The agreement that allows dpa is called the California Fire Management Agreement (CFMA). The agreement is between the State of California (CALFIRE) and the five public land management authorities (BLM, BIA, USFS, USFWS, NPS). The agreement has a five-year term and was only renewed this year. Under the new agreement, an approach called DPA-IA will be tested. The underlying idea is the same as the one mentioned earlier with a change. It applies to the first attack (AI) of an incident (usually the first 24 hours). After the AI, the responsibility for the incident rests with the competent authority (owner authority). The aim is to rebalance the costs of firefighting in high-value areas, while leaving time for the competent authority to make resources available. Following the adoption of the CFMA, several financial contracts were exempted from previous legislation.
For example, while regulatory oversight previously applied to derivatives transactions between two financial institutions. The ACT reduces this oversight for transactions involving many non-physical products if both parties do not execute such an agreement on a trading exchange. However, regulators can continue to enforce various laws that prohibit fraud and price manipulation. After Congress returned to the meeting on December 4, 2000, it was reported that Senator Gramm and the Treasury were exchanging the proposed languages to address the issues raised by Sen. Grams, followed by a report that these negotiations were deadlocked.  However, on 14 December, the Ministry of Finance announced that an agreement had been reached the day before and asked Congress to enter into force the agreed language.  Members of the Democratic Congress then described a period from late September to early October, during which they were excluded from the reconciliation negotiations of the three versions of H.R. 4541, followed by participation in obtaining an acceptable compromise that dissatisfied some Republicans with the final version of the bill and some Democrats on the “process” , especially the participation of Sen. Gramm and the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives in the negotiations, angry.  Despite signs of no agreement, the White House announced on October 19, 2000 its “strong support” for the version of H.R. 4541, which was to reach the House Floor that day.  The House of Representatives approved by 377-4 votes against H.R.
4541.  At the House of Representatives and Senate Committee hearings on these bills, committee chairs and ranking members described a tight timetable for bills because of the short timing of the election year. Sponsors had delayed the introduction of the bills, pending in vain an agreement between the CFTC and the SEC on the regulation of individual futures contracts under the PWG report. This issue dominated the hearings.  IMPORTANT – BEFORE DOWNLOADING, ACCESSING, OR WITH A PART OF THE CFMA SITE, YOU SHOULD OBTAIN THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THESE TERMS OF SERVICE AGREEMENT (THE OR THESE “TOS”) IN THE APPLICATION THAT YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THE CFMA WEBSITE AND ANY PROGRAM, SERVICES, PRODUCTS, OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE CFMA MEMBER DIRECTORY DIRECTOR AND THE CFMA NEWSLETTERS MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE CFMA WEB SITE , THE OR THIS “SITE”). CFMA IS READY TO GRANT THE USE OF THIS SITE AND TO MAKE SERVICES RELATED TO YOU ONLY PROVIDED THAT YOU USE ALL THE CONDITIONS AND CONDITIONS IN THIS TOS. IF YOU DON`T FOLLOW THESE TOS, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ACCESS OR OTHERS USE THIS SITE.1