Notices. Notice of open meeting
12,957 words·~59 min read·
/register/2007/02/05/07-525A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4000-01-M DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee; Notice of Open Meeting AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: The Office of Nuclear Energy announces that the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee will hold an open meeting and the public is invited. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the **Federal Register** .
DATES: Tuesday, February 20, 2007; 3 p.m. until 6 p.m. Wednesday, February 21, 2007; 8:30 a.m. until 2 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Bennion Student Union, 1784 Science Center Drive, Room 109, Idaho Falls, ID 83402. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. John Boger, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 19901 Germantown Rd, Germantown, MD 20874; telephone
(301)903-4495; e-mail *john.boger@hq.doe.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background:* The Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) was established in 1998 by the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE)to provide independent, expert advice on complex scientific, technical, and policy issues that arise in the planning, managing, and implementation of DOE's civilian nuclear energy research programs. The committee is composed of 14 individuals of diverse backgrounds selected for their technical expertise and experience, established records of distinguished professional service, and their knowledge of issues that pertain to nuclear energy. *Purpose of the Meeting:* To inform the committee of recent developments and current status of research programs and projects pursued by the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy and receive advice and comments in return from the committee. *Tentative Agenda:* The agenda during the two-day meeting is expected to include presentations that cover such topics as the current status of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), Next Generation of Nuclear Power, Nuclear Power 2010, and Idaho National Laboratory. The agenda may change to accommodate committee business. For updates, one is directed to the NERAC Web site: *http://nuclear.gov/nerac/neNeracOverview.html.* *Public Participation:* Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions may do so on the second day of the meeting, Wednesday, February 21, 2007. Approximately one-half hour will be reserved for public comments. Time allotted per speaker will depend on the number who wish to speak but is not expected to exceed 5 minutes. The public is invited up to the capacity of the meeting room. Anyone who is not able to make the meeting or has had insufficient time to address the committee is invited to send a written statement to Dr. John Boger, 19901 Germantown Rd, Germantown, MD 20874, or e-mail *john.boger@hq.doe.gov.* *Minutes:* The minutes will be available on the NERAC Web site: *http://nuclear.gov/nerac/neNeracOverview.html.* Issued in Washington, DC on January 30, 2007. Rachel Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-1772 Filed 2-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Bonneville Power Administration [BPA Docket No. TR-08] 2008 Transmission Rate Case; Public Hearing and Opportunities for Public Review and Comment AGENCY: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Department of Energy (DOE). ACTION: Notice of 2008 Transmission Rate Case. SUMMARY: BPA requests that all motions, petitions, comments and documents intended to become part of the Official Record of the 2008 Transmission Rate Case proceeding include the designation TR-08. BPA's existing transmission and ancillary services rates expire September 30, 2007. BPA will establish transmission and ancillary service rates in the 2008 Transmission Rate proceeding for the period from October 2007 through September 2009, fiscal years (“FY”) 2008 and 2009 (“2008-2009 Rate Period”). BPA's Transmission Services organization held several rate case workshops with BPA's transmission customers from July through October 2006 to discuss transmission costs, revenues, and rate design issues for the 2008-2009 Rate Period. The customers had expressed interest in meeting to discuss the possibility of a settlement of the rate proposal. Settlement discussions were publicly noticed and held during October and November 2006 and resulted in BPA's offer of a settlement agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) on November 30, 2006. By January 5, 2007, most of BPA's customers had signed the Settlement Agreement or indicated that they would not object to Transmission Services's initial rate proposal (“Initial Proposal”). Transmission Services executed the Settlement Agreement on January 12, 2007. The Initial Proposal reflects the terms of the Settlement Agreement. DATES: Persons wishing to become parties to the 2008 Transmission Rate Case proceeding must file a petition to intervene which shall be received by BPA no later than 4:30 p.m., Pacific Time, on February 12, 2007. For further information on petitions to intervene please see the “ ADDRESSES ” and “ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ,” Part III sections of this notice. The hearing on BPA's 2008 Transmission Rate Case will begin with a pre-hearing conference at 9 a.m., Pacific Time, on February 14, 2007, in Portland, Oregon, at the address specified below. Because of increased building security, attendees should allow additional time for entry into the building. Attendees must present a photo ID and must sign in at the security desk. Compact discs (“CD”) containing the Initial Proposal documents, in PDF format, will be provided to parties at the pre-hearing conference. The Initial Proposal, studies and documentation, and the Settlement Agreement also will be available on BPA's Web site at: *http://www.transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Rates%5Fand%5FTariff/,* and may be viewed at BPA's Public Reference Room, 1st floor, 905 NE 11th Ave., Portland, Oregon, on or after February 14, 2007. Written comments by non-party participants must be received by BPA no later than March 16, 2007, to be considered in the Record of Decision (“ROD”). The Administrator will issue a Final Record of Decision in this proceeding on approximately April 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: 1. Petitions to intervene should include the designation TR-08 and be directed to Transmission Hearing Clerk—LT-7, Bonneville Power Administration, 905 NE 11th Ave., Portland, Oregon 97232. In addition, a copy of the petition must be served concurrently on BPA's Office of General Counsel, directed to Susan Millar—LT-7, Office of General Counsel, 905 NE 11th Ave., Portland, Oregon 97232 (see Part III, A, for more information). 2. Written comments on the Initial Proposal may be submitted by non-party participants, and should include the designation TR-08 and be submitted to Transmission Rate Case, Bonneville Power Administration, Public Affairs—DKC-7, P.O. Box 14428, Portland, OR 97293-4428. You also may e-mail your comments to: *comment@bpa.gov* (see Part III.A., below, for more information). 3. The pre-hearing conference will be held in the BPA Rates Hearing Room, 2nd floor, 911 NE 11th Ave., Portland, Oregon, at 9 a.m., Pacific Time, on February 14, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information also may be obtained from Public Affairs—DKC-7, P.O. Box 14428, Portland, OR 97293-4428; by toll free phone at
(800)622-4519; or via e-mail to: *comment@bpa.gov.* *Responsible Official:* Ms. Nancy Parker, Transmission Rate Case Manager, is the official responsible for the development of BPA's transmission and ancillary service rates. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents Part I—Introduction and Procedural Background Part II—Purpose and Scope of Hearing Part III—Public Participation Part IV—Major Studies and Summary of Transmission Rate Proposal Part V—2008 Transmission and Ancillary Service Rate Schedules Part I—Introduction and Procedural Background Section 7(i) of the Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 839e(i), requires that BPA's rates be established and revised according to certain procedures. These procedures include, among other things, publication of notice of the proposed rates in the **Federal Register** ; one or more hearings conducted as expeditiously as practicable by a Hearing Officer to develop a full and complete record and to receive public comment in the form of written and oral presentation of views, data, questions, and arguments related to the proposed rates; and a final decision by the Administrator establishing or revising rates based on the record. BPA's rate proceedings are governed by the Rules of Procedures Governing Bonneville Power Administration Rate Hearings, 51 FR 7611
(1986)(“Procedures”). These Procedures implement the statutory Section 7(i) requirements. The 2008 Transmission Rate Case proceeding will be governed by Section 1010.9 of the Procedures, providing for a general rate proceeding, as the Procedures may be modified by the Hearing Officer at the pre-hearing conference. BPA will not convene separate field hearings to provide for oral comments by non-party participants. However, written comments received from non-party participants no later than March 16, 2007 will be considered. Section 1010.7 of the Procedures prohibits ex parte communications. Limits on ex parte communications to the Administrator or BPA's employees regarding any matter pending in the hearing begin as of February 5, 2007. The Flood Control Act of 1944, 16 U.S.C. Section 825s; the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act, 16 U.S.C. Sections 838g and 838h; the Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 839e; and the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C 824k(i)(1) provide guidance regarding BPA's ratemaking. With regard to transmission rates, the Northwest Power Act requires BPA to set rates that are sufficient to recover, in accordance with sound business principles, the cost of transmitting electric power, including amortization of the Federal investment over a reasonable period of years, and the other costs and expenses incurred by the Administrator. The Federal Columbia Transmission System Act requires among other things, that the costs of the Federal Columbia River Transmission System be equitably allocated between Federal and non-Federal power utilizing the system. In addition, the Federal Power Act provides that rates for Commission-ordered transmission service shall be at rates and charges governed only by otherwise applicable laws, except that no rate shall be unjust, unreasonable, or unduly discriminatory or preferential. A proposed schedule for the formal hearing is stated below. A final schedule will be established by the Hearing Officer at the pre-hearing conference. February 12, 2007: Petitions to Intervene February 14, 2007: Pre-hearing Conference and Filing of BPA Initial Proposal February 21, 2007: Party Objections to Initial Proposal/Debt Optimization Program Demonstration and Identification of issues to be preserved for hearing February 26, 2007: Scheduling Conference (if necessary) March 16, 2007: Participant Comments Due April 30, 2007: Final Record of Decision (date approximate) Part II—Purpose and Scope of Hearing A. Key Components 1. Overview BPA is committed to marketing its power and transmission services separately in a manner that is modeled after the regulatory initiatives to promote competition in wholesale power markets that were adopted by the Commission in 1996. The Commission's initiatives in Orders 888 1 and 889 2 directed public utilities to separate their power merchant functions from their transmission functions; unbundle transmission and ancillary services from wholesale power services; and set separate rates for wholesale generation, transmission, and ancillary services. Although BPA is not required to follow the Commission's regulatory directives applicable to public utilities under the Federal Power Act, BPA has elected to separate its power and transmission functions and unbundle its power and transmission rates in a manner consistent with the directives concerning non-discriminatory open access transmission service. Accordingly, in 1997 BPA established separate business lines: BPA's Power Services organization, which performs BPA's wholesale merchant functions; and Transmission Services, which performs BPA's transmission system operations and reliability functions. BPA develops its transmission rates and its power rates in separate proceedings. 1 Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission Services by Pubic Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities, Reg-Preamble, FERC Stats & Regs 1991-96, ¶31,036 (1996). 2 Open Access Same-Time Information System (formerly Real-Time Information Networks) and Standards of Conduct, Reg-Preamble, FERC Stats & Regs 1991-96, ¶31,035 (1996). 2. Power Services as a Party to the 2008 Transmission Rate Case Because BPA separated its power and transmission functions and sets its power and transmission rates in separate proceedings, and Power Services is a transmission customer, it is appropriate that Power Services be a party to the transmission rate proceeding. Accordingly, subject to a petition to intervene, Power Services will be considered a party to the 2008 Transmission Rate Case for all purposes under the BPA Procedures. Power Services may file testimony and briefs as a party and will be entitled to all other procedural rights of a party. In particular, Power Services will be considered a party for purposes of limitations on ex parte communications 3. Two-Year Transmission Rate Period The rates proposed in the 2008 Transmission Rate Case are for a two-year period: The 2008-2009 Rate Period. A two-year rate period balances the need for a short rate period to limit revenue and cost risks with the significant resource and time requirements needed to plan and carry out a rate case. 4. Settlement Agreement Transmission Services and most of its customers are parties to the Settlement Agreement, which provides for an Initial Proposal that incorporates the agreement's provisions. The Settlement Agreement may be viewed at: *http://www.transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Rates_and_Tariff/ratesdocs/_Settlement_Agreement_2008.pdf* . The Settlement Agreement identifies proposed changes to the rate schedule terms and conditions and specifies proposed rate levels for BPA's transmission and ancillary service rates during the 2008-2009 Rate Period, as summarized in Attachment 1 to the Settlement Agreement and as reflected in the proposed Rate Schedules in Part V of this Notice. The rate levels proposed in the Settlement Agreement result in a zero percent average rate increase compared to FY 2006-2007 rates. Although the transmission rate charges are higher than current rates, BPA forecasts that the Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Services
(GSR)formula rate will be zero, resulting in no change in customers' total bills for transmission and ancillary services. In addition, the Settlement Agreement provides that the Initial Proposal will reflect, in the calculation and presentation of the transmission revenue requirement, $15 million recorded as transmission reserves in each year of the 2008-2009 Rate Period (for a total of $30 million) as a funding source for transmission capital programs. Consistent with the Settlement Agreement, the Initial Proposal revenue requirement includes $4.5 million per year for payments for redispatch of generation provided under Attachment K of BPA's Open Access Transmission Tariff
(OATT)and under any other reliability redispatch program(s). The Settlement Agreement provides further that Transmission Services will pay Power Services on a per-event basis for redispatch based on submitted bids. Currently, Transmission Services pays Power Services $1.5 million per year for redispatch. The Settlement Agreement also includes a proposed revised Attachment K to the OATT, which Transmission Services will submit to the Commission. The revised Attachment K sets forth the procedures under which Transmission Services will request redispatch of Federal resources from Power Services during the 2008-2009 Rate Period in order to preserve transmission system reliability. The proposed revision clarifies that there are three types of redispatch that Power Services may provide under Attachment K: Emergency Redispatch; Network Transmission Service Firm Redispatch; and Discretionary Redispatch. It establishes the circumstances under which Transmission Services may request each type of redispatch and the criteria that apply to the Power Services response to the request. The Settlement Agreement provides for the demonstration that transmission rates are no higher with BPA's Debt Optimization Program
(DOP)than they would have been in the absence of the DOP, including Debt Service Reassignment, and describes the DOP-related costs for which transmission rates are being set. Finally, the Settlement Agreement states that Transmission Services does not intend to compensate Power Services or third parties for generation-supplied reactive power during the 2008-2009 Rate Period. The Settlement Agreement provides notice that during the 2008-2009 Rate Period, BPA may conduct a separate rate proceeding to establish a rate for generation regulation service and generation following service. Any party to the 2008 Transmission Rate Case that did not sign the Settlement Agreement may object to the Initial Proposal. A party that objects to the Initial Proposal or to the DOP demonstration (BPA Slice customers that are parties to the rate case and the Northwest Requirements Utilities may object to the DOP demonstration) must identify the issues it wishes to preserve for hearing. B. Overview of the Public Process 1. Program Level Funding Workshops—Programs in Review Beginning in May 2006 and continuing through the summer of 2006, BPA provided an opportunity for public participation and input on transmission programs and program cost levels through the Programs In Review (“PIR”) process. PIR began with a notification by mail to transmission customers, tribes, regional stakeholders and other interested parties. Transmission Services also published notices on its external Web site. During May and June 2006, BPA held five public meetings around the region and gave a separate briefing to the Affiliated Tribes of the Northwest Indians to present proposed capital and expense levels along with business and policy considerations. At these public meetings, BPA transmission and corporate staff discussed issues concerning future capital investments in the transmission system and proposed expense levels for transmission system development, operation, maintenance, and reliability for the 2008-2009 Rate Period. A technical workshop was held in July 2006. Transmission Services also provided informational materials through direct mailings, written responses to customer letters, e-mailings, and publication of all BPA and customer-generated materials on Transmission Services' external Web site, and through making staff available to answer questions. In the PIR workshops, BPA and its customers examined program spending levels for the 2008-2009 Rate Period for both capital projects and expense programs. BPA also discussed its vision for planned future direction in transmission and its plans to manage the many challenges the organization faces through FY 2009. BPA explored customer and interested parties' views on:
(1)Priorities for transmission investment;
(2)sources of capital for transmission infrastructure;
(3)the effect on expenses of a change in capitalization policies;
(4)new regulatory requirements;
(5)delays in non-electric plant maintenance because of budget constraints;
(6)efforts to manage a constrained transmission system;
(7)maintenance of a skilled and trained workforce; and
(8)right-of-way management. BPA accepted written and oral comments on its proposed transmission programs, including expense and capital spending levels, through September 7, 2006. BPA shared revised program levels with customers and allowed an additional two-week comment period. After considering customer comments, BPA concludes the PIR process by issuing the Administrator's close-out letter on transmission spending levels for the 2008-2009 Rate Period. In summary, BPA remains committed to managing its costs and continuing to seek efficiencies in the way it conducts its transmission business. The three reasons for changes in costs from the 2006-2007 rate period include:
(1)Mandated or non-discretionary costs,
(2)transmission program changes, and
(3)needed system and efficiency initiatives. The Initial Proposal reflects the Administrator's close-out letter on transmission program spending levels for the 2008-2009 Rate Period. 2. Transmission Rate Case Customer Workshops In preparation for the 2008 Transmission Rate Case, Transmission Services held an initial public workshop on July 27, 2006, for customers and other interested parties. Two additional public workshops and meetings were held on August 16, 2006, and October 3, 2006, during which Transmission Services presented information about costs, revenue forecasts, transmission products, pricing, and rate design issues. *See* *http://www.transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Rates_and_Tariff/archive.cfm* . 3. Transmission Rate Debt Optimization Program Demonstration At the first annual Debt Optimization Program
(DOP)and Debt Service Reassignment
(DSR)meeting held on January 23, 2007, BPA presented a demonstration that transmission rates are no higher with the DOP than they would have been in the absence of the DOP, including DSR. The January meeting was held pursuant to an agreement among BPA, BPA Slice customers, and the Northwest Requirements Utilities. The transmission DOP demonstration is included in the Initial Proposal. The demonstration compares results from a base transmission repayment study that includes all debt management activities completed as of September 30, 2006, with a transmission repayment study that includes new DOP and DSR projections for FY 2007 and subsequent fiscal years. C. Scope of the Transmission Rate Proceeding Many of the decisions that determine Transmission Services's costs have been made or will be made in public review processes other than the transmission rate proceeding. This section provides guidance to the Hearing Officer as to those matters that are within the scope of the transmission rate proceeding and those that are outside the scope. 1. Spending Levels As described above, Programs In Review workshops were held throughout the region to clarify, discuss, and provide the public the opportunity to comment orally and in writing on BPA's proposed capital expenditures and expenses for transmission. After considering all comments, the Administrator concludes the public process by issuing a close-out letter on spending levels for the 2008-2009 Rate Period. Those spending levels serve as the basis for the transmission capital and expense levels that are reflected in the Initial Proposal. Pursuant to section 1010.3(f) of BPA's Procedures, the Administrator directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record any evidence or arguments that seek in any way to challenge the appropriateness or reasonableness of the Administrator's decisions on transmission spending levels and sources of capital, including capital and expense levels reviewed in the Programs in Review public process. If any re-examination of sources of capital and spending levels is necessary, that re-examination will occur outside of the rate proceeding. However, the foregoing direction to the Hearing Officer does not apply to the following matters: Customer advance capital funding, revenue financing, reserve financing, modeling of financing methods in rate case studies, interest rate forecasts, scheduled amortization, forecast depreciation, forecasts of system replacements for repayment studies, interest expense, expense and revenue uncertainties, and risks included in the risk analysis. 2. Issues Decided in Power Rate Proceeding A number of issues that affect transmission and ancillary service rates have been addressed in BPA's 2007 Power Rate Case. On July 17, 2006, the Administrator established wholesale power rates for the period October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2009. On September 21, 2006, the Commission approved the proposed rates on an interim basis, pending full review for final approval. See 116 FERC ¶ 61,264. In the 2007 Power Rate Case, the Administrator made decisions regarding: the costs for generation inputs for ancillary services, including operating reserves, regulating reserves, and energy and generation imbalance; the generation costs of station service and remedial action schemes allocated to transmission; and the allocation to the power revenue requirement of the transmission costs of generation integration and generator step-up transformers associated with Federal system resources. The Administrator also decided that BPA's 2007 power rates would not include $20.4 million for each year in FY 2008 and 2009, as revenue from Transmission Services for generation supplied reactive power (GSR). Transmission Services will continue to pay Power Services $4.464 million each year in FY 2008 and 2009 for synchronous condensers. The Administrator also decided that Transmission Services will compensate Power Services for operating reserves at a unit price of $5.63/kW per month. The Initial Proposal is consistent with the results of the Administrator's decisions on these and all other issues decided in the Power Rate Case, and will be reflected in all final decisions made in the 2008 Transmission Rate Case proceeding. The Administrator directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record all evidence and argument that seek in any way to address or revisit final decisions that were made in the 2007 Power Rate Case. 3. The National Environmental Policy Act BPA is in the process of assessing the potential environmental effects of its Initial Proposal, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). The Administrator directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record all evidence and argument that seek in any way to address the potential environmental impacts of the rates being developed in the 2008 Transmission Rate Case. BPA's Business Plan Environmental Impact Statement (“Business Plan EIS”), completed in June 1995, evaluated the environmental impacts of a range of business plan alternatives that could be varied by applying various policy modules, including one for rates. Any combination of alternative policy modules should allow BPA to balance its costs and revenues. However, the EIS also addressed response strategies BPA could pursue if BPA's costs exceeded its revenues. In August 1995, the BPA Administrator issued a Record of Decision (“Business Plan ROD”) that adopted the Market-Driven Alternative from the Business Plan EIS. This alternative was selected because, among other reasons, it allows BPA to:
(1)Recover costs through rates;
(2)competitively market BPA's products and services;
(3)develop rates that meet customer needs for clarity and simplicity;
(4)continue to meet BPA's legal mandates; and
(5)avoid adverse environmental impacts. BPA also committed to apply as many response strategies as necessary when BPA's costs and revenues do not balance. Because the Initial Proposal is likely to assist BPA in accomplishing these goals, the proposal appears consistent with these aspects of the Market-Driven Alternative. In addition, this rate proposal is similar to the type of rate designs and resulting rate levels evaluated in the Business Plan EIS; thus, implementation of this rate proposal is not expected to result in significantly different environmental impacts from those examined in the Business Plan EIS. Therefore, BPA expects that this rate proposal will fall within the scope of the Market-Driven Alternative that was evaluated in the Business Plan EIS and adopted in the Business Plan ROD. As part of the Administrator's Record of Decision that will be prepared regarding this 2008 Transmission Rate Case, BPA may tier its decision under NEPA to the Business Plan ROD. However, depending upon the ongoing environmental review, BPA may, instead, issue another appropriate NEPA document. Part III—Public Participation A. Distinguishing Between “Participants” and “Parties” BPA distinguishes between “participants in” and “parties to” the rate case. Apart from the formal hearing process, BPA will receive written comments, views, opinions, and information from “participants,” who are defined in the BPA Procedures as persons who may submit comments without being subject to the duties of, or having the privileges of, parties. Participants written comments will be made part of the official record and will be considered by the Administrator. Participants are not entitled to participate in the pre-hearing conference; may not cross-examine parties' witnesses, seek discovery, or serve or be served with documents; and are not subject to the same procedural requirements as parties. Written comments by participants will be included in the record if they are received by March 16, 2007. Written views, supporting information, questions, and arguments should include the designation TR-08 for the 2008 Transmission Rate Case and be submitted to BPA at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Persons wishing to become parties to the proceedings included in this notice must file a petition to intervene. Petitioners may designate no more than two
(2)representatives upon whom service of documents will be made. Petitions are due to the Transmission Hearing Clerk by 4:30 p.m., Pacific Time, on February 12, 2007. The petition should be submitted to BPA as described in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Petitions to intervene must include the designation TR-08 for the 2008 Transmission Rate Case and state the name and address of the person requesting party status and the person's interest in the proceeding. Petitioners must explain their interests in sufficient detail to permit the Hearing Officer to determine whether they have a relevant interest in the hearing. Pursuant to Rule 1010.1(d) of BPA's Procedures, BPA waives the requirement in Rule 1010.4(d) that an opposition to a petition to intervene be filed and served 24 hours before the pre-hearing conference. Any opposition to a petition to intervene may instead be made at the pre-hearing conference. Transmission Services or any party may oppose a petition to intervene. Persons who have been denied party status in any past BPA rate proceeding shall continue to be denied party status unless they establish a significant change of circumstances. All timely applications will be ruled on by the Hearing Officer. Late interventions are strongly disfavored. Opposition to a petition to intervene filed after the pre-hearing conference must be filed and received by BPA within two
(2)days after service of the petition. B. Developing the Record The hearing record will include the transcripts of the hearing, written material entered into the record by Transmission Services and the parties, written comments from participants, and other material accepted into the record by the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer will review the record and will certify the record to the Administrator for decision. The Administrator will develop a final rate proposal based on the record, information from the PIR, documents prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and other environmental statutes, and such other material or information as may have been submitted to or developed by the Administrator. The Administrator will serve copies of the Final Record of Decision on all parties. After issuance of the Final Record of Decision, BPA will file its final rate proposal with the Commission for confirmation and approval. During the rate proceeding, Transmission Services must continue to meet with customers in the ordinary course of business. To comport with the rate case procedural rule prohibiting ex parte communications, Transmission Services will provide notice of meetings involving rate case issues to provide an opportunity for participation by all rate case parties. Parties should be aware, however, that such meetings may be held on very short notice. Part IV—Major Studies and Summary of Transmission Rate Proposal A. Major Studies 1. *Revenue Requirement Study and Documentation* —This Study and Documentation include the calculation of transmission revenue requirements for the 2008-2009 Rate Period and demonstration of cost recovery for the transmission function. The Study includes an analysis of financial risks and a demonstration that transmission rates are no higher with the Debt Optimization Program than without it. 2. *Revenue Forecast* —The revenue forecasts at current and proposed transmission and ancillary service rates are based on forecasted sales and revenues for the 2008-2009 Rate Period. The revenue forecast is included in the Documentation. B. Summary of Proposal 1. Transmission rates Transmission Services is proposing five rate schedules for the use of its Integrated Network segment: • *Formula Power Transmission (FPT-08.1 and FPT-08.3) rates* —The two FPT rates are based on the cost of specific types of facilities, including a distance component for the use of transmission lines, and are charged on a contract-demand basis. Included in the FPT rates are the costs of the two required ancillary services: Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch Service and Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service. The FPT-08.1 rate is proposed for contracts that allow annual rate adjustments, while the FPT-08.3 rate is proposed for contracts that allow a rate change only once every three years. In this Initial Proposal, the two FPT rates are set at the same level. The FPT-08.1 rate and the FPT-08.3 rate are proposed to be formula rates that are adjusted quarterly to reflect the quarterly change in the Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service rate, a small component of the cost basis of the FPT rate. Although Transmission Services has not offered new FPT wheeling contracts since the OATT was adopted, a number of FPT contracts will remain in effect during the 2008-2009 Rate Period. • *Integration of Resources (IR-08) rate* —The IR rate is a postage-stamp, contract-demand rate for the use of the Integrated Network. Charges for the two required ancillary services are embedded in the IR rate. The proposed IR-08 rate is a formula rate that is adjusted quarterly to reflect the quarterly change in the Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service rate, a small component of the cost basis of the IR rate. A Short Distance Discount is available when resources are 75 miles or less from load. Although Transmission Services is not offering new IR contracts, some IR contracts will remain in effect during the rate period. • *Network Integration Transmission (NT-08) rate* —The NT rate applies to customers taking Network Integration Transmission Service under the OATT. The NT rate schedule includes a Load Shaping Charge applied to the customer's total load on the hour of the Monthly Transmission Peak Load and a Base Charge applied to the customer's total load less Customer-Served Load (CSL), if any. CSL is the amount of load that the customer agrees to serve without using its NT service. CSL is limited to the annual megawatt amount and resources specified in NT service agreements as of October 2005. Transmission Services intends to eliminate CSL as of October 1, 2011. • *Point-to-Point (PTP-08) rate* —The PTP rate is a contract-demand rate that applies to customers taking PTP Transmission Service on BPA's Integrated Network under the OATT. There are separate PTP rates for long-term firm service; short-term firm and non-firm service; and hourly firm and non-firm service. The rate for long-term firm service includes a Short Distance Discount. All short-term and hourly PTP rates are downwardly flexible. In cases in which transmission service is curtailed or interrupted because of conditions on the FCRTS, the billing factor for Hourly Nonfirm Service, which otherwise is Reserved Capacity, will be
(i)Reserved Capacity minus the curtailed capacity, when the interruption occurs before the close of the scheduling hour; and
(ii)scheduled energy, when the interruption occurs after the close of the scheduling hour. In addition, the availability section of the PTP-08 rate schedule has been revised to add Conditional Firm Transmission Service, as applicable when such service is offered. In addition to the five rates for network use, other proposed transmission rates include: • *The Southern Intertie (IS-08) and Montana Intertie (IM-08) rates* are contract-demand rates that apply to customers taking PTP Transmission Service under the OATT on the Southern Intertie and Montana Intertie, respectively. These rates are structured in the same way as the PTP rate, except that no Short Distance Discount is available. Transmission Services is proposing similar revisions for these rates. • *The Townsend-Garrison Transmission (TGT-08)* *rate and the Eastern Intertie rate (IE-08)* are developed pursuant to the Montana Intertie agreement. • *The Use-of-Facilities (UFT-08) rate* establishes a formula for charging for the use of a specific facility based on the annual cost of that facility. • *The Advance Funding (AF-08) rate* allows Transmission Services to collect the capital and related costs of specific facilities through an advance-funding mechanism. 2. Ancillary Services Rates In addition to the rate level changes specified in the Settlement Agreement, other aspects of the Ancillary Services and Control Area Services rates are being revised in accordance with the Settlement Agreement as follows: • The billing factors for *Scheduling, System Control, and Dispatch Service* and *Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service* rates are being revised to clarify that, when there is an unauthorized increase, they are increased by the amount of the Unauthorized Increase Charge. The rate that is applied to the billing factors, however, remains the same. • *The Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service* rate is a formula rate that is determined quarterly beginning October 1, 2007, and is being revised to recover only the cost, if any, of paying reactive rates to non-federal generators and of adjustments for self-supply of reactive power. • The rate for *Regulation and Frequency Response Service* is fixed for the Rate Period. • The rates for *Operating Reserves—Spinning and Supplemental* are fixed for the Rate Period. In addition to the rate for customers who elect to purchase Operating Reserves from BPA Transmission Services for the rate period, the rate schedule is being revised to include a charge applicable to customers who elect to self-supply or acquire Operating Reserves from third-party suppliers for the Rate Period but then default on their self-supply or third-party supply obligations. 3. Other Rates and Charges Other charges that may apply to a customer's transmission service include a Delivery Charge for the use of low-voltage delivery substations, a Power Factor Penalty Charge, Incremental Cost Rates for transmission requests that require the construction of new facilities, a Failure to Comply Charge for failure to comply with a curtailment, redispatch, or load shedding order, and an Unauthorized Increase Charge for customers who exceed their contracted capacity amounts. The Reservation Fee is being revised to eliminate the application of the rate to deferred service. The Reservation Fee will apply only for extensions of the service commencement date of a long-term firm PTP transmission service reservation. Part V—2008 Transmission and Ancillary Service Rate Schedules BPA's proposed 2008 Transmission and Ancillary Service Rate Schedules are available for viewing and downloading on Transmission Service's Web site at: *http://www.transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Rates%5Fand%5FTariff/.* A copy of the proposed rate schedules also is available for viewing in BPA's Public Reference Room at the BPA Headquarters, 1st floor, 905 NE 11th Ave., Portland, Oregon. Issued in Portland, Oregon, on January 25, 2007. Stephen J. Wright, Administrator and Chief Executive Officer. [FR Doc. E7-1773 Filed 2-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0013; FRL-8111-7] National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances; Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: A meeting of the National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances (NAC/AEGL Committee) will be held on March 20-22, 2007, in Irvine, CA. At this meeting, the NAC/AEGL Committee will address, as time permits, the various aspects of the acute toxicity and the development of Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) for the following chemicals: Acetonitrile; acrylic acid; acrylonitrile; allyl chloride; boron tribromide; bromine chloride; carbonyl fluoride; chloroacetonitrile; chlorobenzene; diketene; ethylene fluorohydrin; isobutyronitrile; malononitrile; methanol; *N* , *N* -dimethylformamide; oxygen difluoride; propionitrile; propylene oxide; silicon tetrafluoride; stibine; tetrachloroethylene; 1,1,1-trichloroethane; and toluene. DATES: A meeting of the NAC/AEGL Committee will be held from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on March 20, 2007; from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on March 21, 2007; and from 8 a.m. to noon on March 22, 2007. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Beckman Center, 100 Academy, Irvine, CA 92617. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *For general information contact* : Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202)554-1404; e-mail address: *TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov* . *For technical information contact* : Paul S. Tobin, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Economics, Exposure, and Technology Division (7406M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202)564-8557; e-mail address: *tobin.paul@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. This action may be of particular interest to anyone who may be affected if the AEGL values are adopted by government agencies for emergency planning, prevention, or response programs, such as EPA's Risk Management Program under the Clean Air Act and Amendments Section 112r. It is possible that other Federal agencies besides EPA, as well as State agencies and private organizations, may adopt the AEGL values for their programs. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. *Docket* . All documents in the docket are listed in the docket's index available at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202)566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure. 2. *Electronic access* . You may access this **Federal Register** document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . II. Meeting Procedures For additional information on the scheduled meeting, the agenda of the NAC/AEGL Committee, or the submission of information on chemicals to be discussed at the meeting, contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . The meeting of the NAC/AEGL Committee will be open to the public. Oral presentations or statements by interested parties will be limited to 10 minutes. Interested parties are encouraged to contact the DFO to schedule presentations before the NAC/AEGL Committee. Since seating for outside observers may be limited, those wishing to attend the meeting as observers are also encouraged to contact the DFO at the earliest possible date to ensure adequate seating arrangements. Inquiries regarding oral presentations and the submission of written statements or chemical-specific information should be directed to the DFO. III. Future Meetings Another meeting of the NAC/AEGL Committee is scheduled for June 2007 and a future **Federal Register** notice will provide details of the meeting site, dates, and chemicals to be addressed. The following chemicals may be addressed at this June meeting: Allyltrichlorosilane, amyltrichlorosilane, butyltrichlorosilane, BZ (3-quinuclidinyl benzilate), chloromethyltrichlorosilane, chlorosulfonic acid, dichlorosilane, diphenyldichlorosilane, dodecyltrichlorosilane, fluorosulfonic acid, hexyltrichlorosilane, magnesium diamide, methanesulfonylchloride, nonyltrichlorosilane, octadecyltrichlorosilane, octyltrichlorosilane, osmium tetroxide, pentaborane, propyltrichlorosilane, silicon tetrachloride, trichloro(dichlorophenyl)silane, trichlorosilane, and vinyltrichlorosilane. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Health. Dated: January 29, 2007. Charles M. Auer, Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. [FR Doc. E7-1792 Filed 2-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8275-6] Science Advisory Board Staff Office; EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC); CASAC Ozone Review Panel; Notification of a Public Advisory Committee Meeting (Teleconference) AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) Science Advisory Board
(SAB)Staff Office is announcing a public teleconference of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone Review Panel (CASAC Panel) to review EPA's Final Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information (Final Ozone Staff Paper, January 2007) on March 5, 2007 from 1 to 5 p.m. (Eastern Time). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Fred Butterfield, Designated Federal Officer (DFO). Mr. Butterfield may be contacted at the EPA Science Advisory Board (1400F), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; or via telephone/voice mail:
(202)343-9994; fax:
(202)233-0643; or e-mail at: *butterfield.fred@epa.gov* . General information concerning the CASAC or the EPA SAB can be found on the EPA Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/sab* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office announced a public teleconference of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone Review Panel (CASAC Panel) to review EPA's Final Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information in the December 27, 2006 **Federal Register** (71 FR 77742). The present notice moves the date of the subject meeting to Monday, March 5, 2007, from 1 to 5 p.m. (Eastern Time). Additional information regarding availability of meeting materials, procedures for providing public input, and accessibility are provided in the December 27, 2006 **Federal Register** , or from the DFO at the contact information provided above. Dated: January 29, 2007. Anthony F. Maciorowski, Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office. [FR Doc. E7-1791 Filed 2-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [FCC 06-177] Notice of Debarment AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) debars Premio, Inc. (Premio) from all activities associated with the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism, also known as the E-Rate program. Premio pled guilty to and was convicted of serious fraud-related felonies against the E-Rate program. We find Premio's conduct merits a debarment of at least three years, as contemplated by our debarment rule, but in light of several important factors, we will impose a debarment period of one year. DATES: Debarment commences on the Premio, Inc. receives the debarment letter or whichever date comes first, for a period of one year. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diana Lee, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 4-A265, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Diana Lee may be contacted by phone at 202-418-1420 or e-mail at *diana.lee@fcc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This a summary of the Commission's Notice of Debarment, released January 22, 2007. As an additional precaution to protect the E-Rate program, we put in place two monitoring measures to ensure Premio's compliance upon its re-entry into the E-Rate program, in the event that Premio re-enters the E-Rate program during its three year probation period. First, we order USAC to review with heightened scrutiny Premio's applications submitted during the first two funding years after re-entry. 1 Second, we order the Administrator to conduct automatic annual audits regarding Premio's compliance with the Act and the Commission's rules governing the E-Rate program, for each of the first two funding periods upon Premio's re-entry. We find these additional precautionary measures are necessary to ensure that E-Rate funds are used only for their intended purpose and that the program is not subject to additional waste, fraud, or abuse. The full text of this Notice is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A-257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCP), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The complete item is also available on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.fcc.gov/eb* . 1 *See Fifth Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at 15822-23, para. 44. We note that the Commission currently is considering what particular requirements, if any, that it should apply in conducting heightened review of E-Rate program participants. *See Universal Service Fund Oversight NPRM, 20 FCC Rcd at 11345, para. 91.* Federal Communications Commission. Hillary S. DeNigro, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau. [FR Doc. E7-1795 Filed 2-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Moratorium on Certain Industrial Bank Applications and Notices AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC)ACTION: Notice; Limited Extension of Moratorium. SUMMARY: This notice announces a one-year extension of the termination date of the FDIC's existing moratorium on industrial loan companies and industrial banks 1 (collectively, “industrial banks”) for deposit insurance applications and change in control notices with respect to certain industrial banks. The extended moratorium only applies to applications for deposit insurance and change in control notices with respect to industrial banks that will become subsidiaries of companies engaged in non-financial activities 2 (“commercial activities”). 1 For purposes of the extended moratorium, the terms “industrial loan company” and “industrial bank” mean any insured State bank that is an industrial bank, industrial loan company, or other similar institution that is excluded from the definition of “bank” in the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956
(BHCA)pursuant to section 2(c)(2)(H) of the BHCA, 12 U.S.C. 1841(c)(2)(H). 2 For purposes of the extended moratorium, the term “financial activity” includes:
(i)Banking, managing or controlling banks or savings associations; and
(ii)any activity permissible for financial holding companies under 12 U.S.C. 1843(k), any specific activity that is listed as permissible for bank holding companies under 12 U.S.C. 1843(c), as well as activities that the Federal Reserve Board
(FRB)has permitted for bank holding companies under 12 CFR 225.28 and 225.86, and any activity permissible for all savings and loan holding companies under 12 U.S.C. 1467a(c). The term “non-financial activity” is any other activity. The FDIC intends to follow the written guidance of the FRB and the Office of Thrift Supervision
(OTS)regarding permissible holding company activities in its interpretations of the term “financial activity” and to consult with the FRB and/or OTS before making any decisions. Although the FDIC's existing industrial bank moratorium was originally set to expire on January 31, 2007 for all industrial banks, as a result of the extension, the moratorium will now expire on January 31, 2008 for certain industrial banks. The extended moratorium does not apply to any application for deposit insurance or change in control notice with respect to any industrial bank that will not become a subsidiary of a company, or any industrial bank that will become a subsidiary of a company engaged only in financial activities. The FDIC is also publishing elsewhere in the **Federal Register** today a notice of proposed rulemaking that proposes certain requirements on any industrial bank that will become a subsidiary of a company that is engaged only in financial activities and is not subject to consolidated bank supervision by the Federal Reserve Board
(FRB)or the Office of Thrift Supervision
(OTS)(hereinafter referred to as “Federal Consolidated Bank Supervision”). DATES: The extended moratorium is effective through January 31, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Fick, Counsel,
(202)898-8962 or Thomas P. Bolt, Counsel,
(202)898-6750, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Washington, DC 20429. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Industrial banks were first chartered in the early 1900's as small loan companies for industrial workers. Over time some of the chartering states expanded the powers of their industrial banks to the extent that some industrial banks now have generally the same powers as state commercial banks. Since the passage of the Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 (CEBA), 3 the industrial bank industry has changed significantly. Between 1987 and 2006 total assets held by industrial banks grew from $4.2 billion to $177 billion. 3 Public Law 100-86, 101 Stat. 552 (codified as amended in various sections of title 12 of the U.S. Code) Since January 1, 2000, 24 industrial banks became insured. 4 As of January 30, 2007, there were fifty-eight insured industrial banks with aggregate total assets of approximately $177 billion. 5 Six industrial banks reported total assets of $10 billion or more; eleven other industrial banks reported total assets of $1 billion or more. The remaining forty-one institutions, on average, reported total assets of approximately $231.8 million. Forty-five of those fifty-eight operated in Utah and California. 6 Of the fifty-eight existing industrial banks, forty-three were either controlled by one or more individuals or controlled by a parent company whose business is financial in nature. As of January 30, 2007, thirty-one of the fifty-eight existing industrial banks were owned by companies that were engaged solely in financial activities and that were not subject to Federal Consolidated Bank Supervision; such companies are hereinafter referred to as “Non-FCBS Financial Companies.” Eight of the fifty-eight industrial banks (representing approximately sixty-nine percent of industrial bank industry assets) were owned by companies that are engaged solely in financial activities and are subject to consolidated supervision by the FRB or the OTS. Four of the fifty-eight industrial banks were owned by individuals. Fifteen industrial banks were subsidiaries of holding companies that are non-financial in nature, *i.e.* , commercial. 4 During 2000, 4 new industrial banks were insured; 2 during each of 2001 and 2002; 5 during 2003; 6 during 2004; 4 during 2005; and 1 in 2006. 5 Based on reported assets as of September 30, 2006, the most recent reported data. 6 Industrial banks also operate in Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Minnesota and Nevada. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO)expressed its concern that industrial banks owned by commercial companies or other entities without a Federal consolidated supervisor created an uneven playing field when compared to banks and thrifts owned by holding companies subject to Federal consolidated supervision. 7 The concerns regarding the lack of consolidated supervision and the possible limitations of the FDIC's authority echoed those previously expressed by the FDIC's Office of Inspector General
(OIG)in a 2004 report. 8 7 U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-05-621, Industrial Loan Corporations: Recent Asset Growth and Commercial Interest Highlight Differences in Regulatory Authority 79-80
(2005)(hereinafter “GAO Report”). 8 See Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Office of Inspector General, Report No. 2004-048, The Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection's Approach for Supervising Limited-Charter Depository Institutions
(2004)(hereinafter “OIG Report”). Some industrial banks continue to be small, community-focused institutions. However, the FDIC has noted a recent increase in the number of applications for deposit insurance and notices of change in control with respect to industrial banks that would be affiliated with commercial companies or other entities that would not be subject to Federal Consolidated Bank Supervision. Such institutions are often large organizations that tend to have complex business plans. Their subsidiary industrial banks tend to provide specialty lending programs or financial services or other support to the holding company. Whatever their purpose or structure, the industrial bank charter has generated a significant amount of public interest in recent years as various entities have explored the feasibility and business opportunities associated with including an industrial bank as part of their operations. In 2006, the FDIC received more than 13,800 comment letters regarding the proposed Wal-Mart Bank's 2005 deposit insurance application. 9 Most of these comments expressed opposition to granting deposit insurance with respect to this particular applicant; however, some commenters raised more universal concerns about industrial banks. Over 640 of the more general comments were specifically focused on the risk posed to the deposit insurance fund by industrial banks owned by commercial companies or by holding companies without a Federal consolidated bank supervisor. Similar sentiments were expressed by witnesses during three days of public hearings held by the FDIC regarding the Wal-Mart application. In addition, the Home Depot also filed a change in control notice in connection with its proposed acquisition of EnerBank, a Utah industrial bank. In response to the request for public comment on the change in control notice, the FDIC received approximately 830 comment letters; almost all of them expressed opposition to the proposed acquisition. 9 See the FDIC's Web site at *http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/walmart/.* Congress also has had a continuing interest in the industrial bank charter. Most recently, on July 12, 2006, the House Committee on Financial Services (Committee) held a hearing regarding industrial banks. At the hearing, the General Counsels of the FDIC and FRB testified before the Committee regarding the history, characteristics, current industry profile, and supervision of industrial banks. 10 The FDIC's testimony noted that today's industrial banks are owned by a diverse group of financial and commercial entities. Among industrial banks owned by such entities are those that serve a particular lending, funding, or processing function within a larger organizational structure, and those that directly support one or more affiliate's commercial activities. The business plans for these industrial banks differ substantially from the consumer lending focus of the original industrial banks. 10 Industrial Loan Companies: A Review of Charter, Ownership, and Supervision Issues: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Financial Services, 109th Cong. (2006). The Committee also heard testimony from G. Edward Leary, Commissioner for the Utah Department of Financial Institutions; Rick Hilman, Director of Financial Markets and Community Investment, U.S. Government Accountability Office; George Sutton, Former Commissioner for the Utah Department of Financial Institutions; Terry Jorde, Chairman, President, and CEO of CountryBank USA, Chairman of ICBA; John L. Douglas, Partner, Alston & Bird; Arthur C. Johnson, Chairman and CEO of United Bank of Michigan; Prof. Lawrence J. White, Professor of Economics, Stern School of Business of New York University; Michael J. Wilson, Director, Legislative and Political Action Department, United Food and Commercial International Union. Also, several organizations submitted record statements. Currently, eight industrial bank deposit insurance applications are pending before the FDIC. Also, in 2006 the FDIC received three additional deposit insurance applications that were either returned or withdrawn. In addition, the FDIC received seven change in control notices for the acquisition of industrial banks; five of which have been returned or withdrawn. None of the potential parent companies would be subject to Federal Consolidated Bank Supervision, and at least nine of the eighteen potential parent companies are engaged in activities that are considered commercial in nature. To evaluate the concerns and issues raised with respect to industrial banks, on July 28, 2006, the FDIC imposed a six-month moratorium on FDIC action with respect to certain industrial bank applications and notices. 11 The FDIC declared the moratorium to enable it to further evaluate
(i)Industry developments,
(ii)the various issues, facts, and arguments raised with respect to the industrial bank industry,
(iii)whether there are emerging safety and soundness issues or policy issues involving industrial banks or other risks to the insurance fund, and
(iv)whether statutory, regulatory, or policy changes should be made in the FDIC's oversight of industrial banks in order to protect the deposit insurance fund or important Congressional objectives. 12 11 See Moratorium on Certain Industrial Loan Company Applications and Notices, 71 FR 43482 (August 1, 2006). 12 Id. Thereafter, on August 23, 2006, the FDIC published in the **Federal Register** a request for public comment on twelve questions. 13 Among other things, the FDIC sought public comment on what modifications, if any, should be made to its regulations in light of the changing industrial bank industry; how and whether the attributes of consolidated supervision affect the safety and soundness of either industrial banks or the Deposit Insurance Fund; and how, and whether, the FDIC should differentiate and assess possible risks associated with financial or commercial ownership of industrial banks. 13 See Industrial Loan Companies and Industrial Banks, 71 FR 49456 (August 23, 2006). The FDIC received over 12,600 comment letters in response to the Request for Public Comment during the comment period. 14 Approximately 12,485 comments were generated by what appears to be organized campaigns either supporting or opposing the proposed industrial bank to be owned by Wal-Mart or the proposed acquisition of Enerbank, also an industrial bank, by The Home Depot. Of this total, approximately 82 percent generally were opposed to the ownership of industrial banks by Wal-Mart or other commercial companies. The remaining comment letters were sent by individuals, law firms, community banks, financial services trade associations, existing and proposed industrial banks or their parent companies, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, and two members of Congress. Of the total comments received, seventy-one commenters addressed specific substantive issues concerning the industrial bank industry and its regulation. 14 See *http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/2006/06comilc.html.* The commenters who favored the current state of the industrial bank industry generally believed that the risks commonly associated with commercial company affiliations are overstated and that industrial banks affiliated with commercial companies generally maintain safe and prudent business relationships and financial and managerial support systems. They felt that the current restrictions on transactions with affiliates and tying provide ample protection for the industrial bank. The commenters who expressed a negative or neutral view of the industrial bank industry generally believed that affiliations with commercial companies and other entities not subject to consolidated supervision presented safety and soundness problems and unacceptable risks to the Deposit Insurance Fund by increasing the potential for conflicts of interest, excessive dependence on such affiliates, and tying. These commenters supported extending the moratorium until Congress acts on legislation to prohibit industrial banks from affiliating with non-financial entities. Some urged the FDIC to issue regulations restricting industrial banks from affiliating with non-financial entities. Still others suggested that the conditions imposed by the FDIC in the past were insufficient, standing alone, to offer adequate protections to the Deposit Insurance Fund. Several commenters cited the competitive advantages—in access to capital, customers, and marketing opportunities—that exist when industrial banks are owned by commercial entities or otherwise lack a Federal Consolidated Bank Supervisor. The FDIC's experience and the comments suggest no risk or other possible harm that is unique to the industrial bank charter. Rather, the concerns that have been raised focus on the ownership of the industrial bank and on the proposed industrial bank's business model or plan. Consequently, the FDIC's analysis of how to proceed focuses primarily on the proposed owners of industrial banks. II. The Extended Moratorium Scope The original six-month moratorium imposed on July 28, 2006, deferred FDIC action on deposit insurance applications and change in control notices with respect to all proposed and existing industrial banks. However, recently the FDIC has noted a marked increase in deposit insurance applications for, and change-in-control notices with respect to, industrial banks that would be affiliated with commercial concerns and other companies that would not have a Federal Consolidated Bank Supervisor. This trend has led to heightened concerns by some members of Congress and commenters regarding the lack of Federal Consolidated Bank Supervision, the mixing of banking and commerce, and the potential for an “uneven playing field.” Both the FDIC's observations and the bulk of the comments received indicate that these concerns about industrial banks focus on commercial-company ownership and/or the lack of Federal Consolidated Bank Supervision. Financial companies that are subject to Federal Consolidated Bank Supervision (“FCBS Financial Companies”), such as bank holding companies, financial holding companies, and savings and loan holding companies generally do not present these same issues. Many of the statutory and regulatory tools available to Federal Consolidated Bank Supervisors can substantially restrict the extent to which such companies may engage in commercial activities or affiliate with commercial companies. Moreover, the examination, reporting, and monitoring systems of Federal Consolidated Bank Supervisors can be effective tools in preventing an affiliate's activities from causing a safety and soundness risk to the bank. Finally, holding companies that are expected to serve as a source of strength to their subsidiary insured depository institutions provide an important resource for an insured bank in need of additional capital. As a result, the FDIC believes that this class of industrial bank ownership does not need further study and that the supervisory tools currently available to the FDIC are adequate. Generally, industrial banks owned by individuals also do not present the same issues that industrial banks owned by commercial companies present. In the case of an industrial bank owned by individuals, there is neither a parent company nor any subsidiary of a parent company that could present an opportunity for a safety and soundness risk or a conflict of interest with the industrial bank. 15 Consequently, at this time, the FDIC believes that ownership of industrial banks by individuals presents no extraordinary issues that deserve further study or consideration. 15 Since there is no parent company of the industrial bank, the BHCA does not apply. Importantly, industrial banks to be owned by Non-FCBS Financial Companies present some of the same issues that industrial banks owned by commercial companies do. However, the FDIC believes that those issues can be controlled or minimized in such cases. In addition, some such companies are subject to well-established regulatory authorities, *e.g.* , by state insurance commissions or the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Such Non-FCBS Financial Companies engage only in financial activities and, so, do not engage in commercial activities either directly or indirectly. However, since these companies will not be subject to Federal Consolidated Bank Supervision, the FDIC believes that safeguards should be implemented that provide adequate protections for the safety and soundness of insured industrial banks and for the protection of the Deposit Insurance Fund. Through the publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking for part 354, the FDIC is proposing conditions and requirements to provide safeguards such as examination of, and reporting by, such companies and their subsidiaries, and binding commitments to serve as a resource for additional capital for the industrial bank subsidiaries. We anticipate that the proposed regulations will provide the safeguards that the FDIC believes could be helpful in identifying and avoiding or controlling, on a consolidated basis, the safety and soundness risks and the risks to the Deposit Insurance Fund that may result from that kind of company-ownership model. Industrial banks that are to be owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by commercial companies, however, continue to present concerns. Under current law, commercial companies would not be allowed to acquire a thrift or a bank, other than an industrial bank, and would not have a Federal Consolidated Bank Supervisor. In many instances, commercial activities are the predominant, if not sole, business of such companies. In such circumstances, not only would consolidated supervision not be present, but the current supervisory process and infrastructure may not produce the safeguards that the FDIC believes could be helpful in identifying and avoiding or controlling, on a consolidated basis, the safety and soundness risks and the risks to the Deposit Insurance Fund that may result from that kind of company-ownership model. The recent trend of increased interest in industrial banks by entities engaged in commercial activities makes an evaluation of the application of current supervisory structures to such owners timely and appropriate. As a result, the FDIC believes that this class of companies needs further study and consideration on two key issues:
(1)What, if any, increased risks are created by ownership by commercial companies and
(2)how well do current supervisory models apply to such owners. Many members of Congress have urged the FDIC to extend the moratorium with respect to industrial banks that would be controlled by commercial firms. On December 7, 2006 one hundred and seven members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to the FDIC urging the FDIC to extend the moratorium for at least an additional six months. The Representatives requested the extension “to allow the 110th Congress an opportunity to act on this important public policy issue.” While the FDIC is not expressing any conclusion about the propriety of ownership of industrial banks by commercial companies, it is appropriate to provide Congress with a reasonable period for consideration of these developments and, if necessary, revisions to existing statutory authority. Furthermore, even though the FDIC has authority to act on any particular application, notice, or request involving an industrial bank, the FDIC has continuing concerns regarding the commercial ownership of industrial banks and the lack of a Federal Consolidated Bank Supervisor. The FDIC recognizes that commercial companies that currently own industrial banks will not be affected by the extended moratorium and that there may be concerns that this results in disparate treatment for those commercial companies now seeking to control ILCs. However, the FDIC has considered the potential impact of the extended moratorium on individual applicants and proponents, including commercial companies, and because the issues raised by such ownership have the potential for broad and substantial impact on the entire banking system and, potentially, the nation's economy, the FDIC believes that Congressional resolution of these issues may be appropriate. The FDIC also recognizes that the moratorium may appear inconsistent with specific timetables for agency action, including processing of approvals. However, adherence to a strict statutory timeline without an opportunity to re-evaluate its standards for determining the public interest risks frustrating the substantive policies the agency is charged with promoting. Consequently, the FDIC has concluded that a limited moratorium should be extended through January 31, 2008. The extension will both allow the FDIC needed time to evaluate the various issues, facts, and arguments associated with the ownership of an industrial bank by a commercial company, and allow Congress time to consider legislation concerning industrial banks. Summary For the reasons discussed above, the scope of the extended moratorium is narrower than the scope of the FDIC's original six-month moratorium. Under the extended moratorium, the FDIC will take no action to accept, approve, or deny any application for deposit insurance, or to accept, disapprove, or issue a letter of intent not to disapprove any change in control notice, with respect to any industrial bank that would become a direct or indirect subsidiary of a company engaged in commercial activities. While to date, commercially owned industrial banks have not resulted in serious problems, in light of the concerns that have been expressed and the recent trend of increased ownership of industrial banks by commercial entities, the FDIC will continue to monitor closely existing industrial banks that currently are controlled by commercial companies. Thus, the extended moratorium will not apply to, and the FDIC may proceed with action on, any application for deposit insurance or any change in control notice with respect to:
(i)Any industrial bank that would become a subsidiary of a company engaged only in financial activities that is subject to Federal Consolidated Bank Supervision by the FRB, or the OTS ( *i.e.* , a FCBS Financial Company);
(ii)any industrial bank that would not become a subsidiary of any company; or
(iii)any industrial bank that would become a subsidiary of a company engaged only in financial activities that is not subject to Federal Consolidated Bank Supervision by the FRB or the OTS ( *i.e.* , a Non-FCBS Financial Company). While the notice of proposed rulemaking for part 354 is pending, the FDIC will consider deposit insurance applications and change in control notices with respect to industrial banks within group
(iii)above on a case-by-case basis. After any final rules are adopted, the FDIC will consider requests to modify any conditions and requirements agreed to during the period between issuance of the proposed rule and the effective date of the final rules to conform such conditions and requirements to those in the final rules. During the extended moratorium any application, notice or request with respect to any industrial bank that is not subject to the moratorium will be acted upon only by the FDIC's Board of Directors. The extended moratorium is effective through January 31, 2008 for applications for deposit insurance and change in control notices with respect to industrial banks that will become subsidiaries of companies engaged in commercial activities. Dated at Washington DC, this 31st day of January 2007. By Order of the Board of Directors. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-1853 Filed 2-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION [Notice 2007-2] Price Index Increases for Expenditure and Contribution Limitations AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. ACTION: Notice of expenditure and contribution limitation increases. SUMMARY: As mandated by provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”), the Federal Election Commission (“FEC” or “the Commission”) is adjusting certain expenditure and contribution limitations set forth in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (“FECA” or “the Act”), to account for increases in the consumer price index. Additional details appear in the supplemental information that follows. EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date for the limit at 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)(A) is November 8, 2006. The effective date for the limits at 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)(B), 441a(a)(3), 441a(d) and 441a(h) is January 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gregory J. Scott, Information Division, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463;
(202)694-1100 or
(800)424-9530. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. 431 *et seq.* , as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 1 coordinated party expenditure limits (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)(3)(A) and (B)), and certain contribution limits (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)(A) and (B), (a)(3),
(d)and (h)), are adjusted either annually or biennially by the increase in the consumer price index. *See* 2 U.S.C. 441a(c)(1) and 11 CFR 110.17. The Commission is publishing this notice to announce these limits for 2007 or the 2007-2008 election cycle. 1 Public Law 107-155, 116 Stat. 81 (Mar. 27, 2002). Coordinated Party Expenditure Limits for 2007 Under 2 U.S.C. 441a(c), the Commission must adjust the expenditure limitations established by 2 U.S.C. 441a(d) (the limits on expenditures by national party committees, state party committees, or their subordinate committees in connection with the general election campaign of candidates for Federal office) annually to account for inflation. This expenditure limitation is increased by the percent difference between the price index, as certified to the Commission by the Secretary of Labor, for the 12 months preceding the beginning of the calendar year and the price index for the base period (calendar year 1974). 1. Expenditure Limitation for House of Representatives Both the national and state party committees have an expenditure limitation for each general election held to fill a seat in the House of Representatives. The formula used to calculate the expenditure limitation in a state with more than one congressional district multiplies the base figure of $10,000 by the price index (4.089), rounding to the nearest $100. Based upon this formula, the expenditure limitation for 2007 House elections in those states is $40,900. The formula used to calculate the expenditure limitation in a state with only one congressional district is the greater of: the base figure ($20,000) multiplied by the price index (4.089) (which totals $81,800); or $0.02 multiplied by the voting age population (“VAP”) of the state, multiplied by the price index. Amounts are rounded to the nearest $100. Based upon this formula, the expenditure limitation for 2007 House elections in these states is $81,800. *See* 2 U.S.C. 441a(d)(3) and 11 CFR 109.32(b). 2. Expenditure Limitation for Senate Both the national and state party committees have an expenditure limitation for a general election held to fill a seat in the Senate. The formula used to calculate the Senate expenditure limitation considers not only the price index but also the VAP of the state. The expenditure limitation is the greater of: the base figure ($20,000) multiplied by the price index (which totals $81,800); or $0.02 multiplied by the VAP of the state, multiplied by the price index. Amounts are rounded to the nearest $100. *See* 2 U.S.C. 441a(d)(3) and 11 CFR 109.32(b). The chart below provides the state-by-state breakdown of the 2007 expenditure limitations for Senate elections. Senate Expenditure Limitations—2007 Elections State VAP (in thousands) VAP × .02 multiplied by the price index (4.089) Expenditure limit (the greater of the amount in column 3 or $81,800) Alabama 3,485 $285,000 $285,000 Alaska 489 40,000 81,800 Arizona 4,538 371,100 371,100 Arkansas 2,120 173,400 173,400 California 26,925 2,201,900 2,201,900 Colorado 3,584 293,100 293,100 Connecticut 2,687 219,700 219,700 Delaware 650 53,200 81,800 Florida 14,068 1,150,500 1,150,500 Georgia 6,909 565,000 565,000 Hawaii 987 80,700 81,800 Idaho 1,072 87,700 87,700 Illinois 9,617 786,500 786,500 Indiana 4,736 387,300 387,300 Iowa 2,272 185,800 185,800 Kansas 2,068 169,100 169,100 Kentucky 3,207 262,300 262,300 Louisiana 3,198 261,500 261,500 Maine 1,041 85,100 85,100 Maryland 4,255 348,000 348,000 Massachusetts 4,988 407,900 407,900 Michigan 7,617 622,900 622,900 Minnesota 3,910 319,800 319,800 Mississippi 2,151 175,900 175,900 Missouri 4,426 362,000 362,000 Montana 727 59,500 81,800 Nebraska 1,323 108,200 108,200 Nevada 1,861 152,200 152,200 New Hampshire 1,017 83,200 83,200 New Jersey 6,635 542,600 542,600 New Mexico 1,446 118,300 118,300 New York 14,792 1,209,700 1,209,700 North Carolina 6,701 548,000 548,000 North Dakota 491 40,200 81,800 Ohio 8,708 712,100 712,100 Oklahoma 2,685 219,600 219,600 Oregon 2,844 232,600 232,600 Pennsylvania 9,636 788,000 788,000 Rhode Island 830 67,900 81,800 South Carolina 3,282 268,400 268,400 South Dakota 587 48,000 81,800 Tennessee 4,596 375,900 375,900 Texas 17,014 1,391,400 1,391,400 Utah 1,759 143,900 143,900 Vermont 491 40,200 81,800 Virginia 5,836 477,300 477,300 Washington 4,870 398,300 398,300 West Virginia 1,429 116,900 116,900 Wisconsin 4,244 347,100 347,100 Wyoming 393 32,100 81,800 Contribution Limitation Increases for Individuals, Nonmulticandidate Committees and for Certain Political Party Committees Giving to U.S. Senate Candidates for 2007-2008 Election Cycle BCRA amended the Act to extend inflation indexing to:
(1)The limitations on contributions made by persons under 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)(A) (contributions to candidates) and 441a(a)(1)(B) (contributions to national party committees);
(2)the biennial aggregate contribution limits applicable to individuals under 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3); and
(3)the limitation on contributions made to U.S. Senate candidates by certain political party committees at 2 U.S.C. 441a(h) and 2 U.S.C. 441a(c). These contribution limitations are increased by multiplying the respective statutory contribution amount by the percent difference between the price index, as certified to the Commission by the Secretary of Labor, for the 12 months preceding the beginning of the calendar year and the price index for the base period (calendar year 2001). The resulting amount is rounded to the nearest multiple of $100. *See* 2 U.S.C. 441a(c) and 11 CFR 110.17(b). The Commission has calculated the applicable percent difference to be 13.9 percent. Contribution limitations shall be adjusted accordingly: Statutory provision Statutory amount 2007-2008 limitation 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)(A) $2,000 $2,300 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)(B) 25,000 28,500 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(A) 37,500 42,700 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(B) 57,500 65,500 2 U.S.C. 441a(h) 35,000 39,900 The increased limitation at 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)(A) is to be in effect for the 2 year period beginning on the first day following the date of the general election in the preceding year and ending on the date of the next regularly scheduled election. Thus the $2,300 figure above is in effect from November 8, 2006, to November 4, 2008. The limitations under 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)(B), 441a(a)(3)(A) and (B), and 441a(h), shall be in effect beginning January 1st of the odd-numbered year and ending on December 31st of the next even-numbered year. Thus the new contribution limits under 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)(B), 441a(a)(3)(A) and (B), and 441a(h) are in effect from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2008. *See* 11 CFR 110.17(b)(1). Dated: January 29, 2007. Robert D. Lenhard, Chairman, Federal Election Commission. [FR Doc. E7-1755 Filed 2-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notices AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. DATE & TIME: Thursday, February 8, 2007 at 10 a.m. PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (ninth floor). STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public. ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: Correction and Approval of Minutes. *Advisory Opinion 2006-34:* Working Assets, Inc., by counsel, Joseph E. Sandler and Frederick K. Lowell. *Advisory Opinion 2006-36:* Green Senatorial Campaign Committee, by Dean Myerson, Treasurer. *Advisory Opinion 2006-38:* Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr. and the Casey State Committee by counsel, Marc E. Elias and Caroline P. Goodson. Policy Statement Establishing A Pilot Program for Probable Cause Hearings. Person to Contact for Information: Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, Telephone:
(202)694-1220. Mary W. Dove, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 07-525 Filed 2-1-07; 3:39 pm]
Connectionstraces to 14
Traces to 14 documents
U.S. Code
- Rates§ 839e
- Sale of electric power from reservoir projects; rate schedules; preference in sale; construction of transmission lines; disposition of moneys§ 825s
- Schedules of rates and charges for sale of Federal power and transmission of non-Federal power; confirmation and approval; criteria for modification and establishment§ 838g
- Orders requiring interconnection or wheeling§ 824k
- Definitions§ 1841
- Interests in nonbanking organizations§ 1843
- Regulation of holding companies§ 1467a
- Transferred§ 441a
- Transferred§ 431
CFR
3 references not yet in our index
- Pub. L. 92-463
- Pub. L. 100-86
- Pub. L. 107-155
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of open meeting
Pub. L.Pub. L. 92-463
Pub. L.Pub. L. 100-86
Pub. L.Pub. L. 107-155
Cites 17 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources