation by other government agencies.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Rio Vista Drawbridge across the Sacramento River, mile 12.8, at Rio Vista, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), to conduct required maintenance of the drawspan. This deviation allows for a 4-hour notice for openings.
This deviation is effective from 9 p.m. September 5, 2007 through 5 a.m. on October 21, 2007.
Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpw), Eleventh Coast Guard District, Building 50–2, Coast Guard Island, Alameda, CA 94501–5100, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (510) 437–3516. The Eleventh Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation.
David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District, telephone (510) 437–3516.
Caltrans requested a temporary change to the operation of the Rio Vista Drawbridge, mile 12.8, Sacramento River, at Rio Vista, CA. The Rio Vista Drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 17 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens on signal as required by 33 CFR 117.5. Navigation on the waterway consists of both commercial and recreational vessels.
This deviation allows the bridge to require a 4-hour notice for openings. The 4-hour notice for openings during the maintenance period, from 9 p.m. September 5, 2007 through 5 a.m. on October 21, 2007, will allow Caltrans to clear the drawspan of maintenance equipment so as not to delay approaching vessels. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with all affected waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.
Vessels that can transit the bridge, while in the closed-to-navigation position, may continue to do so at any time.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard revises the regulations governing the Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) in First Coast Guard District waters to require that certain tank vessels and tug/barge combinations transiting Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, be accompanied by escort tugs and pilots operating under a properly endorsed Federal pilot's license. The Coast Guard establishes a Vessel Movement Reporting System (VMRS) for Buzzards Bay, and requires mandatory participation in the VMRS by vessels subject to the Vessel Bridge-to-Bridge VHF Radiotelephone regulations, including tug/barge combinations. The purpose of this rule is to reduce the likelihood of an incident that might result in a collision, allision, or grounding and the aftermath discharge or release of oil or hazardous material into the navigable waters of the United States.
This rule is effective November 28, 2007.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of the docket and are available for inspection and copying at the offices of Commander, Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England, East Providence office, 20 Risho Avenue, East Providence, RI 02914, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc at Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England, East Providence, RI, 401–435–2351.
On March 29, 2006, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in Volume 71, No. 60, pages 15649 to 15656 of the
Congress designated Buzzards Bay as an Estuary of National Significance in 1985, one of only five estuaries in the U.S. so designated. The Bay has some of Massachusetts' most productive shellfish beds. It interacts with three very different marine systems, the Atlantic Ocean to the south, Vineyard Sound to the east, and Cape Cod Bay to the north. In 2002, there were nearly 10,000 commercial vessel transits and over 1,200 tank barge transits in Buzzards Bay. An estimated 80% of those tank barges were single hull vessels. Note that the term “single hull” and other terms used in this rule have the same meaning as those found in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), § 165.100(b).
Since 1969 there have been several significant incidents of tank barge groundings with oil spills in Buzzards Bay. These included the grounding of the tank barge
Groundings, allisions, or collisions of single hull tank barges could lead to a significant discharge or release of oil or other hazardous materials, as demonstrated by the incidents noted above, with potentially significant adverse impacts to people, property, the coastal and maritime environment, and the local economy. The purpose of these navigation safety and waterways management regulations for Buzzards Bay is to reduce the likelihood of another incident that might result in the discharge or release of oil or hazardous material, or other serious harm, on the navigable waters of the United States.
After a previous oil spill from the tank barge
Subsequent to an oil spill in Buzzards Bay in April, 2003, noted above, the Coast Guard sponsored a Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment (PAWSA), which was conducted by a cross-section of key Buzzards Bay waterways users and stakeholders, resulting in numerous suggestions for improving navigation safety in the Bay. The safety assessment process is a disciplined approach to identify major waterway safety hazards, estimate risk levels, evaluate potential mitigation measures, and set the stage for implementation of selected measures to reduce risk. The process involved convening a select group of waterway users/stakeholders and conducting a two-day structured workshop to meet these objectives. The assessment process represents a significant part of joint public-private sector planning for mitigating risk in waterways. When applied consistently and uniformly in a number of waterways, the process provides a basis for making best value decisions for risk mitigation investments, both on the local and national level. For further information on the PAWSA project go to:
The PAWSA report suggested, in part, that the risk for oil or hazardous material discharge in Buzzards Bay is relatively high, and that one method of reducing that risk, among many that were suggested, might be to “establish requirements for escort tugs.” (The PAWSA report is available in docket CGD01–04–133. See
Additionally, in a letter from several members of the U.S. Congressional delegation from Massachusetts, the Coast Guard was asked to consider measures similar to those recommended in the PAWSA, specifically: Assist tugs, Recommended Routes, and an Automatic Identification System (AIS). This letter, along with the Coast Guard's response, is available in the docket.
The Automatic Identification System (AIS) is a maritime navigation safety communications system standardized by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) that provides vessel information, including the vessel's identity, type, position, course, speed, navigational status and other safety-related information automatically to appropriately equipped shore stations, other ships, and aircraft; receives automatically such information from similarly fitted ships; monitors and tracks ships; and exchanges data with shore-based facilities.
As of December 31, 2004, AIS is required on most commercial vessels either navigating abroad or within a Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) area, such as VTS New York. (See 33 CFR 164.46.) As the vast majority of tug/barge combinations that transit Buzzards Bay are either traveling from or to New York and hence must participate in New York's VTS, they already carry AIS. The Coast Guard plans to propose expanding AIS requirements in the future. Regardless of whether a tug/barge combination is equipped with AIS, under this rule it must still participate in the Vessel Movement Reporting System (VMRS) by either AIS or VHF radiotelephone.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), at the request of the Coast Guard, has already overlaid recommended vessel routes on navigational charts for Rhode Island Sound, Narragansett Bay, and Buzzards Bay. These recommended vessel routes are currently included on all new editions of charts 13205, 13218, 13221, and 13230. To allow maximum operating flexibility to meet differing conditions and situations, at this time the Coast Guard is not making the recommended vessel routes depicted on these charts mandatory.
Currently, an escort tug is required in Buzzards Bay only for single hull tank barges, unless the single hull tank barge is being towed by a primary towing vessel with twin-screw propulsion and with a separate system for power to each screw. Consequently, the vast majority of tug and barge combinations transiting Buzzards Bay employ tugs with twin screws and twin engines, but with no additional positive control.
On March 29, 2006, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) that proposed amending the current First Coast Guard District RNA to require that all single hull tank barges carrying 5,000 or more barrels of oil or other hazardous material and being towed through Buzzards Bay:
1. Participate in a Vessel Movement Reporting System (VMRS) (33 CFR part 161, subpart B) managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at its Cape Cod Canal control center on behalf of the Coast Guard.
2. Be accompanied by a federally licensed pilot, who could remain on the escort tug vessel, to monitor the navigation of the tug/barge, and to advise the master of the tug/barge accordingly.
3. Be accompanied by an escort tug between the west entrance to Buzzards Bay and the east end of the Cape Cod Canal.
Seventeen comments were received in response to the NPRM. All late comments received were reviewed and considered. Nine comments concerned the provision in the NPRM that would allow pilots, in times of adverse weather, to remain on the escort tug and to advise the master of the primary tug (i.e., the vessel actually towing the tank barge) from the escort tug. The comments noted that a pilot executing his/her pilotage duties from any vessel other than the primary tug would add little or no value, and may even increase danger due to confusion and communications difficulties.
The Coast Guard concurs with these comments. Accordingly, the provision to permit pilots to advise the master of a primary tug from an escort tug has been removed. Consequently, when this rule applies, pilots will be required to embark the primary tug during transits of Buzzards Bay.
Three comments urged that pilots be required to embark the primary tug only from a pilot boat, not an escort tug. Comments noted that pilot boats are better designed for such transfers of people between two underway vessels, and would be safer than permitting a transfer between a tug escort and primary tug. Many factors must be considered when deciding what constitutes a safe transfer between two underway vessels (e.g., an escort tug and primary tug, or a pilot boat and primary tug), including the design of each vessel, weather, physical abilities of the person transferring, etc. These decisions are better left to those actually on-scene and are not addressed in this rule.
Three comments asked that state-licensed pilots be required in addition to or in place of federally licensed pilots. One comment suggested that pilotage requirements similar to those for Prince William Sound, Alaska, be adopted for Buzzards Bay. In Prince William Sound, pilots are required to be state-licensed, but operate under their federal pilot's license. The Coast Guard notes that the pilotage requirement to which the commenter refers was enacted by Congress as part of Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101–380, and that both the Prince William Sound requirement and the request that the Coast Guard adopt a similar requirement in Buzzards Bay by this regulation is contrary to the generally applicable Congressional scheme for state-federal pilotage of vessels in Chapter 85 of Subtitle II of Title 46, U.S. Code.
The Coast Guard has looked carefully at whether, as a matter of federal regulatory exercise of authority, it can vary that generally applicable state-federal pilotage scheme and has concluded that it is without authority to do so. Unlike the Congressionally mandated Prince William Sound state-federal pilotage requirements, this regulation is being promulgated under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, Public Law 92–340, section 5 (33 U.S.C. 1223(a)(4)). Authority under this Act is not so broad as to support a provision mandating the carriage of a state pilot where such a provision is contrary to the usual Congressional scheme prohibiting states from requiring a state licensed or commissioned pilot on a vessel subject to inspection under part B of subtitle II of Title 46, or is subject to inspection under chapter 37 of that Title.
An examination of the legislative history of that provision shows that nowhere did Congress mention imposing a State commissioned pilot in addition to or in lieu of a Federal pilot on vessels operating on the navigable waters of the United States. Given the long standing Congressional scheme for division of responsibility among Federal and State pilotage on vessels, which these comments would run counter to, and the absence of any legislative history that would suggest that Congress intended the words “operating condition” to include authority to promulgate a regulation that runs counter to that scheme, the Coast Guard is without authority to promulgate such a regulation. Accordingly, the Coast Guard does not adopt the suggestion in these comments.
One comment requested that the Coast Guard conduct a cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate that the benefits of this rule outweigh the cost.
As noted in the NPRM and contained in the docket for this rule (CGD01–04–133), a Regulatory Evaluation was conducted in March 2006. That evaluation found that this rule would prevent approximately 500 barrels of oil from being spilled into Buzzards Bay, would have a negligible impact on consumer energy costs, and would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Some comments stated it was unclear if the pilotage requirement was for a federally licensed pilot in addition to the vessel's master, or if a master (or other crewmember) holding a Federal pilot's license could also serve as pilot while transiting Buzzards Bay.
The requirement in this rule is for a federally licensed pilot in addition to the vessel's master and crew. Under this rule, neither a master of a primary tug nor any member of its crew may serve as pilot while transiting Buzzards Bay. It is intended that the federally licensed pilot be an additional navigation resource to the master and crew of the vessel.
Some comments recommended this rule, particularly the escort tug requirement, apply to single hull tank ships in addition to barges.
The PAWSA report specifically addresses the hazards associated with single hull tank barges and was used as an indicator and resource for this rule. There is no indication in the PASWA that tank ships represent a similar risk of pollution. Consequently, this rule applies only to single hull tank barges, not tank ships.
Some comments asked for clarification on whether or not federally licensed pilots are required aboard escort tugs. They are not.
The requirement is for a federally licensed pilot to be aboard the primary tug towing a single hull tank barge.
Three written comments stated that the requirement for escort tugs should apply to double hull tanks vessels in addition to single hull tank vessels. At the consultative meeting discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection also urged that all tank vessels transiting Buzzards Bay, both single and double hull, be required to have an escort tug.
The majority of tank barge casualties in Buzzards Bay have been caused by groundings, and the bottom characteristics of the area are generally rocky. Double hulls provide sufficient protection against this type of casualty, and there has never been a major oil spill from a double hull tank barge grounding in Buzzards Bay. Therefore, the Coast Guard does not feel it is necessary to require tug escorts for double hull tank barges at this time. Additionally, the Coast Guard considers that, as adopted in this rule, its three-pronged approach to navigation safety ((1) Mandatory participation in a Vessel Movement Reporting System (VMRS); (2) a federally licensed pilot and (3) a tug escort for single hull tank barges)
Two comments suggested that use of the currently-existing (and voluntary) recommended vessel route in Buzzards Bay be mandated for commercial vessels.
The Coast Guard recognizes that, in light of variations in visibility, traffic density, tides and currents, and other on-scene conditions, and given the uniqueness of vessel and tow configurations and handling characteristics, prudent seamanship (and the Rules of the Road) may dictate departure from any given vessel route. The Coast Guard wishes to avoid creating any situation in which a mariner may feel constrained to follow a set route when conditions may warrant an alternative approach.
Importantly, the VMRS established by this rule will provide the Coast Guard the capability to monitor tank vessel movements in Buzzards Bay, including the capability to ascertain vessel intentions before entering the Bay. Most, if not all, tank vessels currently use the recommended vessel route voluntarily. Through the VMRS established by this rule, the Coast Guard will be able to monitor vessels as they transit the recommended vessel route to query and respond appropriately should a vessel deviate from the route without good and sufficient reason, including, but not limited to, proceeding to an anchorage, or briefly exiting the route to allow an approaching vessel to pass. Consequently, the Coast Guard considers the voluntary recommended vessel route, when combined with the enhanced ability to monitor the usage thereof, to provide an ample measure of safety.
While no comments addressed the proposed requirement that VMRS Buzzard's Bay users attain “approval” from the VMRS center (1) Prior to entering into, or getting underway within, the VMRS area; and (2) prior to meeting, crossing, or overtaking other VMRS users; in keeping with the monitoring—vice directive—function of a Vessel Movement Reporting System, the word “approval” was changed to better reflect the requirement that vessels “notify” the VMRS before undertaking the aforementioned actions.
Two comments suggested that escort tugs should have minimum horsepower or bollard pull requirements.
This rule amends the currently existing Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) for waters within the First Coast Guard District. As defined in the current RNA, an escort tug is a vessel of “sufficient capability to promptly push or tow the tank barge away from danger of grounding or collision * * *” That definition is the product of several recommendations made by a Regional Risk Assessment Team (RRAT) chartered by the Coast Guard in 1996 to examine tug and barge operation and navigation procedures in the waters of the First Coast Guard District. The RRAT was composed of operators of towing vessels and tank barges, environmental groups, state agencies, and Coast Guard officials. In the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105–383), Congress directed the Coast Guard to adopt the recommendations of the RRAT. Consequently, the Coast Guard believes that definition is sufficient for this amendment to the existing RNA.
One comment requested that oil spill response vessels (OSRVs) and oil spill response barges (OSRBs) be exempt from these regulations. The commenter was concerned that, after one or more of these vessels had been called to respond to an oil spill in Buzzards Bay, its exit from the Bay (after recovering spilled oil) may be delayed due to the requirements of these regulations.
The Coast Guard considers these regulations to be important for all single hull tank barges carrying oil or petroleum products in sufficient quantity, including OSRVs and OSRBs, so as to enhance navigation safety and environmental protection in Buzzard's Bay. Further, we view the impacts of this regulation to be minimal on an OSRV or OSRB. Consequently, we did not provide the requested exemption.
One comment asked that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts be included in any partnership between the Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers to operate a Vessel Movement Reporting System (VMRS) for Buzzards Bay.
The Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers are finalizing a Memorandum of Agreement that will delineate the functions and responsibilities of each agency in operating the VMRS. This MOA, once executed, will be added in the final docket for this rule. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has been and will remain a key partner in the planning and operation of the VMRS for Buzzards Bay.
In addition to the 17 comments received, two joint letters from U.S. Representatives Barney Frank, William D. Delahunt, and James P. McGovern were sent to the Commandant of the Coast Guard on July 26, 2006, and September 14, 2006, respectively. Both letters urged the Coast Guard to adopt navigation safety provisions for Buzzards Bay similar to those provided for in a Massachusetts oil spill prevention law which had recently been overturned by a Federal court. Specifically, the Representatives requested that the Coast Guard:
1. Institute minimum watch and manning requirements for oil tankers and barges;
2. Mandate the use of State pilots to assist in navigating Buzzards Bay;
3. Mandate the use of tugboat escorts for all oil barges;
4. Institute mandatory navigational routes through state waters; and
5. Mandate a certificate of at least $1 billion in financial backing to dock in Massachusetts, unless the shipping companies take special safety measures, such as using double hulls.
Although the Coast Guard did not adopt a state pilot requirement, the Coast Guard did adopt a requirement that the primary tug towing a single hull tank barge in Buzzards Bay have on board a federally licensed pilot, in addition to the vessel's master and normal crew complement. Thus, the provisions of this rule, along with other currently existing Federal statutes and regulations, will sufficiently address each of the Representatives' concerns for the following reasons:
1. Federal regulations at 46 CFR 15 comprehensively regulate manning and watchstanding on tank vessels and tugs. Additionally, 33 CFR 164.13(c) specifically requires tankers to have at least two licensed deck officers on watch on the bridge;
2. This rule requires that a federally licensed pilot be employed in addition to the normal crew for the transit of any single hull tank barge through Buzzards Bay;
3. This rule requires escort tugs, in addition to the primary tug, for all single hull tank barges transiting Buzzards Bay;
4. For the reasons discussed in this Notice, while use of the recommended vessel route in Buzzards Bay will not be mandatory, vessel movements within the route will be monitored through the Vessel Movement Reporting System established by this rule; and
5. Under Title VI of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109–241), the financial liability limits for vessel oil discharge removal costs and damages under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2704) were amended, and the Financial Responsibility for Water Pollution regulations at 33 CFR part 138 will be amended accordingly via separate rulemaking. For further information on
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review”, 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993, requires a determination whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and subject to the requirements of the Executive Order. This rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by OMB.
During the period of analysis, 2006–2014, this rule is expected to cost approximately $3.9 million net present value (7 percent discount rate). A copy of the regulatory evaluation, which further describes the expected costs and benefits of this rule, is posted in the docket and is available for inspection and copying at the offices of Commander, Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England, East Providence office, 20 Risho Avenue, East Providence, RI 02914, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
No comments to the NPRM were received challenging the content of the regulatory evaluation, nor claiming a significant adverse economic impact should this rule be implemented as proposed. Nonetheless, to confirm the conclusions of the regulatory evaluation that this rule would not create a significant adverse impact on small entities, the Coast Guard reviewed selected economic data for the period of time between the evaluation's original publication in March 2006 and the publication of this rule in July 2007. A comparison of the regulatory evaluation's forecast of tug and barge activity with actual transits validated those projections. For example, the regulatory evaluation projected that there would be 234 transits of loaded tank barges through Buzzards Bay in 2006. The actual number was 208, only an 11% deviation from the projection. A review of more recent cost data associated with tug escort and pilot fees, when compared with revenue data of the small businesses most affected by this rule, also confirmed the fundamental finding of the regulatory evaluation, which is that the cost of compliance with this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), 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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of tugs and/or single hull barges carrying 5,000 or more barrels of oil or other hazardous materials and intending to transit or anchor in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts.
This rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule requires escort tugs and federally licensed pilots only for single hull barges, which are being phased out of operation in accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), specifically 46 U.S.C. 3703a, and will be prohibited from operating effective January 1, 2015. Additionally, the VMRS established by this rulemaking applies only to vessels subject to the bridge-to-bridge radiotelephone regulations in § 26.03 (and therefore already equipped with VHF radios), so no additional costs will be incurred to participate in the VMRS. Those vessels with a Coast Guard-approved, properly installed, operational AIS would be relieved from the voice reporting requirements implemented by this rule.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc at Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England, Providence, RI, 401–435–2351.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.). The reports required by this rule are considered to be operational communications, transitory in nature, and, do not constitute a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
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. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the cases of
The Coast Guard believes that by operation of law and our Agency determination, State law is preempted on the subjects covered by this rulemaking. The Coast Guard's affirmative decisions: (1) Not to institute mandatory ship routes, but to monitor use of the existing recommend routes
To the extent not otherwise already preempted, this rule is intended to, and does, preempt those provisions of Massachusetts' “Act Relative to Oil Spill Prevention and Response in Buzzards Bay and Other Harbors and Bays of the Commonwealth,” (“MOSPA”) regarding enhanced manning requirements for tank barges and tow vessels in Buzzards Bay, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 21M § 4, and tugboat escorts for certain waters, see id. § 6. Further, it is the Coast Guard's view that, by Operation of Law, MOSPA's provisions regarding mandatory vessel routes in Massachusetts waters, see id. § 5; and compulsory State pilotage, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 103 § 21, are likewise preempted. See
In accordance with E.O. 13132 for regulations with preemptive effect, the following federalism impact statement is provided to document (1) The extent of the Coast Guard's consultation with State and local officials, (2) a summary of the nature of their concerns and the Coast Guard's position thereon, and (3) a statement of the extent to which the concerns of State and local officials have been met.
The Coast Guard provided elected officials of affected state and local governments notice and an opportunity to consult on this rulemaking. Ten Massachusetts municipalities surrounding Buzzards Bay indicated that they wished to participate, as did the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Accordingly, the Coast Guard engaged the towns of Bourne, Dartmouth, Fairhaven, Gosnold, Marion, Mattapoisett, Wareham, Westport, Falmouth, the city of New Bedford, and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) to discuss their concerns. On September 13, 2006, after inviting all parties desiring consultative status to participate, the Coast Guard met with representatives from the city of New Bedford and the town of Westport. On October 11, 2006, the Coast Guard met with the Acting Commissioner of DEP. Representatives from the towns of Bourne, Fairhaven, Marion, and Mattapoisett, and representatives from DEP, spoke at public hearings held on this rulemaking. Ten municipalities (Bourne, Buzzards Bay, Dartmouth, Fairhaven, Gosnold, Marion, Mattapoisett, New Bedford, Wareham, and Westport) submitted statements regarding recommended oil spill prevention measures for Buzzard's Bay. We also received additional written comments to the docket from the towns of Bourne and Mattapoisett, the Massachusetts Attorney General, and DEP.
In general, all consulting state and local officials agreed upon the need for increased oil spill prevention measures in Buzzard's Bay and certain other Massachusetts' waters. The consulted parties' concerns related to the specific mechanisms to accomplish this goal. Essentially, the consulted parties encouraged the Coast Guard to enact regulations that would require (1) Implementation of a mandatory, Coast Guard-administered vessel movement system (2) mandatory use of the existing “recommended vessel route,” (3) State-licensed (vice federally licensed) pilots aboard certain tank barges, and (4) escort tugs for both single and double hull tank barges.
As discussed in greater detail in Discussion of comments and changes, above, the Coast Guard is establishing a Vessel Movement Reporting System (VMRS) as urged.
Regarding mandatory ship routes in Buzzard's Bay, as previously indicated, the Coast Guard wishes to avoid creating any situation in which a mariner may feel constrained to follow a set route when operating or weather conditions may warrant an alternative approach. Thus, use of the already existing recommended vessel routes in Buzzards Bay will not be mandatory. Vessel movement along these recommended routes, however, will now be closely tracked through the VMRS established by this rule.
For reasons also set forth above, the Coast Guard is without the authority to require that a tug have a Federal pilot that is also licensed or commissioned by the State. The Coast Guard is, however, requiring a federally licensed pilot aboard vessels towing certain single hulled tank barges through Buzzard's Bay as an additional navigation resource to the master and crew of the vessel.
With respect to the issue of requiring escort tugs for only single hull tank barges, as opposed to both single and double hulled barges, the Coast Guard believes that mandatory participation in a VMRS, the requirement to embark and employ a federally licensed pilot, and a tug escort requirement together provide a sufficient measure of safety for tank vessels transiting Buzzards Bay. Accordingly, the Coast Guard believes that the concerns for navigation safety and environmental protection underlying the specific recommendations of the consulted State and localities will be met by the regulations promulgated by this final rule.
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 would not result in such 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 would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have 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) and (34)(i) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule fits the category selected from paragraph (34)(g) and (34)(i), as it amends a currently existing Regulated Navigation Area and establishes a VMRS.
An “Environmental Analysis Check List” and “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Waterways.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1223, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 70114, 70117; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1)(iii) and paragraph 5 of this section, each single hull tank barge, unless being towed by a primary towing vessel with twin-screw propulsion and with a separate system for power to each screw, must be accompanied by an escort tug of sufficient capability to promptly push or tow the tank barge away from danger of grounding or collision in the event of—
(G) Any other time a vessel may be operating in a Hazardous Vessel Operating Condition as defined in § 161.2 of this Chapter.
(5)
(ii)
(A) A propulsion failure;
(B) A parted tow line;
(C) A loss of tow;
(D) A fire;
(E) Grounding;
(F) A loss of steering; or
(G) Any other time a vessel may be operating in a Hazardous Vessel Operating Condition as defined in § 161.2 of this subchapter.
(iii)
(iv)
(A) A VMRS Buzzards Bay user must:
(1) Not enter or get underway in the area without first notifying the VMRS Center;
(2) Not enter VMRS Buzzards Bay if a Hazardous Vessel Operating Condition or circumstance per § 161.2 of this Subchapter exists;
(3) If towing astern, do so with as short a hawser as safety and good seamanship permits;
(4) Not meet, cross, or overtake any other VMRS user in the area without first notifying the VMRS center;
(5) Before meeting, crossing, or overtaking any other VMRS user in the area, communicate on the designated vessel bridge-to-bridge radiotelephone frequency, intended navigation movements, and any other information necessary in order to make safe passing arrangements. This requirement does not relieve a vessel of any duty prescribed by the International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea, 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1602(c)) or the Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C. 2005).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Connecticut. This revision establishes early fine particulate (PM
This direct final rule will be effective October 29, 2007, unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 1, 2007. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA–R01–OAR–2007–0373 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In addition, copies of the state submittal are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the State Air Agency, the Bureau of Air Management, Department of Environmental Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106–1630.
Donald O. Cooke, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114–2023, telephone number (617) 918–1668, fax number (617) 918–0668, e-mail
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
On December 17, 2004, (69 FR 943; January 5, 2005), EPA designated the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT area as nonattainment for the annual National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) for fine particle pollution or PM
In the June 8, 2006
On April 17, 2007, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) submitted a revision to its SIP for establishing early fine particulate (PM
The PM
The total inventory of direct PM
The total inventory of NO
On March 2, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision on EPA's third set of transportation conformity amendments in response to a case brought by the Environmental Defense Fund. The decision held that conformity determinations could no longer be based on submitted SIP emissions budgets, prior to a positive adequacy determination by EPA.
A May 14, 1999, EPA memorandum from Gay MacGregor to the Regional Division Directors provides guidance on how to review budgets for adequacy and the process for public comment and notification (posting on the Web). The May 14, 1999 guidance is available on EPA's conformity Web site at URL address:
EPA initiated the adequacy process for Connecticut's motor vehicle emissions budgets on April 19, 2007, by announcing that Connecticut had submitted an early progress SIP for PM
This positive adequacy determination simplifies the administrative process for demonstrating transportation conformity by establishing the 2009 direct PM
Today's direct final rulemaking approves Connecticut's adequate 2009 direct PM
The early direct PM
EPA's review of Connecticut's SIP revision concludes that this SIP revision is consistent with EPA's Transportation Conformity Rule. Approval of Connecticut's SIP revision is directionally sound since it would approve year 2009 motor vehicle emissions budgets which are more stringent than the year 2002 baseline emissions now used to evaluate transportation conformity in the NY-NJ-CT PM
Connecticut's projected reduction in direct PM
1. Fairfield County and New Haven County were included in the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT PM
2. There were no monitored violations of EPA's annual PM
3. There is a significant projected tonnage decrease in overall PM
4. There is a very large percent reduction projected in both PM
5. The large reduction in Connecticut's NO
EPA is approving the Connecticut SIP revision for establishment of interim progress for the annual fine particle National Ambient Air Quality Standard, which was submitted on April 17, 2007. The direct PM
The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on October 29, 2007 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 29, 2007. Interested parties should comment in response to the proposed rule rather than petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after the comment period allowed for in the proposal. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Approval—Revision to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on April 17, 2007. the revision is for the purpose of establishing early fine particulate (PM
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) clarifies by final rule that automatic roaming is a common carrier obligation for commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) carriers, requiring them to provide roaming services to other carriers upon reasonable request and on a just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory basis.
This rule is effective October 29, 2007.
Christina Clearwater at (202) 418–1893,
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, WT Docket No. 05–265, FCC No. 07–143, adopted August 7, 2007 and released August 16, 2007. The full text of the Report and Order is available for public inspection on the Commission's Internet site at
The Report and Order does not contain an information collection subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and therefore does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.
1. In this Report and Order, the Commission finds that automatic roaming is a common carrier obligation pursuant to Sections 201 and 202 of the Communications Act, and discusses the scope of the automatic roaming obligation for commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) carriers. The Commission also declines to regulate the automatic roaming rates and addresses other issues raised by commenters in the record, including a request for “most favored” roaming partner rates for Tier IV CMRS carriers, in-market or home roaming issues, access to non-interconnected features and enhanced digital networks, and public filing of roaming rates. Finally, the Commission codifies the automatic roaming obligations into a rule, imposing an affirmative obligation to provide automatic roaming on CMRS carriers under certain conditions, denies the petition for investigation pursuant to Section 403 of the Act, and declines to sunset the existing manual roaming rule at this time.
2. The Commission believes its findings and clarifications in this Report and Order with respect to CMRS providers' obligations regarding roaming services serve the public interest and safeguard wireless consumers' reasonable expectations of receiving seamless nationwide commercial mobile telephony services through roaming.
3. The Commission clarifies that automatic roaming is a common carrier service, subject to the protections outlined in Sections 201 and 202 of the Communications Act. If a CMRS carrier receives a reasonable request for automatic roaming, pursuant to Section 332(c)(1)(B) and Section 201(a), it is desirable and serves the public interest for that CMRS carrier to provide automatic roaming service on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions. Services that are covered by the automatic roaming obligation are limited to real-time, two-way switched voice or data services, provided by CMRS carriers, that are interconnected with the public switched network and utilize an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls. These findings are consistent with the Commission's previous determinations.
4. Roaming is a common carrier service, because roaming capability gives end users access to a foreign network in order to communicate messages of their own choosing, as previously determined in CC Docket No. 94–54, published at 61 FR 44026, August 27, 1996.
5. Further, under Section 332 of the Communications Act, CMRS providers are subject to common carrier regulations. Section 332(c)(1)(A) provides that a “person engaged in the provision of a service that is a commercial mobile service shall, insofar as such person is engaged, be treated as a common carrier,” and Subsection (c)(1)(B) states that, “[u]pon reasonable request of any person providing commercial mobile service, the Commission shall order a common carrier to establish physical connections with such service pursuant to the provisions of Section 201 of this Title.” Like any other common carrier service offering, if a CMRS provider offers automatic roaming, it triggers its common carrier obligations with respect to the provisioning of that service under the Communications Act. The Commission determines that, if a CMRS carrier receives a reasonable request for automatic roaming, pursuant to Section 332(c)(1)(B) and Section 201(a), it is desirable and necessary to serve the
6. Additionally, the Commission determines that a reasonable request for automatic roaming will be limited to real-time, two-way switched voice or data services, provided by CMRS carriers, that are interconnected with the public switched network and utilize an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls. This ensures that all CMRS providers competing in the mass market for real-time, two-way voice and data services are similarly obligated to provide automatic roaming services, thereby equally benefiting all subscribers of mobile telephony services who seek to roam seamlessly over CMRS networks. The Commission also concludes, as it has in prior proceedings, that an important indicator of a provider's ability to compete with other CMRS providers is whether the provider's system has “in-network” switching capability. In-network switching facilities accommodate the reuse of frequencies in different portions of the same service area, thus enabling any CMRS provider to offer interconnected service to a larger group of customers and compete directly with other CMRS providers in the mass consumer market.
7.
8. Further, the Commission notes that the Accelerated Docket procedure, including pre-complaint mediation, is available to roaming complaints. Several commenters—including parties both supporting and opposing adoption of an automatic roaming rule—requested use of the Commission's Accelerated Docket procedures to resolve roaming complaints. Although all roaming complaints will not automatically be placed on the Accelerated Docket, an affected carrier can seek consideration of its complaint under the Commission's Accelerated Docket rules and procedures where appropriate.
9.
10. The presumptions and examples of reasonableness cited above are not exhaustive, but rather are intended to provide some guidance to parties that may be participating in a Section 208 complaint proceeding involving roaming services. CMRS carriers may argue that the Commission should consider other relevant factors in determining whether there is a violation of the automatic roaming obligations, based on the totality of the circumstances present in a particular case.
11. The Commission declines to impose a price cap or any other form of rate regulation on the fees carriers pay each other when one carrier's customer roams on another carrier's network. In particular, the Commission is not persuaded that consumers would be harmed in the absence of a price cap or some other form of rate regulation. The Commission believes that the better course, as established in this Report and Order, is that the rates individual carriers pay for automatic roaming services be determined in the marketplace through negotiations between the carriers, subject to the statutory requirement that any rates charged be reasonable and non-discriminatory.
12. The Commission finds that there is insufficient evidence to justify regulating the roaming rates of carriers, and that any harm to consumers in the absence of affirmative regulation in this regard is speculative. Moreover, with the clarifications it makes herein with respect to automatic roaming, the Commission finds that consumers are protected from being harmed by the level and structure of roaming rates negotiated between carriers. Absent a finding that the existing level and structure of roaming rates harm consumers, regulation of rates for automatic roaming service is not warranted.
13. Because it is not persuaded that the existing level and structure of roaming rates negotiated between carriers harm consumers of mobile telephony services, the Commission does not need to address the argument that the state of competition in the intermediate product market is such as to warrant rate regulation.
14. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that regulation of roaming rates is not warranted on economic grounds. In addition, however, the Commission agrees with concerns raised in the record that rate regulation has the potential to distort carriers' incentives and behavior with regard to pricing and investment in network buildout. Capping roaming rates by tying them to a benchmark based on larger carriers' retail rates may diminish larger carriers' incentives to lower retail prices paid by their customers, and perhaps even give them an incentive to raise retail rates. At the same time, by requiring larger carriers to offer national roaming coverage to their competitors' customers at nearly the same rates offered to their own customers, this form of rate
15. Similarly, regulation to reduce roaming rates has the potential to deter investment in network deployment by impairing buildout incentives facing both small and large carriers. By enabling smaller regional carriers to offer their customers national roaming coverage at more favorable rates without having to build a nationwide network, rate regulation would tend to diminish smaller carriers' incentives to expand the geographic coverage of their networks. In addition, by reducing or eliminating any competitive advantage gained as a result of building out nationwide or large regional networks, rate regulation would impair larger carriers' incentives to expand, maintain, and upgrade their existing networks.
16. Since the Commission's determination that automatic roaming is common carrier service applies to all CMRS providers regardless of size, it declines to create a special Tier IV category for roaming services. The Commission also declines to adopt a rule requiring that large nationwide carriers offer the same roaming arrangements to Tier IV providers as they offer to their “most favored” roaming partners.
17. Because the need for automatic roaming services may not always be the same, and the value of roaming services may vary across different geographic markets due to differences in population and other factors affecting the supply and demand for roaming services, it is likely that automatic roaming rates will reasonably vary. Mobile services in the United States are differentiated based on price, as well as non-price attributes, including geographic coverage. Competition between mobile telephone pricing plans that are differentiated in these ways benefits consumers by allowing them to choose pricing plans that offer the best deal on the types of services they use most frequently. Mandating that a subcategory of CMRS carriers (
18. Accordingly, the Commission declines to mandate that a subcategory of CMRS carriers (
19. The Commission determines that the automatic roaming obligation does not include an in-market or home roaming requirement. The Commission is not requiring a CMRS carrier to provide automatic roaming to a requesting CMRS carrier in a market where the CMRS carrier directly competes with the requesting CMRS carrier. Specifically, a CMRS carrier is not required to provide automatic roaming to a requesting CMRS carrier where the requesting CMRS carrier holds a wireless license or spectrum usage rights (
20. The Commission finds that an automatic roaming request in the home area of a requesting CMRS carrier, the area where the requesting CMRS carrier has the spectrum to compete directly with the would-be host carrier, does not serve the Commission's public interest goals of encouraging facilities-based service and supporting consumer expectations of seamless coverage when traveling outside the home area. The Commission finds that if a carrier is allowed to “piggy-back” on the network coverage of a competing carrier in the same market, then both carriers lose the incentive to build out into high cost areas in order to achieve superior network coverage. This conclusion, however, should not be construed as prohibiting a requesting carrier from seeking to negotiate a roaming agreement including such terms if desired, or a host carrier from providing a requesting CMRS carrier with in-market or home roaming should it chose to do so. The Commission continues to encourage all CMRS carriers to negotiate desired terms and conditions of automatic roaming agreements, including automatic roaming in overlapping geographic markets.
21. For purposes of this exclusion from automatic roaming obligations, in-market or home roaming is defined as any geographic location where the would-be host carrier and the requesting CMRS carrier have wireless licenses or spectrum usage rights that could be used to provide CMRS that cover or overlap the same geographic location(s). Within these overlapping geographic areas, the would-be host carrier is not required to comply with an automatic roaming request. This in-market or home roaming exclusion does not depend on the level of service the requesting CMRS carrier is providing in the overlapping geographic area. The exclusion applies regardless of whether the requesting CMRS carrier is providing no service, limited service, or state-of-the-art service.
22. Finally, the Commission also determines that the automatic roaming obligation under Sections 201 and 202 and the home roaming exclusion are not intended to resurrect CMRS resale obligations. CMRS resale entails a reseller's purchase of CMRS service provided by a facilities-based CMRS carrier in order to provide resold service within the same geographic market as the facilities-based CMRS provider. The Commission notes that its mandatory resale rule was sunset in 2002, and automatic roaming obligations can not be used as a backdoor way to create de facto mandatory resale obligations or virtual reseller networks.
23. As discussed above, the scope of automatic roaming services includes only services offered by CMRS carriers that are real-time, two-way switched voice or data services that are interconnected with the public switched network and utilize an in-network switching facility that enables providers to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls. The Commission finds that it would serve the public interest to extend automatic roaming obligations to push-
24. With respect to push-to-talk and SMS, the Commission notes that such offerings are typically bundled as a feature on the handset with other CMRS services, such as real-time, two-way switched mobile voice or data, that are interconnected with the public switched network. Provision of these features differs from one carrier to another,
25. With respect to non-interconnected features or services, the Commission finds that the record in this proceeding lacks a clear showing that it is in the public interest at this time to impose an automatic roaming obligation. While proponents of unrestricted data roaming have argued that requiring roaming access to the non-interconnected features of a competitor's network would benefit consumers by providing greater availability for data features that are increasingly used by consumers, opponents are concerned that that it might undercut incentives to differentiate products and could chill innovation. These opponents claim that extending roaming to non-interconnected features of a competitors' network may also adversely affect business decisions to build out facilities for facilities-based competition and reduce the incentives to access the spectrum through other means such as initial spectrum licensing or secondary markets. In light of these diverse views, the Commission believes it is in the public interest, however, to examine the issue of automatic roaming for non-interconnected features or services through a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM).
26. As previously explained, the automatic roaming obligation applies to real-time, two-way switched voice or data services that are interconnected with the public switched network and utilize an in-network switching facility that enables providers to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls. As discussed above with respect to non-interconnected services, the Commission similarly declines at this time to extend the scope of the automatic roaming services definition to include non-interconnected services provided over enhanced digital networks, such as wireless broadband Internet access. The Commission finds that automatic roaming, as a common carrier obligation, does not extend to services that are classified as information services or to other wireless services that are not CMRS.
27. While the Commission finds that, based on the current record, it is premature to impose any roaming obligation regarding enhanced data services that are not CMRS and not interconnected to the public switched network, the Commission will examine this matter further in the FNPRM.
28. The Commission declines to impose an affirmative obligation on CMRS carriers to post their roaming rates. As is generally the case with commercial agreements, roaming agreements are confidential and filing them would impose administrative costs on the carriers. In light of its adoption of an automatic roaming rule as discussed below, the Commission finds that the available remedies for redress are sufficient to address disputes that may arise.
29. The Commission codifies the automatic roaming obligations of CMRS carriers into a rule requiring that they provide automatic roaming to any requesting technologically compatible CMRS carrier outside of the requesting CMRS carrier's home market on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions. This rule applies to CMRS carriers that offer real-time, two-way switched voice or data service over digital network that is interconnected with the public switched network and utilize an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls. The Commission also notes that codification of an automatic roaming obligation gives CMRS carriers another avenue to redress roaming disputes, benefiting mobile telephony subscribers.
30. Finally, the Commission clarifies that automatic roaming, pursuant to Sections 201 and 202, as a common carrier obligation applies to CMRS carriers' analog networks. The Commission does not find, however, that it is necessary to codify this obligation into a specific rule. With the sunset of the analog service requirement on February 18, 2008, there would be little benefit to a codified automatic roaming rule for analog networks that might potentially apply between now and that date. Individual carriers may, of course, enter into automatic roaming agreements for their analog networks, and any allegations that particular practices on analog networks are unjust, unreasonable or otherwise in violation of Sections 201 and 202 of the Communications Act would be subject to the complaint process of Section 208 of the Communications Act.
31. Because the Commission finds that the record is sufficient to codify automatic roaming obligations of CMRS carriers, the Commission denies the Joint Petition for Investigation Pursuant to Section 403, which petitioners contend will assist the Commission in gathering necessary information to support the adoption of an automatic roaming rule.
32. The Commission declines to sunset its existing manual roaming rule and, instead, retains it as a safety net for consumers. The Commission is aware that as automatic roaming becomes increasingly ubiquitous, it will render the need for manual roaming obsolete. The Commission notes, however, that the record demonstrates that automatic roaming is not available in certain instances today and, therefore, the continuing utility of the manual roaming rule in the immediate future is not completely obviated. For this reason, the Commission retains the manual roaming rule as a safety net to ensure that subscribers can initiate a wireless call when they are outside of their service area through manual
33. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
34. In the Report and Order, with regard to commercial services, the Commission takes an affirmative step to facilitate the provision of wireless services to consumers, especially those in rural areas, and to clarify its rules related to roaming. The Commission clarifies that automatic roaming is a common carrier obligation for CMRS carriers, requiring them to provide roaming services to other carriers upon reasonable request and on a just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory basis pursuant to Sections 201 and 202 of the Communications Act. The Commission reiterates its earlier determination that roaming is a common carrier service because roaming capability gives end users access to a foreign network in order to communicate messages of their own choosing. Thus, the provision of roaming is subject to the requirements of Section 201, 202, and 208 of the Communications Act.
35. The Commission also finds that the common carrier obligation to provide roaming extends to services that are real-time, two-way switched voice or data service that are interconnected with the public switched network and utilize an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls. The Commission notes that roaming, as a common carrier obligation, does not extend to services that are classified as information services or to services that are not CMRS.
36. The Commission recognizes that today CMRS consumers increasingly rely on mobile telephony services and they reasonably expect to continue their wireless communications even when they are out of their home network area. Thus, the findings in this Report and Order with respect to CMRS providers' obligations regarding roaming services serve the public interest and safeguard wireless consumers' reasonable expectations of seamless continuous nationwide commercial mobile telephony services through roaming. The Commission also declines to sunset the existing manual roaming requirement at this time to provide additional flexibility for consumers.
37. There were no comments filed specifically in response to the IRFA.
38. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
39. In the following paragraphs, the Commission further describes and estimates the number of small entity licensees that may be affected by the rules the Commission adopts in this Report and Order. The Commission's finding that automatic roaming is a common carrier service subject to protections outlined in Sections 201, 202 and 208 of the Act affects all CMRS carriers that provide real-time, two-way switched voice or data service that are interconnected with the public switched network and utilize an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls. Such carriers are obligated to provide automatic roaming. As a common carrier obligation, the automatic roaming rule does not extend to non-interconnected services/features or services that are classified as information services or to services that are not CMRS.
40. Since this Report and Order applies to multiple services, this FRFA analyzes the number of small entities affected on a service-by-service basis. When identifying small entities that could be affected by the Commission's new rules, this FRFA provides information that describes auctions results, including the number of small entities that were winning bidders. However, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily reflect the total number of small entities currently in a particular service. The Commission does not generally require that licensees later provide business size information, except in the context of an assignment or a transfer of control application that involves unjust enrichment issues.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46. The auction of the 1,050 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses for the General Category channels began on August 16, 2000, and was completed on September 1, 2000. Eleven bidders won 108 geographic area licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard. In an auction completed on December 5, 2000, a total of 2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz SMR service were sold. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed “small business” status and won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all three auctions, 40 winning bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR band claimed status as small business.
47. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in the 800 and 900 MHz bands. The Commission does not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $3 million or $15 million (the special small business size standards), or have no more than 1,500 employees (the generic SBA standard for wireless entities, discussed, supra). One firm has over $15 million in revenues. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56. The only reporting or recordkeeping costs to be incurred are administrative costs to ensure that an entity's practices are in compliance with the rule. The only compliance requirement is that CMRS carriers must provide automatic roaming to any requesting technologically compatible CMRS carrier outside of the requesting CMRS carrier's home market on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions. This rule applies to CMRS carriers that offer real-time, two-way switched voice or data service over digital network that is interconnected with the public switched network and utilize an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls.
57. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
58. In this Report and Order, the Commission clarifies that automatic roaming is a common carrier obligation for CMRS carriers, requiring them to provide roaming services to other carriers upon reasonable request and on a just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory basis pursuant to Sections 201 and 202 of the Communications Act. In adopting this rule, the Commission determined that when a reasonable request is made by a technologically compatible CMRS carrier, a host CMRS carrier must provide automatic roaming to the requesting carrier outside of the requesting carrier's home market, consistent with the protections of Sections 201 and 202 of the Communications Act.
59. In the Report and Order, the Commission finds that the scope of automatic roaming services includes only services offered by CMRS carriers that are real-time, two-way switched voice or data services that are interconnected with the public switched network and utilize an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls. In addition, the Commission determines that it would serve the public interest to extend automatic roaming obligation to push-to-talk and text messaging (SMS). However, the Commission declines to adopt a rule extending the automatic roaming obligation beyond that to offerings that do not fall within the scope of the automatic roaming services' definition, such as non-interconnected services or features or services that are classified as information services or to services that are not CMRS.
60. In response to the Reexamination NPRM, some of the commenters requested that the Commission cap the rates that a carrier may charge other carriers for automatic roaming service based on some benchmark of retail rates.
61. The Commission reiterates that the general policy regarding CMRS services is to allow competitive market forces, rather than regulations, to promote the development of wireless services. On balance, taking into consideration the concerns raised in the record by certain CMRS carriers
62. In the Reexamination NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether a carrier should be required to enter into an automatic roaming arrangement on a nondiscriminatory basis with a facilities-based-competitor in the same market. In the Report and Order, the Commission determines that the automatic roaming obligation does not include an in-market or home roaming requirement. The Commission finds that an automatic roaming request in the home area of a requesting CMRS carrier, the area where the requesting
63. In the Reexamination NPRM, the Commission sought comment on access to push-to-talk, dispatch, or other data roaming. Some carriers advocate that the Commission should adopt an automatic roaming rule that requires carriers to permit roaming access to all technical features of their systems, and/or require carriers to make the same features accessible to all of their roaming partners (e.g., push-to-talk, dispatch, text messaging (SMS) or other data roaming services). Based on the record, in the Report and Order, the Commission finds that it would serve public interest to extend automatic roaming obligations to push-to-talk and SMS. However, the Commission declines to adopt a rule extending the automatic roaming obligation beyond that to offerings that do not fall within the scope of the automatic roaming services' definition, such as non-interconnected services or features. With respect to push-to-talk and SMS, the Commission finds that such offerings are typically bundled as a feature on the handset with other CMRS services, such as real-time, two-way switched mobile voice or data, which are interconnected with the public switched network. Thus, consumers consider push-to-talk and SMS as features that are typically offered as adjuncts to basic voice services, and expect the same seamless connectivity with respect to these features and capabilities as they travel outside their home network service areas.
64. With respect to non-interconnected data service, the Commission finds that it is not in the public interest at this time to impose an automatic roaming obligation. In the absence of a clear showing in the record that it would serve the public interest, the Commission believes that open access to the non-interconnected features of a competitor's network might undercut incentives to differentiate products and could chill innovation. It may also adversely affect business decisions to build out facilities for facilities-based competition and reduce the incentives to access the spectrum through other means such as initial spectrum licensing or secondary markets. For these reasons, the Commission declines to impose an automatic roaming requirement on non-interconnected features, such as stand alone dispatch, at this time.
65. In the Report and Order, the Commission also declines to impose an affirmative obligation on CMRS carriers to post their roaming rates. The Commission notes that roaming agreements are generally confidential and filing them would impose administrative costs on the carriers. In light of the adoption of an automatic roaming rule, the Commission finds that the available remedies for redress are sufficient to address disputes that may arise. Therefore, the Commission finds it unnecessary to burden CMRS carriers by requiring them to file roaming agreements.
66. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.
67. Accordingly,
68.
69.
70.
Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Radio.
47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 251–254, 303 and 332 unless otherwise noted.
(a)(1)
(2)
(c)
(d)
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; dismissal.
The staff dismisses a counterproposal filed by Bible Broadcasting Network, Inc. to allot Channel 238A to Savona, New York, as a first local aural service. The Media Bureau also modifies its Consolidated Data Base System to reflect Channel 238A at Odessa, New York, as the reserved assignment for Station WFLR–FM in lieu of Channel 238A at Dundee, New York in response to a proposal filed by Finger Lakes Radio Group, Inc., and modifies Station WFLR–FM's license and construction permit accordingly. The reference coordinates for Channel 238A at Odessa, NY, are 42–20–38 NL and 76–53–03 WL. With this action, the proceeding is terminated. See
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Andrew J. Rhodes, Media Bureau, (202) 418–2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 06–97, adopted July 25, 2007, and released July 27, 2007. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1–800–378–3160 or
Finger Lakes Radio Group, Inc.'s proposal was formerly a rule change to Section 73.202(b), the FM Table of Allotments.
This document is not subject to the Congressional Review Act. (The Commission is, therefore, not required to submit a copy of this Report and Order to GAO, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Commission eliminates barriers to competitive entry in multiple dwelling units (MDUs) and in multiunit premises, when a new entrant seeks to compete against an incumbent provider. The Commission concluded that cutting and repairing sheet rock adds significantly to the physical difficulty and cost of wiring an MDU. In this document, the Commission again concludes that cable wiring located behind sheet rock qualifies as physically inaccessible under the Commission's rules for purposes of determining the demarcation point between home wiring and home run wiring. This ruling will facilitate competition in video distribution markets by clarifying the circumstances under which the existing cable home run wiring in MDUs can be made available to alternative video service providers.
Effective August 30, 2007.
For additional information on this proceeding, contact Karen Kosar,
This is a summary of that portion of the Commission's
1. In this
2. The
3. In 1993, the Commission first promulgated rules for cable home wiring and for the disposition of that wiring after termination of service. In 1996, the Commission addressed certain cable home wiring issues and sought comment regarding how the Commission should revise these rules to reflect new developments, and how to promote competition by ensuring that the Commission's rules would facilitate the use of new and diverse services. In 1997, the Commission sought further comment on and addressed issues regarding procedures for the disposition of home run wiring in MDUs when an MDU owner decides to terminate service for the entire building and when an MDU owner is willing to permit two or more video service providers to compete for subscribers in the MDU on a unit-by-unit basis. In 2003, the Commission resolved the issues presented on reconsideration in that proceeding. See 18 FCC Rcd at 1342 (2003).
4. Central to any discussion on cable home wiring or cable home run wiring is the matter of the MDU demarcation point, which is the point at which a consumer's home wiring becomes the network's home run wiring. The Commission had previously stated that the cable wiring demarcation point serves such multiple purposes as defining (1) the location at which the subscriber may control the internal home wiring if he or she owns it; (2) the point at which an alternative multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) would attach its wiring to the subscriber's wiring in order to provide service; and (3) the point from which the customer has the right to purchase cable home wiring upon termination of service. For purposes of this proceeding, a critical component of our discussion involves the location of the demarcation point because it is where a competing provider may access existing cable home wiring in an MDU building. The demarcation point for MDUs is set at (or about) twelve inches outside of where the cable wire enters the subscriber's individual dwelling unit. The demarcation point for single unit installations is the same.
5. The Appeals Court decision remanded that portion of the 2003 order that amended the Note to § 76.5(mm)(4) of the Commission's rules to indicate that wiring embedded in sheet rock would be considered physically inaccessible. Previously, the Commission provided examples of wiring that would be considered “physically inaccessible,” including wiring embedded in brick, metal conduit, and cinder blocks with limited or no access openings. Wiring simply enclosed within hallway molding would not be considered inaccessible. The Court found that the Commission offered no reasoned basis for expanding the Note to include sheet rock and remanded the case to the Commission for further consideration. In response, the Commission sought comment on its conclusions in the 2003 order with regard to § 76.5(mm)(4) of the rules and the amendment of the applicable Note.
6. The Court asserted that the Commission did not adequately support its conclusion that wiring behind sheet rock is “physically inaccessible” for purposes of the inside wiring rules. The Court found that the Commission had not explained why or how accessing wiring behind sheet rock requires “significant modification of, or significant damage to” the sheet rock. The Court also found that the Commission failed to explain the relative nature of the “damage” or “modification” related to accessing wiring behind sheet rock, and therefore that the Commission's conclusion regarding physical inaccessibility lacked adequate evidentiary support.
7. The Court also criticized the Commission's assessment of whether accessing cable wire behind sheet rock would “add significantly to the physical difficulty and/or cost” of accessing the subscriber's home wiring. The Court stated that while the Commission acknowledged that cutting through sheet rock is easier than boring through brick, metal, or cinder block, it did not support the conclusion that the lesser physical difficulty and cost are “significant.”
8. In response, the Commission sought additional comment with respect to whether cable wiring behind sheet rock should be considered physically inaccessible. The Commission set forth its premise that what preexisting structural elements should be included for purposes of determining the demarcation point and what is considered to be an accessible or inaccessible location should be based on practicality. In the 2003 order, the Commission incorporated its response to a
9. In this
10. The Commission concludes that the record supports the conclusion that accessing inside wiring behind sheet rock causes significant modification and damage to structural elements, i.e., walls and ceilings, albeit modification and damage that may be repairable. MDU resident owners and their managers are not only concerned with the condition of individually-owned units or apartments, but also with the condition of the common elements in these structures. For example, the record reveals that MDU resident owners and their managers will sometimes require an entire wall or ceiling to be repainted or re-wallpapered even where the hole cut in the sheet rock is significantly smaller than the wall or ceiling in order to restore the area to its original appearance. Requiring such extensive repair is a strong indication that there has been significant modification or damage to the pre-existing structural area. Unlike with single family residences, MDU residents share common walls and ceilings and have an interest in the condition and treatment of those common elements. With regard to the issues of fire safety and possible degradation of a building's resistance to moisture, we take a conservative approach and give credence to the commenters who argue that cutting into sheet rock may pose a safety risk or affect a building's resistance to moisture and thus may lead to significant modification or damage to such structural elements. Consequently, the Commission concludes that penetration of sheet rock for purposes of accessing inside wiring constitutes significant modification and damage to structural elements under the Commission's rules.
11. The Commission also finds that accessing the demarcation point behind sheet rock adds significantly to the physical difficulty and/or cost of accessing the subscriber's home wiring. The Commission notes that a finding of “physical difficulty” is not required because our rule requires that we find that cutting through the sheet rock would add significantly to the physical difficulty and/or costs of accessing the subscriber's home wiring. Nevertheless, the Commission concludes that the record supports a finding of significant physical difficulty in accessing the subscriber's home wiring. Accessing such wiring requires some level of physical harm to the property—i.e., access holes cut in the sheet rock—and that the property be restored to its original integrity and appearance. As the Commission has recognized throughout this decision, the repair is not always limited to the hole(s) cut; it can include repainting and/or re-wallpapering necessary to restore the premises. Those tasks can add significantly to the physical difficulty involved in accessing the wiring, certainly as compared to accessing wiring behind hallway molding (the example in the Commission's rules of wiring that is not physically inaccessible),
12. The Commission concludes that the cost of accessing wiring behind sheet rock is significant. In analyzing the costs involved in accessing wiring behind sheet rock, the Commission recognizes that the record reveals a wide divergence among the estimates offered by commenters—ranging from $25 to $1,000—as the appropriate sum needed to accomplish the job. Although the Commission finds that it cannot pick a precise monetary figure that fairly reflects the costs associated with accessing cable inside wiring, we believe it is reasonable that costs estimates could include factors such as how difficult it may be to satisfy the MDU owner and manager with repair work and whether a single unit or many units are worked on in one time period. Although the Commission does not have specific quotes for restoration work, it seems likely that repainting and/or re-wallpapering entire ceilings and walls can, at a minimum, run into the hundreds of dollars, particularly for more high-end MDUs that use more expensive surface finishes. These figures appear significant, especially when compared to the estimates we received for accessing wiring behind hallway molding.
13. The Commission is persuaded that removing and replacing molding is generally less intrusive and less expensive than cutting into sheet rock, locating the wiring, and then repairing the wall or ceiling to the satisfaction of MDU owners and managers. While there may be cases in which the cost of accessing wiring behind sheet rock may be comparable to removable molding the record demonstrates that the cost for sheet rock generally will be higher, and often significantly so.
14. The Commission finds that that cable wiring located behind sheet rock qualifies as physically inaccessible under Commission rules for purposes of determining the demarcation point between home wiring and home run wiring. Specifically, the Commission concludes that (1) accessing such wiring causes significant damage or modification to a preexisting structural element, and (2) accessing wiring behind sheet rock generally adds significantly to the physical difficulty and/or cost of accessing the subscriber's home wiring. The Commission's cable inside wiring rules are intended to facilitate competition in video distribution markets. This ruling will foster opportunities for competing MVPDs to provide service in MDUs by clarifying the circumstances under which the existing cable home run wiring in MDUs can be made available to alternative video service providers.
15.
16.
17.
18. Accordingly,
19.
20.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
This final rule amends regulations on insurer reporting requirements. The appendices list those passenger motor vehicle insurers that are required to file reports on their motor vehicle theft loss experiences. An insurer included in any of these appendices must file three copies of its report for the 2004 calendar year before October 25, 2007. If the passenger motor vehicle insurers remain listed, they must submit reports by each subsequent October 25.
This final rule becomes effective on October 1, 2007, given the date of submission. Insurers listed in the appendices are required to submit reports before October 25, 2007.
If you wish to submit a petition for reconsideration of this rule, your petition must be received by October 15, 2007.
Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Room W41–307, Washington, DC 20590.
Rosalind Proctor, Office of International Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Room W43–302, Washington, DC 20590, by
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33112,
(1) Issuers of motor vehicle insurance policies whose total premiums account for 1 percent or more of the total premiums of motor vehicle insurance issued within the United States;
(2) Issuers of motor vehicle insurance policies whose premiums account for 10 percent or more of total premiums written within any one state; and
(3) Rental and leasing companies with a fleet of 20 or more vehicles not covered by theft insurance policies issued by insurers of motor vehicles, other than any governmental entity.
Pursuant to its statutory exemption authority, the agency exempted certain passenger motor vehicle insurers from the reporting requirements.
Section 33112(f)(2) provides that the agency shall exempt small insurers of passenger motor vehicles if NHTSA finds that such exemptions will not significantly affect the validity or usefulness of the information in the reports, either nationally or on a State-by-State basis. The term “small insurer” is defined, in Section 33112(f)(1)(A) and (B), as an insurer whose premiums for motor vehicle insurance issued directly or through an affiliate, including pooling arrangements established under State law or regulation for the issuance of motor vehicle insurance, account for less than 1 percent of the total premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance issued by insurers within the United States. However, that section also stipulates that if an insurance company satisfies this definition of a “small insurer,” but accounts for 10 percent or more of the total premiums for all motor vehicle insurance issued in a particular state, the insurer must report about its operations in that State.
In the final rule establishing the insurer reports requirement (49 CFR part 544), (52 FR 59; January 2, 1987), NHTSA exercised its exemption authority by listing in Appendix A each insurer that must report because it had at least 1 percent of the motor vehicle insurance premiums nationally. Listing the insurers subject to reporting, instead of each insurer exempted from reporting because it had less than 1 percent of the premiums nationally, is administratively simpler since the former group is much smaller than the latter. In Appendix B, NHTSA lists those insurers required to report for particular states because each insurer had a 10 percent or greater market share of motor vehicle premiums in those states. In the January 1987 final rule, the agency stated that it would update Appendices A and B annually. NHTSA updates the appendices based on data voluntarily provided by insurance companies to A.M. Best, which A.M. Best
In addition, upon making certain determinations, NHTSA grants exemptions to self-insurers, i.e., any person who has a fleet of 20 or more motor vehicles (other than any governmental entity) used for rental or lease whose vehicles are not covered by theft insurance policies issued by insurers of passenger motor vehicles, 49 U.S.C. 33112(b)(1) and (f). Under 49 U.S.C. 33112(e)(1) and (2), NHTSA may exempt a self-insurer from reporting, if the agency determines:
(1) The cost of preparing and furnishing such reports is excessive in relation to the size of the business of the insurer; and 33112(e)(1) and (2),
(2) The insurer's report will not significantly contribute to carrying out the purposes of Chapter 331.
In a final rule published June 22, 1990 (55 FR 25606), the agency granted a class exemption to all companies that rent or lease fewer than 50,000 vehicles, because it believed that the largest companies' reports sufficiently represent the theft experience of rental and leasing companies. NHTSA concluded that smaller rental and leasing companies' reports do not significantly contribute to carrying out NHTSA's statutory obligations and that exempting such companies will relieve an unnecessary burden on them. As a result of the June 1990 final rule, the agency added Appendix C, consisting of an annually updated list of the self-insurers subject to Part 544. Following the same approach as in Appendix A, NHTSA included, in Appendix C, each of the self-insurers subject to reporting instead of the self-insurers which are exempted. NHTSA updates Appendix C based primarily on information from
Under Part 544, as long as an insurer is listed, it must file reports on or before October 25 of each year. Thus, any insurer listed in the appendices must file a report before October 25, and by each succeeding October 25, absent an amendment removing the insurer's name from the appendices.
On April 9, 2007, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to update the list of insurers in Appendices A, B, and, C required to file reports (72 FR 17465). Appendix A lists insurers that must report because each had 1 percent of the motor vehicle insurance premiums on a national basis. The list was last amended in a final rule published on September 5, 2006 (71 FR 52291). Based on the 2004 calendar year market share data from A.M. Best, NHTSA proposed to remove Travelers PC Group and add St Paul Travelers Companies to Appendix A.
Each of the 18 insurers listed in Appendix A are required to file a report before October 25, 2007, setting forth the information required by Part 544 for each State in which it did business in the 2004 calendar year. As long as these 18 insurers remain listed, they are required to submit a report by each subsequent October 25 for the calendar year ending slightly less than 3 years before.
Appendix B lists insurers required to report for particular States for calendar year 2004, because each insurer had a 10 percent or greater market share of motor vehicle premiums in those States. Based on the 2004 calendar year data for market shares from A.M. Best, we proposed to remove Arbella Mutual Insurance (Massachusetts) and add the
The nine insurers listed in Appendix B are required to report on their calendar year 2004 activities in every State where they had a 10 percent or greater market share. These reports must be filed by October 25, 2007, and set forth the information required by Part 544. As long as these nine insurers remain listed, they would be required to submit reports on or before each subsequent October 25 for the calendar year ending slightly less than 3 years before.
Appendix C lists rental and leasing companies required to file reports. Based on information in
The agency received no comments in response to the NPRM for Appendices A, B and C. Therefore, this final rule adopts the proposed changes to Appendix A, B and C. Accordingly, NHTSA has determined that each of the 18 insurers listed in Appendix A, each of the nine insurers listed in Appendix B and each of eight companies listed in Appendix C are required to submit an insurer report on its experience for calendar year 2004 as required by 49 CFR Part 544.
Passenger motor vehicle insurers listed in the appendices can forward their theft loss reports to the agency in several ways:
a.
b.
c.
Theft loss reports may also be submitted to the docket electronically by:
d. Logging onto the Dockets Management System Web site at
This notice has not been reviewed under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. NHTSA has considered the impact of this final rule and determined that the action is not “significant” within the meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This final rule implements the agency's policy of ensuring that all insurance companies that are statutorily eligible for exemption from the insurer reporting requirements are in fact exempted from those requirements. Only those companies that are not statutorily eligible for an exemption are required to file reports.
NHTSA does not believe that this rule, reflecting current data, affects the impacts described in the final regulatory evaluation prepared for the final rule establishing Part 544 (52 FR 59; January 2, 1987). Accordingly, a separate regulatory evaluation has not been prepared for this rulemaking action. Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for 2006 (
Interested persons may wish to examine the 1987 final regulatory evaluation. Copies of that evaluation were placed in Docket No. T86–01; Notice 2. Any interested person may obtain a copy of this evaluation by writing to NHTSA, Docket Section, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building (Ground Floor), Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590, or by calling (202) 366–4949.
The information collection requirements in this final rule were submitted and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
The agency also considered the effects of this rulemaking under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action has been analyzed according to the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined that the final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, NHTSA has considered the environmental impacts of this final rule and determined that it would not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
This final rule does not have any retroactive effect, and it does not preempt any State law, 49 U.S.C. 33117 provides that judicial review of this rule may be obtained pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32909, and section 32909 does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading, at the beginning, of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:
• Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
• Are the requirements in the proposal clearly stated?
• Does the proposal contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
• Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the proposal easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, you can forward them to me several ways:
a.
b.
c.
Crime insurance, Insurance, Insurance companies, Motor vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 U.S.C. 33112; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
(a) * * * This report shall contain the information required by § 544.6 of this part for the calendar year 3 years previous to the year in which the report is filed (e.g., the report due by October 25, 2007 will contain the required information for the 2004 calendar year).
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Rural Utilities Service, an agency delivering the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Development Utilities Programs, hereinafter referred to as Rural Development and/or the Agency, proposes to amend its regulations regarding Bulletin 50–70 (U–1) for electric distribution specifications for 15 kV and 25 kV primary underground power cable. This proposed rule is necessary to provide Agency electric borrowers with updated specifications for 15 kV and 25 kV underground power cable, and to provide borrowers with specifications for 35 kV underground power cable for use in 25 kV primary systems. These specifications cover single-phase and multi-phase primary underground power cable which Agency electric borrowers use to construct their rural underground electric distribution systems.
Written comments must be received by the Agency or bear a postmark or equivalent no later than October 29, 2007.
Submit adverse comments or notice of intent to submit adverse comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mr. Trung V. Hiu, Electrical Engineer, Electric Staff Division, Distribution Branch, Utilities Program, USDA Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 1262–S, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–1569. Telephone: (202) 720–1877. Fax: (202) 720–7491. E-mail:
This proposed rule is exempted from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by OMB.
This proposed rule is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Consultation, which may require consultation with State and local officials. A notice of final rule entitled “Department Programs and Activities Excluded from Executive Order 12372,” (50 FR 47034) exempted USDA Rural Development Utilities Program loans and loan guarantees to from coverage under this order.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. USDA Rural Development has determined that this proposed rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of the Executive Order. In addition, all state and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule and in accordance with section 212(e) of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912(e)) administrative appeal procedures, if any, must be exhausted before an action against the Department or its agencies may be initiated.
This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Under Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
USDA Rural Development has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not applicable to this rule since USDA Rural Development is not required by 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. or any other provision of the law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with request to the subject matter of this rule.
This proposed rule contains no additional information collection or recordkeeping requirements approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The program described by this proposed rule is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs under No. 10.850, Rural Electrification Loans and Loan Guarantees. This
This proposed rule is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Consultation, which may require consultation with State and local officials. See the final rule related notice titled “Department Programs and Activities Excluded from Executive Order 12372” (50 FR 47034), advising that USDA Rural Development Utilities Programs loans and loan guarantees are excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372.
This proposed rule contains no Federal Mandates (under the regulatory provision of title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 [2 U.S.C. Chapter 25]) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
USDA Rural Development has determined that this proposed rule will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Therefore, this action does not require an environmental impact statement or assessment.
Pursuant to the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.), the Agency is proposing to amend Title 7 CFR Chapter XVII, Part 1728, Electric Standards and Specifications for Materials and Construction, by revising RUS Bulletin 50–70 (U–1), “Specifications for 15 kV and 25 kV Primary Underground Power Cable.” This revised bulletin will be renumbered and renamed Bulletin 1728F–U1, “Specification for Primary Underground Power Cable.” The proposed action would continue to incorporate the revised bulletin by reference in 7 CFR 1728.97 and RUS Bulletin 50–70 (U–1) would be rescinded and removed from the list in 7 CFR 1728.97. The change in the bulletin number and reformatting is necessary to conform to current publications and directives system. The Agency maintains a system of bulletins that contain construction standards and specifications for materials and equipment which must be complied with when system facilities are constructed by electric and telecommunications borrowers in accordance with the loan contract. These standards and specifications contain standard construction units and material items and equipment units commonly used in electric and telecommunications borrowers' systems.
Bulletin 50–70 (U–1) provides standard requirements for 15 kV and 25 kV single-phase and multi-phase primary underground power cable with cross-linked polyethylene with tree retardant or ethylene propylene rubber insulation, concentric neutral, and insulating outer jacket. The Agency proposes to update the specifications for 15 kV and 25 kV primary underground cable while adding specifications for 35 kV primary underground power cable.
1. Water blocking sealant would be required in all stranded conductor cables.
2. The plain cross-linked polyethylene (XLP) would be removed and be replaced by tree-retardant cross-linked polyethylene (TR–XLPE) as an acceptable insulation material.
3. Nominal insulation thickness on 25 kV cable would be reduced from 345 mils to 260 mils.
4. An optional semi-conducting jacketing material would be added to the specification for cables of all three specified voltages. Cables with semi-conducting jackets may be used by USDA Rural Development borrowers in areas with soil resistivity greater than 25 ohm-meter, in lieu of using cables with an insulating jacket to help improve the effectiveness of system grounding in locations of high soil resistivity.
The following table summarizes all of the changes and contains a cross walk between the format of the current bulletin and the new proposed bulletin:
Electric power, Loan programs—energy, Rural areas.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 7 CFR part 1728 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 1728 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 901
2. Section 1728.97(b) is amended by removing the entry for RUS Bulletin 50–70, and adding to the list of bulletins, in numerical order, the entry for Bulletin 1728F–U1 to read as follows:
(b) List of bulletins.
Bulletin 1728F–U1, Specifications for Primary Underground Power Cable,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Connecticut. This revision proposes to establish early fine particulate (PM
Written comments must be received on or before October 1, 2007.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2007–0373 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this
Donald O. Cooke, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114–2023, telephone number (617) 918–1668, fax number (617) 918–0668, e-mail
In the Final Rules Section of this
For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seeks comment on whether it should extend the automatic roaming obligation of commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) carriers to non-interconnected services or features, including services that have been classified as information services, such as wireless broadband Internet access service, or other non-CMRS services. The FCC further seeks comment on the implications of extending the automatic roaming obligation in this manner.
Comments due on or before October 29, 2007 and reply comments are due on or before November 28, 2007.
You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 05–265, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
Christina Clearwater at (202) 418–1893,
This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), WT Docket No. 05–265, FCC No. 07–143, adopted August 7, 2007 and released August 16, 2007. The full text of the FNPRM is available for public inspection on the Commission's Internet site at
This document does not contain an information collection subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and therefore does not contain any new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.
1. In the FNPRM, the FCC seeks comment on whether it should extend the automatic roaming obligation of CRMS carriers to non-interconnected services or features, including services that have been classified as information services, such as wireless broadband Internet access service, or other non-interconnected non-CMRS services offered by CMRS carriers, and on the legal and policy basis for doing so. The FCC further seeks comment on the implications of extending the automatic roaming obligation in this manner.
2. To what extent, if any, would requiring roaming access to non-interconnected services and features undermine carriers' incentive to innovate or invest in mobile wireless broadband network facilities? Would the potential for undermining innovation be mitigated by conditioning roaming access to non-interconnected services and features, as the Commission has, for example, with push-to-talk and SMS? Namely, should the Commission require that the requesting carrier must offer the requested service or feature to its subscribers on its own home network; that roaming must be technically feasible; and any changes to the would-be host carrier's network that are necessary to accommodate roaming requests extending to these services and features must be economically reasonable?
3. If the Commission were to extend automatic roaming obligations to non-interconnected services and features, are there any special issues (technical, economic, or otherwise) associated with roaming data networks that may not exist when roaming among CMRS carriers' interconnected voice networks? For example, are there any issues regarding network capacity, network integrity, or network security? The Commission seeks comment on the effect that automatic roaming would have on the capacity of data networks and the ability of carriers to offer full access to their own customers. The Commission would be concerned if requiring a carrier to offer roaming service on its data network to the customers of other carriers resulted in the carrier facing capacity constraints that adversely affect its own customers. The Commission therefore asks whether a carrier should have the right to limit access to its network by roamers, and what parameters should be considered as justification for such limits. The Commission invites commenters to suggest specific standards for determining when the requirement should or should not apply.
4. If the Commission were to extend automatic roaming obligations to non-interconnected services and features, should all such services and features be included? Are there any public interest reasons to treat narrowband and broadband data services differently in the context of automatic roaming? In the Wireless Broadband Classification Order,
5. The rulemaking shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules.
6. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
•
• ECFS filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for WT Docket No. 05–265. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and WT Docket No. 05–265. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to
•
• The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
7. Parties should send a copy of their filings to: Christina Clearwater, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or by e-mail to
8. Documents in WT Docket No. 05–265 will be available for public inspection and copying during business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The documents may also be purchased from BCPI, telephone (202) 488–5300, facsimile (202) 488–5563, TTY (202) 488–5562, e-mail
9. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to
10. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (the “RFA”),
11. Building on the decisions made in the Report and Order, the FNPRM
12. In the FNPRM, the Commission notes that while a few CMRS providers have requested that the Commission require automatic roaming for all services, including non-interconnected data services provided over enhanced digital networks,
13. The authority for the actions taken in this FNPRM is contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 201, 202, 251(a), 253, 303(r), and 332(c)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201, 202, 251(a), 253, 303(r), and 332(c)(1)(B).
14. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
15. In the following paragraphs, the Commission further describes and estimates the number of small entity licensees that may be affected by the rules the Commission adopts in this Report and Order. The Commission's finding that automatic roaming is a common carrier service subject to protections outlined in sections 201, 202 and 208 of the Act affects all CMRS carriers that provide real-time, two-way switched voice or data service that are interconnected with the public switched network and utilize an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls. Such carriers are obligated to provide automatic roaming. As a common carrier obligation, the automatic roaming rule does not extend to non-interconnected services/features or services that are classified as information services or to services that are not CMRS.
16. Since this Report and Order applies to multiple services, this FRFA analyzes the number of small entities affected on a service-by-service basis. When identifying small entities that could be affected by the Commission's new rules, this FRFA provides information that describes auction results, including the number of small entities that were winning bidders. However, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily reflect the total number of small entities currently in a particular service. The Commission does not generally require that licensees later provide business size information, except in the context of an assignment or a transfer of control application that involves unjust enrichment issues.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22. The auction of the 1,050 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses for the
23. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in the 800 and 900 MHz bands. The Commission does not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $3 million or $15 million (the special small business size standards), or have no more than 1,500 employees (the generic SBA standard for wireless entities, discussed supra). One firm has over $15 million in revenues. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41. The Commission has defined small MDS (now BRS) and LMDS entities in the context of Commission license auctions. In the 1996 MDS auction,
42. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities; however, the Commission has not created a specific small business size standard for ITFS (now EBS).
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51. Should the Commission decide to extend the automatic roaming requirement to non-interconnected services or features, including services that have been classified as information services, such as broadband Internet access service, or other non-CMRS services, the only reporting or recordkeeping costs incurred will be administrative costs to ensure that an entity's practices are in compliance with the automatic rule. The compliance requirement is that carriers must provide automatic roaming to any requesting technologically compatible carrier outside of the requesting carrier's home market on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions.
52. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
53. The Commission's primary objective in this proceeding is to facilitate seamless wireless communications for consumers, even when they are outside of the coverage area of their own service providers. The FNPRM seeks to build on the decisions made in the Report and Order. In the Report and Order, the Commission clarifies that the automatic roaming is a common carrier obligation and adopts an automatic roaming rule that is applicable to services offered by CMRS carriers that are real-time, two-way switched voice or data services that are interconnected with the public switched network, and to push-to-talk and text messaging service.
54. To the extent that addressing the issue raised in the FNPRM requires modifying the applicability of the automatic roaming rules, the Commission seeks comment on the effect that such rule changes will have on small entities, on whether alternative rules should be adopted for small entities in particular, and on what effect such alternative rules would have on those entities. The Commission invites comment on ways in which the Commission can achieve its goals while at the same time impose minimal burdens on small wireless service providers. Below, the Commission summarizes the issues raised in the FNPRM.
55.
56.
57.
58. None.
59. Accordingly,
60.
61.
62.
United States Agency for International Development.
Notice to delete systems of records.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 (U.S.C. 552a), as amended, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is deleting nine systems of records notices in its existing inventory.
This proposed action will be effective on October 1, 2007.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Ms. Barbara English, Office of Human Resources, Policy, Planning and Information Division either by e-mail at
USAID has reviewed its Privacy Act systems of records. As a result of this review, USAID is deleting nine systems of records notices in its existing inventory. All nine systems being deleted are covered under government-wide systems of records. The specific deletions are set forth below.
AID–1, Foreign Service Employee Personnel Records System.
AID–2, Civil Service Employee Office Personnel Records.
AID–6, Recruiting, Examining, Placement and Employee Records.
AID–7, Foreign Service Personnel Evaluation Records.
AID–11, Employee Conduct and Discipline Records.
AID–12, Executive Assignment Records.
AID–13, Orientation and Training Records.
AID–14, Awards and Incentive Records.
AID–24, Emergency Case File.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The USDA Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact statement to disclose the environmental effects resulting from construction of fuel breaks known as defensible fuel profile zones (DFPZs); harvest and reforestation of timber stands; restoration and enhancement of aquatic and riparian habitat; improvement of wildlife habitat and long term watershed condition; underburning to improve the health of unique plant communities; and road construction, reconstruction, and decommissioning.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the
Send written comments to Karen Hayden, District Ranger, Plumas National Forest, Feather River Ranger District, 875 Mitchell Ave, Oroville, CA 95965. Comments may be (1) Mailed to the Responsible Official; (2) hand-delivered between the hours of 8 a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays; (3) faxed to (530) 532–1210; or (4) electronically mailed
John Zarlengo, Project Leader, Feather River Ranger District, 875 Mitchell Avenue, Oroville, CA 95965, or call (530) 532–8932.
The Flea Project area is located within the Feather River Ranger District of the Plumas National Forest in Butte County. Encompassing approximately 11,000 acres, the project area is located north and east of Paradise, from De Sabla in the northwest to Jorbo Gap in the southeast, and north and west of Mayaro and North Fork of the Feather River in the northeast. Treatment units range in elevation from 1,600 to 4,300 feet above sea level. Communities in and near the project area include Paradise, Magalia, DeSabla, Yankee Hill, Concow, Pulga and Mayaro.
The Flea Project is proposed as part of a broad resource management program to promote the ecological health of lands and economic health and stability of communities in the northern Sierra Nevada under the authority of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG Act).
The Forest Service has identified the following project objectives: (1) Protect communities and forest ecosystems from high-intensity wildfires; (2) promote a healthy all-aged, multistoried, fire-resilient forest; (3) contribute to the stability and economic health of communities; (4) promote the health of unique plant communities; (5) promote healthy aquatic and riparian ecosystems, and improve long term watershed condition; and (6) improve wildlife habitat.
To achieve project objectives, the Forest Service proposes to construct approximately 2,007 acres of fuelbreaks known as Defensible Fuel Profile Zones (DFPZ). A DFPZ is a strategically located strip of land approximately
Proposed DFPZs are generally located on ridges, along roads, or adjacent to private property within wildland urban interface with tree crowns spaced at a distance that reduces the potential for crown fire spread (generally 40 percent canopy cover). DFPZs would be constructed through mechanically thinning and biomass removal on approximately 671 acres, mastication on approximately 456 acres, underburning on approximately 447 acres, and hand cutting, piling, and burning on approximately 433 acres.
The Forest Service proposes to harvest up to 5 million board feet of timber from group selection units (228 acres), and DFPZ mechanical thinning units (546 acres). Group selection involves harvest of trees less than 30-inches in diameter from small (0.5 to 2 acres) groups. Over time, this would create an uneven-aged (all-aged) forest made up of a mosaic of small groups of same-aged trees.
Use of existing and temporary roads would be needed to access group selection and DFPZ treatment areas. An estimated 13.4 miles of existing road would be reconstructed with 0.45 additional miles of new classified road construction and 4.5 miles of new temporary spur construction. An estimated 9.5 miles of system roads would be decommissioned or closed by various methods, such as ripping and seeding, re-contouring, and installing barriers. Future use of all other roads and user-developed OHV routes in the Flea Project area would be determined by the Plumas National Forest's travel management process. Improve the health of serpentine plant communities through the use of prescribed fire. Underburn approximately 100 acres included as DFPZ treatment.
Aquatic and riparian restoration projects include restoring and enhancing aquatic, native plant, and riparian habitat and improving long term watershed condition by decommissioning 9.5 miles of system roads, replacing or upgrading three culverts to restore aquatic species passage to approximately 5 miles of upstream habitat; and stabilizing stream channels and banks.
Habitat for northern goshawk would be improved by enhancing tree growth and health, and by creating a more desirable open understory on 84 acres included as DFPZ treatment.
Karen L. Hayden, District Ranger, 875 Mitchell Ave., Oroville, CA 95965 is the Responsible Official. The Forest Service intends to use Stewardship contracting authority to apply the value from timber harvest to offset costs of fuel treatments.
The Responsible Official will decide whether to implement this proposal, an alternative design that moves the project area towards the desired conditions, or not to implement any project at this time.
Public questions and comments regarding this proposal are an integral part of this environmental analysis process. Comments will be used to identify issues and develop alternatives to the proposed action. To assist the Forest service in identifying and considering issues and concerns related to the proposed actions, comments should be as specific as possible.
Information about the proposed action will be mailed to the adjacent landowners, as well as to those people and organizations that have indicated a specific interest in the project, to Native American entities, and federal, state, and local agencies. The public will be notified of any meetings regarding this proposal by mailings and press releases sent to local newspapers and media. A community meeting in the project area is planned for January 2008, although specific information is not available at this time.
The following preliminary issues have been identified for this proposal: (a) Impacts of ground disturbing activities on watershed condition, (b) impacts of activities on highly erodible soils, (c) economic feasibility of the project due to high treatment and regeneration costs, and (d) impacts of activities on habitat used by the California spotted owl and northern goshawk. Continued analysis will determine the relevance of these preliminary issues. Additional issues may be identified during the scoping process.
No federal permits, licenses, or entitlements are necessary to implement the proposed project. State requirements, based on federal laws, and administered by the County Agricultural Commissioner for air quality management will be followed. These requirements include burning only on permissive burn days or receiving a special variance prior to ignition. Smoke permits are required from the Northern Sierra and Feather River Air Quality Management Districts (AQMD) prior to any understory or pile burning. Timber Harvest Activity Waivers are required from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. The public is encouraged to take part in the process and is encouraged to visit with Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior to the decision. The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in, or affected by, the proposed vegetation management activities.
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.
A correction is hereby made to the meeting notice of the Hawaii Advisory Committee that appeared in the second column, first paragraph, at line 8, on August 22, 2007, in Vol. 72 of the
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Victoria Cho, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5075.
On February 2, 2007, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hot–rolled carbon steel flat products from India, covering the period December 1, 2005 to November 30, 2006.
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order or finding for which a review is requested. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act further states that if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period specified, the administering authority may extend the 245-day period to issue its preliminary results to up to 365 days.
We determine that completion of the preliminary results of this review within the 245-day period is not practicable for the following reasons. This review covers four companies, and to conduct the sales and cost analyses for each company requires the Department to gather and analyze a significant amount of information pertaining to each company's sales practices, manufacturing costs and corporate relationships. Given the number and complexity of issues in this case, and in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review by 108 days. Therefore, the preliminary results are now due no later than December 19, 2007. The final results continue to be due 120 days after publication of the preliminary results.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
August 30, 2007.
Victoria Cho or George McMahon, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5075 and (202) 482–1167, respectively.
On March 27, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation of a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on corrosion–resistant carbon steel flat products from Korea covering the period August 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007.
Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary results of a new shipper review within 180 days of the date it was initiated. However, if the Department concludes that the case is extraordinarily complicated, it may extend the 180-day period to 300 days. Based on an allegation filed by the petitioner, we initiated a sales–below-cost investigation on July 6, 2007, and received the response to section D of the questionnaire on August 10, 2007. To allow sufficient time to analyze the sales and cost data and issue supplemental questionnaires, we must extend the time limit to complete the preliminary results of this review. Furthermore, the Department requires additional time to fully analyze the
This extension is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(I)(2).
Notice of issuance of an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to the American Sugar Alliance, Application No. 06–A0003.
On August 24, 2007, The U.S. Department of Commerce issued an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to the American Sugar Alliance (“ASA”).
Jeffrey C. Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, (202) 482–5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail at
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001–21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR Part 325 (2005).
Export Trading Company Affairs (“ETCA”) is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the U.S. Department of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the
The original ASA Certificate (Application No. 06–00003) was issued on March 16, 2007 (72 FR 14081, March 26, 2007).
ASA's Export Trade Certificate of Review has been amended to:
1. Add the following company as a new “Member” of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(l) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(l)): Americane Sugar Refining LLC, Taylor, MI.
2. Revise the “CPA Administration” and “Information Collection and Exchange” sections found within Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation so that these sections read as follows:
The ASA will allocate all CPAs at one time. ASA may reallocate CPAs if a new Producer becomes a Member. In the event that any CPAs are returned to ASA for any reason, ASA will reallocate those CPAs among interested Producers. The allocation, and any reallocations, will be completed before December 16, 2007.
ASA may ask Producers individually for their production capacity figures for 2006 for the purposes of allocating the CPAs. Producers may supply that information to ASA, and ASA may allocate and reallocate CPAs to Producers based on this information.
The effective date of the amended certificate is May 29, 2007. A copy of the amended certificate will be kept in the International Trade Administration's Freedom of Information Records Inspection Facility, Room 4001, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Notice of revocation of Export Trade Certificate of Review Application No. 01–00004.
The Secretary of Commerce issued an Export Trade Certificate of Review to International Trading Group, LLC on September 26, 2001. Because
Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, 202/482–5131. This is not a Toll-free number.
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (“The Act”) (Pub. L. 97–290, 15 U.S.C. 4011–21) Authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to Issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The Regulations Implementing Title III (“the Regulations”) are found at 15 CFR Part 325 (1999). Pursuant to this Authority, a Certificate of Review was issued on September 26, 2001 to International Trading Group, LLC.
A Certificate Holder is required by law to submit to the Secretary of Commerce Annual Reports that update financial and other information relating to business activities covered by its Certificate (Section 308 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 4018, Section 325.14(a) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.14(a)). The Annual Report is due within 45 days after the Anniversary Date of the Issuance of the Certificate of Review (Sections 325.14(b) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.14(b)). Failure to submit a complete Annual Report may be the Basis for Revocation (Sections 325.10(a) and 325.14(c) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.10(a)(3) and 325.14(c)). On September 16, 2006, the Secretary of Commerce sent to International Trading Group, LLC a letter containing Annual Report questions stating that its annual report was due on November 10, 2006. A reminder was sent on June 22, 2007, with a due date of July 23, 2007. The Secretary has received no written response from International Trading Group, LLC to any of these letters. On July 27, 2007, and in accordance with Section 325.10(c)(1) of the Regulations, (15 CFR 325.10(c)(1)), the Secretary of Commerce sent a letter by Certified Mail to notify International Trading Group, LLC that the Secretary was formally initiating the process to revoke its Certificate for failure to file an annual report. The Secretary has received no response from International Trading Group, LLC. Pursuant to Section 325.10(c)(2) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.10(c)(2)), the Secretary considers the failure of International Trading Group, LLC to respond to be an admission of the statements contained in the notification letter. The Secretary has determined to revoke the Certificate issued to International Trading Group, LLC for its failure to file an annual report. The Secretary has sent a letter, dated August 27, 2007 to notify the International Trading Group, LLC of its final determination.
The Revocation is effective thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this notice (325.10(c)(4) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.10(c)). Any person aggrieved by this decision may appeal to an appropriate U.S. District Court within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice in the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice of solicitation for nominations for potential Sea Grant Review panelists.
This notice responds to Section 209 of the Sea Grant Program Improvement Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94–461, 33 U.S.C. 1128), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to solicit nominations at least once a year for membership on the Sea Grant Review Panel. This advisory committee provides advice on the implementation of the National Sea Grant College Program.
Resumes should be sent to the address specified and must be received by September 19, 2007.
Dr. Jim D. Murray; Designated Federal Official, Sea Grant Review Panel; Deputy Director, National Sea Grant College Program; 1315 East-West Highway, Room 11841; Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.
Dr. Jim D. Murray of the National Sea Grant College Program at the address given above; telephone (301) 734–1077 x1070 or fax number (301) 713–1031.
Section 209 of the Act establishes a Sea Grant Review Panel to advise the Secretary of Commerce, the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, and the Director of the National Sea Grant College Program on the implementation of the Sea Grant Program. The panel provides advice on such matters as:
(a) The Sea Grant Fellowship Program;
(b) Applications or proposals for, and performance under, grants and contracts awarded under the Sea Grant Program Improvement Act of 1976, as amended at 33 U.S.C. 1124;
(c) The designation and operation of sea grant colleges and sea grant institutes; and the operation of the sea grant program;
(d) The formulation and application of the planning guidelines and priorities under 33 U.S.C. 1123(a) and (c)(1); and
(e) Such other matters as the Secretary refers to the panel for review and advice.
The Panel is to consist of 15 voting members composed as follows: Not less than eight of the voting members of the panel should be individuals who, by reason of knowledge, experience, or training, are especially qualified in one or more of the disciplines and fields included in marine science. The other voting members shall be individuals who by reason of knowledge, experience, or training, are especially qualified in, or representative of, education, extension service, state government, industry, economics, planning, or any other activity which is appropriate to, and important for, any effort to enhance the understanding, assessment, development, utilization, or conservation of ocean and coastal resources. No individual is eligible to be a voting member of the panel if the individual is (a) the director of a sea grant college, sea grant regional consortium, or sea grant program, (b) an applicant for or beneficiary (as determined by the Secretary) of any grant or contract under 33 U.S.C. 1124 or (c) a full-time officer or employee of the United States. The Director of the National Sea Grant College Program and one Director of a Sea Grant Program also serve as non-voting members. Panel members are appointed for a 4-year term.
Department of Defense.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the DAB–ESGR. This meeting will focus on the status of DoD actions and recommendations from previous DAB meetings, relevant discussion on U.S. Government inter-agency Transition Assistance study and successful employer support programs in four States. This meeting is open to the public.
0830–1230 hrs, 12 September 2007.
Interested attendees may contact MAJ Elaine M. Gullotta at 703–696–1385 ext. 540, or e-mail at
Major E. Gullotta, 703–696–1386 ext. 540.
Department of the Air Force, Air Force Real Property Agency.
Notice.
Title 10, United States Code, Section 2869(d)(1).
This notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property under the administrative jurisdiction of the United States Air Force that the Air Force intends to exchange for property beneficial to the Air Force.
Kelli Britt, Air Force Real Property Agency (AFRPA), 1700 N. Moore St., Suite 2300, Arlington, VA 22209–2802; telephone (703) 696–5514, (this telephone number is not toll-free).
In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2869(d)(2), the Air Force is publishing this Notice to identify Federal real property that the Air Force has reviewed for suitability to dispose of in exchange for property beneficial to the Air Force. The property was screened within the Department of Defense (DoD) and no DoD agencies have expressed an interest in the property.
The Air Force reviewed the property: Charleston Air Force Base (AFB), South Carolina.
And will exchange this property for: Property owned by South Carolina Electric and Gas.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy (DON) hereby gives notice of a requirement to submit donation applications to obtain the guided missile cruiser ex-TICONDEROGA (CG 47) for use as a static museum/memorial for public display under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 7306. The ex-TICONDEROGA was struck from the Naval Vessel Register on August 12, 2004 and is located at the NAVSEA Inactive Ships On-Site Maintenance Office, Philadelphia, PA. Eligible recipients include: (1) Any State, Commonwealth, or possession of the United States or any municipal corporation or political subdivision thereof; (2) the District of Columbia; or (3) any not-for-profit or non-profit entity.
The transfer of a vessel for donation under 10 U.S.C. 7306 shall be at no cost to the United States Government.
The donee will be required to maintain the vessel as a static display in a condition that is satisfactory to the Secretary of the Navy.
A letter of intent will be required within 45 days from the date of this notice and all donation applications must be received by January 31, 2008. The DON will foreclose consideration of donation of ex-TICONDEROGA to any entity that does not submit a letter of intent to the DON within 45 days of the date of this notice.
Prospective applicants must submit a letter of intent to the Navy Inactive Ships Program office within 45 days of this
a. Identify the specific vessel sought for donation;
b. Include a statement of the proposed use for the vessel;
c. Identify the proposed berthing location;
d. If the applicant is not a state, territory or possession of the United States, or a political subdivision or municipal corporation thereof, or the District of Columbia, provide a copy of a determination letter by the Internal Revenue Service that the applicant is exempt from tax under the Internal Revenue Code, or submit evidence that the applicant has filed the appropriate documentation in order to obtain tax exempt status;
e. If the applicant asserts that it is a corporation or association whose Charter and/or Articles of Incorporation denies it the right to operate for profit, provide a properly authenticated copy of the Charter, Articles of Incorporation, and a copy of the organization's By-laws;
f. Provide a notarized copy of the resolution or other action of the applicant's governing board authorizing the person signing the application to represent the organization and to sign on its behalf for the purpose of obtaining a vessel; and
g. Provide written affirmation that the prospective applicant can submit a complete ship donation application to the DON, compliant with the DON's application requirements, by January 31, 2008.
Upon receipt of the letter of intent, the DON will contact the prospective applicant(s) to ensure a full understanding of the application requirements, which will be available early September 2007, on the DON Ship Donation Web site located at:
Qualified organizations who submit a letter of intent for the ex-TICONDEROGA (CG 47) must submit a complete application to the DON by January 31, 2008, comprised of a Business/Financial Plan, Mooring Plan, Towing Plan, Maintenance Plan, Environmental Plan, Curatorial/Museum Plan, and a Community Support Plan. These plans must include the following information:
1. Business/Financial Plan: The Business/Financial Plan must detail the estimated start-up and operating costs, and provide detailed evidence of firm financing adequate to cover these costs. Start-up costs include towing, mooring (this includes but not limited to the cost of acquiring and improving facilities, and dredging if required), vessel restoration, museum development, and meeting environmental requirements (including permitting fees and expenses) etc. Operating costs are those costs associated with operating and maintaining the vessel as a museum/memorial, including rent, utilities, personnel, insurance, periodic dry-docking, etc. Firm financing means available funding to ensure the first five years of operation and future stability for long-term operation. This can include pledges, loans, gifts, bonds (except revenue bonds), funds on deposit at a financial institution, or any combination of the above. The applicant must also provide income projections from sources such as individual and group admissions, facility rental fees and gift shop revenues sufficient to cover the estimated operating expenses.
2. Mooring Plan: The Mooring Plan describes how the vessel will be secured at its permanent display site during normal and extreme weather conditions (including the 100-year storm event) to prevent damage to the vessel, its mooring system, the pier, and surrounding facilities. Provide evidence of availability of a facility for permanent mooring of the vessel, either by ownership, existing lease, or by letter from the facility owners indicating a statement of intent to utilize such facilities. Address any requirement to obtain site-specific permits and/or municipality approvals required for the facility, to include but not limited to, Port Authority and Army Corps of Engineers approvals/permits, where required. The mooring location must be acceptable to the DON and not obstruct or interfere with navigation.
3. Towing Plan: The Towing Plan describes how the vessel will be prepared for tow and safely towed from its present location to the permanent display site proposed by the applicant. The Towing Plan must comply with all U.S. Navy Tow Manual requirements, which can be found at
4. Environmental Plan: The Environmental Plan describes how the applicant will comply with all Federal, State and local environmental and public health & safety regulations and permit requirements. The applicant must describe how it will address the possibility of invasive species on the underwater hull and measures to protect the marine environment of the proposed berthing location from invasive species. The applicant also should provide information necessary for the DON to complete an environmental assessment of the donation as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, including the impact of the donation on the natural and man-made environment, local infrastructure, and evaluation of the socio-economic consequences of the donation.
5. Maintenance Plan: The Maintenance Plan must describe plans for long-term and short-term maintenance of the vessel, including preservation and maintenance schedule, underwater hull inspections, emergency response and fire/flood/intrusion control, pest control, security, periodic dry-docking, and qualifications of the maintenance team.
6. Curatorial/Museum Plan: The Curatorial/Museum Plan includes three parts: Staff qualifications, a Collection Management Plan and Historical Management Plan. The Curatorial/Museum Plan must describe the qualifications and responsibilities for a professional curator and supporting staff. The Collection Management Plan must define the museum's scope of artifact collection, and the collection management activity (documentation, accession and deaccession policies, risk management and insurance, collections care and control, loans, etc.). The Historical Management Plan must provide a description of the historical context in which the vessel will be displayed. The plan should also describe proposed exhibits, as well as vessel restoration plans. The applicant must conform to standard ethical codes of conduct for museum organizations.
7. The Community Support Plan must include evidence of local support. Evidence of regional support should also be provided. This includes letters of endorsement from adjacent communities and counties, cities and/or States. Also describe how the location of the vessel will encourage public visitation and tourism, become an integral part of the community, and how the vessel will enhance community development. The Community Support Plan must also describe the benefit to the DON, including, but not limited to, addressing how the prospective donee may support DON recruiting efforts, the connection between the DON and the proposed berthing location, how veterans associations in the area are willing to support the vessel, how the prospective donee will honor veterans' contributions to the United States, and how the exhibit will commemorate those contributions and showcase naval traditions.
The relative importance of each area that must be addressed in the donation application is as follows: Business/Financial Plan and Mooring Plan are the most important criteria and are equal in importance. The Towing Plan, Maintenance Plan and Environmental Plan are individually of equal importance but of lesser importance than the Business/Financial and Mooring Plans. The Curatorial/Museum Plan and Community Support Plan are of equal importance, but of lesser importance than the aforementioned plans.
Evaluation of the application(s) will be performed by the DON to ensure the application(s) are compliant with the minimum acceptable application criterion and requirements. In the event of multiple compliant applications for the same vessel, the DON will perform a comparative evaluation of the
Additional information concerning the application process and requirements will be available early September 2007, on the DON Ship Donation Web site located at
The complete application must be submitted in hard copy and electronically on a CD to the Navy Inactive Ships Program Office by January 31, 2008. In the absence of a viable donation application, the DON reserves the right to remove ex-TICONDEROGA from donation consideration and proceed with disposal of the vessel.
Department of Education.
The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 29, 2007.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.
The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
Department of Education
The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 1, 2007.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.
Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
United States Election Assistance Commission.
Notice of Public Meeting and Hearing (Amended Agenda).
Thursday, September 6, 2007, 10 a.m.–5 p.m.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1225 New York Ave, NW., Suite 150, Washington, DC 20005. (Metro Stop: Metro Center).
The Commission will consider the following topics: Commissioners will discuss EAC's regulatory authority under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) and consider approving a process for adopting NVRA regulations; The Commission will consider adopting a revised advisory on Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements regarding HAVA compliance; Commissioners will discuss EAC's regulatory and administrative responsibilities and discuss other administrative matters.
EAC will provide a public comment period to receive comments regarding the commission's regulatory authority under the NVRA. Members of the public who wish to speak must contact and register with EAC by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, September 4, 2007. Speakers may contact EAC via e-mail at
This Meeting and Hearing Will Be Open to the Public.
Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (202) 566–3100.
Department of Energy.
Notice of Open Meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Idaho National Laboratory. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Tuesday, September 18, 2007, 8 a.m.–5 p.m.
Opportunities for public participation will be held from 1 to 1:15 p.m. and 3:30 to 3:45 p.m.
These times are subject to change; please contact the Federal Coordinator (below) for confirmation of times prior to the meeting.
Snow King Resort, 400 East Snow King Avenue, Jackson, Wyoming 83001.
Robert L. Pence, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, 1955 Fremont Avenue, MS–1203, Idaho Falls, ID 83415. Phone (208) 526–6518; Fax (208) 526–8789 or e-mail:
Tentative Topics (agenda topics may change up to the day of the meeting; please contact Robert L. Pence for the most current agenda):
• Progress to Cleanup.
• Remote Handle Waste Facility Construction Project Update.
• Operational Unit 10–04, 10–08, 1–07B, and V9 Tank Closure Update.
• Discuss Greater-Than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste Comments and Recommendations.
• Waste Isolation Pilot Project Briefing.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB) Chairs. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2 p.m.–4:30 p.m.; Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m.
Drury Inn, 3975 Hinkleville Road, Paducah, KY 42001, (270) 443–3313.
E. Douglas Frost, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–5619.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public face-to-face meeting of the chartered SAB to: (1) Discuss strategic research directions for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; (2) complete its discussions of science use in disaster response programs; (3) conduct a quality review of the draft SAB report
The meeting dates are Wednesday, October 3, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. through Friday, October 5, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to not later than 2 p.m. (Eastern Time).
Members of the public who wish to obtain additional information about this meeting may contact Dr. Angela Nugent by mail address given below; by telephone at (202) 343–9981; by fax at (202) 233–0643; or e-mail at:
The SAB was established by 42 U.S.C. 4365 to provide independent scientific and technical advice, consultation, and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.
(b)
(c)
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of public comment period on draft Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen—Health Criteria.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the public comment period for the draft document titled, “Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen—Health Criteria; First External Review Draft” (EPA/600/R–07/099). The draft document was prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment within EPA's Office of Research and Development as part of the Agency's review of the air quality criteria for oxides of nitrogen and the primary (health-based) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for nitrogen dioxide (NO
EPA is releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of seeking comment from the public and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy, viewpoint, or determination. EPA will consider any public comments submitted in accordance with this notice when revising the document.
The public comment period begins on or about August 31, 2007. Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2007.
The draft “Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen; First External Review Draft” will be available primarily via the Internet on the National Center for Environmental Assessment's home page under the Recent Additions and Publications menus at
For further information, contact Ms. Emily Lee, NCEA; telephone: 919–541–4169, facsimile: 919–541–1818, or e-mail:
Section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act directs the Administrator to identify certain pollutants which “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare” and to issue air quality criteria for them. These air quality criteria are to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air, * * *.” Under section 109 of the Act, EPA is then to establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for each pollutant for which EPA has issued criteria. Section 109(d) of the Act subsequently requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria to reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health and welfare. EPA is also to revise the NAAQS, if appropriate, based on the revised air quality criteria.
Oxides of nitrogen are one of six principal (or “criteria”) pollutants for which EPA has established air quality criteria and NAAQS. EPA periodically reviews the scientific basis for these standards by preparing an Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) (formerly called an Air Quality Criteria Document). The ISA and supplementary annexes, in conjunction with additional technical and policy assessments, provide the scientific basis for EPA decisions on the adequacy of a current NAAQS and the appropriateness of new or revised standards. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), an independent science advisory committee established pursuant to section 109 of the Clean Air Act and part of the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), provides independent scientific advice on NAAQS matters, including advice on EPA's draft ISAs.
On December 9, 2005 (70 FR 236), EPA formally initiated its current review of the criteria for oxides of nitrogen, requesting the submission of recent scientific information on specified topics. A draft of EPA's “Integrated Plan for Review of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard” was made available in February 2007 for public comment and was discussed by the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC) via a publicly accessible teleconference consultation on May 11, 2007 (72 FR 20336). The Plan is being finalized and will be made available on EPA's Web site (
The draft “Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen; First External Review Draft” will be discussed by CASAC at a future public meeting; public comments that have been received prior to the public meeting will be provided to the CASAC review panel. A future
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–ORD–2007–0029 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit one unbound original with pages numbered consecutively, and three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies.
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to (PRA) of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Subject to the PRA, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before October 29, 2007. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
You may submit all PRA comments by e-mail or U.S. mail. To submit your comments by e-mail, send them to
For additional information about the information collection(s), contact Jerry Cowden via e-mail at
Jamteck International Shipping Inc. (“Jamteck”) was incorporated in the State of New York on June 24, 2005, and is presently located at 4633 Richardson Avenue in Bronx, New York 10470. Since February 26, 2007, Jamteck has operated as an ocean transportation intermediary (“OTI”) pursuant to FMC License No. 020155N. According to a review of records maintained by the Commission's Bureau of Certification and Licensing (“BCL”), the principals of the firm are identified as Angella Barnett-Walker, its President and Qualifying Individual, and Donald Barnett, its Vice President.
Jamteck filed its Form FMC–18 with the Commission on March 27, 2006. In response to questions on the application regarding her employment history as Qualifying Individual, Ms. Barnett-Walker claimed to have worked for two employers over a period of four (4) years from 2000 through 2004.
It has come to the attention of the Commission that Ms. Barnett-Walker appears to have misrepresented her OTI experience on Jamteck's license application. Information provided by representatives of both employers indicates that Ms. Barnett-Walker does not have three (3) years of OTI experience as required by the Commission's regulations at 46 CFR 515.11(a). In addition to a lack of the requisite OTI experience of three (3) years, it appears that, in applying for its OTI license, Jamteck and Ms. Barnett-Walker made materially false or misleading statements to the Commission with regard to Ms. Barnett-Walker's previous OTI experience and subsequently failed to correct such omissions.
Section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (“1984 Act”), 46 U.S.C. 40901(a), provides that any person in the United States acting as an OTI
Section 19(c) of the 1984 Act, 46 U.S.C. 40903, further provides that the Commission:
(1) Violation of any provision of the Act, or any other statute or Commission order or regulation related to carrying on the business of an ocean transportation intermediary;
(2) Failure to respond to any lawful order or inquiry by the Commission;
(3) Making a materially false or misleading statement to the Commission in connection with an application for a license or an amendment to an existing licensed;
(4) Where the Commission determines that the licensee is not qualified to render intermediary services; or
(5) Failure to honor the licensee's financial obligations to the Commission.
(1) Whether Jamteck International Shipping Inc. and Angella Barnett-Walker violated the Commission's regulations at 46 CFR Part 515 by submitting materially false or misleading information to the Commission on the OTI license application of Jamteck International Shipping Inc., and whether such licensee is qualified to render licensed OTI services;
(2) whether the Ocean Transportation Intermediary license, No. 020155N, of Jamteck International Shipping Inc. should be suspended or revoked pursuant to section 19 of the 1984 Act; and
(3) whether, in the event violations are found, appropriate cease and desist orders should be issued against Jamteck International Shipping Inc. and Angella Barnett-Walker.
By the Commission.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than September 13, 2007.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 24, 2007.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than September 14, 2007.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 27, 2007.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (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 September 24, 2007.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 24, 2007.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 25, 2007.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 27, 2007.
This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. E7-16882) published on page 49009 of the issue for Monday, August 27, 2007.
Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond heading, the entry for Virginia Community Capital, Inc., Christiansburg, Virginia, is revised to read as follows:
In connection with this application, Applicant also has applied to continue to engage in lending and community development activities, pursuant to sections 225.28(b)(1), (b)(12)(i), and (b)(12)(ii) of Regulation Y.
Comments on this application must be received by September 21, 2007.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 27, 2007.
Office of Small Business Utilization, GSA.
Notice.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, (5 U.S.C. Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102–3.65, the U.S. General Services Administration gives notice that it intends to renew the Small Business Advisory Committee (SBAC), as a discretionary Federal advisory committee.
The Office of Small Business Utilization (OSBU) has responsibility for overseeing the General Services Administration’s (GSA) best efforts to achieve the small business procurement goals set by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Several procurement preference program goals (HUBZone, Service-Disabled Veteran, Women-Owned) have proven to be difficult for GSA and the Federal government as a whole to reach. Other procurement issues such as subcontracting, size standards, and availability of small manufacturers, impact the government beyond procurement goals.
As the Federal government’s primary contracting agency, GSA’s procurement practices and policies to a large extent affect all other Federal agencies. The GSA Small Business Advisory Committee (SBAC) was established by the OSBU to solicit the ideas and experience of association executives and small business owners in the hopes that their recommendations would serve to make the GSA small business program more effective in the future, and in turn, the entire Federal government’s program.
Committee members will represent a cross-section of various socio-economic groups and chambers of commerce. One member will be appointed from a chamber of commerce from each of the following socio-economic groups: African American, Asian American / Pacific Islander, Hispanic, Native American / Alaska Native, Veteran / Service-Disabled Veteran, and Women-owned businesses. Additional members may be selected based on their expertise in government contracting, doing business with the Federal government,
Aaron Collmann, Room 6029, GSA Building, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405 (202) 501–1021 or email at
This notice is published in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92–463).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice that appeared in the
Denver Presley, Jr., Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA–250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301–827–1472.
In FR Doc. E7–9435, appearing on page 27573 in the
1. On page 27574, in the third column, in the third full paragraph, the sentence “The likely respondents for this collection are Investigational New Drug Application Sponsors.” is corrected to read “The likely respondents for this collection of information are manufacturers of medical devices.”
Part D, Chapter D–B, (Food and Drug Administration), of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority for the Department of Health and Human Services (35 FR 3685, February 25, 1970, and 60 FR 56605, November 9, 1995, 64 FR 36361, July 6, 1999, and in pertinent part at 57 FR 54239) is being amended to reflect the restructuring of the Office of the Commissioner (OC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This reorganization includes the establishment of four Deputy-level offices within the Office of the Commissioner, the changes are as follows:
I. Under Part D, Food and Drug Administration, delete the Office of the Commissioner (DA) in its entirety and replace with the following:
Office of the Commissioner (DA), Office of the Chief Counsel (DAA), Office of the Chief of Staff (DAB), Office of International and Special Programs (DAL), Office of Operations (DAM), Office of Policy, Planning and Preparedness (DAH), Office of Scientific and Medical Programs (DAE).
A.
B.
1. Is subject to the professional supervision and control of the General Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and represents FDA in court proceedings and administrative hearings with respect to programs administered by FDA.
2. Provides legal advice and policy guidance for programs administered by FDA.
3. Acts as liaison to the Department of Justice and other Federal agencies for programs administered by FDA.
4. Drafts or reviews all proposed and final regulations and Federal Register notices prepared by FDA.
5. Performs legal research and gives legal opinions on regulatory issues, actions, and petitions submitted to FDA.
6. Reviews proposed legislation affecting FDA that originates in HHS or on which Congress requests the views of the Department.
7. Provides legal advice and assistance to the Office of the Secretary on matters within the expertise of the Chief Counsel.
C.
1. Advises and provides integrated policy analysis and strategic consultation to the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioners, Associate Commissioners, Center Directors and other FDA officials on activities and issues that affect significant agency programs, projects and initiatives. Often this function involves the most difficult problems, crisis situations and extremely complex issues of FDA.
2. Provides leadership, coordination and management of the Commissioner's priority policies and issues across the Office of the Commissioner and FDA-wide. Identifies, triages, supervises and tracks related actions from start to finish in conjunction with senior leadership across FDA.
3. Provides ddidrect support to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and serves as major point of contact between the FDA Centers and Offices and the Commissioner.
4. Serves as the principal liaison to HHS and coordinates and manages activities between FDA and HHS. Works with the FDA Centers and Offices to ensure assignments or commitments made related to these activities are carried out.
5. Serves as one of the Commissioner's primary strategic liaisons with staff, partners, and the community at large.
6. Manages budget and resources and provides operation oversight for the FDA's Office of Legislation, Office of the
7. Provides top level leadership and guidance on issues and actions tied to the FDA's external communications, public affairs, and legislative matters.
D.
1. Serves as FDA focal point for all international matters, pediatric matters, and combination product matters.
2. Advises the Commissioner and other key FDA officials on FDA's formulation and execution and cross cutting and precedent setting issues involving international, pediatric, and combination product matters.
3. Serves as the agency liaison with other U.S. Government components, international and foreign governments (including Washington, DC embassies) for policy formulation and execution impacting FDA and FDA regulated products.
4. Directs and monitors FDA strategic planning, priority-setting, and resource allocation processes for FDA international, pediatric and combination product matters.
5. Provides leadership to FDA program areas for international, pediatric and combination product activities.
6. Serves as the focal point for FDA international visitor program.
7. Serves as the focal point for FDA and the authority for policies and procedures pertaining to international travel.
8. Serves as the focal point for international-related training (external and internal).
9. Serves as the focal point for FDA international technical cooperation and assistance activities.
10. Serves as FDA focal point for all information exchange with foreign counterparts on international matters to ensure consistency internally and externally.
11. Serves as FDA focal point for contacts with foreign governments and international organizations (including Washington, DC embassies).
12. Serves as FDA focal point for planning and coordinating meetings involving international, pediatric and combination product matters.
E.
1. Provides executive direction, leadership, coordination, and guidance for the overall day-to-day operations of FDA assuring the timely and effective implementation of operations and high quality delivery of services across FDA and its Centers.
2. Oversees the day-to-day operational activities and the interaction and execution of new program initiatives across all Centers, Field offices, Regions, and the Office of the Commissioner.
3. Advises and assists the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioners, Chief of Staff, Chief Counsel, Center Directors, and other key FDA officials on various management and business processes, compliance-oriented and legislative matters of FDA.
4. Works with other senior FDA leadership to make decisions that are consistent with broad conceptual guidelines of the Commissioner, to meet the changing needs of FDA and new legislation.
5. Leads FDA effort to analyze agency business processes for process modernization and bioinformatics support.
6. Leads and coordinates the Prescription Drug User Fee Act program initiative for Performance Management and quality systems studies.
7. Coordinates FDA's business process planning function in support of business process improvement and automation efforts.
8. Provides executive leadership and operational oversight to the Office of the Commissioner.
9. Assure that the conduct of FDA administrative and financial management activities, including budget, finance, human resources, organization, methods, and similar support activities effectively support program operations.
10. Provides FDA's administrative management services including information technology, communications, financial transaction functions, procurement, facilities, and equal employment opportunity and diversity management. Utilizes a call center to address all administrative and information technology management issues, and monitors and analyzes operational performance and customer satisfaction.
11. Plans, directs and coordinates a comprehensive financial management program for FDA encompassing the areas of automated financial systems, fiscal accounting, voucher audit, and financial reporting. Issues periodic reports regarding the status of FDA's financial management and develops financial inputs for FDA's programs and financial plans.
12. Provides leadership and direction regarding all aspects of a variety of FDA management programs including internal controls, OIG liaison, organization management, delegations of authority, freedom of information, privacy act, and regulatory dockets management as well as programs related to ethics and conflict of interest matters.
13. Advises the Commissioner and other key Agency officials on administrative management and budget matters for components within the Office of the Commissioner (OC).
14. Provides advice and guidance with regard to formulation and development of administrative management policies; procedures, and controls.
15. Provides advice and assistance to the Commissioner and senior management officials in information technology resources and programs. Establishes and oversees implementation of the FDA information technology policy and governance, procedures and processes to bring the Agency in conformance with the Clinger/Cohen Act. Establishes, directs and leads FDA level programs and all strategic aspects of information technology including: information technology (IT) shared services, telecommunications, security, strategic planning, capital planning and investment control, and enterprise architecture.
16. Plans, organizes, and carries out annual and multi-year budgeting in support of FDA's public health mission and programs. Provides staff assistance in justifying budgets through executive and congressional echelons. After appropriations, develops an orderly expenditure plan.
17. Serves as the first responder for FDA in emergency and crisis situations involving FDA regulated products or in situations where FDA regulated products are needed to be utilized or deployed.
F.
1. Advises the Commissioner and other key FDA officials on matters relating to policy, development of regulations and guidance, legislative issues, and planning and evaluation activities, and counter-terrorism and emerging threats.
2. Participates with the Commissioner in the formulation of the basic policies and operational philosophy, which guide FDA in effectively implementing its responsibilities.
3. Oversees and directs the FDA's rulemaking activities and regulations and guidance development system.
4. Serves as FDA focal point for developing and maintaining communications, policies, and programs with regard to development.
5. Oversees and directs FDA planning and evaluation activities, including the
G.
1. Serves as the focus for scientific medical and related activities in the Office of the Commissioner.
2. Assists the Deputy Commissioner/Chief Medical Officer in planning, executing and monitoring FDA scientific and medical projects and programs.
3. Operates the following FDA programs: a. Orphan Drug Program; b. Women's Health Program; c. Good Clinical Practices Program; d. Critical Path Initiative Program; and e. FDA Fellowship Program.
4. Performs scientific research on the safety of regulated products through the National Center for Toxicological Research.
5. Manages FDA's committee on Research Involving Human Subjects and FDA's Science Board.
6. Represents the FDA on U.S. government committees and other Federal agencies on matters involving science or technology.
7. Manages processes related to research coordination and scientific peer review activities at FDA.
II.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of recertification.
The Coast Guard has recertified the Cook Inlet Regional Citizen's Advisory Council for the period covering September 1, 2007, through August 31, 2008. Under the Oil Terminal and Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight Act of 1990, the Coast Guard may certify on an annual basis an alternative voluntary advisory group in lieu of a regional citizens' advisory council for Cook Inlet, Alaska. This advisory group monitors the activities of terminal facilities and crude oil tankers under the Cook Inlet Program established by the statute.
The Cook Inlet Regional Citizen's Advisory Council is certified through August 31, 2008.
You may request a copy of the recertification letter by writing to Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District (dpi), P.O. Box 25517, Juneau, AK 99802–5517; or by calling 907–463–2809.
Lieutenant Commander Gary Koehler, Seventeenth Coast Guard District (dpi), telephone 907–463–2809.
On September 1, 2006, the Coast Guard recertified the Cook Inlet Regional Citizen's Advisory Council through August 31, 2007. Under the Oil Terminal and Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2732), the Coast Guard may certify, on an annual basis, an alternative voluntary advisory group in lieu of a regional citizens' advisory council for Cook Inlet, Alaska. This advisory group monitors the activities of terminal facilities and crude oil tankers under the Cook Inlet Program established by Congress, 33 U.S.C. 2732(b).
On September 16, 2002, the Coast Guard published a notice of policy on revised recertification procedures for alternative voluntary advisory groups in lieu of councils at Cook Inlet, Alaska (67 FR 58440, 58441). This revised policy indicated that Cook Inlet Regional Citizen's Advisory Council recertification in 2006 need only submit a streamlined application and public comments would not be solicited prior to that recertification.
30-day notice of information collection under review; National Security Entry-Exit Registration System; OMB Control No. 1653–0036
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (USICE), has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for thirty days until October 1, 2007.
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice, and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Lee Shirkey, Program Manager, Records Management Branch, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 425 I Street, NW., Room 1122, Washington, DC 20536; (202) 353–2266.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility,
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used,
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
(1)
(2)
(3)
1.
(5)
(6)
Comments and/or questions; requests for a copy of the proposed information collection instrument, with instructions; or inquiries for additional information should be directed to: Lee Shirkey, Program Manager, Records Management Branch, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 425 I Street, NW., Room 1122, Washington, DC 20536; (202) 353–2266.
Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, North Slope Science Initiative, Interior.
Notice of public meeting in Anchorage, Alaska.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior's North Slope Science Initiative (NSSI) Science Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) will meet as indicated below.
The meeting will be held September 27, 2007, in Anchorage, Alaska. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. in the Bureau of Land Management's Denali Room, 4th Floor, Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 222 West 7th Avenue. Public comment period will begin at 3:30 p.m.
John F. Payne, Director, North Slope Science Initiative (910), c/o Bureau of Land Management, 222 W. Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513. Telephone (907) 271–3431 or e-mail
The North Slope Science Initiative's Science Technical Advisory Panel provides advice and recommendations to the North Slope Science Oversight Group (OG) regarding priority needs for management decisions across the North Slope of Alaska. These priority needs may include recommendations on inventory, monitoring and research activities that contribute to informed land management decisions. At this meeting, topics for discussion include:
• Status of NSSI membership, budget, and review of fiscal year 2007.
• Review of STAP membership.
• Organization of the STAP and subgroups.
• Functionality of the STAP in relation to the OG.
• Relationship of NSSI staff committee to the STAP.
• Current charter and call for nominations.
• Expectations of the STAP.
• Other topics the OG or STAP may introduce.
All meetings are open to the public and have time allotted for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. The public may present written comments to the Science Technical Advisory Panel. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, transportation, or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the North Slope Science Initiative staff at (907) 271–3431 or e-mail
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of September Resource Advisory Council Meeting to be held in Twin Falls District, ID.
This notice announces the intent to hold a Resource Advisory Council (RAC) meeting in the Twin Falls District of Idaho on Wednesday, September 12, 2007. The meeting will be held at the Red Lion Canyon Springs Hotel, 1357 Blue Lakes Boulevard North, Twin Falls, Idaho.
The Twin Falls District Resource Advisory Council consists of the standard fifteen members residing throughout south central Idaho. Meeting agenda items will include updates on the 2007 Fire Season, Jarbidge Field Office RMP effort, Field Offices updates, recreation fee efforts in partnership with the Forest Service and more.
Sky Buffat, Twin Falls District, Idaho, 400 West F Street, Shoshone, Idaho 83352, (208) 732–7307.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of realty action.
A single 6.54-acre parcel of Federal public land near Ward, in Boulder County, Colorado, has been examined and found suitable for sale using the competitive sale procedures of Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations, Sub Part 2711. The authority for the sale is Section 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1701 and 1713).
The parcel will be segregated on the date of publication of this notice in the
Written comments regarding the proposed sale may be sent to the BLM at the following address: Field Manager, Royal Gorge Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 3170 East Main Street, Canon City, Colorado 81212.
The address for oral bidding registration and the location of the public auction is: Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80215.
Information regarding the competitive sale instructions, procedures, documents, map, and materials to submit a bid can be obtained at the public reception area at the BLM Royal Gorge Field Office, or by contacting Debbie Bellew at (719) 269–8514 or
The following described parcel of public land is proposed for sale:
The area described contains 6.54 acres, in Boulder County.
The parcel is approximately 1 mile south of the town of Ward, Colorado.
The parcel described in this notice was identified for disposal in an approved land use plan in effect on July 25, 2000. Proceeds from this sale will be deposited into the Federal Land Disposal Account authorized under Section 206 of the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, Public Law 106–248. The parcel is not required for Federal purposes and was identified for disposal in the BLM Northeast Colorado Resource Management Plan approved in September 1986, and therefore meets the qualifications for disposal from Federal ownership. The disposal (sale) of the parcel would serve the public interest for private economic development.
On August 30, 2007, the parcel will be segregated from appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws, except as to competitive sale as herein proposed. The segregative effect will terminate upon issuance of a patent, publication in the
Sealed bids under 43 CFR 2711.3–1(c) must be received at the BLM Royal Gorge Field Office no later than 4:30 p.m., MST, February 27, 2008. The outside of bid envelopes must be clearly marked on the front lower left-hand corner with “SEALED BID” “BLM Land Sale CO, COC–70516” and the bid opening date of February 29, 2008.
Sealed bid opening will begin at 9 a.m., MST, February 29, 2008, and the highest acceptable bid will be determined. All oral bidders are required to register, which will begin at 8 a.m. and end at 9 a.m. MST, on February 29, 2008. Prospective oral bidders are encouraged to pre-register by mail or fax (719–269–8599) by completing the form in the sale packet available for this sale. The highest qualifying sealed bid will become the starting bid at the oral auction. If no sealed bids are received, oral bidding will begin at the FMV, as determined by the authorized officer and will be accepted in $100 increments only. If no oral bids are received, the highest acceptable sealed bid will be considered the purchaser. The apparent high bidder must submit a deposit of not less than 30 percent of the successful bid at the end of the auction along with $7,411.00 to cover the survey costs. The remainder of the full bid price must be paid within 180 calendar days from the date of the sale. Failure to pay the full price within the 180 days will disqualify the apparent high bidder and shall result in forfeiture of the entire 30 percent deposit to the BLM. The BLM cannot accept the full price at any time following the 180th day after the sale. Payments must be in the form of a certified check, postal money order, bank draft, or cashier's check made payable in U.S. dollars to the order of the U.S. Department of the Interior—BLM.
Following the auction, all monies submitted with sealed bids will be returned to the unsuccessful bidders.
The following reservations, rights, and conditions will be included in the patent that may be issued for the above parcel of Federal land: A reservation to the United States for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945).
The parcel will be subject to valid existing rights and to the following: (1) A right-of-way for access purposes as granted to Iddo and Kathleen Pittman by COC–38793; (2) a right-of-way for telephone line purposes granted to Qwest by COC–49796; and (3) those rights for highway purposes as granted to the Colorado Department of Transportation by COC–051676. Conveyance of any mineral interests pursuant to Section 209 of the FLPMA will be analyzed during processing of the proposed sale. The purchaser/grantee, accepting the patent, agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the United States harmless from any costs, damages, claims, causes of action, penalties, fines, liabilities, and
Pursuant to the requirements established by section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1988, (100 Stat. 1670), notice is hereby given that the above-described parcel has been examined and no evidence was found to indicate that any hazardous substances have been stored for one year or more, nor has any hazardous substances been disposed of or released on the subject property.
No warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, is given by the United States as to the title, or the physical condition or potential uses of the parcel of land proposed for sale. Under Boulder County Land Use Code, newly created parcels of less than 35 acres are not legal building lots for which building permits may be issued. The conveyance will not be on a contingency basis. It is the buyer's responsibility to be aware of: (1) All applicable Federal, State, or local government laws, regulation, or policies that may affect the subject parcel or its future uses, and (2) existing or prospective uses of nearby properties. When conveyed out of Federal ownership, the lands will be subject to any applicable laws, regulations, and policies of the applicable local government for proposed future uses. It will be the responsibility of the purchaser to be aware of those laws, regulations, and policies, and to seek any required local approvals for future uses. Buyers should also make themselves aware of any Federal or State law or regulation that may impact the future use of the property. If the parcel lacks access from a public road or highway it will be conveyed as such, and future access acquisition will be the responsibility of the buyer.
For a period until October 15, 2007, interested parties and the general public may submit in writing any comments concerning the parcel being considered for competitive sale, including notification of any encumbrances or other claims relating to the parcel, to the Royal Gorge Field Manager at the above address. In order to ensure consideration in the environmental analysis of the proposed sale, comments must be in writing and postmarked or delivered within 45 days of the initial date of publication of this notice. Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the BLM Royal Gorge Field Office during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. If you wish to have your name or address withheld from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state it prominently at the beginning of your comments. Any determination by the BLM to release or withhold the names and/or addresses of those who comment will be made on a case-by-case basis. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. BLM will make available for public review, in their entirety, all comments submitted by businesses or organizations, including comments by individuals in their capacity as an official or representative of an organization or business.
Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the BLM State Director, Colorado, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action in whole or in part. In the absence of any adverse comments, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items in the possession of the Augusta Museum of History, Augusta, GA that meet the definition of “unassociated funerary objects” under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
At an unknown date, two cultural items were collected from “a grave near Walla Walla, Washington,” located in Walla Walla County, WA, by L.W. Stillwell of Deadwood, SD (Catalogue number K–17 and K–19). At an unknown date, the cultural items came into the possession of Chester E. Story of Augusta, GA, and were subsequently purchased by Jouett Davenport, also of Augusta, GA, in January 1932. In April 1963, Mr. Davenport donated the cultural items to the Augusta Museum of History (then the Augusta–Richmond County Museum). The two unassociated funerary objects are one string of glass and shell disc beads, and one string of colored glass beads.
The donor of the collection, Mr. Davenport, told the Augusta Museum that the beads came from a grave near Walla Walla. The two strings of beads are typical personal adornment items that were often buried with the deceased. The beads date to the historic period, placing the grave within the post–European contact era or after trading was established in the area around 1818.
The Pa cxapu band of the Weyiiletpuu (Cayuse) wintered in the area presently known as the City of Walla Walla. The Weyiiletpuu had fishing sites and summer camps along the Walla Walla River. Oral histories identify the area as where the Weyiiletpuu, Imatalamlama, and Waluulapam live, and also identified many burial places of their ancestors within the valley and city limits of Walla Walla. Descendants of the Weyiiletpuu, Imatalamlama, and Waluulapam are members of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon.
Officials of the Augusta Museum of History have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(B), the two cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of an Native American individual. Officials of the Augusta Museum of History also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon.
Representatives of any other Indian Tribes that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the unassociated funerary objects should contact Misty Tilson, Registrar, Augusta Museum of History, 560 Reynolds St., Augusta, GA 30901, telephone (706) 722 – 8454, before October 1, 2007. Repatriation of the unassociated funerary objects to the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
The Augusta Museum of History is responsible for notifying the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the control of Safety Harbor Museum of Regional History, Safety Harbor, FL. The human remains were removed from Pasco County, FL.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Safety Harbor Museum of Regional History professional staff in consultation with representatives of Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida; Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations).
In 1925, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from a farm near Elfers, Pasco County, FL, by a private land owner. The daughter of the land owner donated the human remains to an unnamed museum in Oldsmar, FL. Subsequently, the human remains were delivered by that museum to the Safety Harbor Museum of Regional History. In 2003, the human remains were found in the Safety Harbor Museum of Regional History's collection. Eight pottery sherds found with the human remains are reasonably believed to be associated funerary objects. No known individual was identified.
Museum records indicate that the human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from “Indian Mound – Feb. 7, 1925, Elfers, Fla.” Based on dental morphology, the human remains are believed to be Native American. The associated funerary objects date to the Weeden Island Period (A.D. 200 – 900). The Tocobaga tribe inhabited the central Florida region during the Weeden Island Period. Although most of the Tocobaga perished within 200 years after the arrival of the Spanish explorers in the early part of the 16th century, it is reasonably believed that those that did survive assimilated into what became known as the Seminole and Miccosukee tribes. Historical and archeological evidence establish that Seminole and Miccosukee people have been residents in central and southern Florida for several hundred years. The Seminole and Miccosukee are represented today by the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida; Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations).
Officials of the Safety Harbor Museum of Regional History have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (9–10), the human remains described above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Safety Harbor Museum of Regional History also have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (3)(A), the eight objects described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony. Lastly, officials of the Safety Harbor Museum of Regional History have determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida; Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations).
Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with the human remains should contact Walter Bowman, Assistant Office Manager, Safety Harbor Museum of Regional History, 329 Bayshore Blvd. South, Safety Harbor, FL 34695, telephone (727) 726–1668, before October 1, 2007. Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida; Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations) may proceed after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
Safety Harbor Museum of Regional History is responsible for notifying Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida; Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations) that this notice has been published.
United States International Trade Commission.
September 7, 2007 at 11 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205–2000.
Open to the public.
1.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Inv. Nos. 701–TA–365–366 and 731–TA–734–735 (Second Review) (Certain Pasta from Italy and Turkey)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determinations and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before September 27, 2007.)
5.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Summary of Commission practice relating to administrative protective orders.
Since February 1991, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has issued an annual report on the status of its practice with respect to violations of its administrative protective orders (“APOs”) in investigations under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 in response to a direction contained in the Conference Report to the Customs and Trade Act of 1990. Over time, the Commission has added to its report discussions of APO breaches in Commission proceedings other than under Title VII and violations of the Commission's rules including the rule on bracketing business proprietary information (“BPI”) (the “24-hour rule”), 19 CFR 207.3(c). This notice provides a summary of investigations completed during calendar year 2006 of breaches in proceedings under Title VII. In 2006, there were no completed investigations of breaches in proceedings other than Title VII. The Commission intends that this report inform representatives of parties to Commission proceedings as to some specific types of APO breaches encountered by the Commission and the corresponding types of actions the Commission has taken.
Carol McCue Verratti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205–3088. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at (202) 205–1810. General information concerning the Commission can also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
Representatives of parties to investigations or other proceedings conducted under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, sections 202 and 204 of the Trade Act of 1974, section 421 of the Trade Act of 1974, section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, and NAFTA Article 1904.13, 19 U.S.C. 1516a(g)(7)(A) may enter into APOs that permit them, under strict conditions, to obtain access to BPI (Title VII) or confidential business information (“CBI”) (section 421, sections 201–204, and section 337) of other parties. See 19 U.S.C. 1677f; 19 CFR 207.7; 19 CFR 207.100,
Since 1991, the Commission has published annually a summary of its actions in response to violations of Commission APOs and the 24-hour rule. See 56 FR 4846 (Feb. 6, 1991); 57 FR 12,335 (Apr. 9, 1992); 58 FR 21,991 (Apr. 26, 1993); 59 FR 16,834 (Apr. 8, 1994); 60 FR 24,880 (May 10, 1995); 61 FR 21,203 (May 9, 1996); 62 FR 13,164 (March 19, 1997); 63 FR 25064 (May 6, 1998); 64 FR 23355 (April 30, 1999); 65 FR 30434 (May 11, 2000); 66 FR 27685 (May 18, 2001); 67 FR 39425 (June 7, 2002); 68 FR 28256 (May 23, 2003); 69 FR 29972 (May 26, 2004); 70 FR 42382 (July 25, 2005); 71 FR 39355 (July 12, 2006). This report does not provide an exhaustive list of conduct that will be deemed to be a breach of the Commission's APOs. APO breach inquiries are considered on a case-by-case basis.
As part of the effort to educate practitioners about the Commission's current APO practice, the Commission Secretary issued in March 2005 a fourth edition of
The current APO form for antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, which was revised in March 2005, requires the applicant to swear that he or she will:
(1) Not divulge any of the BPI obtained under this APO or otherwise obtained in this investigation and not otherwise available to him or her, to any person other than —
(i) Personnel of the Commission concerned with the investigation,
(ii) The person or agency from whom the BPI was obtained,
(iii) A person whose application for disclosure of BPI under this APO has been granted by the Secretary, and
(iv) Other persons, such as paralegals and clerical staff, who (a) are employed or supervised by and under the direction and control of the authorized applicant or another authorized applicant in the same firm whose application has been granted; (b) have a need thereof in connection with the investigation; (c) are not involved in competitive decision making for an interested party which is a party to the investigation; and (d) have signed the acknowledgment for clerical personnel in the form attached hereto (the authorized applicant shall also sign such acknowledgment and will be deemed responsible for such persons' compliance with the APO);
(2) Use such BPI solely for the purposes of the above-captioned Commission investigation or for judicial or binational panel review of such Commission investigation;
(3) Not consult with any person not described in paragraph (1) concerning BPI disclosed under this APO or otherwise obtained in this investigation without first having received the written consent of the Secretary and the party
(4) Whenever materials (
(5) Serve all materials containing BPI disclosed under this APO as directed by the Secretary and pursuant to section 207.7(f) of the Commission's rules;
(6) Transmit each document containing BPI disclosed under this APO:
(i) With a cover sheet identifying the document as containing BPI,
(ii) with all BPI enclosed in brackets and each page warning that the document contains BPI,
(iii) if the document is to be filed by a deadline, with each page marked “Bracketing of BPI not final for one business day after date of filing,” and
(iv) if by mail, within two envelopes, the inner one sealed and marked “Business Proprietary Information—To be opened only by [name of recipient]”, and the outer one sealed and not marked as containing BPI;
(7) Comply with the provision of this APO and section 207.7 of the Commission's rules;
(8) Make true and accurate representations in the authorized applicant's application and promptly notify the Secretary of any changes that occur after the submission of the application and that affect the representations made in the application (
(9) Report promptly and confirm in writing to the Secretary any possible breach of the APO; and
(10) Acknowledge that breach of the APO may subject the authorized applicant and other persons to such sanctions or other actions as the Commission deems appropriate, including the administrative sanctions and actions set out in this APO.
The APO further provides that breach of an APO may subject an applicant to:
(1) Disbarment from practice in any capacity before the Commission along with such person's partners, associates, employer, and employees, for up to seven years following publication of a determination that the order has been breached;
(2) Referral to the United States Attorney;
(3) In the case of an attorney, accountant, or other professional, referral to the ethics panel of the appropriate professional association;
(4) Such other administrative sanctions as the Commission determines to be appropriate, including public release of or striking from the record any information or briefs submitted by, or on behalf of, such person or the party he represents; denial of further access to business proprietary information in the current or any future investigations before the Commission, and issuance of a public or private letter of reprimand; and
(5) Such other actions, including but not limited to, a warning letter, as the Commission determines to be appropriate.
APOs in investigations other than those under Title VII contain similar, though not identical, provisions.
Commission employees are not signatories to the Commission's APOs and do not obtain access to BPI through APO procedures. Consequently, they are not subject to the requirements of the APO with respect to the handling of CBI and BPI. However, Commission employees are subject to strict statutory and regulatory constraints concerning BPI and CBI, and face potentially severe penalties for noncompliance.
An important provision of the Commission's Title VII and safeguard rules relating to BPI/CBI is the “24-hour” rule. This rule provides that parties have one business day after the deadline for filing documents containing BPI to file a public version of the document. The rule also permits changes to the bracketing of information in the proprietary version within this one-day period. No changes—other than changes in bracketing—may be made to the proprietary version. The rule was intended to reduce the incidence of APO breaches caused by inadequate bracketing and improper placement of BPI. The Commission urges parties to make use of the rule. If a party wishes to make changes to a document other than bracketing, such as typographical changes or other corrections, the party must ask for an extension of time to file an amended document pursuant to section 201.14(b)(2) of the Commission's rules.
Upon finding evidence of an APO breach or receiving information that there is a reason to believe one has occurred, the Commission Secretary notifies relevant offices in the agency that an APO breach investigation has commenced and that an APO breach investigation file has been opened. Upon receiving notification from the Secretary, the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) prepares a letter of inquiry to be sent to the possible breacher over the Secretary's signature to ascertain the possible breacher's views on whether a breach has occurred.
Sanctions for APO violations serve two basic interests: (a) Preserving the confidence of submitters of BPI that the Commission is a reliable protector of BPI; and (b) disciplining breachers and deterring future violations. As the Conference Report to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 observed, “[T]he effective enforcement of limited disclosure under administrative protective order depends in part on the extent to which private parties have confidence that there are effective sanctions against violation.” H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 623 (1988).
The Commission has worked to develop consistent jurisprudence, not only in determining whether a breach has occurred, but also in selecting an appropriate response. In determining the appropriate response, the Commission generally considers mitigating factors such as the unintentional nature of the breach, the
The Commission's rules permit an economist or consultant to obtain access to BPI/CBI under the APO in a Title VII or safeguard investigation if the economist or consultant is under the direction and control of an attorney under the APO, or if the economist or consultant appears regularly before the Commission and represents an interested party who is a party to the investigation. 19 CFR 207.7(a)(3)(B) and (C); 19 CFR 206.17(a)(3)(B) and (C). Economists and consultants who obtain access to BPI/CBI under the APO under the direction and control of an attorney nonetheless remain individually responsible for complying with the APO. In appropriate circumstances, for example, an economist under the direction and control of an attorney may be held responsible for a breach of the APO by failing to redact APO information from a document that is subsequently filed with the Commission and served as a public document. This is so even though the attorney exercising direction or control over the economist or consultant may also be held responsible for the breach of the APO.
The records of Commission investigations of alleged APO breaches in antidumping and countervailing duty cases are not publicly available and are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, section 135(b) of the Customs and Trade Act of 1990, 19 U.S.C. 1677f(g).
The two types of breaches most frequently investigated by the Commission involve the APO's prohibition on the dissemination of BPI or CBI to unauthorized persons and the APO's requirement that the materials received under the APO be returned or destroyed and that a certificate be filed indicating which action was taken after the termination of the investigation or any subsequent appeals of the Commission's determination. The dissemination of BPI usually occurs as the result of failure to delete BPI from public versions of documents filed with the Commission or transmission of proprietary versions of documents to unauthorized recipients. Other breaches have included: The failure to bracket properly BPI/CBI in proprietary documents filed with the Commission; the failure to report immediately known violations of an APO; and the failure to adequately supervise non-legal personnel in the handling of BPI/CBI.
In the past several years, the Commission completed APOB investigations which involved members of a law firm or consultants working with a firm who were granted access to APO materials by the firm although they were not APO signatories. In these cases, the firm and the person using the BPI mistakenly believed an APO application had been filed for that person. The Commission determined in all of these cases that the person who was a non-signatory, and therefore did not agree to be bound by the APO, could not be found to have breached the APO. Action could be taken against these persons, however, under Commission rule 201.15 (19 CFR 201.15) for good cause shown. In all cases in which action was taken, the Commission decided that the non-signatory was a person who appeared regularly before the Commission and was aware of the requirements and limitations related to APO access and should have verified his or her APO status before obtaining access to and using the BPI. The Commission notes that section 201.15 may also be available to issue sanctions to attorneys or agents in different factual circumstances where they did not technically breach the APO but where their actions or inactions did not demonstrate diligent care of the APO materials even though they appeared regularly before the Commission and were aware of the importance the Commission placed on the care of APO materials.
The Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) performs functions related to those of the Commission under title VII, including the issuance of APOs. The two agencies cooperate when necessary in the identification of possible APO breaches. In 2006, one APOB investigation was completed that involved a referral from Commerce about the possible release of BPI obtained under the Commission's APO during a meeting at the Department. No breach was found in that matter and it is summarized as Case 2 for the investigations in which no breach was found. Similarly, also in 2006, a concern arose that proprietary information obtained under Commerce's APO may have been released during a Commission hearing. Commerce was informed of the situation by Commission staff.
The Commission's Secretary has provided clarification to counsel representing parties in investigations relating to global safeguard actions, section 202(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, investigations for relief from market disruption, section 421(b) or (o) of the Trade Act of 1974, and investigations for action in response to trade diversion, section 422(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, and investigations concerning dumping and subsidies under section 516A and title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1303, 1516A and 1671–1677n). The clarification concerns the requirement to return or destroy CBI/BPI that was obtained under a Commission APO.
A letter was sent to all Counsel on active service lists in mid-March 2007. Counsel were cautioned to be certain that each authorized applicant files within 60 days of the completion of an investigation or at the conclusion of judicial or binational review of the Commission's determination a certificate that to his or her knowledge and belief all copies of BPI/CBI have been returned or destroyed and no copies of such material have been made available to any person to whom disclosure was not specifically authorized. This requirement applies to each attorney, consultant, or expert in a firm who has been granted access to BPI/CBI. One firm-wide certificate is insufficient. This same information is also being added to notifications sent to new APO applicants.
In addition, attorneys representing clients in section 337 investigations should send a notice to the Commission if they are no longer participating in a section 337 investigation or the subsequent appeal of the Commission's determination. In Case 10 of the summaries of completed 2005 APOB investigations published in the
The Commission presents the following case studies to educate users about the types of APO breaches found by the Commission. The studies provide the factual background, the actions taken by the Commission, and the factors considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate actions. The Commission has not included some of the specific facts in the descriptions of investigations where disclosure of such facts could reveal the identity of a particular breacher. Thus, in some cases, apparent inconsistencies in the facts set forth in this notice result from the Commission's inability to disclose particular facts more fully.
The firm uses a macro for redaction of bracketed material. However, because the macro does not remove BPI from bracketing in charts and tables, the professional assistant was responsible for manually redacting the BPI. The associate attorney was the final attorney to review the brief and sign it for the firm. The breach was inadvertent, neither person sanctioned had previous APO breaches during the two-year period normally examined by the Commission for sanctions purposes, the firm took quick action to minimize the effect of the release of the BPI, and the firm improved its procedures to avoid a similar incident in the future. Nevertheless, the Commission decided to issue a private letter of reprimand to both the attorney and the professional assistant because a non-signatory of the APO read the BPI that had been released.
Initially, the Commission had also found that the lead attorney, a partner, and the APO coordinator had both breached the APO because they failed to follow the procedures in place prior to the breach which required that either a partner or the APO coordinator review the brief before it is filed. During the sanctions phase of the APOB investigation the partner and the APO coordinator requested that the Commission reconsider its determination that they had breached the APO because the requirement that a partner or the APO coordinator review the brief was a new procedural requirement that became effective after the breach in question. The APO coordinator, in providing the Commission with the firm's new procedures, had inadvertently indicated that this requirement was in place prior to the breach. Because the partner was unaware of the error made by the APO coordinator concerning the new procedures, the argument that he was not responsible for the breach had not previously been available to him. The Commission considered the argument and determined that the partner and the APO coordinator had not breached the APO. Since the APO coordinator caused the confusion by not taking sufficient care in his communications regarding the procedures with the Commission, he was admonished in the Commission's letter to be more careful about his communications with the Commission and his awareness of the firm's APO procedures. The Commission also stated that he should have been on notice of the need for particular vigilance with respect to unauthorized disclosure of BPI because other personnel in his firm had previously breached the APO by disclosing BPI to an unauthorized person.
A partner at the law firm who was the supervising attorney in the Commission investigation had instructed the trade analyst to prepare a spreadsheet which would contain BPI. He also instructed the analyst to handle the material according to APO guidelines and assign work on the document to only those clerical employees who were included on the APO. Instead, the analyst gave the final proofreading responsibility to a clerical employee who was not listed on the APO.
The Commission issued a warning letter to the trade analyst. The trade analyst had no prior APO breaches within the two-year period normally considered by the Commission for sanctions purposes. The only non-signatory who viewed the BPI was the clerical employee. The BPI was not divulged outside the law firm nor to any other non-signatory in the firm. The firm took immediate steps to change its procedures to be sure that no clerical person who was not on the APO would have access to BPI in future cases. The breach was discovered by the analyst, who reported it to the supervising attorney.
The Commission found that the supervising attorney and the clerical employee did not breach the APO. The trade analyst had eight years of experience with Commission investigations and no prior breaches, thus making the delegation of responsibility for preparing the document in question reasonable. The clerical employee was not subject to the APO and had handled the BPI in a manner that would not place the information at risk of being further divulged.
An attorney in a law firm gave a copy of a document containing BPI to the economic consultant working with his firm on a Commission investigation. He provided this document under the mistaken belief that the law firm had filed an APO application that had been signed by the consultant and that the application had been approved. The consultant had been told by the attorney that the APO application had been filed and approved. Thus, the consultant, based on this information, accepted the document and retained it in his files for almost five months, until the breach was discovered by the attorney. At all times the consultant treated the BPI as if he were a signatory of the APO.
The Commission decided to issue a warning letter to the attorney instead of a private letter of reprimand in light of several mitigating circumstances. The disclosure of the BPI was to a consultant practitioner who safeguarded the BPI under the terms of the APO. The breach was inadvertent; the attorney acted under the mistaken belief that the consultant was a signatory to the APO. The attorney had not had any previous APO violations within the two-year period normally considered by the Commission for sanctions purposes. Finally, the attorney took prompt action to remedy the breach once he discovered it.
The Commission also considered whether there was good cause to sanction the consultant under Commission rule 201.15 (19 CFR 201.15) for accepting the document containing BPI while not being a signatory to the APO. The Commission decided that there was not good cause because the consultant reasonably relied on representations of counsel that his APO application had been filed and approved. However, the consultant was
After a law firm filed the confidential version of their client's prehearing brief, and the public version was reviewed by an associate attorney, the lead attorney decided to expand the bracketing on a particular page of the confidential brief. The lead attorney then asked a legal assistant to prepare a public version of the replacement page and substitute that page into the public version of the brief. The next morning, when the public brief was scheduled to be filed, the lead attorney asked the associate to oversee the production and filing of the brief. The brief was then filed by the legal assistant without further review by either attorney.
The Commission issued warning letters to the lead attorney and the legal assistant for failing to redact BPI from the replacement page. The Commission noted that the lead attorney was the supervising attorney for the failed redaction process, allowing the unredacted page to be filed with the Commission without an attorney reviewing that page. The Commission decided to issue a warning letter instead of a private letter of reprimand because this was the only breach in which the lead attorney had been involved within the two-year period normally considered by the Commission for sanctions purposes, the breach was unintentional, prompt action was taken to remedy the breach, and the firm took measures to assure that this type of error would not occur in the future, specifically revising its APO procedures to ensure that an attorney will review and sign off that a redacted replacement page is ready for filing. No non-signatory to the APO gained access to the BPI.
In determining that the legal assistant breached the APO, the Commission noted that the assistant was delegated the responsibility of redacting the BPI from the brief and that she was directly involved in the process and acknowledges that she forgot to redact all of the BPI. The Commission considered the same mitigating factors for the legal assistant as for the lead attorney in determining that she should receive a warning letter instead of a private letter of reprimand.
The Commission found that the associate was not responsible for the breach because he did not prepare or review the replacement page and did not have first hand knowledge of the incident.
A second breach was also alleged regarding this brief. An attorney from another firm informed the lead attorney that information that had been bracketed in an exhibit to the public version of the brief was not redacted. The Commission determined that this was not a breach because the information was not obtained through the APO and was otherwise available to the firm.
The attorney prepared the public version of the brief and attached several exhibits from the confidential version of the brief. He then instructed the paralegal to redact all bracketed information in the brief and attachments. After the paralegal removed the bracketed information the attorney reviewed the document and approved it for filing. The attorney's legal secretary then filed the public version of the pre-hearing brief together with the confidential version of the brief.
Ten days later the attorney was informed by the Commission Secretary that one of the exhibits contained unredacted bracketed BPI. The attorney then took immediate action to cure the problem by alerting counsel for other parties and instructing them and his legal secretary to destroy all hard copies and electronic copies of the exhibit containing BPI. The attorney determined that no non-signatory had been provided with a copy of the brief. The law firm took immediate steps to change its procedures to avoid similar problems in the future.
The Commission decided to issue warning letters instead of private letters of reprimand to the attorney and the paralegal because no non-signatory read the BPI, the breach was inadvertent, neither person had been found to have breached an APO within the two-year period normally considered by the Commission for sanctions purposes, the firm took immediate steps to remedy the breach once the attorney was notified of the breach, and it changed its procedures to assure that this type of error would not occur in the future. The Commission also decided that the legal secretary did not breach the APO because she had only been instructed to file the brief and not check the document for confidential information.
There were three investigations in which no breach was found:
In addition to the lead attorney, another partner and a trade analyst for the law firm were at the meeting. The Commission found that the trade analyst did not breach the APO because he did not discuss the questionnaire responses from the Commission investigation and limited his discussion to specific methodologies and facts pertaining to information on the record at Commerce. The Commission found that good cause did not exist to sanction the partner, who was not an APO signatory, under Commission rule 201.15 (19 CFR 201.15) because, although he attended the meeting, he did not participate in the substantive discussions.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that on August 15, 2007, a proposed Modification of Consent Decree (“Modification”) in
In addition, the Consent Decree requires PRASA to perform a “Supplemental Environmental Project” (“SEP”). The Modification affects the last activity/milestone of this SEP, listed in Appendix E of the Consent Decree, entitled “Work Plan Supplemental Environmental Project.” To date, PRASA has completed the first three milestones to be performed. In an effort to clarify PRASA's obligations in implementing the SEP, the parties have agreed to modify the last activity/milestone listed in Appendix E to provide for completion dates for the SEP projects.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Modification of Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to
The proposed Modification of Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Federal Office Building, Rm. 10, Carlos E. Chardón Avenue, San Juan, Puerto Rico, and at U.S. EPA Region II, 290 Broadway, New York, New York. During the public comment period, the Modification of Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
Notice is hereby given that on August 16, 2007, a proposed Addendum to the Consent Decree (“Addendum”) in
In this action, the United States sought a civil penalty and injunctive relief for violations of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401,
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the proposed Addendum to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to
The Addendum may be examined at: The Office of the United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas, 601 NW Loop 410, Suite 600, San Antonio, Texas 78216 (contact AUSA Susan Biggs); U.S. EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas, 75202 (contact Patricia Welton); U.S. EPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia, 30303–8960 (contact Marlene Tucker); and U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd. (C–13J), Chicago, Illinois, 60604 (contact Mary T. McAuliffe). During the public comment period, the Consent Decree also may be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site:
In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $30.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA–W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) by (TA–W) number issued during the period of
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or
II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:
A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and
C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States;
2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or
3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision.
Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made for secondarily affected workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) Either—
(A) The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) A loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met.
1. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older.
2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable.
3. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry (i.e., conditions within the industry are adverse).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified.
The Department has determined that criterion (1) of Section 246 has not been met. The firm does not have a significant number of workers 50 years of age or older.
The Department has determined that criterion (2) of Section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm possess skills that are easily transferable.
The Department has determined that criterion (3) of Section 246 has not been met. Competition conditions within the workers' industry are not adverse.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
Because the workers of the firm are not eligible to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A.) (employment decline) have not been met.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) (Sales or production, or both, did not decline) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met.
The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The investigation revealed that criteria of Section 222(b)(2) has not been met. The workers' firm (or subdivision) is not a supplier to or a downstream producer for a firm whose workers were certified eligible to apply for TAA.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
On July 23, 2007, the Department of Labor (Department) issued a Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance applicable to the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) petition filed by company officials on behalf of workers and former workers of Dako Colorado, Eridan Pathology Instrumentation Division, Ft. Collins, Colorado (subject firm). The Department's Notice of negative determination was published in the
The negative determination stated the petition was denied because section 222(a)(2)(A)(I.C) and (II.C) of the Trade Act of 1975, as amended, was not satisfied. The investigation revealed that the subject firm did not import during the relevant period and that, following a shift of production to Denmark, which began in 2006, the subject firm does not anticipate importing to United States customers until 2008 or 2009.
The determination also stated that the subject workers are engaged in research, development and design work on bio-tech instruments, and are separately identifiable from other workers at the subject firm. The determination further stated that subject firm production ceased in October 2006 and the workers' separations are a continuation of the shift of production abroad.
By letter dated August 8, 2007, a company official requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination. The request for reconsideration alleged that following the shift of bio-tech instrumentation production abroad, there is likely to be an increase in imports by the subject firm and its customers of articles that are like or directly competitive with those produced by the subject firm.
During the reconsideration investigation, the official explained that Dako Colorado has two divisions, that the two divisions operate independently, and that the Eridan Pathology Instrumentation Division produces bio-tech instrumentation. Therefore, the Department determines that the subject workers are engaged in the production of bio-tech instrumentation.
During the reconsideration investigation, the company official confirmed previously-submitted information and provided additional information regarding the subject firm's intention to import bio-tech instrumentation from Denmark to satisfy its domestic customers.
Based on the additional information obtained during the reconsideration investigation, the Department determines that section 222(a)(2)(A)(II.C) of the Trade Act of 1975, as amended, has been satisfied.
In accordance with section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA. The Department has determined in this case that the group eligibility requirements of section 246 have been met.
A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over. Workers possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse.
After careful review of the additional information obtained during the reconsideration investigation, I determine that bio-tech instrumentation production at Dako Colorado, Eridan Pathology Instrumentation Division, Ft. Collins, Colorado shifted abroad and there is a likelihood of increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced at the subject firm following the shift of production abroad.
In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification:
All workers of Dako Colorado, Eridan Pathology Instrumentation Division, including on-site workers of Volt and Aerotek, Ft. Collins, Colorado, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after July 9, 2006 through two years from the date of this certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
On July 10, 2007, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application on Reconsideration applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the
The previous investigation initiated on April 18, 2007, resulting in a negative determination issued on May 7, 2007, was based on the finding that imports of vehicles like or directly competitive with the Lincoln Towncar did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred. The denial notice was published in the
To support the request for reconsideration, the petitioner supplied additional information to supplement that which was gathered during the initial investigation. Upon further review of the information and a contact with the company official, it was revealed that the subject firm started shifting production of the Lincoln Towncar to Canada during the relevant period and that this shift contributed to the layoffs at the subject firm.
In accordance with section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) for older workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246 of the Trade Act must be met. The Department has determined in this case that the requirements of section 246 have been met.
A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over and possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse.
After careful review of the facts obtained in the investigation, I determine that there was a shift in production from the workers' firm or
“All workers of Ford Motor Company, Vehicle Operations Division, Wixom Assembly Plant, Wixom, Michigan, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after April 12, 2006, through two years from the date of this certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.”
On June 18, 2007, the Department of Labor (Department) issued a Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance applicable to the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers and former workers of Track Corporation, Spring Lake, Michigan (subject firm). The Department's Notice of negative determination was published in the
The subject firm produces seat adjusters for the automotive industry and public seating for stadiums and theaters. Workers are separately identifiable by product line. The TAA/ATAA petition was filed on behalf of workers engaged in the production of seat adjusters.
The negative determination was based on the Department's findings that the subject firm did not shift production of seat adjusters abroad and does not import seat adjusters. A survey revealed that the subject firm's major customer did not import seat adjusters during the relevant period.
By letter dated July 16, 2007, a company official requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination. The request for reconsideration stated that the subject firm's major customer replaced subject firm purchases with imported seat adjusters.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department carefully reviewed the administrative file, contacted the company official for clarification, and contacted the subject firm's major customer for more information about its import purchases.
Previously-submitted information revealed that subject firm sales, production, and employment levels declined during the relevant period. Information obtained during the reconsideration investigation revealed that the subject firm's major customer began using foreign-made seat adjusters in 2006 and replacing subject firm purchases with foreign-made seat adjusters during 2007.
In accordance with section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA. The Department has determined in this case that the group eligibility requirements of section 246 have been met.
A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over. Workers possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse.
After careful review of the information obtained in the initial and reconsideration investigations, I determine that the subject workers are adversely-impacted by increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced at the subject firm. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification:
“All workers of Track Corporation, including on-site workers of Forge Industrial, Spring Lake, Michigan, engaged in the production of seat adjusters, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after May 16, 2006 through two years from the date of this certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.”
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice.
NARA is giving public notice that the agency proposes to request extension of a currently approved information collection consisting of National Archives Trust Fund (NATF) Order Forms for Genealogical Research in the National Archives. The NATF forms included in this information collection are: NATF 81, National Archives Order for Copies of Ship Passenger Arrival Records; NATF 82, National Archives Order of Copies of Census Schedules; NATF 83, National Archives Order for Copies of Eastern Cherokee Applications; NATF 84, National Archives Order for Copies of Land Entry Files; NATF 85, National Archives Order for Copies of Pension or Bounty Land Warrant Applications; and NATF 86, National Archives Order for Copies of Military Service Records. The public is invited to comment on the proposed information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be received on or before October 29, 2007 to be assured of consideration.
Comments should be sent to: Paperwork Reduction Act Comments (NHP), Room 4400, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Rd., College Park, MD 20740–6001; or faxed to 301–713–7409; or electronically mailed to
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information collections and supporting statements should be directed to Tamee Fechhelm at telephone number 301–837–1694, or fax number 301–713–7409.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), NARA invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed
The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials (ACNW&M) will hold its 182nd meeting on September 18–20, 2007, Room T–2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACNW&M meetings were published in the
Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, as well as the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted therefor can be obtained by contacting Dr. Dias.
ACNW meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at
Video teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACNW&M meetings. Those wishing to use this service for observing ACNW&M meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS/ACNW&M Audio Visual Technician (301–415–8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m., (ET), at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice; request for comments.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) is providing notice that Brazil has requested consultations with the United States under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (“WTO Agreement”) regarding U.S. domestic support measures and export credit guarantees for agricultural products. That request may be found at
Although USTR will accept any comments received during the course of the consultations, comments should be submitted on or before September 14, 2007 to be assured of timely consideration by USTR.
Comments should be submitted (i) electronically, to
David Yocis, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC, (202) 395–6150.
Section 127(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)) requires that notice and opportunity for comment be provided after the United States submits or receives a request for the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel. In an effort to provide additional opportunity for comment, USTR is providing notice that consultations have been requested pursuant to the WTO
In its request for consultations, Brazil alleges that the United States has provided support to domestic agricultural producers in excess of U.S. commitments with respect to the Aggregate Measurement of Support (“AMS”) as described in Article 6.2 of the WTO
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning the issues raised in the dispute. Comments should be submitted (i)
USTR encourages the submission of documents in Adobe PDF format as attachments to an electronic mail. Interested persons who make submissions by electronic mail should not provide separate cover letters; information that might appear in a cover letter should be included in the submission itself. Similarly, to the extent possible, any attachments to the submission should be included in the same file as the submission itself, and not as separate files.
Comments must be in English. A person requesting that information contained in a comment submitted by that person be treated as confidential business information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such and the submission must be marked “Business Confidential” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page.
Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than business confidential information, may be determined by USTR to be confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information or advice may qualify as such, the submitter—
(1) Must clearly so designate the information or advice;
(2) Must clearly mark the material as “Submitted in Confidence” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and
(3) Is encouraged to provide a non-confidential summary of the information or advice.
Pursuant to section 127(e) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a file on this dispute settlement proceeding, accessible to the public, in the USTR Reading Room, which is located at 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. The public file will include non-confidential comments received by USTR from the public with respect to the dispute; if a dispute settlement panel is convened or in the event of an appeal from such a panel, the U.S. submissions, the submissions, or non-confidential summaries of submissions, received from other participants in the dispute; the report of the panel; and, if applicable, the report of the Appellate Body. An appointment to review the public file (Docket WTO/DS–365, Brazil Ag Subsidies Dispute) may be made by calling the USTR Reading Room at (202) 395–6186. The USTR Reading Room is open to the public from 9:30 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94–409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of August 27, 2007:
A Closed Meeting will be held on Thursday, August 30, 2007 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Nazareth, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session, and determined that no earlier notice thereof was possible.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 30, 2007 will be:
Formal orders of investigations;
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature;
Resolution of litigation claims;
Other matters related to enforcement proceedings; and
An adjudicatory matter.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551–5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules pertaining to Credit Default Basket Options (“CDBOs”) in order to conform the Exchange's Succession Event confirmation process for CDBOs with that currently codified for single-name Credit Default Options (“CDOs”).
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange has received approval from the Commission to list and trade CDOs and CDBOs, which are different types of binary options, based on debt securities, that pay a fixed amount in the event a Credit Event is confirmed during the life of the option.
CBOE Rule 29.4(b)(1) provides that, if the Exchange confirms a Succession Event in a Basket Component, that component may be replaced by one or more Basket Components (“Successor Basket Components”) consisting of Successor Reference Entity(ies).
Second, the Exchange proposes to specify how the “applicable share” would be calculated. Consistent with CDOs, the term “applicable share” would be a percentage amount used to determine the adjusted cash settlement amount applicable to each Successor Basket Component.
As provided in CBOE Rule 29.4(b)(1)(ii), in the event of an adjustment for succession, the Exchange would specify the Reference Obligation, the recovery rate, and the basket weight of each Successor Basket Component, and the newly specified weight(s) would equal the weight of the predecessor Basket Component replaced by the Successor Basket Component(s).
As with CDOs, the Exchange believes that setting forth these same conforming parameters would clarify how the Exchange intends to administer the Succession Event confirmation process, thereby affording investors with additional clarity and certainty regarding the impact of a Succession Event on an outstanding CDBO contract. The Exchange also understands that these parameters would be substantially similar to and generally consistent with the practice in the over-the-counter market.
Finally, the Exchange is also proposing two technical changes to CBOE Rule 29.4. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to substitute the term “Reference Entity” with the term “Basket Component” in two places in the rule text. With respect to CDBOs, the term “Reference Entity” and “Basket Component” have identical meanings and are defined as the issuer or guarantor of one of the Reference Obligations that underlies a CDBO.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to national securities exchanges. Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5)
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposal.
Because the foregoing rule change constitutes a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR–CBOE–2007–93. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Exchange proposes to adopt rules to provide for the trading of Flexible Exchange Options (“FLEX Options”)
In its filing with the Commission, CBOE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Currently, FLEX Options are traded on the Exchange through an open-outcry-based, Request for Quotes (“RFQ”) process (referred to herein as the “FLEX RFQ System” platform). The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Exchange rules to provide for an alternate framework to trade FLEX
•
•
•
CBOE believes that enhancing its FLEX trading facilities to allow for a hybrid trading platform alternative is important to the Exchange's efforts to create a market that provides members and investors interested in FLEX-type options with an improved but comparable alternative to the over-the-counter (“OTC”) market in customized options. By enhancing CBOE systems to allow for a FLEX Hybrid Trading System platform, market participants will have greater flexibility in determining the means with which to execute their customized options in an exchange environment, thus making it a more attractive alternative to the OTC market. CBOE believes market participants benefit from being able to trade customized options in an exchange environment in several ways, including, but not limited to the following: (1) Enhanced efficiency in initiating and closing out positions; (2) increased market transparency; and (3) heightened contra-party creditworthiness due to the role of The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) as issuer and guarantor of FLEX Options.
Given the design of FLEX Options to compete with the OTC market, the Exchange notes that the existing user base for trading FLEX Options includes both institutional investors and high net worth individuals. The Exchange also notes that, when the existing FLEX Rules were originally adopted in 1993, the Exchange put in place certain FLEX contract specification requirements that were designed to limit participation in FLEX Options to these types of sophisticated investors, rather than retail investors. These safeguards, which relate to minimum value size requirements, have been revised over time and will exist for FLEX Options traded on the proposed FLEX Hybrid Trading System. Thus, whether executed through the new electronic RFQ process or open outcry RFQ process (or through entering a FLEX Order to hit the new FLEX Book), the minimum value size requirements for a resulting FLEX transaction will be the same as currently exists today for trading on the existing FLEX RFQ System platform. Additionally, the minimum value size of FLEX Quotes that are entered by FLEX Traders in response to an underlying RFQ (and, correspondingly, the minimum value size of resting FLEX Orders (undecremented size) that are entered by FLEX Traders to provide liquidity for incoming FLEX Orders that hit the Book) will be the same as currently exists today for trading on the existing FLEX RFQ System platform. In maintaining these safeguards for trading on the proposed FLEX Hybrid Trading System, the Exchange is cognizant of the desire to continue to provide the requisite amount of investor protection that the safeguards were originally designed to achieve.
In addition, given the customized nature of FLEX Options, the sophistication of the target FLEX trading community, and the desire to effectively compete with the OTC market (which is not subject to the same restrictions and requirements of exchange-based trading), CBOE has also designed its FLEX trading rules in a manner that is distinct from its trading rules for traditional options in order to create incentives for members and sophisticated investors to bring larger-sized orders to the Exchange, rather than the OTC market, and to provide deep liquid markets for investors in these customized products. As described below, these distinctions include: (i) Allowing for certain crossing participation entitlements and FLEX Appointed Market-Maker participation entitlements to be applied without yielding to other trading interest (including that of public customers, broker-dealers and FLEX Market-Makers) provided certain conditions are satisfied (including the requirements of Section 11(a)(1) of the Act
For the reasons noted herein, CBOE believes that the proposed structure of its FLEX Hybrid Trading System platform is appropriate and reasonable and that it will provide market participants with additional flexibility to determine choice of venue that best comport with investors' particular needs.
As indicated above, under the proposed rules structure, the Exchange will have the choice to allow trading to occur in a FLEX Option class on the existing FLEX RFQ System platform or the proposed FLEX Hybrid Trading System platform. The rules governing the trading of FLEX Options on the existing FLEX RFQ System platform are contained, and will continue to be maintained, in Chapter XXIVA of the Exchange Rules. The proposed rules governing the trading of FLEX Options on the FLEX Hybrid Trading System platform will be reflected in new Chapter XXIVB. The Exchange currently intends to maintain and operate both the existing FLEX RFQ System platform and the new FLEX Hybrid Trading System platform and will determine which trading platform will be utilized on a class-by-class basis. These
The new platform rules are generally modeled after and correspond with the existing FLEX RFQ System rules contained in Chapter XXIVA. Discussion of each of the proposed new rules, as well as various corresponding changes to the existing FLEX rules, follows.
An introductory section to proposed Chapter XXIVB provides that transactions in FLEX Options may be effected on the FLEX Hybrid Trading System in accordance with the procedures in Chapter XXIVB, or via the existing FLEX trading platform in accordance with the procedures in Chapter XXIVA. As described above, determinations as to which trading platform and rules set will be applicable will by made by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis and will be announced to the membership via Regulatory Circular. The introductory language further explains that the rules in Chapters I through XIX and XXIV are also applicable to the trading of FLEX Options on the System, except as indicated at the end of each rule. To the extent the rules in Chapter XXIVB are inconsistent with other Exchange rules, the rules in Chapter XXIVB take precedence in relation to the trading of FLEX Options on the System.
Proposed Rule 24B.1,
Proposed Rule 24B.4,
Subparagraph (a)(3) of Rule 24B.4, like subparagraph (a)(3) of Rule 24A.4, lists the additional categories of information that must be addressed by a member that initiates an RFQ (the “Submitting Member”), such as the type and form of quote sought and the length of the RFQ Response Period.
Subparagraph (a)(5) of Rule 24B.4 lists additional contract and transaction specifications that RFQs, FLEX Quotes responsive to RFQs, RFQ Orders, and FLEX Orders must satisfy. These additional specifications pertain first to maximum expiration terms and second to minimum value size requirements. The maximum expiration terms are the same as in the existing FLEX rules.
•
•
•
There will be similar minimum value size requirements that apply to transactions that occur in the FLEX Book. Specifically, a transaction resulting from a FLEX Order that seeks liquidity by trading against (“hitting”) the Book must satisfy the same minimum value size requirements described above that are applicable to RFQ transactions. Conversely, a FLEX Order that provides liquidity by resting in the Book must satisfy the same minimum value size requirements described above that are applicable to FLEX Quotes. Thus, the minimum value size requirements for FLEX Orders entered into the Book will be as follows:
•
•
•
Subparagraph (a)(5)(iv) of the proposed rule also includes a new requirement that a FLEX Appointed Market-Maker
Paragraph (b), pertaining to special terms for FLEX Index Options, and paragraph (c), pertaining to special terms for FLEX Equity Options, in proposed Rule 24B.4 are the same as the corresponding paragraphs in existing Rule 24A.4.
Proposed Rule 24B.5,
Paragraph (a) describes the RFQ process, which may be used at any time, but is required to initiate a FLEX transaction when there are no FLEX Orders currently resting in the Book in the particular FLEX Options series to be traded. The RFQ process may be conducted electronically through the System or in open outcry as described below.
Subparagraph (a)(1) of proposed Rule 24B.5 describes the electronic RFQ process. Upon receipt of an RFQ that satisfies the requirements of proposed Rule 24B.4, the System will cause the terms and specifications of the RFQ to be communicated to FLEX Traders. FLEX Traders, including FLEX Market-Makers and the Submitting Member, may then enter FLEX Quotes that are responsive to the RFQ during the RFQ Response Period.
At the end of the RFQ Response Period, the System will calculate and disseminate to all FLEX Traders the final RFQ Market. The Submitting Member will then have a brief interval of time to promptly accept or reject the RFQ Market, provided that such acceptance or rejection must occur during the “RFQ Reaction Period.”
In the scenario where a Submitting Member has not indicated an “intent to cross” in the RFQ request, the Submitting Member can determine to do the following during the RFQ Reaction Period: (i) Trade against the bids and offers (but not both) by submitting an RFQ Order, in which case the resulting transaction will occur at a single “BBO
If the Submitting Member rejects the RFQ Market or to the extent the RFQ Market size exceeds the Submitting Member's FLEX transaction size, the System will automatically execute any remaining FLEX Quotes and FLEX Orders that are marketable against each other at a single clearing price. Thereafter: (i) If there is a Book available, any further remaining balance of the FLEX Quotes will be automatically entered into the Book unless the FLEX Trader that entered the FLEX Quote has indicated that the FLEX Quote is to be automatically cancelled if not traded;
Once the RFQ Reaction Period concludes and applicable allocations are completed, FLEX Traders can enter new FLEX Orders or cancel existing FLEX Orders in the Book at any time. If the Book is available, the Submitting Member and other FLEX Traders can also determine to enter FLEX Orders in the Book at the conclusion of the RFQ process.
The following examples illustrate the process:
• Assume the RFQ Market is bid 1000 contracts at $1.00 and offered 1000 contracts at $1.20, 1200 contracts at $1.21, and 1500 contracts at $1.23. Also assume that the FLEX Book is not activated in the particular class. If the Submitting Member submits an agency RFQ Order to buy 1500 contracts, the order will trade at a BBO clearing price of $1.21. The priority among the interest represented on the offer-side of the RFQ Market will be first to the FLEX Quotes offered at $1.20 and second to FLEX Quotes offered at $1.21. Allocation among multiple FLEX Quotes represented at $1.21 shall be first to any FLEX Appointed Market-Maker(s) with a participation entitlement, then to FLEX Quotes for the account of public customers and non-member broker-dealers based on time priority, then to all other FLEX Quotes based on time priority. The remaining balance of the FLEX Quotes entered in response to the RFQ will be automatically cancelled.
• Assume the RFQ Market is bid 1000 contracts at $1.21 and offered 1000 contracts at $1.20, 1200 contracts at $1.21, and 1500 contracts at $1.23. Thus, the bids and offers that make up the RFQ Market are “crossed.” Also assume that each of the FLEX Traders that entered responses elected to have any remaining balance on their FLEX Quotes automatically booked. If the Submitting Member submits an agency RFQ Order to buy 1000 contracts, the order will trade at a BBO clearing price of $1.21 and the 1000 contract bid will also trade against the offers at a BBO clearing price of $1.21. (The particular allocation algorithm among the interest represented on the offer-side of the RFQ Market is as described in the first example, assuming there are no FLEX Orders in the Book.) Coming out of the RFQ auction, the Book will also display offers of 200 contracts at $1.21 and 1500 contracts at $1.23.
• Assume the RFQ Market is bid 1000 contracts at $1.21 and offered 1000 contracts at $1.20, 500 contracts at $1.21, and 1500 contracts at $1.23. Thus, the bids and offers that make up the RFQ Market are “crossed.” Also assume that the bid consists in part of a 100-contract FLEX Order that was resting in the Book prior to the initiation of the RFQ and that each of the FLEX Traders that entered responses elected to have any remaining balance on its FLEX Quote automatically booked. If the Submitting Member submits a public customer RFQ Order to buy 1000 contracts at $1.21, the 100 contract FLEX Order, the 1000 contract RFQ Order, and 400 contracts of the remaining 900 contract bid will trade against the offers at a BBO clearing price of $1.21.
• Assume the RFQ Market is bid 1000 contracts at $1.00 and offered 1000 contracts at $1.20 and the Submitting Member wants to trade 200 contracts in a FLEX Equity series that has a minimum value size requirement of 100 contracts. Also assume the FLEX Book is activated in the particular class. During the RFQ Reaction Period, the Submitting Member enters an agency RFQ Order to buy 200 contracts at $1.15. Because the best offer is $1.20, no trade will occur. The RFQ Order and the FLEX Quotes entered in response to the RFQ will be booked (assuming the Submitting Member and each of the FLEX Traders that entered responses elected to have any remaining balance on their FLEX Quotes automatically booked). Coming out of the RFQ auction, the Book will display a market that is bid 200 contracts at $1.15 and offered 1000 contracts at $1.20.
In the scenario where the Submitting Member has indicated an “intent to cross” in its RFQ request, during the RFQ Reaction Period the Submitting Member can determine to: (i) Enter an RFQ Order to trade with the bids or offers and be automatically allocated a crossing participation entitlement to trade with the RFQ Order at the BBO
If the Submitting Member enters an RFQ Order, the System will immediately execute the RFQ Order to the extent marketable at the BBO clearing price, with the Submitting Member executing an amount up to the applicable crossing participation entitlement at the BBO clearing price after yielding to certain trading interests.
The following examples illustrate this process:
• Assume the RFQ Market is bid 1000 contracts at $1.00 and offered 1000 contracts at $1.20, 1200 contracts at $1.21 and 1500 contracts at $1.23. Also assume that the Submitting Member marked the RFQ with an “intent to cross” flag, that the applicable crossing entitlement is 40%, and that the FLEX Book is not activated in the particular class. If the Submitting Member submits an agency market RFQ Order to buy 200 contracts, the order will trade at a BBO clearing price of $1.20, with the Submitting Member being automatically allocated 80 contracts (40% of 200) on the trade after yielding to any FLEX Quotes for the account of public customers and non-member broker-dealers. (The particular allocation algorithm applicable to any remaining contracts is as described in footnote 23.) The remaining balance of the FLEX Quotes entered in response to the RFQ will be automatically cancelled.
• Assume the RFQ Market is bid 1000 contracts at $1.21 and offered 1000 contracts at $1.20, 1200 contracts at $1.21, and 1500 contracts at $1.23. Thus, the bids and offers that make up the RFQ Market are “crossed.” Also assume that the Submitting Member marked the RFQ with an “intent to cross” flag, that the applicable crossing entitlement is 40%, that the offer consists in part of a 100 contract FLEX Order at $1.20 that was resting in the Book prior to the initiation of the RFQ, and that each of the FLEX Traders that entered responses were FLEX Market-Makers that elected to have any remaining balance on their FLEX Quotes automatically booked. If the Submitting Member submits an agency market RFQ Order to buy 200 contracts, the order will trade at a BBO clearing price of $1.21, with the resting FLEX Order trading 100 contracts, the Submitting Member trading 80 contracts (40% of 200), and the remaining 20 trading against the other interest represented in the offer. The 1000 contract bid will also trade against the offers at the BBO clearing price of $1.21. (The particular allocation algorithm among the remaining interest represented in the offer-side of the RFQ Market is as described in footnote 23.) Coming out of the RFQ auction, the Book will also display offers of 1000 contracts at $1.21 and 1500 contracts at $1.23.
• Assume a scenario where there is an RFQ Market of $1.00–$1.20, the Submitting Member wants to trade 200 contracts in a FLEX Equity series that has a minimum value size requirement of 100 contracts, and a crossing participation entitlement of 40%. Also assume the FLEX Book is activated in the particular class. During the RFQ Reaction Period, the Submitting Member may enter an agency RFQ Order to buy 200 contracts at $1.15. The Submitting Member will immediately cross 80 contracts (40% of 200) and the balance of the order will be entered in the Book. After waiting the required exposure time (say three seconds), the Submitting Member must enter a contra-side order for at least 20 contracts if no one else has traded against the remaining balance of the RFQ Order (in order to satisfy the minimum value size requirement of 100 contracts).
The Exchange notes that the Submitting Member must mark its RFQ with an “intent to cross” flag at the time the RFQ is originally submitted to be automatically allocated the applicable crossing participation entitlement for facilitation and solicitation transactions. If the RFQ is not flagged in this manner, the Submitting Member will not be automatically allocated the entitlement.
The Exchange notes that a Submitting Member also has the ability to enter an agency or proprietary FLEX Quote in response to the Submitting Member's own RFQ. Such a FLEX Quote will be treated the same as any other FLEX Quote and subject to the priority allocation algorithm described above.
Finally, the Exchange notes that all electronic RFQ transactions must be in compliance with Section 11(a)(1) of the Act
Subparagraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 24B.5 describes the open outcry RFQ process, which is similar to the process that exists today with a few primary distinctions.
If the Submitting Member does not intend to cross or act as principal with respect to any part of the FLEX trade, the Submitting Member shall promptly accept or reject the BBO; provided, however, if a Submitting Member either rejects the BBO or is given a BBO for less than the entire size requested, all FLEX Traders in the trading crowd other than the Submitting Member will have an opportunity during the BBO Improvement Interval in which to match or improve, as applicable, the BBO.
If the Submitting Member indicates an intention to cross or act as principal with respect to any part of the FLEX trade, acceptance of the displayed BBO shall be automatically delayed until the expiration of the BBO Improvement Interval. Prior to the BBO Improvement Interval, the Submitting Member must announce to the trading crowd the price at which the Submitting Member expects to trade. In these circumstances, the Submitting Member may participate with all other FLEX Traders present in the trading crowd in attempting to improve or match the BBO during the BBO Improvement Interval. At the expiration of the BBO Improvement Interval, the Submitting Member must promptly accept or reject the BBO(s).
As with the existing rules, the Submitting Member has no obligation to accept any FLEX bid or offer. And, whenever following the completion of the RFQ Response Period or BBO Improvement Interval, as applicable, the Submitting Member rejects the BBO or the BBO size exceeds the FLEX transaction size indicated in the Request for Quotes, FLEX Traders present in the trading crowd may accept the unfilled balance of the BBO. Such acceptance must occur by public outcry promptly following the Submitting Member's determination whether to accept or reject the BBO or at the expiration of any applicable BBO Improvement Interval. Rejection of the open-outcry BBO(s) or failure to promptly to accept the BBO(s) by the Submitting Member or FLEX Traders, as applicable, results in expiration of the BBO(s) and the RFQ.
For open-outcry RFQs, the highest bid (lowest offer) will have priority. Subject to the requirements of Section 11(a)(1) discussed below, at the same price, the Submitting Member will allocate the RFQ Order in accordance with the following algorithm. First, to the extent the Submitting Member is entitled to a crossing participation entitlement, if any, the Submitting Member has priority to trade the applicable entitlement percentage. Next, to the extent a FLEX Appointed Market-Maker(s) is entitled to a participation entitlement, if any, the FLEX Appointed Market-Maker(s) has priority to trade the applicable entitlement amount. In any event, the FLEX Appointed Market-Maker participation entitlement when combined with a crossing participation entitlement will collectively not exceed 40% of the incoming order's original size.
If the RFQ Order being represented by the Submitting Member in open-outcry has an exemption from Section 11(a), the RFQ Order will have priority over all other same-priced bids (offers) on the same side of the market. After executing the RFQ Order (or if the Submitting Member determines not to trade), any unfilled balance of the BBO may be executed by FLEX Traders in the trading crowd based on the priority principles described above.
All open-outcry RFQ transactions must be in compliance with Section 11(a)(1) and the rules promulgated thereunder. In this regard, a bid (offer) submitted on behalf of the proprietary account of a member that is relying on the “G” exemption must yield priority to any bid (offer) at the same price that is represented in the Book (and all FLEX Quotes that have priority over the Book) in order to ensure that the proprietary order yields priority to non-member orders. A member that relies on the “G” exemption would also have to satisfy the other requirements of the “G” exemption. In the event a Submitting
As indicated above, the FLEX Book and FLEX Orders are new concepts being introduced through the FLEX Hybrid Trading System platform. Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 24B.5 describes the FLEX Book. The determination of whether to make the FLEX Book functionality available will be made by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis.
Utilization of the new FLEX Order functionality is contingent upon the FLEX Book being made available. So, if the Book is not made available, the FLEX Order functionality will not apply and instead the FLEX Hybrid Trading System platform functionality will be limited to the electronic and open-outcry RFQ processes. If the Book is made available, FLEX Orders that satisfy the specification and minimum value size requirements described above are eligible to be entered in the Book, as well as the remaining balance of RFQ Orders and FLEX Quotes entered in response to an RFQ (both of which are treated the same as other FLEX Orders once entered in the Book).
The System will automatically execute incoming marketable FLEX Orders against FLEX Orders resting in the Book based on price-time priority, provided that special procedures apply if a FLEX Appointed Market-Maker participation entitlement has been established for the option class and subject to the restriction discussed in the next paragraph. To the extent a FLEX Appointed Market-Maker(s) is entitled to a participation entitlement and is quoting at the best bid (offer), allocation among multiple bids (offers) at the same price shall be first to all FLEX Orders for the account of a public customer ranked ahead of the FLEX Appointed Market-Maker based on time priority, then the FLEX Appointed Market-Maker entitlement will be applied. Thereafter, all other FLEX Orders resting in the Book at the same price will trade based on time priority. To the extent there is any remaining balance of the incoming order, the balance will be entered in the Book or automatically cancelled, depending on any applicable Trade Conditions.
Under the proposed procedures for the FLEX Book, a Submitting Member may not execute as principal against a FLEX Order it represents as agent unless: (i) The agency FLEX Order is first subject to an RFQ, or (ii) the Submitting Member has been bidding or offering for at least the Crossing Exposure Period
All Book transactions must also be in compliance with Section 11(a)(1) and the rules promulgated thereunder. In this regard:
•
•
Paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 24B.5 provides that acceptance of any bid or offer creates a binding contract under Rule 6.48. This provision is the same as in existing Rule 24A.5(d) and will apply for both RFQ and Book transactions.
Paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 24B.5 describes the general priority principles applicable to the FLEX Hybrid System. Subparagraph (d)(1) includes a cross-reference to the priority algorithms applicable to electronic RFQs, open-outcry RFQs, and Book transactions, each of which is discussed above. Subparagraph (d)(2) describes the optional crossing and FLEX Appointed Market-Maker participation entitlements that may be overlaid on the general priority principles.
With respect to the crossing participation entitlement, a Submitting Member that has matched or improved the BBO or BBO clearing price, as applicable, will have priority after yielding to certain trading interests to execute the contra-side of the trade to the extent of the applicable crossing participation entitlement.
For FLEX Equity Options, the appropriate Procedure Committee will determine on a class-by-class basis whether to establish a crossing participation entitlement for facilitations and/or solicitations for electronic RFQs and/or open-outcry RFQs and the applicable entitlement percentage, which shall not exceed 40% of the trade.
The proposed crossing entitlement requirements also provide that a Submitting Member that is seeking a crossing participation entitlement in conjunction with an open-outcry RFQ may not cross an order that it is holding with a solicited order from a FLEX Market-Maker that is then in the trading crowd, except in accordance with CBOE Rule 6.55,
With respect to the FLEX Appointed Market-Maker participation entitlement, the existing FLEX rule provides that the appropriate Procedure Committee may establish a participation entitlement from time to time. In the past, the establishment of these entitlements and changes thereto have been the subject of separate rule filings.
The following is an example how the allocation will operate: Assume a FLEX Equity Option class has applied a 20% crossing participation entitlement and a 40% FLEX Appointed Market-Maker participation entitlement (when there are two other FLEX Market-Makers at the same price). At the end of an electronic RFQ, the interest representing the best offer of $1.20 considering the responsive FLEX Quotes is composed of interest received in the following order: 75 contracts from FLEX Market-Maker A, 300 contracts from FLEX Appointed Market-Maker B, and 50 contracts from FLEX Market-Maker C. If the Submitting Member submits an order to buy 100 contracts at $1.20 and intends to cross the order, the allocation among the contra-parties will be as follows: 20 contracts to the Submitting Member (20% of 100),
As with the existing FLEX rules, the proposed FLEX Hybrid Trading System rules also provide that all transactions must be in compliance with Section 11(a) of the Act
Where principal transactions contribute to the fairness and orderliness of exchange markets or do not reflect any time and place trading advantages, they are excepted from the prohibition. Among the transactions excepted under Section 11(a)(1) are those by a dealer acting in the capacity of a market maker,
Rule 11a2–2(T) under the Act, commonly referred to as the “effect versus execute” exemption rule, provides an exception in addition to those delineated in the statute.
As described by the Commission, these four requirements—off-floor transmission, non-participation in order execution, execution through an unaffiliated member, and non-retention of compensation for discretionary accounts—were “designed to put members and non-members on the same footing, to the extent practicable, in light of the purposes of Section 11(a).”
The Exchange believes that proprietary FLEX Orders originating from off the Exchange's trading floor and entered into the FLEX Book (whether to rest or the “hit” the Book) would qualify for Rule 11a2–2(T). The electronic platform component of the Book would place all of these users—both members and non-members—on the “same footing,” as intended by Rule 11a2–2(T). Given the Book's automated matching and execution services, no Exchange member would enjoy any special control over the time of execution or special order handling advantages for orders executed electronically via the Book, because such orders would be centrally processed for execution by computer, as compared to being handled by a member through bids and offers on the trading floor. Because the electronic trading platform components are designed to prevent any Exchange members from gaining any time and place advantages, the Exchange believes that the electronic trading platform component of the Book satisfies the four requirements of the “effect versus execute” rule as well as the general policy objectives of Section 11(a).
Rule 11a2–2(T) requires proprietary orders to be transmitted from off the exchange floor. In considering the application of this requirement to a number of automated trading and electronic order-handling facilities operated by national securities exchanges, the Commission has deemed the off-floor requirement to be met if the order is transmitted from off the floor directly to the exchange floor by electronic means.
The “effect versus execute” rule further provides that the exchange member and its associated person may not participate in the execution of the transaction once the order has been transmitted. This requirement was included to prevent members with their own brokers on the exchange floor from using those persons to influence or guide their orders' execution. This requirement does not preclude members from canceling or modifying orders, or from modifying the instructions for executing orders, after they have been transmitted to the floor. Such cancellations or modifications, however, also must be transmitted from off the exchange floor.
Although Rule 11a2–2(T) contemplates having an order executed by an exchange member who is unaffiliated with the member initiating the order, the Commission has recognized in the past that this requirement is not applicable where automated exchange facilities are used. For example, in considering the operation of COMEX and PACE, among other systems, the Commission noted that, while there is no independent executing exchange member, the execution of the order is automatic once it has been transmitted into the systems.
The exemption in Rule 11a2–2(T) states that, in the case of a transaction effected for any account for which the initiating member exercises investment discretion, in general, the member may not retain compensation for effecting the transaction. As a prerequisite to the use of the Book, if an Exchange member is to rely on Rule 11a2–2(T) for a managed account transaction, the Exchange member must comply with the limitations on compensation as set forth in paragraph (a)(2)(iv) of the “effect versus execute” rule.
The Exchange believes that these types of proprietary orders, when entered into the Book, satisfy the four requirements of the “effect versus execute” rule as well as the general policy objectives of Section 11(a) of the Act. The proposed rule change is beneficial because it will facilitate transactions in securities and will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market. The proposed rule change will place FLEX users, members, and non-members, on the “same footing,” as intended by Rule 11a2–2(T). In light of the aforementioned, CBOE believes, under its proposal, no member that submits a FLEX Order will be able to engage in proprietary trading in a manner inconsistent with Section 11(a) of the Act.
Lastly, the Exchange notes that the text of proposed Rule 24B.5(b)(2) would provide that a proprietary order that is entered on behalf of a member relying on the “G” exemption
The Exchange believes that members relying on the “G” exemption as an exemption to the Section 11(a)(1) requirements must comply with the requirements of that exemption before executing a proprietary order, including the requirement to yield priority to any bid or offer at the same price for the account of a person who is not, or is not associated with, a member (a “non-member”), irrespective of the size of any such bid or offer or the time when entered. Because the FLEX Hybrid Trading System will not always distinguish between member and non-member broker-dealer orders, the proposed restrictions of allowing the “G” exemption to be utilized only in open outcry on the physical floor of the Exchange (where the Member can manually yield priority), electronically as part of an electronic RFQ (where the System is programmed to yield to the Book and FLEX Quotes for the account of public customers and non-member broker-dealers), or electronically as a FLEX Ordered entered to “hit” the Book provided the order is immediately cancelled to the extent it is not executed in whole or in part (where the Member would be the only contra-party on that side of the transaction) are intended to enforce the requirement that a member relying on the “G” exemption yield priority to non-members.
Subparagraph (e) of proposed Rule 24B.5 describes the proposed standard minimum increments applicable to FLEX bids and offers as follows.
•
•
The Exchange believes this change in the standard minimum increment applicable to FLEX Equity Options is consistent with the existing policy and procedure for FLEX Index Options. The Exchange notes that, given the unique nature of FLEX trading occurring primarily through the RFQ auction process and limited amount of secondary trading that occurs and is anticipated to occur in FLEX Options,
Proposed Rules 24B.9,
As with the existing FLEX rules, the Exchange is proposing to limit FLEX Market-Maker appointments to CBOE members that are registered with the Exchange as Market-Makers. Under the proposed appointment provisions, FLEX Qualified Market-Makers would also be required to maintain an appointment in at least one Non-FLEX option class listed on the Exchange. FLEX Market-Makers are currently, and under the proposed new Rules would continue to be, designated as specialists on the CBOE for all purposes under the Act. In addition, with respect to the categories of FLEX Market-Makers, there will continue to be two categories: FLEX Appointed Market-Makers and FLEX Qualified Market-Makers.
Under the existing FLEX Rules, the categories and number of FLEX Market-Makers appointed to a given class depends on whether it is for a FLEX Equity Option class or FLEX Index Option class:
• For FLEX Equity Options, the existing rules generally call for five or more FLEX Qualified Market-Makers to be appointed to each class; provided, however, that the appropriate Exchange Market Performance Committee can determine to appoint two or more FLEX Appointed Market-Makers to such classes in lieu of appointing FLEX Qualified Market-Makers.
• For FLEX Index Options, the existing rules call for two or more FLEX Appointed Market-Makers to be appointed to each class and for settlement in one or more currencies.
The proposed rule for the FLEX Hybrid Trading System platform, as well as corresponding changes to the existing rule for the FLEX RFQ System platform, would eliminate these distinctions between equity and index products, and will instead provide that the Exchange will appoint two or more FLEX Qualified Market-Makers to each FLEX Index Option of a given class and currency and to each FLEX Equity Option class.
Under the proposed appointment procedures, a registered Market-Maker may apply on a form prescribed by the Exchange to be a “FLEX Qualified Market-Maker” in one or more classes of FLEX Options. From among the applicants, the Exchange would appoint two or more FLEX Qualified Market-Makers to each FLEX Index Option of a given class and settlement currency, and two or more FLEX Qualified Market-Makers to each FLEX Equity Option of a given class. In making such appointments and in taking other action with respect to FLEX Qualified Market-Makers, the Exchange shall take into account the factors enumerated in, and shall refer to the requirements of, Rule 8.3,
Notwithstanding the above, under the proposed appointment procedures, the appropriate Market Performance Committee may determine to solicit applications and appoint (i) One or more FLEX Appointed Market-Makers in addition to appointing FLEX Qualified Market-Makers to such classes or (ii) two or more FLEX Appointed Market-Makers in lieu of appointed FLEX Qualified Market-Makers. Thus, under this revised structure that will be applicable to both trading platforms, a FLEX Option class could be structured as a FLEX Qualified Market-Maker-only crowd with at least two participants, a mixed FLEX Qualified/Appointed Market-Maker crowd with at least three participants, or a FLEX Appointed Market-Maker-only crowd with at least two participants. Providing for the flexibility to determine the eligible categories of market-maker participants is similar to the existing rules regarding FLEX Equity Option appointments and other Exchange Rule regarding the appointment of market-makers in Non-FLEX Options.
The applicable market-making restrictions and obligations of FLEX Market-Makers will continue to be applied in a similar manner, except that new obligations respecting electronic RFQs and the Book will be specified. Specifically: (i) A FLEX Appointed Market-Maker will have an obligation to respond to any open-outcry RFQ and to a percentage of electronic RFQs
These market-making restrictions and obligations are tailored to reflect the particular nature of FLEX Options, which are customized to fit particular investor needs, and the particular nature of FLEX trading, which is anticipated to continue to have limited secondary trading in any series due to the diversity inherent in FLEX Options. The restrictions and obligations are designed to assure that each FLEX Market-Maker's course of dealings as a FLEX Market-Maker will contribute significantly and positively toward the maintenance of fair and orderly markets in FLEX Options on the Exchange and will, therefore, be consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes of the Act and Section 11(a) thereof. As proposed, FLEX Market-Makers will be required to engage generally in a course of dealings which will enhance the Exchange market and positively contribute to depth and liquidity. These objectives are basic to the major purposes of the Act and, thus, are consistent with the purposes of Section 11(a) and the protection of investors. Therefore, the Exchange believes that a FLEX Market-Maker who initiates the purchase or sale of securities as provided in the proposed Rules will be “acting in the capacity of market maker” within the meaning of Section 11(a)(1)(A) of the Act.
Existing FLEX Rule 24A.12 currently provides that a FLEX Post Official is responsible for (i) Reviewing the conformity of FLEX Requests for Quotes and FLEX Quotes to the terms and specifications contained in Rule 24A.4, (ii) posting FLEX Requests for Quotes for dissemination, (iii) determining the BBO, (iv) ensuring that FLEX contracts are executed in conformance with the priority principles set forth in Rule 24A.5(e), (v) calling for Indicative FLEX Quotes in accordance with the requirements of Rule 24A.12(c), and (vi) calling upon FLEX Qualified Market-Makers to make FLEX Quotes in specific classes of FLEX Equity Options as provided in Rule 24A.9(c).
Proposed Rule 24B.14,
Similar to the existing FLEX rules, a FLEX Official will also be responsible for calling upon FLEX Market-Makers, whether Qualified or Appointed to a given class, to make FLEX Quotes in specific classes, as provided in proposed Rule 24B.9.
The remaining rules that are proposed to be included in Chapter XXIVB are the same as, or closely modeled after, the existing FLEX rules. For example, proposed Rules 24B.2,
Proposed Rules 24B.11,
Proposed Rules 24B.7,
Specifically, the current text indicates that there are no position limits for any broad-based FLEX Index Options. The proposed text provides that, while there are no position limits for FLEX DJX, NDX, OEX, or SPX options contracts,
•
•
•
The rules would also provide that FLEX Option positions shall not be aggregated with positions in Non-FLEX Options other than as described below, and positions in FLEX Index Options on a given index shall not be aggregated with options on any stocks included in the index or with FLEX Index Option positions on another index.
•
•
With respect to exercise limits, the proposed rule text clarifies that the exercise limits for FLEX Index Options shall be equivalent to the FLEX position limits and that FLEX DJX, NDX, OEX, and SPX options shall not be subject to exercise limits.
Because the maximum FLEX Index Option position and exercise limits will now be specifically set out in Rules 24A.7, 24A.8, 24B.7, and 24B.8 (before the rules simply provided that the limits would be “fixed by the Exchange”), the Exchange is also proposing to eliminate the requirement that, when CBOE files to trade a new Non-FLEX Index Option, it also propose the position and exercise limits that will apply for the related FLEX Index Option.
The Exchange believes that, while retaining the existing advantages of exchange-traded FLEX Options, the FLEX Hybrid Trading System will streamline and automate the FLEX trading process and establish increased price transparency. The Exchange believes that the FLEX Hybrid Trading System will offer a legitimate alternative for institutional sell-side firms and potentially buy-side customers to taking their order flow to the OTC market. Additionally, the FLEX Hybrid Trading System will offer the CBOE market-making community a channel to the FLEX Options market.
The Exchange is also proposing certain changes to the existing FLEX rules that correspond to the proposed rules discussed above in order that there be consistency between the two sets of rules. These changes include revising provisions pertaining to the various categories of FLEX Market-Makers and related obligations in Rules 24A.4,
Finally, cross-references in the Exchange rules are being updated to include a corresponding reference to the proposed FLEX Hybrid Trading System rules, and various non-substantive grammatical and formatting changes are being made throughout.
In conjunction with the introduction of the new FLEX Hybrid Trading System, CBOE is proposing to add the concepts of Sponsored Users and Sponsoring Members to its rules. Sponsored Users would be provided electronic access to directly enter and execute orders through a Sponsoring Member onto the Exchange's FLEX Hybrid Trading System.
CBOE is proposing to adopt Rule 6.20A, which will govern electronic access for the entry and execution of orders by Sponsored Users with authorized access to the System and outline the requirements that Sponsored Users and Sponsoring Members would be required to meet prior to engaging in a Sponsoring Member/Sponsored User relationship. A “Sponsored User” would be a person, such as an institutional investor, who has entered into a sponsorship arrangement with a Sponsoring Member for purposes of entering orders on the System. This would include entering and responding to electronic RFQs and entering FLEX Orders into the Book. A Sponsored User may obtain and maintain authorized access to the System only if such access is authorized in advance by one or more Sponsoring Members in accordance with the provisions of proposed Rule 6.20A, which are substantially similar to NYSE Arca Inc. (“NYSEArca”) Rules 7.29 and 7.30.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Act
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On July 6, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to offer, to both member and non-member subscribers, a data feed that will provide a bulk delivery of ISEE Select
The ISEE Select data feed will have a flat rate subscription fee based on a fixed number of end users that each subscriber allows to view the data, as follows: $0.10 Per end user, per month, for a minimum of 10,000 end users; $0.10 for each additional end user, per month, up to 74,999 end users, in increments of 5,000 end users; $0.084 per end user, per month, for redistribution from 75,000 to 199,999 end users, in increments of 5,000 end users; and $0.0825 per end user, per month, for redistribution to 200,000 or more end users, in minimum increments of 5,000 end users. An example of the monthly subscription fee for a subscriber with 100,000 end users is as follows:
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On October 31, 2006, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Nasdaq proposes to make changes to its rules to facilitate the use of technology to satisfy Nasdaq listing requirements and to make certain clarifying and technical corrections.
Pursuant to Nasdaq Rule 4350(b)(1)(A), each Nasdaq issuer is currently required to distribute to shareholders a copy of an annual report containing audited financial statements.
In the initial version of the rule change, Nasdaq proposed that the annual report requirement is applicable only to issuers of common stock and voting preferred stock (and their equivalents).
In addition, Nasdaq proposes to make a technical correction to Rule 4350(b)(1)(B), relating to the disclosure required when the audit opinion of a company's annual financial statements contains a “going concern qualification.” The proposed change removes the term “going concern qualification,” which is undefined in the accounting literature, and replaces it with language from Statement on Auditing Standard Number 59, which relates to the auditor's consideration of an entity's ability to continue as a going concern.
Nasdaq requires that foreign private issuers disclose all non-conforming governance practices in their Form F–1,
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Exchange has proposed to amend Nasdaq Rule 4350 to permit a company to distribute its annual report by posting it on a Web site and issuing a press release stating that the annual report has been filed with the Commission (or other appropriate regulatory authority), that such annual report is available on the company's publicly available Web site, and that shareholders can receive a hard-copy free of charge upon request. Nasdaq's proposal also states that the annual report requirement is applicable only to issuers of common stock, voting preferred stock, and their equivalents, and that the annual report requirement can be satisfied by providing the company's annual filing with the Commission. The Commission believes that the proposed changes are reasonable because electronic delivery may offer shareholders immediate access to financial information and greater ability to search such information. The Commission also believes that the proposed rule change may lead to significant cost savings for Nasdaq-listed companies, savings that will ultimately accrue to those companies' shareholders.
The Commission also notes that the proposed rule change requires the listed company to issue a press release simultaneously with the posting of the annual report, stating that the annual report is available, listing the Web site where the annual report may be accessed, and requiring the listed company to send paper copies to those shareholders that request one within a reasonable time at no charge. The Commission believes that these steps provide reasonable assurance that stockholders will either be able to access the Web site of the listed company to access the annual report or request a free paper copy.
Nasdaq also proposes to remove a provision related to the timing for delivery of the annual report, because the Exchange notes that the Commission's proxy rules already require that such information be provided before the annual meeting. The Commission believes that this proposal is reasonable, given that state corporate law and Commission rules operate together to determine the timetable for the delivery of annual reports to shareholders.
Nasdaq is also removing the rule provision that the annual report be filed with Nasdaq at the same time that it is made available to shareholders. As noted earlier, the Exchange receives immediate notification of listed issuers' filings, and the Commission believes that the proposed change to eliminate this particular filing requirement is reasonable.
Further, Nasdaq proposes to make a technical correction to Rule 4350(b)(1)(B), by removing the term “going concern qualification,” which is undefined in the accounting literature, and replacing it with language from Statement on Auditing Standard Number 59, which relates to the auditor's consideration of an entity's ability to continue as a going concern. The Commission agrees with Nasdaq that this change is reasonable because it will remove confusion as to when the rule will apply.
Pursuant to Exchange Rule 4350(a) and IM–4350–6, Nasdaq requires that foreign private issuers disclose all non-conforming governance practices in their Form F–1, 20–F, or 40–F. Nasdaq proposes to expand the existing Nasdaq rule to allow this disclosure to be made either in the Form F–1, 20–F, or 40–F, as applicable, or, in the alternative, the foreign private issuer may provide these disclosures in English on its Web site. If, however, the disclosure is only available on the foreign private issuer's Web site, the proposal requires that the issuer's annual report and registration statement should state this fact and provide the Web address at which the information may be obtained. The Commission believes this proposed change is also reasonable because it will permit investors to utilize the Web to quickly determine if a foreign private issue has any non-conforming corporate governance practices. The Commission also expects that foreign private issuers would update these disclosures to keep them current and accurate.
In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange modified the proposal to retain the current formulation of Rule 4350(b)(1)(A), so it will apply to all Nasdaq issuers and not just issuers of common stock and voting preferred stock (and their equivalents).
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment No. 2, including whether the proposed changes in Amendment No. 2 are consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Nasdaq proposes to clarify that when a company is delinquent in a periodic report, Nasdaq will assess the listing of additional shares fee based on the number of shares the company tells Nasdaq it has issued during the period.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Commission has previously approved fees for the listing of additional shares by domestic Nasdaq-listed companies. Pursuant to Nasdaq rules, these fees are calculated and assessed quarterly based on the company's total shares outstanding as reported on its periodic reports filed with the Commission.
Some Nasdaq companies have recently become delinquent in filing their periodic reports with the Commission, primarily due to investigations into their accounting for stock option grants. Nonetheless, these companies may continue to issue additional shares. Because the existing rule uses a company's public filings to determine the quarterly change in shares outstanding, Nasdaq has been unable to assess additional share fees on these issuers that have not filed periodic reports with the Commission. In order to timely assess and collect the applicable fee in this situation, Nasdaq proposes to modify its rules such that a delinquent company must self-report the change in shares outstanding while it is delinquent. Nasdaq will assess fees based on this reported change in shares outstanding and will reconcile the fee charged with the actual fee due, once the filings are made with the Commission. Nasdaq notes that the proposed rule change has no impact on Nasdaq's substantive requirement that companies timely file required periodic
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b–4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
NASD is proposing to amend NASD Rule 7002B to establish a fee for reports that are submitted to the
Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in
NASD members that trade securities listed on the NYSE (“Tape A”), Amex (“Tape B”), or Nasdaq (“Tape C”) in over-the-counter transactions reported to the
The following charges shall be paid by participants for use of the
(a) For purposes of applying any provision of the Rule 7000B Series that reflects a charge assessed, or credit provided, by the
(b) For purposes of applying any provision of the Rule 7000B Series that reflects a charge assessed, or credit provided, by the
(c) No Change.
(a) All charges imposed by the
(b) No Change.
In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
NASD recently filed a proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness to allow NASD members to use the NASD/Nasdaq TRF to process transaction fees charged by one member to another member on trades in NMS stocks, as defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS under the Act, effected otherwise than on an exchange.
NASD is proposing to establish the fee to be charged by the NASD/Nasdaq TRF for the use of this service.
In addition, NASD is proposing technical, non-substantive amendments to the NASD Rule 7000 Series to change all references to the “Trade Reporting Facility” to the “NASD/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility.” These changes are consistent with the NASD Rule 7000C Series (relating to the NASD/NSX Trade Reporting Facility), 7000D Series (relating to the NASD/BSE Trade Reporting Facility), and 7000E Series (relating to the NASD/NYSE Trade Reporting Facility).
NASD has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The operative date of the proposed rule change will be August 1, 2007.
NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A of the Act,
NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Appendix 2 of Title 5, United States Code, Public Law 92–463, notice is hereby given that the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), National Small Business Development Center (SBDC) Advisory Board, will be hosting a public federal meeting on Monday, September 17, 2007, from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency Colorado Convention Center, 650 15th Street, Denver, CO 80202. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss advisory board matters that may be presented by members and the staff of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Anyone wishing to attend the National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board meeting must contact Alanna Falcone, Program Analyst, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Small Business Development Centers, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, telephone (202) 619–1612 or fax (202) 481–0134.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202–453–8052). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA–44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547–0001.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its findings on the noise compatibility program submitted by England Economic and Industrial Developmental District under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. (the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and 14 CFR part 150. These findings are made in recognition of the description of Federal and nonfederal responsibilities in Senate Report No. 96–52 (1980). On January 26, 2006, the FAA determined that the noise exposure maps submitted by England Economic and Industrial Development District under part 150
Mr. Tim Tandy, Federal Aviation Administration, ASW–640, Fort Worth, TX 76193–0640 at (817) 222–5644. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at this same location.
This noise announces that the FAA has given its overall approval to the noise compatibility program for Alexandria International Airport, effective August 14, 2007, and that the revised noise exposure map for the year 2010 for this same airport is determined to be in compliance with applicable requirements of FAR Part 150.
A. Under section 47504 of the Act, an airport operator who has previously submitted a noise exposure map may submit to the FAA a noise compatibility program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed by the airport operator for the reduction of existing non-compatible land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses within the area covered by the noise exposure maps. The Act requires such programs to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties including local communities, government agencies, airport users, and FAA personnel.
Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance with FAR Part 150 is a local program, not a Federal program. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for that of the airport proprietor with respect to which measures should be recommended for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of FAR Part 150 program recommendations is measured according to the standards expressed in FAR Part 150 and the Act and is limited to the following determinations:
1. The noise compatibility program was developed in accordance with the provisions and procedures of FAR Part 150;
2. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses;
3. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or intrude into areas preempted by the Federal Government; and
4. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator prescribed by law.
Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport noise compatibility program are delineated in FAR Part 150, section 150.5. Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of land uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures may be required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an environmental assessment of the proposed action. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. Where Federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must be submitted to the FAA regional office in Fort Worth, Texas.
England Economic and Industrial Development District submitted to the FAA on January 31, 2007, the noise exposure maps, descriptions, and other documentation produced during the noise compatibility planning study conducted from 2001 through 2007. The Alexandria International Airport noise exposure maps were determined by FAA to be in compliance with applicable requirements on January 26, 2006. Notice of this determination was published in the
The Alexandria International Airport study contains a proposed noise compatibility program comprised of actions designed for phased implementation by airport management and adjacent jurisdictions from 2008 to the year 2015. It was requested that the FAA evaluate and approve this material as a noise compatibility program as described in section 47504 of the Act. The FAA began its review of the program on April 9, 2007, and was required by a provision of the Act to approve or disapprove the program within 180 days (other than the use of new or modified flight procedures for noise control). Failure to approve or disapprove such program within the 180-day period shall be deemed to be an approval of such program.
The submitted program contained eight proposed actions for noise mitigation on and off the airport. The FAA completed its review and determined that the procedural and substantive requirements of the Act and FAR Part 150 have been satisfied. The overall program, therefore, was approved by the FAA effective August 14, 2007.
Outright approval was granted for all eight of the specific program elements, which are summarized as follows: Program Recommendation (1), whereby military aircraft departing from Runway 14 would voluntarily use departure track RAD14X, instead of RAD14; Program Recommendation (2), whereby military aircraft arriving to Runway 32 would voluntarily use arrival track A32B, instead of VOR32; Program Recommendation (3), involving the opportunity within the Primary Area for fee simple acquisition and relocation assistance regarding eligible properties (eligible vacant residential properties are limited to those considered infill among established residential areas); Program Recommendation (4), involving the opportunity within the Primary Area for avigation easement acquisition regarding eligible properties whose owners decline to participate in the fee simple acquisition program; Program Recommendation (5), involving the opportunity within the Primary Area for acoustical treatment of eligible properties whose owners decline to participate in the fee simple acquisition and relocation program or the avigation easement acquisition program (acquisition of an avigation easement or similar interest is recommended by FAA as a condition of participation in this measure); Program Recommendation (6), involving the airport sponsor's management of acquired property and preparation of a redevelopment plan; Program Recommendation (7), involving the opportunity within the Secondary Area for acquisition of avigation easements for all eligible residential, infill vacant residential properties, and one church; and Program Recommendation (8), involving the opportunity within the Secondary Area for acoustical treatment of all single-family residential properties and one church.
These determinations are set forth in detail in a Record of Approval signed by the FAA Southwest Region, Airports Division Manager on August 14, 2007. The Record of Approval, as well as other evaluation materials and the documents comprising the submittal, are available for review at the FAA office listed above and at the administrative offices of the England Economic and Industrial Development District. The Record of Approval also will be available on-line at
The FAA also has completed its review of the revised noise exposure maps and related descriptions submitted by England Economic and Industrial Development District. The specific map under consideration is Figure 7.9 in the submission. The FAA has determined that this map for Alexandria International Airport is in compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is effective on August 22, 2007. FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with the procedures contained in appendix A of FAR Part 150. Such determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data, information or plans.
If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map submitted under section 47503 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of section 47506 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way under FAR Part 150 or through FAA's review of noise exposure maps. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with the airport operator that submitted those maps, or with those public agencies and planning agencies with which consultation is required under section 47503 of the Act. The FAA has relied on the certification by the airport operator, under section 150.21 of FAR Part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has been accomplished.
Copies of the noise exposure maps and of the FAA's evaluation of the maps, and copies of the record of approval and other evaluation materials and documents which comprised the submittal to the FAA are available for examination at the following locations:
Federal Aviation Administration, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas; England Economic and Industrial Development District, 1611 Arnold Drive, Alexandria, Louisiana. Questions on either of these FAA determinations may be directed to the individual named above under the heading
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of RTCA Special Committee 159 meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 159: Global Positioning System (GPS).
The meeting will be held September 17–21, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (unless stated otherwise).
The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036.
RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833–9339; fax (202) 833–9434; Web site
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 159 meeting. The plenary agenda will include:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited by space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of RTCA Special Committee 135 meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 135: Environmental Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment.
The meeting will be held September 25–27, 2007 starting at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Colson Board Room, Washington, DC 20036.
(1) RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833–9339; fax (202) 833–9434; Web site
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 135 meeting. The agenda will include:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of RTCA Special Committee 207 Meeting, Airport Security Access Control Systems.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 207, Airport Security Access Control Systems.
The meeting will be held September 20, 2007 from 9:30 a.m.–4 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., Conference Rooms, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036.
(1) RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833–9339; fax (202) 833–9434; Web site
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 207 meeting. The agenda will include:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of RTCA Special Committee 216 meeting Aeronautical Systems Security.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 216: Aeronautical Systems Security.
The meeting will be held on October 10–11, 2007, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC, 20036–5133.
RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC, 2036–5133; telephone (202) 833–9339; fax (202) 833–9434; Web site
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 2216 meeting. The agenda will include:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by FHWA and other Federal agencies.
This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and other Federal agencies that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The actions relate to a proposed highway project, United States Highway 281 (US 281), north of San Antonio, beginning at Loop 1604 and heading north to Borgfeld Road in Bexar County in the State of Texas. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before February 26, 2008. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 180 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
Mr. Salvador Deocampo, District Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, 300 E. 8th Street, Rm. 826, Austin, Texas 78701; telephone: (512) 536–5950; e-mail:
Notice is hereby given that the FHWA and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the following highway project in the State of Texas: United States Highway 281 (US 281), north of San Antonio, beginning at Loop 1604 and heading north to Borgfeld Road in Bexar County in the State of Texas. The project will be an approximately 7.5 mile long, six-lane tollway with grade separations at all intersecting roadways (i.e. a fully access-controlled facility) with full length frontage roads. The proposed highway will follow the existing US 281 alignment. The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project, dated May 2007, in the FHWA Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued on August 14, 2007, and in other documents in the FHWA project records. The EA, FONSI, and other documents in the FHWA project records file are available by contacting the FHWA or the Texas Department of Transportation at the addresses provided above. This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1. General: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321–4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109].
2. Air: Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671(q).
3. Land: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303].
4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531–1544 and Section 1536], Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 703–712].
5. Historic and Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(f) et seq.]; Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1977 [16 U.S.C. 470(aa)–11]; Archeological and Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 469–469(c)].
6. Social and Economic: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)–2000(d)(1)]; Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) [7 U.S.C. 4201–4209].
7. Wetlands and Water Resources: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251–1377 (Section 404, Section 401, Section 319).
8. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Resources; E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 11514 Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality; E.O. 13112 Invasive Species.
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 235 and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of 49 CFR part 236, as detailed below.
The Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) has requested that FRA review its September 20, 2006, decision to deny the UP waiver request identified as Docket Number FRA–2006–25630. UP seeks approval of the proposed petition for waiver from certain portions of 49 CFR Parts 234 and 236 pertaining to monthly inspections, observations, and tests. UP requests that rules presently reading “at least once each month” be modified to read “at least once each calendar month with at least 20 calendar days interval between” the applicable inspection, observation, or test.
The reason UP has given for the proposed changes is that its signal department does not have dedicated inspectors to conduct monthly inspections. UP points out that the nature of signal business is better served when the person doing the inspections is also the person who does the maintenance. While responsible for most of their signal inspections, UP's signal maintainers also work in support of other engineering groups and need to participate in rail replacement, switch component renewal, road crossing work, and a variety of other track-related activities. Given this support-role requirement, UP says it is very difficult for its signal maintainers to commit specific days of the month to complete each of their required inspections, rendering the need to be able to move their scheduled inspections a few days ahead or back.
Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an application shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which the protest is made, including a concise statement of the interest of the party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the protest shall be furnished to the applicant at the address listed above.
FRA expects to be able to determine these matters without an oral hearing. However, if a specific request for an oral hearing is accompanied by a showing that the party is unable to adequately present his or her position by written statements, an application may be set for public hearing.
All communications concerning this proceeding should be identified by Docket Number FRA–2006–25630 and may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at
FRA wishes to inform all potential commenters that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company (NWPCO), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to change operators from Northwestern Pacific Railway Co., LLC (NWPY) to NWPCO on a line of railroad owned by North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA) and Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART). The line, entirely within California, includes: (1) The Willits Segment extending from NWP milepost 142.5 near Outlet Station to NWP milepost 68.22 near Healdsburg, a distance of approximately 74.3 miles; (2) the Healdsburg Segment extending from NWP milepost 68.2 near Healdsburg to NWP milepost 26.96 near Novato, a distance of approximately 41.2 miles; (3) the Novato Segment extending from milepost 26.96 near Novato to NWP milepost 25.6 near Ignacio, a distance of approximately 1.4 miles; and (4) the Lombard Segment extending from NWP milepost 25.6 near Ignacio to Lombard Station in Napa County, SP milepost 63.4, a distance of approximately 25.3 miles. These segments (“the Line”) total approximately 142 miles.
NWPCO certifies that upon consummation of the transaction, it will become a Class III rail carrier, that its projected revenues as a result of this transaction will not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III rail carrier, and that such revenues would not exceed $5 million annually. NWPCO indicates that it intends to consummate the transaction on or after September 8, 2007, which is the earliest the transaction can be consummated (30 days after the exemption was filed).
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 35073, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20523–0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Douglas H. Bosco, Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company, 37 Old Courthouse Square, Suite 200, Santa Rosa, CA 95404, and Robert A. Wimbish, Baker & Miller, PLLC, 2401 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20037.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Departmental Offices, Treasury.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Financial Literacy and Education Commission, established by the Financial Literacy and Education Improvement Act (Title V of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003).
The twelfth meeting of the Financial Literacy and Education Commission will be held on Tuesday, September 25, 2007, beginning at 10 a.m.
The Financial Literacy and Education Commission meeting will be held in the Cash Room at the Department of the Treasury, located at 1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC. To be admitted to the Treasury building, an attendee must RSVP by providing his or her name, organization, phone number, date of birth, Social Security number and country of citizenship to the Department of the Treasury by e-mail at:
For additional information, contact Tom Kurek by e-mail at:
The Financial Literacy and Education Improvement Act, which is Title V of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (the “FACT Act”) (Pub. L. 108–159), established the Financial Literacy and Education Commission (the “Commission”) to improve financial literacy and education of persons in the United States. The Commission is composed of the Secretary of the Treasury and the head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; the Office of Thrift Supervision; the Federal Reserve; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; the National Credit Union Administration; the Securities and Exchange Commission; the Departments of Education, Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and Veterans Affairs; the Federal Trade Commission; the General Services Administration; the Small Business Administration; the Social Security Administration; the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; and the Office of Personnel Management. The Commission is required to hold
The twelfth meeting of the Commission, which will be open to the public, will be held in the Cash Room at the Department of the Treasury, located at 1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The room will accommodate 80 members of the public. Seating is available on a first-come basis. Participation in the discussion at the meeting will be limited to Commission members, their staffs, and special guest presenters.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
This rule prescribes the hunting seasons, hours, areas, and daily bag and possession limits of mourning, white-winged, and white-tipped doves; band-tailed pigeons; rails; moorhens and gallinules; woodcock; common snipe; sandhill cranes; sea ducks; early (September) waterfowl seasons; migratory game birds in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; and some extended falconry seasons. Taking of migratory birds is prohibited unless specifically provided for by annual regulations. This rule permits taking of designated species during the 2007–08 season.
This rule is effective on September 1, 2007.
You may inspect comments received on the migratory bird hunting regulations during normal business hours at the Service's office in room 4107, Arlington Square Building, 4501 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. You may obtain copies of referenced reports from the address above or from the Division of Migratory Bird Management's Web site at
Robert Blohm, Chief, or Ron W. Kokel, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (703) 358–1714.
On April 11, 2007, we published in the
On June 20 and 21, 2007, we held open meetings with the Flyway Council Consultants at which the participants reviewed information on the current status of migratory shore and upland game birds and developed recommendations for the 2007–08 regulations for these species plus regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, special September waterfowl seasons in designated States, special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic Flyway, and extended falconry seasons. In addition, we reviewed and discussed preliminary information on the status of waterfowl as it relates to the development and selection of the regulatory packages for the 2007–08 regular waterfowl seasons. On July 23, 2007, we published in the
On August 1–2, 2007, we held open meetings with the Flyway Council Consultants at which the participants reviewed the status of waterfowl and developed recommendations for the 2007–08 regulations for these species. Proposed hunting regulations were discussed for late seasons. We published proposed frameworks for the 2007–08 late-season migratory bird hunting regulations in a late August 2007
The final rule described here is the sixth in the series of proposed, supplemental, and final rulemaking documents for migratory game bird hunting regulations and deals specifically with amending subpart K of 50 CFR part 20. It sets hunting seasons, hours, areas, and limits for mourning, white-winged, and white-tipped doves; band-tailed pigeons; rails; moorhens and gallinules; woodcock; common snipe; sandhill cranes; sea ducks; early (September) waterfowl seasons; mourning doves in Hawaii; migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; youth waterfowl hunting day; and some extended falconry seasons.
NEPA considerations are covered by the programmatic document “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88–14),” filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. We published a notice of availability in the
In a notice published in the September 8, 2005,
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; 87 Stat. 884), provides that, “The Secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act” (and) shall “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out * * * is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat * * *.” Consequently, we conducted formal consultations to ensure that actions resulting from these regulations would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened
The migratory bird hunting regulations are economically significant and were reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866. As such, a cost/benefit analysis was initially prepared in 1981. This analysis was subsequently revised annually from 1990–96, updated in 1998, and updated again in 2004. It is further discussed under the heading Regulatory Flexibility Act. Results from the 2004 analysis indicate that the expected welfare benefit of the annual migratory bird hunting frameworks is on the order of $734 to $1,064 million, with a mid-point estimate of $899 million. Copies of the cost/benefit analysis are available upon request from the address indicated under
This year, due to limited data availability, we partially updated the 2004 analysis, but restricted our analysis to duck hunting. Results indicate that the total consumer surplus of the annual duck hunting frameworks is on the order of $222 to $360 million, with a mid-point estimate of $291 million. We plan to perform a full update of the analysis in 2008. Copies of the updated analysis are available upon request from the address indicated under
These regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This year, due to limited data availability, we partially updated the 2004 analysis, but restricted our analysis to duck hunting. Results indicate that the duck hunters would spend between $291 million and $473.5 million at small businesses in 2007. We plan to perform a full update of the analysis in 2008 when the full results from the 2006 National Hunting and Fishing Survey is available. Copies of the updated analysis are available upon request from the address indicated under
This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above, this rule has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. However, because it establishes hunting seasons, we do not plan to defer the effective date required by 5 U.S.C. 801 under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 808(1).
We examined these regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502
In promulgating this rule, we have determined that it will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This rule will not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, these rules allow hunters to exercise otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce restrictions on the use of private and public property.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Thus, in accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects on Indian trust resources. However, in the April 11 proposed rule (72 FR 18328) we solicited proposals for special migratory bird hunting regulations for certain Tribes on Federal Indian reservations, off-reservation trust lands, and ceded lands for the 2007–08 migratory bird hunting season. The resulting proposals will be contained in a separate proposed rule. By virtue of these actions, we have consulted with all the Tribes affected by this rule.
Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from which the States make selections regarding the hunting of migratory birds, and we employ guidelines to establish special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves the ability of the States and tribes to determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or tribe may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any time. The frameworks are developed in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway Councils. This process allows States to participate in the development of frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby having an influence on their own regulations. These rules do not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
The rulemaking process for migratory game bird hunting must, by its nature, operate under severe time constraints. However, we intend that the public be given the greatest possible opportunity to comment. Thus, when the preliminary proposed rulemaking was published, we established what we believed were the longest periods possible for public comment. In doing this, we recognized that when the comment period closed, time would be of the essence. That is, if there were a delay in the effective date of these regulations after this final rulemaking, States would have insufficient time to select season dates and limits, to communicate those selections to us, and to establish and publicize the necessary regulations and procedures to implement their decisions. We therefore find that “good cause” exists, within the terms of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, and these regulations will, therefore, take effect immediately upon publication. Accordingly, with each conservation agency having had an opportunity to participate in selecting the hunting seasons desired for its State or Territory on those species of migratory birds for which open seasons are now prescribed, and consideration having been given to all other relevant matters presented, certain sections of title 50, chapter I, subchapter B, part 20, subpart K, are hereby amended as set forth below.
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
16 U.S.C. 703–712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a–j, Pub. L. 106–108.