2541.03—Policy. Include high priority instream flows and standing waters when determining National Forest Water needs. Quantify and pursue State water rights for flows and standing waters not covered by the reservation doctrine after considering all strategic options. Strategy options include, but are not limited to;

1. Rely on senior and stable downstream appropriators to protect needed instream flows on the National Forest System.

2. Rely on constraints contained in special use permits as a means of maintaining instream flows or standing waters.

3. Protect instream flows or standing water through land acquisition.

4. Negotiate agreements or adjudication settlement stipulations that protect instream flows or standing waters.

Maintain and update annually the Forest's water uses, requirements, and rights inventory.

2541.35—Special Use Authorization for Water Developments. The following is guidance that specifically addresses the management of ground water resources. (See also Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2729).

Ground water beneath National Forest System (NFS) lands in the Region is a valuable resource that requires thoughtful and prudent management. Ground waters and surface waters are interconnected. Ground water discharge sustains base flows in NFS streams and is the source of water for springs and seeps. This ground water discharge is critical for sustaining aquatic and riparian ecosystems along with the numerous resources and activities dependent upon them.

Special use authorizations for removal of ground water from NFS lands shall be approved only when the long-term protection and enhancement of NFS streams, springs, seeps, and associated riparian and aquatic ecosystems can be assured unless such removal is documented in an Environmental Impact Statement.

Ground water removal on non-NFS lands adjacent to NFS lands may impact streams, springs, seeps and associated riparian and aquatic ecosystems on NFS lands. When a project proponent proposes to transport ground water across NFS lands, it is appropriate to analyze the potential impacts of the water removal as well as the impacts of the facilities to transport it. The extent to which each proposal to remove or transport ground water is analyzed depends on the scope and potential impact of the proposed action.

1. Initial Screening for Development and Use of Ground Water. As provided for in Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 251.54(b), initial proposals for ground water development may be presented to the Forest Service either verbally or in writing. When such presentation is made to the Forest Service, it should be explained to the project proponent that the permitting process for ground water use or transport is a discretionary activity, and that a permit for water use or transport may be denied if analysis indicates that NFS resources or adjacent water supplies will not be adequately protected. It should also be explained that the CFR provides for two levels of screening prior to initiating environmental analysis documentation. To pass the initial screening requirements, proposals to develop and use ground water derived from NFS lands, or derived from non-NFS lands and transported across NFS lands, must meet the following conditions:

a. The proposal to use or transport water must be consistent with applicable laws, regulations, policies, rules, and NFS land and resource management plans (FSM 2702 & 2703). Proposals shall be evaluated as specified in 36 CFR 251.54(e) and as follows:

b. The proposal to use or transport water must adequately protect NFS resources (FSM 2702.1 & 2541.34).

c. The proposal must be consistent with national policy not to encumber NFS lands just because it affords a proponent a lower cost when compared with alternatives located on non-NFS lands (FSM 2703.2)

d. Proposal to use ground water derived from NFS lands must include the use of appropriate water conservation measures (FSM 2541.21h).

e. When considering proposals to use water on non-NFS lands, preference should be given to those requests made by communities or other entities that best serve the public interest.

Proposals that do not meet the minimal requirements of the initial screening process shall be returned to the proponent as insufficient. The authorizing officer shall reply in writing if the proposal was presented in writing, or reply verbally if the proposal was presented verbally (36 CFR 251.54(e)(2)).

2. Second-level Screening . Additional information is required for proposals that pass initial screening. In second-level screening, the proposal is evaluated as described in 36 CFR 251.54(e)(5) and as follows.

a. If the intent of the proposal is to use ground water derived from NFS lands for a non-NFS purpose, the proponent must demonstrate that alternative water sources do not exist (FSM 2703.2). This would include documentation of the actions taken to secure water from other than NFS sources or the rationale explaining why is not feasible to do so. This may include a record of wells drilled, attempts to purchase water, hydrologic and geologic studies, or other similar information.

b. The quantity of water the proponent is currently seeking from NFS lands and the purpose of use of such water must be identified. If the proponent anticipates increased water needs in the future, such needs shall also be quantified.

c. Drilling activities themselves can negatively impact NFS resources. In instances where considerable disturbance may result from the drilling process itself, the proponent must demonstrate that there is reasonable likelihood of successfully completing any water wells and adequately mitigating any resource damage. Information that might support a proponent's rationale could include an inventory of all existing wells in the vicinity along with any available information such as driller's logs, well depths, well yields, water quality information, geophysical logs, and well construction details. In addition, information regarding favorable geologic conditions such as known water bearing formations (including location, aerial extent, lithology, and hydrologic characteristics) or favorable structural features. The proponent may be required to provide information describing current resource conditions to facilitate estimates of potential damage and/or potentially effective mitigation.

d. All anticipated facilities such as roads, power lines, pipelines, water storage tanks, and pumps that could ultimately be needed to produce and convey water across NFS lands must be identified. Proposals that involve construction and/or use of roads shall conform to the requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, specifically FLPMA Sections 502 and 505.

e. To assist in evaluating the potential for the proposal to affect NFS resources and adjacent water supplies, key resources and existing water supplies should be identified. The quantity, location, and/or thing of the proposed use of water will determine to what extent the following information needs are addressed. Typically, the greatest amount of information will be required of each proposal that contemplates the withdrawal of large quantities or water, building in or transiting environmentally sensitive locations, and/or withdrawal of water during peak periods of usage by others, sensitive periods of needs for fish and wildlife, or sensitive periods of needs for riparian and wetlands flora and fauna.

Information that may be required to assess potential impacts to neighboring water users and/or to resources both on and adjacent to NFS lands includes:

(1) The location and characteristics of all potentially affected surface and ground water resources including wells, streams, springs, seeps, and aquifers.

(2) Pertinent social information, including the identification of any potentially impacted individuals or groups and their water uses. Social impacts and environmental justice will be evaluated through the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 process (NEPA) and through any applicable State process designed to protect the holders of water rights.

(3) The location and description of riparian vegetation.

(4) Any known Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive species.

(5) Pertinent geologic information. This should include a map of the area identifying surface geology and any known subsurface formations and structural features. Hydrologic characteristics of the target aquifers such as transmissivity and storativity should also be included, if known.

(6) Pertinent hydrologic information. Provide any available information regarding water table or piezometric surface elevations including known seasonal fluctuations, direction and rate of ground water flow, recharge and discharge areas, surface water flow characteristics including volumes and peaks throughout the year, location of gaining and losing reaches of streams, and water quality.

(f) If the proposal does not pass second-level screening, it should be returned to the proponent with a written reason for rejection (36 CFR 251.54(g)(1)). NEPA analysis is not required to make this determination (36 CFR 251.54(e)(6)). If the proposal passes second-level screening, the proponent shall be notified that the Forest Service is prepared to accept a written formal application for a special use authorization. The Forest Service should begin the appropriate environmental analysis upon receipt of the formal application (36 CFR 251.54(g)(2)(ii)). The proponent should be advised that any information provided is likely to become public information once the formal application is received and a NEPA process initiated.

When for formal application is received, the proponent is referred to as the applicant.

3. Environmental Analysis. When screening indicates that the proposal includes high ground water production rates and/or potentially high impact well(s) or transmission facilities, substantial additional analysis may be necessary. An application may be approved in two phases, the first for exploration and the second for construction and/or production. Each phase requires NEPA documentation. When the application is to use existing wells, the evaluation procedures describe din paragraphs (a)-(c) may still apply.

Project applicants should be advised that obtaining approval for exploratory drilling and/or evaluation does not guarantee that construction of production phase facilities will be authorized. They should also be advised that there may be substantial mitigation measures required by the terms of a production authorization and that the scope of those measures may not be identified until the conclusion of the appropriate environmental analysis.

a. Exploratory Drilling Procedures. When screening indicates a reasonable likelihood of producing ground water without negative impacts to NFS resources or adjacent water supplies, NEPA documentation appropriate to the scale of exploration shall be completed. At this phase, a Categorical Exclusion (FSH 1909.15 Sec. 31.1(b)(8) or 31.2(8)) may be sufficient. If the responsible official decides to allow exploration on NFS lands, a temporary permit may be issued for the exploration and impact evaluation phase of the proposal. This temporary permit shall contain any conditions necessary to minimize impacts to Forest resources.

b. Impact Evaluation Procedures. If water supplies in sufficient quantities to meet the applicant's needs are located in existing wells or found through exploration, a detailed plan to determine impacts should be required. This plan will be site specific and designed to identify potential impacts to Forest resources and adjacent water supplies, and must be approved by the Forest Service prior to testing for impacts.

In considering requests to use water from a known aquifer underlying NFS lands, modeling drawdown and resultant impacts may be sufficient. Any modeling will be conducted using a ground water flow model approved by the Forest Service.

In the absence of sufficient information to model impacts, an aquifer test such as long-term pumping of existing and/or exploratory well(s) may be required. The purpose of the test is to evaluate the potential impacts of removing water at production levels from the well(s) under consideration. As testing occurs, there should be simultaneous measurements of water levels and/or pressures in other wells within the vicinity and of flows in adjacent surface waters. Any aquifer test(s) should be conducted during periods of appropriate flows in adjacent surface waters so that impacts can be identified and used to support modeling of drawdown characteristics and/or impacts to surface water resources over time. Chemical characterization may be necessary to further evaluate the potential connection between ground and surface water resources.

If the proposal involves the transport of ground water pumped from nearby non-NFS lands across NFS lands, the above testing may still be required to evaluate impacts of the ground water withdrawal on NFS resources and adjacent water supplies. (40 CFR, 1508.25 Scope).

c. The results of testing, monitoring, and/or modeling shall be analyzed to determine potential impacts to National Forest resources and adjacent water supplies. A decision to allow ground water production and/or conveyance shall be considered through the appropriate NEPA analysis and documentation. Refer to FSH 1909.15, chapters 30 and 40.

4. Construction and Production Permitting. The construction phase includes the construction of all infrastructures needed to pump, store, and convey water from its source to the place of use. Once a NEPA decision is in place, a special use authorization is needed to occupy and use NFS lands for the purposes of constructing and operating facilities designed to produce and convey ground water (36 CFR 251.54 (g)(5)). Refer to FSM 2711 for guidance on the type of permit and/or easement to issue. Refer to 36 CFR 251.56 for Terms and Conditions for permit issuance. Construction may be permitted separately from production. Once a permit is issued, the applicant is referred to as the holder. Regardless of the length of time for which a permit is issued, it is important to note that the Forest Service may amend the permit at any time when it is in the public interest to do so (FSM 2711.2). Continued monitoring of water developments is necessary to verify that their operation remains in the public interest.

5. Monitoring and Mitigation. All monitoring or mitigation measures necessary to ensure protection of Forest resources during the construction of water pumping, storage, or transport facilities, and during the long-term removal of ground water, should be included in annual plans of operation attached to and made a part of the permit(s). Mitigation measures such as the cessation of pumping during critical times of the year or replacing water to streams and springs will be considered only if Forest resources can be protected over a long-term period.

a. The holder should be required to bear the costs of monitoring and mitigation either directly through permit language or indirectly through the use of a collection agreement that funds the Forest Service to accomplish the work.

b. If long term monitoring detects additional or unforeseen adverse impacts to Forest resources, or if mitigation measures do not adequately protect Forest resources, the permit shall be suspended or revoked as appropriate (36 CFR 251.60 (a)(2)(D). To reverse or prevent a suspension, the holder shall undertake such efforts as are necessary to eliminate adverse impacts not previously documented in an Environmental Impact Statement.

6. Other Considerations. Applicable laws and regulations governing wells and water rights shall be adhered to for all proposals. This includes State requirements for notifications, drilling permits, well abandonment procedures, and water rights, and federal (for example, Environmental Protection Agency) requirements and recommendations for monitoring wells, construction, sampling, and abandonment.

In the event that testing, modeling, or monitoring indicates a possibility that appropriable waters are or may be impacted, the Forest Service shall follow the procedures appropriate for the State(s) in which the development is located. If an appropriate State remedy is not available, the Forest Service may seek remedy in any court of jurisdiction. The Forest Service shall not issue a permit for construction or issue/reissue a permit for production unless the applicable State authorization has been granted for the proposed development.

In the event that a State unreasonably withholds authorization, the Forest Service shall consult with the Office of General Counsel regarding remedy.

Permits issued for exploration, evaluation, construction, and/or production do not convey a water right to the holder.

2541.4—Managing Water Rights. Decide if water rights appurtenant to acquired lands can and should continue to be used on the acquired lands. Make a decision within 1 year of acquisition on how and where acquired water rights will be used.

If it is determined that all or part of an acquired water right is not needed by the acquiring Forest, then such water rights will be made available to other Forests. Distribution of surplus water rights will be made by the Regional Forester in accordance with State laws and river basin compacts.

The CACs on the African American Population, the American Indian and Alaska Native Populations, the Asian Population, the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Populations, and the Hispanic Population are composed of nine members each, appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The Committees provide an organized and continuing channel of communication between the communities they represent and the U.S. Census Bureau on its effort to reduce the differential undercount for Census 2000 and on ways that census data can be disseminated to maximum usefulness to their communities and other users.

The CAC of Professional Associations is composed of thirty-six members appointed by the Presidents of the American Economic Association, the American Statistical Association, the Population Association of America, and the Chairman of the Board of the American Marketing Association. The Committee advises the Director, U.S. Census Bureau, on the full range of U.S. Census Bureau programs and activities in relation to its areas of expertise.

The 2000 Census Advisory Committee is composed of a Chair, Vice Chair, and up to forty member organizations. There are also sixteen ex-officio members, all appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The Advisory Committee considers the goals of Census 2000 and user needs for information provided by that census. The Committee provides an outside user perspective about how operational planning and implementation methods proposed for Census 2000 will realize those goals and satisfy those needs. The Advisory Committee considers all aspects of the conduct of the 2000 Census of Population and Housing and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce for improving that census.

A brief period will be set aside at the meeting for public comment. However, individuals with extensive statements for the record must submit them in writing to the Commerce Department official named above at least three working days prior to the meeting.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the U.S. Census Bureau Committee Liaison Officer on 301-457-2308, TDD 301-457-2540.

Purpose of the Board: To provide the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management (EM) with advice and recommendations on issues confronting the Environmental Management Program from the perspective of affected groups, as well as state, local, and tribal governments. The Board will contribute to the effective operation of the Environmental Management Program by providing individual citizens and representatives of interested groups an opportunity to present their views on issues facing the Office of Environmental Management and by helping to secure consensus recommendations on those issues.

Public Participation: This meeting is open to the public. If you would like to file a written statement with the Board, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make an oral statement regarding any of the items on the agenda, please contact Mr. Melillo at the address or telephone number listed above, or call the Environmental Management Advisory Board office at 202-586-4400, and we will reserve time for you on the agenda. You may also register to speak at the meeting on April 13-14, 2000, or ask to speak during the public comment period. Those who call in and or register in advance will be given the opportunity to speak first. Others will be accommodated as time permits. The Board Chairs will conduct the meeting in an orderly manner.

Transcript and Minutes: We will make the minutes of the meeting available for public review and copying by approximately May 13, 2000. The minutes and transcript of the meeting will be available for viewing on the Internet at http://www.em.doe.gov/emab/products.html and at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room (1E-190) in the Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585. The Room is open Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. except on Federal holidays.

In accordance with section 252(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(i)) (EPCA), the following notice of meeting is provided:

A meeting of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) will be held at the headquarters of the IEA, 9, rue de la Fédération, Paris, France, on March 23, 2000, beginning at approximately 8:45 a.m. The purpose of this notice is to permit attendance by representatives of U.S. company members of the IAB at a meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ), which is scheduled to be held at the IEA on March 23, including a preparatory encounter among company representatives from approximately 8:45 a..m. to 9 am.

The Agenda for the preparatory encounter among company representatives is to elicit views regarding items on the SEQ's Agenda. The Agenda for the SEQ meeting is under the control of the SEQ. It is expected that the SEQ will adopt the following Agenda:

As provided in section 252(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(ii)), this meeting is open only to representatives of members of the IAB and their counsel, representatives of members of the SEQ, representatives of the Departments of Energy, Justice, and State, the Federal Trade Commission, the General Accounting Office, Committees of Congress, the IEA, and the European Commission, and invitees of the IAB, the SEQ, or the IEA.

On December 21, 1998, BPA published its Power Subscription Strategy and accompanying Record of Decision for selling Federal power under new contracts with its publicly and cooperatively owned utility, investor-owned utility and direct service industrial customers. The Power Subscription Strategy stated overall policies for determining the amount of Federal power to be offered to Pacific Northwest public utility and investor-owned utility customers under section 5(b)(1) of the Northwest Power Act.

On May 6, 1999, BPA published a Federal Register Notice (64 FR 24376) with a draft proposed policy for determining the net requirements of publicly and cooperatively owned utility and investor-owned utility customers. BPA sought public comment on its proposed polices for determining utility customer net requirements under section 5(b)(1) of the Northwest Power Act. Adoption of a final policy is important to a successful implementation of BPA's post-2001 power sales contracts under BPA's Power Subscription Strategy.

On October 28, 1999, BPA published a Federal Register Notice (64 FR 58099) with a revised draft policy proposal based upon comments received on the earlier proposal and requested additional comment on this revised draft policy. After having reviewed and considered the additional comment, the Administrator has decided to adopt this final policy. Review and analysis of public comment will be published in the Administrator's Record of Decision (ROD) that is related to this final policy. This ROD is expected to be available in March.

This final policy provides guidance on implementation of the Power Subscription Strategy under applicable statutes and describes how certain factual determinations will be made regarding the amount of Federal power publicly and cooperatively owned utilities, or investor-owned utilities may purchase from BPA under section 5(b)(1) of the Northwest Power Act. BPA's determination of this amount, as described in this policy, is affected by a customer's export of hydroelectric resources and non-hydroelectric resources out of the Pacific Northwest in accordance with section 9(c) of the Northwest Power and section 3(d) of the Northwest Preference Act. BPA will review a customer's export of power or output from resources under BPA's Section 9(c) Policy as set forth in Section IV.B.

Environmental Compliance: This final policy is consistent with BPA's Business Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0183, June 1995), the Business Plan Record of Decision (ROD), signed August 15, 1995, and the subsequent tiered Power Subscription Strategy ROD, signed December 21, 1998.

The Northwest Power Act provisions are:

The Northwest Preference Act provision is:

The Policy on Determining Net Requirements as described in section III addresses the amount of Federal power that BPA is obligated to offer to customers requesting contracts to serve firm power loads under section 5(b)(1) of the Northwest Power Act. Purchasers eligible to request a contract under section 5(b)(1) include public body, cooperative, or investor-owned utilities in the region. 1 BPA has a corresponding statutory duty when determining the net requirements of a requesting purchaser to apply the provisions of section 9(c) of the Northwest Power Act and section 3(d) of the Regional Preference Act. BPA's modification to its 1994 Non-Federal Participation Section 9(c) Policy (1994 NFP Policy) is contained in section IV. Such provisions direct the Administrator to determine whether an export or proposed export of a requesting purchaser's non-hydroelectric or hydroelectric resource(s) would result in an increase in the firm energy requirements of any of BPA's customers. Findings by BPA that the export of such resources are likely to increase BPA's firm obligations, and that the resource could have been conserved, or otherwise retained to serve regional loads, will result in a reduction (decrement)  2 of the amount of Federal power and energy available for purchase under section 5(b)(1) equal to the amount of power and energy, and for the duration, of the export. Determinations under the policy will be made by BPA based on demonstrations made by the customer and other available information.

1. BPA will determine the amount of Federal power for sale under section 5(b)(1) in the manner described below. In making this determination BPA will reduce the amount of Federal power a customer may purchase in accordance with section 9(c) of the Northwest Power Act and section 3(d) of the Northwest Preference Act.

(a) BPA will offer an amount of Federal power for sale to a customer under section 5(b)(1) based upon such customer's actual retail firm power loads in the region. To establish the customer's actual retail firm power loads in the region, BPA shall use either the actual measured load of the customer, or the customer's own actual load forecast. However, if BPA finds the customer's forecast unreasonable, or the customer has not produced such a forecast, BPA will substitute its own forecast. (Any actual or forecast loads of the customer shall exclude any wholesale loads served by the customer. Wholesale loads means power sales made by the customer using its own resources to serve its own wholesale customers who are purchasing to resell the power at wholesale or retail.)

(b) For purposes of determining the amount of Federal power BPA will offer to existing customers in the post-2001 period, BPA will require an existing customer to continue to use all generating and contractual resources included in the Firm Resource Exhibit (FRE) of such customer's current 1981 or 1996 power sales contracts for the 1998-1999 operating year. 3 BPA will not, however, require customers to continue the use of resources identified in their 1998-99 FREs under any one of the following conditions: (1) The customer's contractual resource(s) expires prior to October 1, 2001; (2) the customer's generating resource(s) is determined by BPA to be lost due to obsolescence, retirement, or loss of resource in accordance with section III.B.1 (loss of generating resources); or (3) the customer's contractual resource(s) is determined to be lost in accordance with section III.B.2 (loss of contractual resources). In addition, customers who were given express written consent by the Administrator to permanently remove a resource from use in serving regional firm power loads are not required to return such resources to use.

(c) BPA will require that all Federal surplus firm power contracts or excess Federal power contracts with terms which specify that such power be used to serve the customer's retail firm power load in the region be so applied.

(d) Under a section 5(b)(1) contract customers may elect to dedicate other generating resources or contractual resources, in addition to generating resources or contractual resources customers must use to serve load under section III.A.1.(b), to serve their consumer load. Customers can also agree to contractually commit power purchases from the market (market purchases) to serve any remaining amounts of their retail firm power load in the region which is not served by (1) generating resources or contractual resources that a customer must use to serve load under section III.A.1.(b); and (2) additional generating resources or contractual resources that a customer elects to use under this section. Application of additional generating resources, contractual resources, or market purchases by a customer under a section 5(b)(1) contract shall be as follows:

(i) All additional generating resources or contractual resources shall be used for their remaining useful life except for (1) the customer's generating or contractual resources added pursuant to section III.C (renewable resources), (2) the customer's generating resources determined by BPA to be lost during the term of the contract due to obsolescence, retirement, or loss of resource in accordance with section III.B.1 (loss of generating resources), (3) the customer's contractual resources determined by BPA to be lost during the term of the contract in accordance with section III.B.2 (loss of contractual resources), or (4) the customer's generating or contractual resources where BPA has provided express written consent to permanently remove the resource. The remaining useful life of new contractual resources shall not be less than the term of the customer's section 5(b)(1) contract.

(ii) Market purchases used to serve retail firm power load in the region shall be used for the entire 5 year rate period for which BPA establishes rates of general application, except as provided in section III.D.2.

(iii) Consistent with the customer's section 5(b)(1) contract and the customer's product selection, a customer who elects to use market purchases to serve load that does not match the customer's existing resources and delivery of Federal power from time to time shall make such market purchases to serve that portion of load that does not match such customer's existing resources and delivery of Federal power under all such circumstances.

(e) BPA will apply the Declaration Parameters included in the Power Products Catalog to establish the amount of power available from the customer's generating and contractual resources under the Subscription contract. Because the Declaration Parameters are subject to revision, BPA will use the Declaration Parameters in effect at the time of BPA's contract offer to determine the amount of Federal power offered. The customer may declare a reduction in the amount of power that would otherwise be available from its own generating and contractual resources by the amount of power the customer uses from such resources to serve its wholesale loads, defined above, which were served prior to December 5, 1980, and which continue to be served by such resources.

2. In addition to subsections III.A.1.(a) through (e), BPA shall reduce the amount of Federal power offered to a customer under section 5(b)(1) when such reductions are consistent with the application of BPA's Section 9(c) Policy as modified, and resultant findings made under section 9(c) of the Northwest Power Act and section 3(d) of the Northwest Preference Act.

1. A customer's non-Federal generating resource is considered no longer used to serve regional retail firm power load under a section 5(b)(1) contract if the resource's use is permanently discontinued due to obsolescence, retirement, or loss.

(a) Obsolescence is a permanent discontinuance of a generating resource resulting from the inability to continue to operate such resource at the end of its useful life due to lack of available replacement parts, deterioration of the physical facility, or lack of sources of fuel supply.

(b) Retirement is a permanent discontinuance of a generating resource for which the customer can demonstrate that the cost of replacements, improvements, or additions necessary to continue to operate the resource, combined with the resource's variable operating costs, exceed the reasonable economic return over the remaining life of the resource. The customer will demonstrate the reasonable economic return of the resource by comparing the costs to the customer of replacing the resource with market purchases plus the cost to permanently shut down the resource to the cost of continuing to operate the resource.

(c) Loss of a resource is a permanent discontinuance caused by factors beyond the reasonable control of the customer and which the best efforts of the customer are unable to remedy. Such factors include, but are not limited to, complete destruction of the resource, complete loss of the Federal or State license to own or operate the resource, or complete and/or partial reduction of the capability of a resource to the extent of the loss resulting from requested operations or orders of a cognizant State or Federal agency directly or indirectly affecting the operation of the resource and changing its planned capability.

2. A customer's contractual resource is considered no longer used to serve regional firm power load if the customer experiences a permanent loss of contract rights. Loss of contract rights must result from expiration of the term of the contract, after any extensions of the contract unilaterally available to the customer, or from factors beyond the reasonable control of the customer and which the best effort of the customer are unable to remedy. The Administrator may grant consent to a customer's permanent discontinuance of a contract resource upon expiration of such contract notwithstanding a customer's right to renew or extend such contract if the customer demonstrates that substantial and material changes in the terms of a successor contract, such as price, will deny the basic benefit of the bargain to the customer which effectively results in the loss of existing contract rights.

1. A customer may elect to use a new renewable resource to serve its regional retail firm power load for a specified period which is less than the term of its section 5(b)(1) contract; provided, however, that such new renewable resource is part of the first 200 aMW of all new renewable resources requested by all BPA customers under this section to serve regional retail firm power load each year or, once that 200 aMW limit has been reached, a new renewable resource that BPA has agreed in writing can be so used without regard to the 200 aMW limit. A customer may choose to elect to use a new renewable resource at the time of contract execution and during an annual review of such customer's net load requirements under its section 5(b)(1) contract.

2. Only new renewable resources that meet the standards established to qualify for BPA's conservation and renewable resource discount may be used under this section.

3. Application of a new renewable resource under section III.C.1 shall reduce the customer's net requirements load.

1. Under a section 5(b)(1) contract BPA will require a customer to submit annual reports that track and forecast the customer's retail firm power loads in the region, except for customers who purchase the full service product and for whom BPA meters their total retail load. The purpose for the annual report is to provide information that shows any increase or reduction in the amount of the customer's retail firm power loads in the region from the amount served when the contract was executed. Based on such load information, or BPA's forecast of the customer's load if BPA finds the customer's load forecast is unreasonable, BPA shall make an annual determination of the net firm requirement load of the customer under a section 5(b)(1) contract as follows. 4 First, BPA will account for:

(a) The generating and contractual resources a customer is required to use to serve firm power load in the region under section III.A.1.(b) (1998-99 FRE firm resources);

(b) Additional resources a customer has elected to use under section III.A.1.(d) (additional generating and contractual dedicated resources); and

(c) Power purchases from the market that a customer has contractually committed to purchase in their 5(b)(1) contract, consistent with section III.A.1.(d) (market purchases).

Second, BPA will make adjustments for:

(d) Changes in a customer's new renewable resources used to serve retail firm power load in the region, as provided for in section III.C.1 (renewable resources);

(e) Changes in the customer resources serving its load pursuant to III.A.1.(b) and III.A.1.(d) based on BPA's determination of a statutory discontinuance under section III.B.

(f) Any reductions in the amount of power a customer may purchase under a section 5(b)(1) contract due to the annual export review under section III.D.3; and,

(g) Changes in the customer's hydroelectric resource capability declarations due to changes in coordinated planning allowed under section III.A.1(e).

2. If BPA's annual determination of a customer's net firm requirement load results in a finding that the amount of Federal power a customer can purchase is less than the contracted amount of power to be purchased for the next contract year, then the customer shall first remove from use for its regional firm load, for a period of one year, any market purchases the customer has agreed to use under its BPA contract. Such removal shall be in an amount and shape equal to the difference between the amount of Federal power a customer can purchase for the next year and the amount and shape of Federal power a customer has contracted to purchase for the next contract year.

If the amount of Federal power a customer can purchase after the removal of the market purchases is still less than the amount of power the customer has contracted to purchase for the next contract year, then BPA will implement the mitigation measure for load loss specified in the customer's section 5(b)(1) contract and reduce the amount of Federal power a customer is obligated to purchase. Alternatively, BPA will consent to the customer's removal of a generating resource or contractual resource from use for its regional firm load, for a period of one year. The portion of a customer's generating resource or contractual resource removed shall be equal to the difference between the amount and shape of Federal power a customer can purchase and the amount and shape of Federal power the customer has contracted to purchase for the next contract year. Any customer resources, other than market purchases, which are removed from use in serving the customer's regional firm load service under this section, are subject to BPA's determinations made under sections 9(c) of the Northwest Power Act and 3(d) of the Northwest Preference Act. If the customer's use of that resource results in a reduction or decrease in BPA's obligation to provide power under section III.D.3, then BPA will recalculate the amount of power a customer may purchase for the upcoming year as provided under this section (III.D.2).

3. On an annual basis as provided under a section 5(b)(1) contract BPA will review the export of power from a customer's regional non-Federal generating and contractual resources and, if required, will reduce the amount of Federal power a customer may purchase in accordance with section IV of this policy. BPA shall reduce the amount of power a customer may purchase for the longer of the remainder of the year or the duration of the export during the period between annual reviews based on a determination by BPA in accordance with section IV.

4. BPA shall make available additional amounts of power to a customer under a section 5(b)(1) contract to serve the customer's regional loads which were formerly available by a customer's generating resources or contractual resources but are no longer required to be used to serve the customer's retail firm power loads in the region, in accordance with section III.B (statutory discontinuance). Such service shall be on 6 months notice that such an event has occurred or as mutually agreed.

BPA's modification to its 1994 Non-Federal Participation Section 9(c) Policy (1994 NFP Policy) is set forth in section B. BPA's 1994 NFP, as modified, is retitled: BPA's Section 9(c) Policy.

BPA reaffirms the application of its 1994 section 9(c) policy and legal interpretation published in July of 1994. The context for some of the determinations made in the 1994 NFP policy was, in part, prior exports and new exports of firm power from customer resources out of the region by participation in the new, Third AC Intertie. The interpretation has been of general application since 1994 to customer exports. BPA is now modifying the policy to address certain issues which were not previously addressed. Prior determinations made under the 1994 NFP Policy remain in effect for the duration of the export sale.

In the 1994 NFP Policy, BPA did not address the export of firm power from Investor-Owned Utility (IOU) resources because the IOUs were not placing any firm power loads on BPA under their section 5(b)(1) power sales contracts with BPA. See footnote 3, page B-10, BPA's 1994 NFP Policy. Since the IOUs were not taking any power service from BPA, reductions pursuant to a section 9(c) determination in their service under those section 5(b)(1) contracts would not have affected their BPA service. Presently, BPA is preparing new section 5(b)(1) power sales contracts for the post-2001 period to be offered to customers eligible to purchase Federal power. BPA anticipates that IOUs will take firm power service from BPA under new 5(b)(1) contracts. BPA will require that the export of firm power from resources of IOUs be accounted for, in setting BPA's net firm load obligations under those contracts. Additionally, the 1994 NFP Policy is modified to update the technical provisions as discussed in section B.

As required by the Northwest Power Act, BPA shall make its Section 9(c) determinations for the exports of its customers. Export for purposes of this policy means the sale of the firm power output of a generating or contractual resource in a manner that such output is not planned to be used solely to serve firm consumer load in the Region as the term “Region” is defined in section 3(14) of the Northwest Power Act.

In examining the export of Pacific Northwest resources, BPA shall make its finding based on the following requirements of Section 9(c):

(a) BPA shall analyze whether the customer's exports would result in an increase in the electric power requirements of any of its customers in the region. BPA shall do this by examining its load/resource forecasting and planning documents to determine the impact the exports will have on BPA's and its customers' ability to meet Pacific Northwest load presently and in the future. BPA shall also analyze the information available from other sources including least-cost plans and load/resource information of Pacific Northwest utilities which do not currently place any load on BPA.

(b) BPA shall review the specific resources being exported on an annual basis unless the customer requests review for a longer period to determine if the resources being exported are hydroelectric resources and if not, whether they are conservable. BPA shall review categories of resources eligible for export for a period selected by BPA. If the resources are not hydroelectric resources and BPA determines the resource is not conservable (see section 6.(b) for a description of those resources BPA has determined are conservable), BPA shall determine if such exports will result in an increase in the firm energy requirements of its customers and if so, determine whether the resource could be otherwise retained for service to regional loads by using reasonable means. If BPA finds in its analysis that the fully allocated nominal cost of the resource a customer is proposing to export exceeds the fully allocated nominal cost of the region's marginal resource, BPA will conclude that such resource can be exported without having to decrement the customer's section 5(b) utility power sales contract.

This Section 9(c) Policy addresses a customer's exports of power from Pacific Northwest resources out of the region. BPA shall make its Section 9(c) determinations based on a factual determination using information about the specific resource the customer intends to export.

BPA shall base its Section 9(c) determination on specific information BPA has obtained from the customer on the resources it intends to export. The customer shall provide this information when it notifies BPA that it intends to export a resource or when BPA requests information regarding a possible export. This includes, but is not limited to, the following information:

(a) Name of the resource to be exported;

(b) Location of the resource;

(c) Type of resource;

(d) Whether the resource is currently in any Pacific Northwest utility's firm resource exhibit;

(e) Whether the resource is planned or existing;

(f) Type of transaction or sale, and if it is a seasonal exchange, the terms of the exchange, and

(g) The cost of the resource (including reasonable rate of return) included in the customer's retail rates and a forecast of such costs for each year of the proposed export.

BPA will also consider any prior history of the resource including prior efforts to market it to BPA or other Pacific Northwest utilities.

BPA will not modify its existing determinations on Pacific Northwest utility exports including its 1994 NFP Policy determinations and will apply its prior case-by-case interpretations of Section 9(c), and Section 3(d) of the Regional Preference Act to such decisions without modification. Therefore, BPA incorporates by reference in this Policy these prior interpretations of Sections 9(c) and 3(d) and the determinations made thereunder for the duration of the export sale.

(a) Exports That Will Not be Decremented by BPA: Under this Section 9(c) Policy determination, BPA will determine based on the finding in section 2 of this policy whether the export of certain resources will not result in an increase in the electric power requirements of any of its customers. If the export of a resource does not increase the firm energy requirements of BPA's customers or could not otherwise be retained for service to regional loads, the resource may be exported without a reduction in BPA's firm load obligation under the customer's Section 5(b) utility power sales contract.

(b) Exports That Will be Decremented by BPA: BPA has determined based on its prior policy interpretations of Northwest Power Act Section 9(c) that the following categories of resources are conservable and if they are exported BPA shall decrement the customer's Section 5(b) power sales contract:

(1) All Pacific Northwest hydroelectric resources owned or purchased by a Pacific Northwest utility, whether or not dedicated in any Pacific Northwest utility's firm resource exhibit; and

(2) All Section 5(b)(1)(A) and 5(b)(1)(B) thermal resources that are currently dedicated by a utility in any customer's firm resource exhibit.

BPA shall utilize a case-by-case approach to system sales. BPA shall require the exporting utility to submit an operating plan for the duration of the export, identifying these specific resources or categories of resources supporting the system sale. If the export is a system sale made up solely of a customer's resources that individually would not result in a decrement if each resource were exported standing alone, then BPA would not decrement a customer's firm power purchase under section 5(b) for such a system sale. BPA shall decrement the customer's section 5(b) utility power sales contract in the amount and to the extent the system sale involves the export of the planned capability of hydroelectric resources to support a power sale (whether or not in a firm resource exhibit); the planned capability of a non-hydroelectric resource that is in a firm resource exhibit, or if not, that could otherwise be retained to serve regional load; or any portion of the sale that is a prohibited resale of Federal power.

Any customer that was previously a Contracted Requirements customer of BPA, and which is currently purchasing power and energy from BPA under its power sales contract, shall have BPA's firm power obligation under its section 5(b)(1) contract reduced in the amount and to the extent a system sale involves the resources described above for the duration of the export sale. If the customer was not placing load on BPA under its section 5(b) utility power sales contract at the time of the export sale, then at such time as the customer requests to place a firm load obligation on BPA, BPA shall make an appropriate determination and may reduce its energy sales to such customer in the amount and to the extent the export sale involves the resources described above and for any remaining duration of the export sale.

If the exporting utility does not provide an operating plan identifying the resources supporting the system sale, BPA will treat the system sale as made up of resources that would result in a decrement of the customer's section 5(b) utility power sales contract.

Any seasonal exchange between a customer and an out of region entity which results in no net regional energy deficit during any Operating Year shall not result in a decrement by BPA of the customer's Section 5(b) utility power sales contract.

A customer may offer a resource to BPA or to all other Pacific Northwest customers. If neither BPA, nor any Pacific Northwest customer, purchases the offered resource (offered at the customer's cost including a reasonable rate of return), the resource may then be exported without a decrement of the customer's Northwest Power Act section 5(b) power sales contract. If offered for sale to BPA, the resource shall be treated as an unsolicited proposal. If BPA proposes to acquire the resource, and if it is greater than 50 aMW or offered for longer than 5 years, it will be subject to the Northwest Power Act Section 6(c) process, which can take more than 12 months.

If a customer contracts to purchase and then export any consumer-owned resource or any resource developed by an independent power producer, such resource shall be subject to this Policy as a generating or contract resource of the purchasing customer as appropriate.

BPA shall notify in writing any customer which has exported a resource or proposes to export a resource of the outcome of BPA's Section 9(c) determination. The BPA notification shall be made within 30 working days from the date BPA receives the information specified in Section 4 about a specific resource.

BPA's Section 9(c) Policy addresses the effect of exports of resources by any public body, cooperative, or investor-owned utility purchasing power under a section 5(b) contract for service after October 1, 2001. The findings and interpretations of this Section 9(c) Policy shall be applied to all exports occurring after publication of this Section 9(c) Policy. Customers that have exported resources prior to publication of the Section 9(c) Policy may face a reduction in the amount of Federal power that BPA will offer at the time they request a contract under section 5(b)(1) for service after September 30, 2001. A reduction in BPA's obligation to provide firm power requirements to a customer under its section 5(b)(1) contract will be based on a case-by-case factual determination regarding the export of a resource by a BPA customer, and may be based on the regional load resource balance at the time of the export and other factors. BPA shall address the effect of exports of resources by a customer purchasing power under a contract pursuant to section 5(c), section 5(d)(1), or section 5(f) of the Northwest Power Act on a case-by-case basis.

BPA will perform a Subscription 9(c) Study. The study will provide part of the factual basis for determining whether an export of a resource during the period from October 1, 2001, through September 30, 2006, is likely to result in an increase in the firm energy requirements of BPA customers, and if so, whether the resource could be otherwise retained to serve regional loads.

Responsible Official: Mr. Sydney Berwager, Subscription Policy Manager, is the official responsible for the development of the final policy for addressing issues under section 5(b) of the Northwest Power Act regarding the amount of Federal power a customer may purchase under BPA subscription power sales contracts, and the Section 9(c) Policy which modifies the 1994 NFP Section 9(c) Policy.

The energy information collection submitted to OMB for review contains:

1. Collection of Information: FERC-505 “Application for License/Relicense for Water Projects 5MW or Less Capacity.”

2. Sponsor: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

3. Control No.: OMB No. 1902-0115. The Commission is now requesting that OMB approve a three-year extension of the current expiration date, with no changes to the existing collection. This is a mandatory information collection requirement.

4. Necessity of Collection of Information: Submission of the information is necessary to fulfill the requirements of Sections 9 and 10(a) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) in order for the Commission to make a required finding that the proposal for a hydropower project is economically feasible, technically, and environmentally sound, and is best adapted to the comprehensive plan of development of the water resources of the region. Under Section 405(c) of the public Utilities Regulatory policies Act of 1978, the Commission may in its discretion (by rule or order) grant an exemption in whole or in part from the requirements of Part 1 of the FPA to small hydropower projects having a proposed installed capacity of 5,000 kilowatts or less. The information collected in the form of a written application for a license and used by commission staff to determine the broad impact of a hydropower license application.

Respondent Description: The respondent universe currently comprises on average, 12 applicants subject to the Commission's jurisdiction.

6. Estimated Burden: 4,512 total burden hours, 12 respondents, 1 response annually, 376 hours per response (average).

7. Estimated Cost Burden to Respondents: 4,512 hours ÷ 2,080 hours per year × $111,545 per year = $241,966, average cost per respondent = $20,168.

Brownfields are abandoned, idled or underused industrial and commercial properties where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived contamination. The Brownfields Initiative was launched to empower States, communities, Tribes, and other stakeholders in economic redevelopment to work together to prevent, assess, clean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields. Communities have asked for more interaction among all levels of government, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations. In response, Federal agencies have joined together to strengthen and improve their collaborative efforts to clean up and reuse contaminated property.

A partnership of Federal agencies with interests in brownfields redevelopment has been formed to offer special technical, financial and other assistance to selected communities. These communities are called Brownfields Showcases Communities and are models demonstrating the benefits of focused attention on brownfields. To date, the Federal partners have designated 16 Brownfields Showcase Communities. The Federal partners plan to designate ten additional Brownfields Showcase Communities, distributed across the country, varying by size, resources and community background.

The goals of the Brownfields Showcase Communities project are to:

• Promote environmental protection, restoration to the land, air and water, economic redevelopment, job creation, community revitalization, greenspace development, energy efficiency and public health protection, through the assessment, cleanup, and sustainable reuse of brownfields;

• Link Federal, State, tribal, and local public, private and non-governmental action supporting community efforts to restore and reuse brownfields; and

• Develop national models demonstrating the positive results of public, private and non-governmental collaboration in addressing brownfields challenges.

The Federal partners intend to select a broad array of Showcase Communities that will serve as models for other communities across the nation. The Federal partners seek proposals that link brownfields activities with other community empowerment, sustainable development and community livability efforts. Special consideration will be given to Federal Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities (EZ/ECs), communities with populations of under 100,000, Federally recognized Indian tribes and Base Realignment and Closure communities seeking early transfer of property. The Federal partners will also look for opportunities to link brownfields cleanup with related air and water quality efforts.

A community will receive the following benefits from being designated as a Brownfields Showcase Community:

• National visibility for a community's brownfields efforts;

• Coordinated delivery of technical and financial support from participating Federal agencies. Participating agencies and programs will vary for each Showcase Community depending upon the particular Showcase's needs and plans. For example, an urban Showcase Community might be served by different programs and resources than a rural community;

• Financial assistance, grants and cooperative agreements from participating agency programs subject to the requirements of those programs and the availability of funds; and

• Staff support in the form of a Federal employee assigned to each Showcase Community to assist with coordination and implementation activities.

To be considered for selection as a Brownfields Showcase Community, interested communities should submit a Statement of Interest that includes the following information:

• Project title;

• Location: city, county, and state or reservation, tribally-owned lands, etc., of the Showcase area;

• Project contact, organization, phone, fax and e-mail address;

• Name and contact information of the representative of the appropriate governmental subdivision (Mayor, County Executive, Tribal President) if different from the project director;

• Date submitted: the date when the proposal is postmarked or sent to EPA via registered or tracked mail;

• Project Summary: explain how designation as a Brownfields Showcase Community will help the community meet its objectives and the goals of the Brownfields Showcase Community project; and

• Related Designations: identify whether the applicant or the area for the proposed Showcase Community project is designated as a Federal or State Brownfields pilot, Federal or State Empowerment Zone, Enterprise Community, Economic Development Administration designated Economic Development District or other special economic area.

Statements of Interest are limited to two pages. Supplemental materials such as appendices, maps, records, etc., will not be considered during the initial screening phase of the selection process. All communities, or regional groupings of communities, are eligible for consideration as a Brownfields Showcase Community. Previous designation as an EPA brownfields pilot is not a requirement for consideration, nor are such communities precluded from applying. Statements of Interest will be accepted from any party, but must be submitted in partnership with a governmental entity to be eligible for consideration.

Selection of the Brownfields Showcase Communities will be done in two phases. During Phase I, interested communities are invited to submit two-page Statements of Interest which describe how the community's designation as a Showcase Community will advance the goals of the Showcase Communities project as described above. For example:

• A community with well-defined brownfields problems that can be addressed effectively through environmental cleanup and sustainable reuse is more likely to be considered as a candidate community than a community that suspects that there are brownfields problems in their jurisdiction that may require attention.

• A community with an established network of working relationships among Federal, State, and local governments, and other public and private stakeholders is more likely to be considered as a candidate community than a community which is just beginning to create these types of relationships;

• A community that has begun preliminary work such as cleanup and redevelopment planning, securing private investors, and exploring public financial opportunities is more likely to be considered as a candidate community than a community that has just started to address its brownfields issues. Within two years after designation, a Brownfields Showcase Community should be able to demonstrate success in dealing with cleanup and reuse issues.

The Showcase Communities Selection Board, which represents the participating Federal agencies, will evaluate the Statements of Interest. It will screen the applications to create a list of about 25 candidate communities which will then be invited to move into Phase II of the selection process.

During Phase II, the candidate communities will be invited to submit more detailed proposals which more fully describe their brownfields efforts. At that stage, communities will be encouraged to submit supporting materials which demonstrate the breadth of support for their application within the community. The Showcase Communities Selection Board will then evaluate and select the ten Brownfields Showcase Communities, using the detailed criteria listed below.

1. BROWNFIELDS POTENTIAL: Describe the brownfields that exist, or are perceived to exist, in the community. Discuss the potential for environmental restoration and the type of reuse anticipated in the near-term.

2. COMMUNITY NEED: Describe how this is an area with social and economic conditions that would benefit from Federal assistance for brownfields cleanup and redevelopment.

3. LOCAL COMMITMENT: Describe the degree of local commitment to brownfields cleanup and redevelopment including existing community efforts and investment of community resources.

4. FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PARTNERSHIPS: Describe the Federal, State, and local agencies and organizations participating in the community's brownfields activities, including other programs and funds available for brownfields activities.

5. STRATEGIC PLANNING: Describe the community's brownfields plan and how the brownfields plan is linked to broader strategies of economic redevelopment, job creation, increased environmental protection including improved air and water quality, green development, livability and sustainability.

6. MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY: Describe prior experience or knowledge in managing similar redevelopment, cleanup, and community participation activities. Also describe what specific planning and programmatic requirements have been met for Federal financing programs anticipated for use.

7. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: Describe the extent to which low-income, minority, and other disadvantaged communities will participate in the development of community brownfields redevelopment activities, including this application and the proposed Showcase Community project.

8. NATIONAL REPLICABILITY: Describe how the community will serve as a model for other similarly situated communities in addressing brownfields redevelopment.

Communities that are invited to submit Phase II proposals should respond directly to these criteria in their proposals. Further application requirements and guidelines will be provided to the candidate communities to assist them in preparing their application. Note that in Phase I (the initial Statement of Interest) of the selection process, interested communities should consider the detailed criteria, but do not have to respond to each criterion.

This action is directed to the public in general. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register --Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

A meeting agenda and copies of EPA background documents for the meeting will be available by mid March, 2000. The meeting agenda and EPA primary background documents will be available on the FIFRA SAP web site at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-00647. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-00647 in the subject line on the first page of your response. Members of the public wishing to submit comments should contact the persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to confirm that the meeting date and the agenda have not been modified or changed.

Interested persons are permitted to file written statements before the meeting. To the extent that time permits, and upon advanced written request to the persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT interested persons may be permitted by the Chair of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel to present oral statements at the meeting. The request should identify the name of the individual making the presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will represent, and any requirements for audiovisual equipment (e.g., overhead projector, 35 mm projector, chalkboard, etc). There is no limit on the length of written comments for consideration by the Panel, but oral statements before the Panel are limited to approximately 5 minutes. The Agency also urges the public to submit written comments in lieu of oral presentations. Persons wishing to make oral and/or written statements should notify the persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and submit 40 copies of the summary information. The Agency encourages that written statements be submitted before the meeting to provide Panel Members the time necessary to consider and review the comments.

1. By mail . Submit your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20460.

2. In person or by courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

3. Electronically . You may submit your comments electronically by e-mail to: “opp-docket@epa.gov,” or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number OPP-00647. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

This 3-day meeting concerns several scientific issues undergoing consideration within the EPA/Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP). The 2 session topics to be addressed during the 3-day meeting are indicated as follows:

The first session will focus on an evaluation of the insect repellent product performance testing guideline. Inconsistencies have developed in product performance testing and labeling of insect repellents. In order to minimize this variance, EPA has developed draft product performance testing guidelines and appropriate label language. This guideline recommends specific methods for conducting product performance testing of insect repellents. As a guideline, it does not impose mandatory requirements. It does, however, reflect the Agency's considered recommendations for minimum steps necessary to develop reliable data on repellent product performance. In addition, the product performance testing guidelines are intended to supercede EPA, Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, Subdivision G: 95-9, “Treatments to control pests of humans and pests” and 95-10, “Mosquito, black fly, nonbiting midge, and biting midge.”

A performance standard represents the minimum level of product performance which would normally be acceptable for protecting the public health, when required, or for economic control of a pest or pest combination at a specific site. These guidelines are concerned with product performance testing for evaluation of pesticides used to repel mosquitos, biting flies, fleas, chiggers and ticks from human skin and outdoor premises. EPA intends to use the data form guidelines studies to help determine the adequacy of the labeling of insect repellant products. The label language proposed by the Agency is intended to standardize and improve the information provided by the consumer. The Agency will be asking the Panel's advice on the adequacy of the proposed testing guidelines and protocols for human insect repellants.

The second session will entail a consultation on implementing probabilistic ecological assessments. The purpose of this consultation is to provide the FIFRA SAP with a progress report regarding the EPA/OPP/Environmental Fate and Effect Division's (EFED) initiative to revise the ecological assessment process. Following the recommendations of the May, 1996 FIFRA SAP and building on previous efforts within the Division, EFED began a new initiative in 1997 to revise the ecological assessment process. The main focus on this initiative is to identify, develop, and validate tools and methodologies to conduct probabilistic ecological assessments and improve risk characterization.

A key component of this initiative has been the Ecological Committee on FIFRA Risk Assessment Methods (ECOFRAM), which refers to the workgroups who have been developing recommendations for revising the assessment process. ECOFRAM completed their draft reports in May, which were reviewed by a peer input panel in June, 1999.

Another key component is EFED's Probabilistic Risk Assessment Implementation Team (Implementation Team), which is charged with developing an implementation plan to incorporate probabilistic tools and methods to evaluate the ecological risk from pesticides. They are responsible for the technical evaluation and review of the ECOFRAM reports and workshop comments, which were used as a starting point for developing an approach for implementing changes to the current deterministic assessment process.

Thus, EFED will provide the Panel with an update regarding the progress of this initiative and seeks the Panel's comments and recommendations. EFED's presentation will include a summary of the ECOFRAM draft reports, the peer input panel comments, and an overview of the conceptual risk assessment model being proposed by the Implementation Team. This model is based on a tiered approach for implementing aquatic and terrestrial probabilistic assessments in OPP.

Copies of the Panel's report of their recommendations will be available approximately 45 working days after the meeting, and will be posted on the FIFRA SAP web site or may be obtained by contacting the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch at the address or telephone number listed in Unit III. of this document.

The Inert Disclosure Stakeholder Workgroup is composed of participants from the following sectors: environmental/public interest and consumer groups; industry and trade associations; pesticide users; Federal, State and local governments; the general public; academia and public health organizations.

The Inert Disclosure Stakeholder Workgroup will advise the United States Environmental Protection Agency, through the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC), on potential measures to increase the availability to the public of information about inert ingredients (also called “other ingredients”) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Among the factors the workgroup will be asked to consider in preparing its recommendations are: existing law regarding inert ingredients and Confidential Business Information (CBI); current Agency processes and policies for disseminating inert ingredient information to the public, including procedures for the protection of CBI; the informational needs for a variety of stakeholders; and business reasons for limiting the disclosure of inert ingredient information.

1. Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. Additional information about the activities of the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee can be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/.

2. In person . The Agency has established an administrative record for this meeting under docket control number OPP-00439A. The administrative record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this notice, any public comments received and other information related to the Inert Disclosure Stakeholder Workgroup Meeting, including any information claimed as CBI. This administrative record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the administrative record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments that may be submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2 (CM #2), 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

The Inert Disclosure Stakeholder Workgroup meeting is open to the public. Outside statements are welcome. Oral statements will be limited to 5 minutes per individual or group. Oral statements will be accepted in the afternoon of Monday, March 20th only. Any person who wishes to file a written statement can do so before or after the Workgroup meeting. These statements will become part of the permanent file in the administrative record referenced above in Section II (2) and will be provided to the Workgroup members for their information. The Agency requests that participants limit their use of fragranced products on behalf of persons attending who have expressed a concern about chemical sensitivity.

1. By mail . You may submit your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please reference docket control number OPP-00439A on all comments submitted.

2. In person or by courier . PIRIB, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

3. Electronically . You may submit your request electronically by e-mail to: “opp-docket@epa.gov.” Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI). Use WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Be sure to identify your comments by docket control number OPP-00439A. You may also file a request online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register  Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number PF-922. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as confidential business information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-922 in the subject line on the first page of your response.

1. By mail . Submit your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

2. In person or by courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

3. Electronically . You may submit your comments electronically by e-mail to: “opp-docket@epa.gov,” or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in Wordperfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number PF-922. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Comestic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA. The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. EPA is publishing the petition summary verbatim without editing it in any way. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

EPA has received a pesticide petition (8E4957) from Rohm and Haas Company, 100 Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106-2399 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.1001(c) and (e) to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for butyl acrylate/vinyl acetate/acrylic acid copolymer when used in accordance with good agricultural practices as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops in or on the raw agricultural commodity (RAC) after harvest or to animals. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

Analytical method . Rohm and Haas is petitioning that butyl acrylate/vinyl acetate/acrylic acid copolymer be exempt from the requirement of a tolerance based upon the low risk polymer as per 40 CFR 723.250. Therefore, an analytical method to determine residues of butyl acrylate/vinyl acetate/acrylic acid copolymer in RACs has not been proposed.

Acute toxicity . In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as “polymers,” the Agency has established a set of criteria which identifies categories of polymers that present low risk. These criteria (described in 40 CFR 723.250) identify polymers that are relatively unreactive and stable compounds compared to other chemical substances as well as polymers that typically are not readily absorbed. These properties generally limit a polymer's ability to cause adverse effects. In addition, these criteria exclude polymers about which little is known. The Agency believes that polymers meeting the criteria noted above will present minimal or no risk. Butyl acrylate/vinyl acetate/acrylic acid copolymer conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low risk polymers.

1. Butyl acrylate/vinyl acetate/acrylic acid copolymer is not a cationic polymer, nor is it capable of becoming a cationic polymer in the natural aquatic environment.

2. Butyl acrylate/vinyl acetate/acrylic acid copolymer contains as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and less than 0.10% sulfur.

3. Butyl acrylate/vinyl acetate/acrylic acid copolymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250 (d)(2)(iii).

4. Butyl acrylate/vinyl acetate/acrylic acid copolymer is not designed, nor is it reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose or depolymerize.

5. Butyl acrylate/vinyl acetate/acrylic acid copolymer is not manufactured or imported from monomers and/or other reactants that are not already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.

6. Butyl acrylate/vinyl acetate/acrylic acid copolymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.

7. The minimum number average molecular weight of butyl acrylate/vinyl acetate/acrylic acid copolymer is 18,500 daltons. Substances with molecular weights greater than 400 generally are not absorbed through the intact skin, and substances with molecular weights greater than 1,000 generally are not absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Chemicals not absorbed through the skin or GI tract generally are incapable of eliciting a toxic response.

8. Butyl acrylate/vinyl acetate/acrylic acid copolymer has a minimum number average molecular weight of 18,500 and contains less than 2% oligomeric material below molecular weight 500 and less than 5% oligomeric material below 1,000 molecular weight.

9. Butyl acrylate/vinyl acetate/acrylic acid copolymer does contain aliphatic ester groups as reactive functional groups. However, these reactive groups are not intended or reasonably anticipated to undergo further reactions under usual environmental conditions.

10. In addition, butyl acrylate/vinyl acetate/acrylic acid copolymer is compliant with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations under 21 CFR for contact with food as a component in adhesives (21 CFR 175.105), as a component of paper and paperboard in contact with dry foods (21 CFR 176.180) and aqueous and fatty foods (21 CFR 176.170) with limitations as set forth in 21 CFR 176.170(c).

Endocrine disruption . There is no evidence that butyl acrylate/vinyl acetate/acrylic acid copolymer is an endocrine disrupter, where as substances with molecular weights greater than 400 generally are not absorbed through the intact skin, and substances with molecular weights greater than 1,000 generally are not absorbed through the intact GI tract. Chemicals not absorbed through the skin or GI tract generally are incapable of eliciting a toxic response.

1. Dietary exposure . Butyl acrylate/vinyl acetate/acrylic acid copolymer is not absorbed through the intact GI tract and is considered incapable of eliciting a toxic response.

Drinking water . Based upon the aqueous insolubility of butyl acrylate/vinyl acetate/acrylic acid copolymer, there is no reason to expect human exposure to residues in drinking water.

2. Non-dietary exposure . Butyl acrylate/vinyl acetate/acrylic acid copolymer is widely used in multilayer paper packaging production, as a component in box and packaging sealant, and to a lesser extent in the “casing” found on books for protection. Although there may be exposures to the compound through dietary, non-occupational and most likely not through drinking water, the chemical characteristics of this compound are such that there is reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposure.

There are data to support cumulative risk from butyl acrylate/vinyl acetate/acrylic acid copolymer, since polymers with molecular weights greater than 400 generally are not absorbed through the intact skin, and substances with molecular weights greater than 1,000 generally are not absorbed through the intact GI tract. Chemicals not absorbed through the skin or GI tract generally are incapable of eliciting a toxic response. Therefore, there is no reasonable expectations of increased risk due to cumulative exposure.

1. U.S. population . Butyl acrylate/vinyl acetate/acrylic acid copolymer causes no safety concerns because it conforms to the definition of a low risk polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and as such is considered incapable of eliciting a toxic response. Also, there are no additional pathways of exposure (non-occupational, drinking water, etc.) where there would be additional risk.

2. Infants and children . Butyl acrylate/vinyl acetate/acrylic acid copolymer causes no additional concern to infants and children because it conforms to the definition of a low risk polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and as such is considered incapable of eliciting a toxic response. Also there are no additional pathways of exposure (non-occupational, drinking water, etc.) where infants and children would be at additional risk.

We are not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for butyl acrylate/vinyl acetate/acrylic acid copolymer. Nor have there been any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels established for any food crops at this time.

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective March 2, 2000.

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated February 28, 2000, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. ), as follows:

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under Executive Order 12148, I hereby appoint Stephen Emory of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the Commonwealth of Virginia to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

All counties within the Commonwealth of Virginia are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated February 28, 2000, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. ), as follows:

The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under Executive Order 12148, I hereby appoint Justo Hernandez of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of West Virginia to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

All counties within the State of West Virginia are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The notice of a major disaster for the State of West Virginia is hereby amended to include the Public Assistance program for the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of February 28, 2000:

Authority:

15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq.; 5 U.S.C. App. §§ 1-15; 16 CFR Part 16.

The third meeting of the Federal Trade Commission Advisory Committee on Online Access and Security will be held on Friday, March 31, 2000, in Room 432, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

The Advisory Committee will continue to consider the costs and benefits, to both consumers and businesses, of implementing the fair information practices of access and security with respect to personal information collected for and about consumers online. The Advisory Committee will also continue consideration of the parameters of reasonable access to personal information and adequate security and will present options for implementation of these information practices in a report to the Commission.

The tentative agenda for the third meeting is as follows:

1. Administrative matters

2. Discussion of option papers submitted by subgroups on issues relating to “reasonable access”

3. Discussion of option papers submitted by subgroup on issues relating to “adequate security”

4. Public Comment

5. Discussion of tasks and assignments

The meeting is open to the public.

Interested parties who wish to submit comments on the meeting agenda or questions for consideration by the Advisory Committee should send an original and two copies in advance of the meeting to the Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, Room H-159, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. All comments and questions should be captioned “Advisory Committee on Online Access and Security—Comment, P004807.” To enable prompt review and public access, paper submissions should be accompanied by a version on diskette in ASCII, WordPerfect (please specify version) or Microsoft Word (please specify version) format. Diskettes should be labeled with the name of the submitter, the Advisory Committee caption, and the name and version of the word processing program used to create the document.

Alternatively, comments or questions may be submitted to the following email address: advisorycommittee@ftc.gov; if submitted by email, only one copy of the comment or question is required. The email should contain the name of the submitter, the Advisory Committee caption, and, if a document is attached, the name and version of the word processing program used to create the document.

To ensure that comments are processed properly, individuals submitting comments should be sure to use the above addresses. All comments will be posted on the Advisory Committee's Web page at www.ftc.gov/acoas as soon as reasonably possible, and likely within 5 business days of receipt.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (FDCA), as amended, generally prohibits the manufacturer of a new drug or medical device  1 from distributing a product in interstate commerce for any intended use that FDA has not approved as safe and effective. The intended use or uses of a drug or device may be set forth in, among other things, its label or “labeling,” which includes written, printed, or graphic matter affixed to or “accompanying” the product. See 21 U.S.C. 321(m); 21 CFR 202.1(l)(2); see also 21 CFR 201.128, 801.4. The intended use or uses of a drug or device may also be determined from advertisements, promotional material, oral statements by the product's manufacturer or its representatives, and any other relevant source. Action on Smoking and Health v. Harris , 655 F.2d 236, 239 (D.C. Cir. 1980); see also 21 CFR 201.128 and 801.4.

When FDA approves a drug or medical device, the agency approves the product for each use set out in the product's approved labeling. A use that FDA approves is thus sometimes referred to as an “approved” or “labeled” use. A use that does not appear in the labeling is not approved as safe and effective by FDA and is known as an “unapproved” or “off-label” use. In this notice, such a use is referred to as a “new use.”

A central feature of the FDCA is that it generally prohibits interstate commerce in new drugs and devices for “new uses.” In particular, the statute provides that “[n]o person shall introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any new drug, unless an approval of an application filed pursuant to [21 U.S.C. § 355(b) or (j)] is effective with respect to such drug.” 21 U.S.C. 355(a); see 21 U.S.C. 331(d). Such an application must identify the particular use or uses to which the new drug will be put, and an approval of such an application for interstate distribution can become effective only with respect to such use(s). See 21 U.S.C. 355(b), (d), (j). Thus, an approved new drug that is marketed for a “new use” becomes an unapproved new drug with respect to that use.

An approved new drug that is marketed for a “new use” is also “misbranded” under the FDCA, because the labeling of such a drug would not include “adequate directions for use.” 21 U.S.C. 352(f); see United States v. Articles of Drug * * * Rucker Pharmacal Co., 625 F.2d 665, 673 (5th Cir. 1980). Similarly, a medical device that is distributed for a “new use” is “adulterated,” see 21 U.S.C. 351(f), and “misbranded,” see 21 U.S.C. 352(f). An adulterated or misbranded product is prohibited from distribution in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a), (k)), as is a drug that is marketed for a “new use” (21 U.S.C. 331(d)).

An approved new drug that is marketed for a “new use” may be seized (because it is an unapproved new drug with respect to that use), as may an adulterated or misbranded new drug or device (21 U.S.C. 334), and the government may seek an injunction against, or criminal prosecution of, those responsible for introducing such a product into commerce (21 U.S.C. 332, 333).

Section 401 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA or section 401), 21 U.S.C. 360aaa et seq ., amended the FDCA. It describes certain conditions under which a drug or device manufacturer may choose to disseminate to physicians and other health care practitioners certain written materials discussing a “new use” of its product. If those conditions are met, the government may not use that dissemination as evidence of the manufacturer's intent that its product be used for a new use. See 21 U.S.C. 360aaa-6(b). If section 401 did not exist, the government could use such dissemination as evidence in establishing a manufacturer's illegal distribution of a new drug or device for a “new use,” and in establishing that the product is misbranded or, in the case of a device, adulterated as well as misbranded.

Prior to FDAMA, FDA articulated its policy concerning the promotion of “new uses” in three guidance documents. FDAMA and its implementing regulations superseded the two guidance documents that addressed the dissemination of written “new use” information (reprints and reference texts) by drug and medical device manufacturers. See 61 FR 52800-52801 (October 8, 1996). FDAMA does not affect the third guidance document (the CME guidance document), which identifies 12 factors that the agency will consider in determining whether a manufacturer, through its support of scientific and educational activities, evidenced a “new use” of its drugs or devices. See 62 FR 64093-64100 (December 3, 1997).

Washington Legal Foundation presented a First Amendment challenge to section 401 and the three guidance documents. The district court issued orders declaring FDAMA, its implementing regulations, and the guidance documents unconstitutional. Among other things, the district court, with a number of qualifications, enjoined FDA from “in any way * * * limit[ing] any pharmaceutical or medical device manufacturer” from “disseminating” specified journal articles or medical texts and from “suggesting content or speakers” to an “independent program provider” in connection with a seminar or symposium funded by the manufacturer. See Washington Legal Foundation v. Henney , 56 F. Supp. 2d 81, 88-89 (D.D.C. 1999); Washington Legal Foundation v. Friedman , 36 F. Supp. 2d 16, 18-19 (D.D.C. 1999); Washington Legal Foundation v. Friedman , 13 F. Supp. 2d 51, 74-75 (D.D.C. 1998).

On February 11, 2000, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the district court's decisions and injunctions insofar as they declared section 401 and the CME guidance document unconstitutional. See slip op. at 10. (The other two guidance documents, pertaining to the dissemination of certain written materials about “new uses,” had been superseded by FDAMA and its implementing regulations and were not at issue in the Court of Appeals.)

The D.C. Circuit's decision was based on its conclusion that there is no case or controversy to provide a basis for WLF's facial First Amendment challenge. In reaching that conclusion, the court relied on the government's interpretation that (1) Section 401 provides a “‘safe harbor’ ensuring that certain forms of conduct [will] not be used against manufacturers in misbranding and ‘intended use’ enforcement actions” based on pre-FDAMA enforcement authority (slip op. at 8), discussed above, and (2) neither FDAMA nor the CME Guidance Document “independently authorizes the FDA to prohibit or sanction speech” (id.). Put another way, if a manufacturer follows the provisions of FDAMA and its implementing regulations (21 CFR part 99), including, but not limited to, its provision concerning the submission of a supplemental application for FDA approval of a “new use,” FDA may not use the information disseminated by the manufacturer as evidence that the product is intended to be used for a “new use.” If a manufacturer proceeds under section 401 and its implementing regulations but does not comply, FDA may seek to enforce compliance through an injunction action under the FDCA to halt a violation of section 301(z). If a manufacturer does not proceed under section 401, that failure does not constitute an independent violation of law.

FDA traditionally has recognized the important public policy reasons to permit industry support for the full exchange of views in scientific and educational discussions, including discussions of “new uses.” FDA has distinguished between those activities supported by manufacturers that are nonpromotional and otherwise independent from the substantive influence of the supporting manufacturer and those that are not. Those activities that have been deemed by the agency to be independent from influence by the supporting manufacturer and nonpromotional have not been treated as labeling or advertising, and have not been subjected to the agency's regulatory scrutiny. Under the CME guidance document, FDA does not expect to treat industry-supported CME any differently than it traditionally has done. If a manufacturer does not follow the CME guidance document, that, by itself, is not an independent violation of law. Slip op. at 8.

Plaintiff Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) expressly agreed that FDA may proceed on a case-by-case basis under pre-FDAMA enforcement authority. See e.g., Washington Legal Foundation v. Henney , No. 99-5304, Transcript of Oral Argument, January 10, 2000 (TR.) at 43, 58, 75; see Washington Legal Foundation v. Henney , slip op. at 7, 8, and 9. Nonetheless, WLF urged the D.C. Circuit to reach the merits of the district court's decisions and injunctions on the ground that FDA “will prosecute manufacturers for violating a normative standard” set forth in FDAMA or the CME Guidance Document. Slip op. at 9. The appellate court declined, finding that there was no constitutional controversy between the parties that remained to be resolved and that ruling on the constitutionality of a hypothetical interpretation of the statute would be inappropriate. Id. at 10. In vacating the district court's decisions and injunctions insofar as they declared FDAMA and the CME Guidance Document unconstitutional, the D.C. Circuit noted that a manufacturer may, of course, argue that FDA's use of the manufacturer's promotion of a “new use” as evidence in a particular enforcement action violates the First Amendment. Slip op. at 9, n. 6.

In sum, then, FDAMA and its implementing regulations constitute a “safe harbor” for a manufacturer that complies with them before and while disseminating journal articles and reference texts about “new uses” of approved products. If a manufacturer does not comply, FDA may bring an enforcement action under the FDCA, and seek to use journal articles and reference texts disseminated by the manufacturer as evidence that an approved product is intended for a “new use.” Manufacturers that support CME may wish to become familiar with the CME guidance document, which details the factors FDA intends to take into account in exercising its enforcement discretion in relation to industry-supported scientific and educational activities. The CME guidance document, however, does not itself have the force and effect of law.

The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

1. Washington Legal Foundation v. Henney , No. 99-5304, 2000 WL 122099, slip op. (D.C. Cir. February 11, 2000).

2. Washington Legal Foundation v. Henney , No. 99-5304, transcript of oral argument, January 10, 2000.

On December 6, 1999, Congress enacted the Healthcare Research and Quality Act of 1999, Pub. L. 106-129, to amend title IX of the Public Health Service Act by revising and extending the Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research (now referred to as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). Section 5 of Pub. L. 106-129 requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), through the appropriate agencies of the Public Health Service, to conduct a study “to determine whether and to what extent there is a shortage of licensed pharmacists' and to report back to Congress in one year after the date of enactment of the Act on its findings.

A number of associations, such as the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, have been voicing concerns that a shortage of pharmacists in some areas of the country might create a major health crisis. HHS invites comments from public and private sources on the following topics related to pharmacy shortages. Please address your comments by number as indicated below. You need not address all topics.

1. Shortage of pharmacists; for example, vacancy rates for pharmacists' jobs over time, existing documentation of delayed store openings or reduction in store hours, existing documentation of signing bonuses and other hiring incentives, and increases in wages;

2. Difficulties that communities may be experiencing in accessing pharmacy services. HHS is particularly interested in difficulties confronting those in rural or underserved areas, services for the elderly, and other evidence of unmet needs due to a shortage of pharmacists;

3. How pharmacies and employers are addressing a shortage of pharmacists;.

4. The use of technicians, and State laws governing ratios of pharmacists to technicians, and limitations on the functions technicians are permitted to perform, and any requirements for technician certification;

5. The impact of the growth of managed care and third-party coverage of prescriptions on pharmacy practice;

6. Problems or adverse events connected with a shortage of pharmacists, e.g., medication errors;

7. The impact a drug benefit for the Medicare population might have on prescription volume and the demand for pharmacists;

8. Uses of automation or technology to assist pharmacists, such as the use of electronic transmission of prescriptions, methods of streamlining dispensing processes, and technologies that may be under development to improve efficiency of pharmacists in their duties;

9. The impact of Internet and mail order pharmacies on the demand for pharmacists; and

10. Existing information on the current pharmacist education process; in particular, applications to pharmacy programs, the impact that the shift to the doctor of pharmacy as the first professional degree may have on pharmacy supply, trends in graduates taking residencies, and students' job preferences.

The creation of compliance program guidances is a major initiative of the OIG in its effort to engage the private health care community in combating fraud and abuse. In the last several years, the OIG has developed and issued compliance program guidances directed at the following segments of the health care industry: the hospital industry; home health agencies; clinical laboratories; third-party medical billing companies; the durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and supply industry; hospices; and Medicare+Choice organizations offering coordinated care plans. The development of these types of compliance program guidances is based on our belief that a health care provider can use internal controls to more efficiently monitor adherence to applicable statutes, regulations and program requirements.

Copies of these compliance program guidances can be found on the OIG web site at http://www.hhs.gov/oig.

On December 18, 1998, the OIG published a solicitation notice seeking information and recommendations for developing formal guidance for nursing facilities (63 FR 70137). In response to that solicitation notice, the OIG received 16 comments from various outside sources. We carefully considered those comments, as well as previous OIG publications, such as other compliance program guidances and Special Fraud Alerts, in developing a compliance program guidance for nursing facilities. In addition, we have taken into account past and recent fraud investigations conducted by the OIG's Office of Investigations and the Department of Justice, and have consulted with the Health Care Financing Administration. In an effort to ensure that all parties had a reasonable opportunity to provide input into a final product, the draft guidance for nursing facilities was published in the Federal Register on October 29, 1999 (64 FR 58419) for further comments and recommendations.

This compliance guidance for nursing facilities contains seven elements that the OIG has determined to be fundamental to an effective compliance program:

• implementing written policies, procedures and standards of conduct;

• designating a compliance officer and compliance committee;

• conducting effective training and education;

• developing effective lines of communication;

• enforcing standards through well-publicized disciplinary guidelines;

• conducting internal monitoring and auditing; and

• responding promptly to detected offenses and developing corrective action.

These elements are contained in previous guidances issued by the OIG. As with previously-issued guidances, this compliance program guidance represents the OIG's suggestions on how nursing facilities can best establish internal controls and prevent fraudulent activities. The contents of this guidance should not be viewed as mandatory or as an exclusive discussion of the advisable elements of a compliance program; the document is intended to present voluntary guidance to the industry and not represent binding standards for nursing facilities.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) continues in its efforts to promote voluntarily implemented compliance programs for the health care industry. 1 This compliance guidance is intended to assist nursing facilities  2 develop and implement internal controls and procedures that promote adherence to applicable statutes and regulations of the Federal health care programs  3 and private insurance program requirements. Compliance programs strengthen Government efforts to prevent and reduce fraud and abuse, as well as further the mission of all nursing facilities to provide quality care to their residents.

Through this document, the OIG provides its views on the fundamental elements of nursing facility compliance programs, as well as the principles that each nursing facility should consider when developing and implementing an effective compliance program. While this document presents basic procedural and structural guidance for designing a compliance program, it is not in and of itself a compliance program. Rather, it is a set of guidelines that nursing facilities should consider when developing and implementing a compliance program. For those nursing facilities that have an existing program or are already in the process of implementing a compliance program, these guidelines may serve as a benchmark against which to measure their ongoing efforts.

Implementing an effective compliance program in a nursing facility may require a significant commitment of time and resources by all parts of the organization. However, superficial efforts or programs that are hastily constructed and implemented without a long term commitment to a culture of compliance likely will be ineffective and may expose the nursing facility to greater liability than if it had no program at all. 4 Although an effective compliance program may require a reallocation of existing resources, the long term benefits of establishing a compliance program significantly outweigh the initial costs. In short, compliance measures are an investment that advance the goals of the nursing facility, the solvency of the Federal health care programs, and the quality of care provided to the nursing home resident.

In a continuing effort to collaborate closely with health care providers and the private sector, the OIG placed a notice in the Federal Register soliciting comments and recommendations on what should be included in this compliance program guidance.  5 In addition to considering these comments in drafting this guidance, we reviewed previous OIG publications, including OIG Special Fraud Alerts and OIG Medicare Advisory Bulletins, as well as reports issued by OIG's Office of Audit Services (OAS) and Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) affecting the nursing home industry. 6  In addition, we relied on the experience gained from fraud investigations of nursing home operators conducted by OIG's Office of Investigations, the Department of Justice, and the Medicaid Fraud Control Units.

The OIG believes a comprehensive compliance program provides a mechanism that brings the public and private sectors together to reach mutual goals of reducing fraud and abuse, enhancing operational functions, improving the quality of health care services, and decreasing the cost of health care. Attaining these goals provides positive results to the nursing facility, the Government, and individual citizens alike. In addition to fulfilling its legal duty to ensure that it is not submitting false or inaccurate claims to Government and private payors, a nursing facility may gain numerous other benefits by voluntarily implementing a compliance program. The benefits may include:

• the formulation of effective internal controls to ensure compliance with statutes, regulations and rules;

• a concrete demonstration to employees and the community at large of the nursing facility's commitment to responsible corporate conduct;

• the ability to obtain an accurate assessment of employee and contractor behavior;

• an increased likelihood of identifying and preventing unlawful and unethical behavior;

• the ability to quickly react to employees' operational compliance concerns and effectively target resources to address those concerns;

• an improvement in the quality, efficiency, and consistency of providing services;

• a mechanism to encourage employees to report potential problems and allow for appropriate internal inquiry and corrective action;

• a centralized source for distributing information on health care statutes, regulations and other program directives;  7

• a mechanism to improve internal communications;

• procedures that allow prompt and thorough investigation of alleged misconduct; and

• through early detection and reporting, minimizing loss to the Government from false claims, and thereby reducing the nursing facility's exposure to civil damages and penalties, criminal sanctions, and administrative remedies. 8

The OIG recognizes that the implementation of a compliance program may not entirely eliminate fraud and abuse from the operations of a nursing facility. However, a sincere effort by the nursing facility to comply with applicable statutes and regulations as well as Government and private payer health care program requirements, through the establishment of a compliance program, significantly reduces the risk of unlawful or improper conduct.

Given the diversity within the long term care industry, there is no single “best” nursing facility compliance program. The OIG recognizes the complexities of this industry and is sensitive to the differences among large national chains, regional multi-facility operators, and small independent homes. However, the elements of this guidance can be used by all nursing facilities to establish a compliance program, regardless of size (in terms of employees and gross revenues), number of locations, or corporate structure. Similarly, a corporation that provides long term care as part of an integrated health care delivery system may incorporate these elements into its structure. 9

We recognize that some nursing facilities may not be able to adopt certain elements to the same degree as others with more extensive resources. At the end of several sections of this document, the OIG has offered suggestions to assist these smaller nursing facility providers in implementing the principles expressed in this guidance. Regardless of size, structure or available resources, the OIG recommends that every nursing facility should strive to accomplish the objectives and principles underlying all of the compliance polices and procedures in this guidance.

By no means should the contents of this guidance be viewed as an exclusive or complete discussion of the advisable elements of a compliance program. On the contrary, the OIG strongly encourages nursing facilities to develop and implement compliance elements that uniquely address the areas of potential problems, common concerns, or high risk areas that apply to their own facilities. Furthermore, this guidance may be modified and expanded as more information and knowledge is obtained by the OIG, and as changes occur in the statutes, regulations and rules of the Federal health care programs and private health plans. New compliance practices also may be incorporated into this guidance if the OIG discovers enhancements that promote effective compliance.

The OIG believes that every effective compliance program must begin with a formal commitment  10 by the nursing facility's governing body to address all of the applicable elements listed below, which are based on the seven steps of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. 11 The OIG recognizes that full implementation of all elements may not be immediately feasible for all nursing facilities. However, as a first step, a good faith and meaningful commitment on the part of nursing facility management will substantially contribute to the program's successful implementation. As the compliance program is effectuated, that commitment should cascade down through management to every employee and contractor of the nursing facility.

At a minimum, a comprehensive compliance program should include the following seven elements:

(1) The development and distribution of written standards of conduct, as well as written policies, procedures and protocols that promote the nursing facility's commitment to compliance ( e.g., including adherence to the compliance program as an element in evaluating managers and employees) and address specific areas of potential fraud and abuse, such as claims development and submission processes, quality of care issues, and financial arrangements with physicians and outside contractors;

(2) The designation of a compliance officer and other appropriate bodies ( e.g., a corporate compliance committee) charged with the responsibility for developing, operating and monitoring the compliance program, and who reports directly to the owner(s), governing body and/or CEO;  12

(3) The development and implementation of regular, effective education and training programs for all affected employees;  13

(4) The creation and maintenance of an effective line of communication between the compliance officer and all employees, including a process, such as a hotline or other reporting system, to receive complaints, and the adoption of procedures to protect the anonymity of complainants and to protect whistle blowers from retaliation;

(5) The use of audits and/or other risk evaluation techniques to monitor compliance, identify problem areas, and assist in the reduction of identified problems;  14

(6) The development of policies and procedures addressing the non-employment or retention of excluded individuals or entities and the enforcement of appropriate disciplinary action against employees or contractors who have violated corporate or compliance policies and procedures, applicable statutes, regulations, or Federal, State, or private payor health care program requirements; and

(7) The development of policies and procedures with respect to the investigation of identified systemic problems, which include direction regarding the prompt and proper response to detected offenses, such as the initiation of appropriate corrective action, repayments, and preventive measures.

Every compliance program should develop and distribute written compliance standards, procedures, and practices that guide the nursing facility and the conduct of its employees throughout day-to-day operations. These policies and procedures should be developed under the direction and supervision of the compliance officer, the compliance committee, and operational managers. At a minimum, they should be provided to all employees who are affected by these policies, as well as physicians, suppliers, nursing facility agents, and contractors, as applicable to those entities. 15 In addition to general corporate policies and procedures, an effective compliance program should include specific policies and procedures for the different clinical, financial, and administrative functions of a nursing facility.

Please contact the above office if you would like copies of the application, Plan, and Environmental Action Statement. Documents also will be available for review by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation prohibit the “take” of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened, respectively. Take of listed fish or wildlife is defined under the Act to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. However, the Service may, under limited circumstances, issue permits to authorize incidental take; i.e., take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are found in 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively.

The proposed Prairie City Crossing Project is located at the northwest corner of Prairie City and Iron Point roads in the City of Folsom, Sacramento County, California, which corresponds to Township 9 North, Range 7 East of the “Folsom, California” topographic quadrangle (United States Geological Survey, Photorevised 1980). Regency Realty is requesting a 2-year incidental take permit to authorize take of the beetle on the project site.

The Prairie City Crossing Project consists of the proposed construction of a Safeway supermarket, parking lot, and service station on an 11-acre parcel. The entire project area has been disturbed by prior mining activities that occurred during the early 1900s. The existing habitat on the site consists of dredger tailings, annual grassland, and pockets of foothill pine/oak woodland within the tailings.

One elderberry shrub, containing three stems that are between 1 and 3 inches in diameter and one stem that is greater than 5 inches in diameter at ground level, occurs on the project site within the impact area as potential habitat for the federally-threatened beetle. A single adult beetle exit hole was found in this shrub. Construction of the proposed project would result in the removal of the elderberry shrub. The project site does not contain any riparian habitat. The project site does not contain any other rare, threatened, or endangered species or habitat. No critical habitat for any listed species occurs on the project site.

Under the HCP, mitigation for impacts to the beetle would conform to the Fish and Wildlife Service's 1999 Mitigation Guidelines. The single elderberry shrub affected by the proposed project would not be transplanted because it is located at the bottom of a cobble ravine, surrounded by dredger tailings, and access by heavy equipment is extremely difficult. Prior to undertaking transplantation, considerable grading would have to be completed in order to construct an access road that could be used by heavy equipment. A vermeer spade could not be used because of the rocky nature of the site. In addition, if this elderberry shrub were to be transplanted, its survival would be questionable because much of the rootball probably would be destroyed during the transplanting process. Therefore, Regency Realty proposes to purchase 5 beetle mitigation credits at the Wildlands Mitigation Bank, a Service-approved mitigation site. Purchase of these credits would result in the planting of 24 elderberry plants and 16 associated native tree species to mitigate for impacts to 4 stems.

The Proposed Action consists of the issuance of an incidental take permit and implementation of the Plan, which includes measures to minimize and mitigate impacts of the project on the beetle. One alternative to the taking of listed species under the Proposed Action is considered in the Plan. Under the No Action Alternative, no permit would be issued. However, the No Action Alternative is inconsistent with local development goals and would result in the undisturbed elderberry shrub being left on the site in an isolated patch of open space with little habitat value.

The Service has made a preliminary determination that the Plan qualifies as a “low-effect” plan as defined by its Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook (November 1996). Determination of low-effect Habitat Conservation Plans is based on the following three criteria: (1) Implementation of the Plan would result in minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and their habitats; (2) implementation of the Plan would result in minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3) impacts of the Plan, considered together with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable similarly situated projects would not result, over time, in cumulative effects to environmental values or resources which would be considered significant. As more fully explained in the Service's Environmental Action Statement, the Prairie City Crossing Project Plan qualifies as a “low-effect” plan for the following reasons:

1. Approval of the Plan would result in minor or negligible effects on the beetle and its habitat. The Service does not anticipate significant direct or cumulative effects to the beetle resulting from development of the Prairie City Crossing Project area.

2. Approval of the Plan would not have adverse effects on unique geographic, historic or cultural sites, or involve unique or unknown environmental risks.

3. Approval of the Plan would not result in any cumulative or growth inducing impacts and, therefore, would not result in significant adverse effects on public health or safety.

4. The project does not require compliance with Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management), Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), or the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, nor does it threaten to violate a Federal, State, local or tribal law or requirement imposed for the protection of the environment.

5. Approval of the Plan would not establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle about future actions with potentially significant environmental effects.

The Service therefore has preliminarily determined that approval of the Plan qualifies as a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act, as provided by the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 2, Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6, Appendix 1). Based upon this preliminary determination, we do not intend to prepare further National Environmental Policy Act documentation. The Service will consider public comments in making its final determination on whether to prepare such additional documentation.

The Service provides this notice pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act. We will evaluate the permit application, the Plan, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act. If the requirements are met, the Service will issue a permit to Regency Realty for the incidental take of the beetle from development of the Prairie City Crossing Project site. The final permit decision will be made no sooner than 30 days from the date of this notice.

Letters of Authorization were issued in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Rules and Regulations “Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities (65 FR 5275; February 3, 2000).”

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. I), this notice announces a field trip and meeting of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. The Task Force was established by the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990.

The field trip will consist of a visit to an area where the Asian Swamp Eel is present and causing impacts as well as other areas where invasive plant and animal species have caused significant impacts. Topics to be covered during the ANS Task Force meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday include the following: briefings about regional nonindigenous species problems and initiatives; updates of activities from the Task Force's regional panels; discussion of the Coast Guard's ballast water management program; discussion of the Asian Swamp Eel and other invasive aquatic species of concern; overview of the activities of the Invasive Species Council; discussion of the guidance for the State ANS Management Plans; and overview of an outreach and education initiative.

Minutes of the meeting will be maintained by the Executive Secretary, Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, Suite 851, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1622, and will be available for public inspection during regular business hours, Monday through Friday.

Pursuant to 25 CFR 122.5 and the Overall Plan of Operation for the Osage Tribal Education Committee, the Bureau is seeking nominations from individuals or Osage organizations who would nominate persons for the vacancy. The requirements of the Member at Large are:

(a) Must be an adult person of Osage Indian blood who is an allottee or a descendant of an allottee; and

(b) May include residents who are living anywhere in the United States.

The nominee or his/her representative organization should submit a brief statement requesting that he/she be considered as a candidate for the vacancy and the reason for desiring to serve on the committee. If nominated by an Osage organization, a written statement from the nominee stating his/her willingness to serve on the committee must be included with the Osage organization nomination.

Applications and nominations must be received no later than April 17, 2000. Nominations shall be delivered by registered mail to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section.

This notice is published in accordance with authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8.

The United States Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) has been charged with the implementation of the Public Safety Partnerships and Community Policing Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd). Under this law, the COPS Office provides grants, cooperative agreements, and technical assistance to increase police presence, improve police and community partnerships designed to address crime and disorder, and enhance public safety. The VFP, which complements the COPS Office's efforts to add 100,000 officers to our nation's streets and support innovative community policing, is one of a wide variety of policing programs supported under this law.

The VFP is intended to offer researchers, policing professionals, community leaders, and policy analysts an opportunity to undertake independent research, problem development activities, and policy analysis designed to advance community policing in a variety of ways.

Two types of fellowships are available: Community Policing Training and Technical Assistance Fellowships and Program/Policy Support and Evaluation (PPSE) Fellowships.

Community Policing Training and Technical Assistance Fellowships will offer police practitioners and community leaders the opportunity to participate in a community policing training program that is national in scope. Fellows will work to broaden their knowledge of a training area that is directly related to community policing. The experience is intended to encourage the further development, enhancement, or renewed exploration of a particular training expertise that supports community policing. Fellows will deliver this expertise innovatively as well as provide technical assistance to others. Under Community Policing Training and Technical Assistance Fellowships, Fellows may pursue initiatives designed to: (1) improve police-citizen cooperation and communication; (2) enhance police relationships within the criminal justice system, as well as at all levels of local government; (3) increase police and citizens' ability to innovatively solve community problems; (4) facilitate the restructuring of agencies to allow the fullest use of departmental and community resources; (5) promote the effective flow and use of information both within and outside of an agency; and/or (6) improve law enforcement responsiveness to members of the community.

PPSE Fellowships will offer police practitioners, researchers, and policy analysts the opportunity to support innovative community policing programs, to engage in activities to assess the effectiveness of community policing approaches, and to apply policy analysis skills to support the advancement of community policing nationwide. The experience is intended to encourage the further development, enhancement, or renewed exploration of program, policy, and evaluation issues that support community policing. This work will be shared with policy makers and practitioners through a variety of forums. Under PPSE Fellowships, Fellows may pursue a wide variety of initiatives. Topic areas of particular interest to the PPSE Division include, but are not limited to, the following goals: (1) improve the ability of policing agencies and community organizations to collect different types of information that will aid in collaborative problem solving efforts; (2) enhance current knowledge of how policing agencies evolve while implementing community policing; (3) enhance current knowledge about how various policing agencies utilize information technology to support crime reduction and community policing efforts; and/or (4) enhance current knowledge of or improve the ability of policing agencies to implement community policing and problem solving in other ways.

Visiting Fellows will study a topic of mutual interest to the Fellow and the COPS Office for up to 12 months. Residency in Washington, DC, is not required, but visits to the COPS Office are encouraged.

Grants or cooperative agreements under the VFP may support salary, fringe benefits, travel essential to the project, and miscellaneous supplies or equipment in support of the project. Reasonable costs for research assistants or support staff will also be considered. Reasonable relocation expenses and the cost of temporary housing also may be permitted in cases of relocation from a Fellow's permanent address.

Under the VFP, the COPS Office may award grants or enter into cooperative agreements with individuals, public agencies, colleges or universities, nonprofit organizations, and profit-making organizations willing to waive their fees.

Receiving a grant or cooperative agreement under the VFP will not affect the eligibility of an agency to receive awards under other COPS programs.

The selection process is expected to be highly competitive.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) reference for this program is 16.710.

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-322) authorizes the Department of Justice to make grants to increase deployment of law enforcement officers devoted to community policing on the streets and rural routes in this nation. As part of the Clinton Administration's commitment to combat and prevent crime in America's Tribal communities, the Justice Department's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) has made funding available through the Tribal Resource Grant Program, a program developed to meet the most serious needs of law enforcement in Indian communities through a broadened, comprehensive hiring program that will offer a “menu of options” from salary and benefits for new police personnel to funding for law enforcement training and equipment for new and existing officers. This program, which complements the COPS Office's efforts to fund 100,000 additional community policing officers and support innovative community policing, will enhance law enforcement infrastructures and community policing efforts in these Tribal communities, many of which have limited resources and are affected by high rates of crime and violence.,

The Tribal Resources Grant Program is part of a larger federal initiative which over the last three years, has resulted in the Department of Interior and Justice working in collaboration to improve law enforcement in tribal communities. A total of $91.5 million has been appropriated to several DOJ agencies including the FBI, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the Corrections Program Office (CPO), and the COPS Office. COPS is coordinating with these agencies as well as with the Office of Law Enforcement Services of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to ensure that limited resources are not spent on duplicative efforts.

The Tribal Resources Grant will provide tribal communities with the resources to: hire new police officers; train new and existing officers in community policing, grants management and computer training as well as basic police training at a state academy or the Indian Police Academy in Artesia, NM; and provide basic standard issue equipment, ranging from bullet-proof vests and uniforms, to firearms and portable radios.

The Tribal Resources Grant Program emphasizes deployment of officers and resources into communities that are affected by high rates of crime and violence. Applicants must submit a written plan to retain their COPS-funded officer positions after federal funding has ended. This plan must be submitted to the COPS Office with the Tribal Resource Grant Program application.

A total of $40,000,000 in funding will be available under the Tribal Resources Grant Program. The grant will cover a maximum federal Share of 75% of total project costs, including approved salary and benefits of entry-level police officers (up to a maximum of $75,000 per officer over three years), basic law enforcement training and equipment, vehicles, and technology. A local match requirement of 25% of the total project costs is included in this program. A waiver of the local match requirement may be requested but will be granted only on the basis of documented demonstrated fiscal hardship. Requests for waivers must be submitted with the application.

Tribes whose law enforcement services are provided by local policing agencies through contract arrangements are not eligible under this COPS program. However, tribes that do not meet the eligibility requirements for this program may apply to the COPS Office Universal Hiring Program for police officer positions only.

Receiving an award under the Tribal Resources Grant Program will not preclude grantees from future consideration under other COPS grant programs for which they are eligible.

Title of Collection: Request for Proposals.

OMB Approval Number: 3145-0080.

Expiration Date of Approval: July 31, 2000.

Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to extend an information collection for three years.

Proposed Project: The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Subpart 15.4—“Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals” prescribes polices and procedures for preparing and issuing Requests for Proposals. The FAR System has been developed in accordance with the requirement of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act of 1974, as amended. The NSF Act of 1950, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1870, Sec. II, states that NSF has the authority to:

(c) Enter into contracts or other arrangements, or modifications thereof, for the carrying on, by organizations or individuals in the United States and foreign countries, including other government agencies of the United States and of foreign countries, of such scientific or engineering activities as the Foundation deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act, and, at the request of the Secretary of Defense, specific scientific or engineering activities in connection with matters relating to international cooperation or national security, and, when deemed appropriate by the Foundation, such contracts or other arrangements or modifications thereof, may be entered into without legal consideration, without performance or other bonds and without regard to section 5 of title 41, U.S.C.

Use of the Information: Request for Proposals (RFP) is used to competitively solicit proposals in response to NSF need for services. Impact will be on those individuals or organizations who elect to submit proposals in response to the RFP. Information gathered will be evaluated in light of NSF procurement requirements to determine who will be awarded a contract.

Estimate of Burden: The Foundation estimates that, on average, 558 hours per respondent will be required to complete the RFP.

Respondents: Individuals; business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; Federal government; state, local, or tribal governments.

Estimate Number of Responses: 75.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 41,580 hours.

In SECY-99-100, “Framework for Risk-informed Regulation in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards”, dated March 31, 1999, the NRC staff proposed a framework for risk-informed regulation in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS). On June 28, 1999, the Commission approved the staff's proposal. In the associated staff requirements memorandum (SRM), the Commission approved the staff's recommendation to implement a five-step process consisting of:

(1) Identifying candidate regulatory applications that are amenable to expanded use of risk assessment information;

(2) Making a decision on how to modify a regulation or regulated activity;

(3) Changing current regulatory approaches;

(4) Implementing risk-informed approaches; and

(5) Developing or adapting existing tools and techniques of risk analysis to the regulation of nuclear materials safety and safeguards.

The focus of this workshop will be on (1) The process for identifying the specific regulatory applications that are amenable to expanded use of risk assessment information—step 1 of the five-step process—and (2) the process for developing appropriate nuclear materials safety goals. Step one of the five-step process will be accomplished by first defining screening criteria and then identifying regulatory application areas (e.g., licensing, inspection, rulemaking) that would be amenable to risk-informed approaches. These could, for example, include rulemaking activities, licensee performance assessment, or enforcement of regulatory requirements. Because of limited resources, the NRC staff is proposing a step-by-step approach, rather than a comprehensive reevaluation in all areas. The NRC staff's work to implement subsequent steps, namely steps 2 through 5 of the five-step process, will be prioritized based on safety, efficiency and effectiveness, and burden reduction.

The NRC staff proposes the following approach for step 1. A new regulatory application should meet the following draft screening criteria to be a candidate for expanded use of risk information:

1. A proposed risk-informed regulatory approach to a new licensing or inspection activity will resolve a question with respect to maintaining or improving the activity's safety basis, will improve the efficiency or the effectiveness of NRC processes, or will reduce unnecessary regulatory burden for the applicant or licensee;

2. Sufficient information (data), and analytical methods exist or can be developed to support risk-informing a regulation or regulatory activity;

3. Startup and implementation can be realized at a reasonable cost to the NRC and the applicant or licensee, and provide a net benefit. The net benefit will be considered to apply to the public, the applicant or licensee, and the NRC staff.

The NRC staff requests public comments on these draft criteria.

Related to the criteria, the NRC staff is also soliciting comments on the following items and questions. The intent of publishing these questions is to foster discussion about the issues at the workshop.

1. What specific applications or general areas of nuclear materials regulation do you believe NRC should focus its efforts in applying risk information to its regulatory framework, and why?

2. Will the various segments of the regulated community accept more risk-informed approaches in regulatory applications?

3. What factors should be considered in prioritizing NRC's efforts to systematically review regulatory activities for application of risk information?

4. How can data collection and processing information be enhanced without significant additional burden to licensees and applicants?

5. Could measures be made available under a more risk-informed approach which would allow the agency and the licensees to judge performance, recognize weaknesses, and provide opportunities for correction before significant safety issues or events occur?

6. What are the costs and benefits of risk-informing NMSS licensing and inspection activities?

In addition, in its SRM on SECY-99-100, the Commission directed the NRC staff to develop appropriate material safety goals analogous to the reactor safety goals and include, as a goal, the avoidance of property damage. The NRC staff will open a discussion on a process for developing material safety goals during this workshop with the following questions and considerations:

1. What are your perceptions of a safety goal for nuclear materials?

2. What would be an effective process for developing nuclear materials safety goals?

3. How can the safety goal development process contribute to improving the regulatory process by helping to identify and articulate the underlying safety philosophy and safety principles currently driving the spectrum of NMSS programs?

4. What factors should be considered in the development of nuclear materials safety goals?

5. What aspects of future nuclear material safety goals can or should be analogous to the reactor safety goals?

6. Should separate safety goals for each activity regulated under each program area be contemplated?

7. What areas will have the greatest impact as a result of having a safety goal or goals?

8. How resource intensive will it be to develop a safety goal or goals?

9. What would change as a result of having safety goals (lives saved, costs savings, increased public confidence)?

The workshop will be conducted in a “roundtable” format. In order to have a manageable discussion, the number of participants around the table will, of necessity, be limited. NRC, through the facilitator for the meeting, will attempt to ensure broad participation by the broad spectrum of interests at the meeting, including citizen and environmental groups, nuclear industry interests, state, tribal, and local governments, experts from academia, or other agencies. Other members of the public are welcome to attend, and the public will have the opportunity to comment on each agenda item to be discussed by the roundtable participants.

Nuclear Safety, NMSS

The federal government and the states have jointly regulated securities offerings and the securities industry since the adoption of the federal regulatory structure in the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”). 1 Issuers trying to raise capital through securities offerings, as well as participants in the secondary trading markets, must comply with the federal securities laws as well as all applicable state laws and regulations. Parties involved in this process have long recognized the need to increase uniformity and cooperation between the federal and state regulatory systems so that capital formation can be made easier while investor protections are retained.

Congress endorsed greater uniformity in securities regulation with the enactment of Section 19(c) of the Securities Act in the Small Business Investment Incentive Act of 1980. 2 Section 19(c) authorizes the Commission to cooperate with any association of state securities regulators which can assist in carrying out that Section's policy and purpose. Section 19(c) mandates greater federal and state cooperation in securities matters in order to:

• Maximize effectiveness of regulation;

• Maximize uniformity in federal and state standards;

• Minimize interference with the business of capital formation; and

• Reduce the costs, paperwork and burdens of raising investment capital, particularly by small business, and also reduce the costs of the government programs involved.

During 1996, Congress again examined the system of dual federal and state securities regulation. It considered the need for regulatory changes to promote capital formation, eliminate duplicative regulation, decrease the cost of capital and encourage competition, while at the same time promoting investor protection. Congress passed The National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996  3 (the “1996 Act”) as a result. The 1996 Act contains significant provisions that realign the partnership between federal and state regulators. The legislation reallocates responsibility for regulation of the nation's securities markets between the federal government and the states in order to eliminate duplicative costs and burdens and improve efficiency, while preserving investor protections.

The Commission and the North American Securities Administrators Association, Inc. (“NASAA”)  4 are planning the 2000 Conference on Federal-State Securities Regulation to be held April 3, 2000 in Washington, D.C. At the conference, Commission and NASAA representatives will divide into working groups in the areas of corporation finance, market regulation and oversight, investment management, investor education, and enforcement. Each group will discuss methods to enhance cooperation in securities matters and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of federal and state securities regulation. Generally, only Commission and NASAA representatives may attend the conference to encourage open and frank discussion. However, each working group in its discretion may invite specific self-regulatory organizations to attend and participate in certain sessions.

The Commission and NASAA are preparing the conference agenda. We invite the public, securities associations, self-regulatory organizations, agencies, and private organizations to participate by submitting written comments on the issues set forth below. In addition, we request comment on other appropriate subjects. Conference attendees will consider all comments.

The tentative agenda for the conference consists of the following topics in the areas of corporation finance, market regulation, investment management, investor education, and enforcement.

The 1996 Act amended section 18 of the Securities Act  5 to preempt state blue-sky registration and review of offerings of covered securities. 6 Covered securities, as defined by Section 18, include several types of securities. One class of covered securities are securities traded on the national markets like the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE”), American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”) and the Nasdaq National Market System (“Nasdaq/NMS”). Covered securities also include registered investment company securities and some exempt securities and offerings.

The states retain some authority over offerings of covered securities despite this preemption. Except for nationally-traded securities, the states have the right to require fee payments and notice filings. The states also retain anti-fraud authority over all securities offerings, including offerings of covered securities.

Securities that are not covered securities remain subject to state registration requirements. These securities generally include the securities of smaller companies, like those quoted on the Nasdaq SmallCap market or the over-the-counter Bulletin Board, or in the “pink sheets.” Securities issued under some federal exemptions from registration are not covered securities; the states retain authority to register or exempt those securities. These include securities issued in unregistered offerings under the following exemptions:

• Section 4(2) of the Securities Act where the offering does not meet the safe harbor requirements of Rule 506 of Regulation D;  7

• Regulation A;  8 and

• Rules 504 and 505 of Regulation D. 9

The states' authority over securities offerings, particularly their ability to register and review offerings of non-covered securities, continues the need for uniformity between the federal and state registration systems, where consistent with investor protection. Staff from the Commission's Division of Corporation Finance and state representatives will discuss ways to increase uniformity between the systems. The group will focus primarily on the following topics:

The group will discuss several state initiatives designed to facilitate offerings by smaller issuers. These include:

• The Small Company Offering Registration (“SCOR”) form and state Regional Review Programs;

• The NASAA model state accredited investor exemption; and

• The Coordinated Equity Review (“CER”) program.

NASAA adopted the SCOR form in 1989 to help small businesses raise seed capital to expand their operations through small securities offerings. The SCOR form is a simplified question and answer format used for the registration of securities offerings. Virtually all the states permit offerings on this form. It is used to register securities offerings exempt from federal registration under Rule 504 of Regulation D or Regulation A. More than 1,100 companies across the country have issued securities under the SCOR form. In September, 1999, NASAA approved changes to simplify and improve the SCOR form.

The SCOR form disclosure requirements are the basis for one disclosure format for securities offerings exempt from federal registration under Regulation A. The Regulation A exemption allows companies that do not file reports with the Commission to offer and sell up to $5 million of securities within any twelve-month period without federal registration. An issuer seeking to rely on Regulation A must file an offering statement with the Commission, including, among other things, a disclosure document called an offering circular. Issuers may provide non-financial disclosure in their offering circulars based on one of three formats. One format includes the disclosure requirements of the state SCOR form. The group will discuss steps to address the revised SCOR form at the federal level, such as plans to amend Regulation A to incorporate the revised form.

Many states use a coordinated program to review state registrations using the SCOR form, the “Regional Review Program.” Under this program, states in certain regions of the country elect one state to lead the review and issue comments on the filing. Four regional programs have been started to date and include about 33 of the states requiring registration of these offerings.

NASAA's representatives will discuss their experiences with the SCOR form and the state coordinated review programs, including issues which have arisen in their use. Participants will consider how these programs may be improved to increase uniformity between the federal and state levels.

The group also will discuss NASAA's Model Accredited Investor Exemption which was adopted in 1997. Generally, the model rule exempts offers and sales of securities from state registration requirements if, among other things, the securities are sold only to persons who are, or are reasonably believed to be, accredited investors. 10 Although the model exemption permits public offers to accredited investors, it limits the manner of the solicitation. State representatives will share their experiences with the exemption, and the group will discuss issues and concerns.

The CER program provides for a coordinated state review process for some offerings of equity securities registered at the federal level. Under CER, the participating states coordinate with each other to produce one comment letter to an issuer which addresses both substantive and disclosure matters. To date, 43 states have agreed to participate in the program. The states have reviewed a number of registration statements under this program.

Rule 504 of Regulation D provides an exemption from the Securities Act registration requirements for offerings up to $1 million in any 12-month period, if certain conditions are met. Rule 504 is available only to the companies that do not report under the Exchange Act. The Commission amended Rule 504 in April 1999 to limit the circumstances where general solicitation is permitted and freely tradeable securities are issued under the rule. 11 Specifically, issuers may generally solicit and advertise and issue freely tradeable securities only in transactions that are either:

• Registered under state law requiring public filing and delivery of a substantive disclosure document to investors before sale; or

• Exempted under state law as long as sales are made to “accredited investors” only.

The group will discuss various matters that have arisen under the revised rule. One issue relates to some state accredited investor exemptions that do not impose a holding period requirement on purchasers. Although NASAA's model exemption generally restricts resales within 12 months of sale, some states have adopted unique exemptions that do not impose those transfer restrictions. The group will consider matters of common interest under revised Rule 504 and state accredited investor exemptions.

A blank check issuer or company is one in the development stage with no specific business plan or purpose, or one that indicates its plan is to engage in a merger or acquisition with an unidentified company or companies. 12 In 1990, the U.S. Congress found that offerings by these kinds of issuers were common vehicles for fraud and manipulation in the market for penny stocks. The Commission has adopted several rules, as Congress directed, to deter fraud in connection with these offerings.

Although blank check issuers are prohibited from relying on certain exemptions from federal registration, they may issue securities without federal registration under some exemptions including, for instance, the section 4(2) private offering exemption and the Rule 506 safe harbor. In many cases, the securities are issued for little or no consideration. Often, the promoters of the blank check company “gift” part of their securities to various donees.

The group will discuss matters of mutual concern relating to these offerings, including, for instance, issues raised by resales of restricted blank check securities.

The Commission in 1996 adopted an exemption from federal registration for offerings up to $5 million made in compliance with one of California's exemptions from state securities qualification requirements. The California exemption—Section 25102(n) of the California Corporation Code—permits some forms of general solicitation and limits sales to persons called qualified purchasers. 13 The federal exemption applies only to offers and sales that satisfy the conditions of the California exemption. The Division understands that some issuers are misusing the exemption by making offers and sales to qualified purchasers in states other than California and claiming the federal coordinating exemption for those transactions. The staff believes those offers and sales are not exempt federally and may violate state securities laws as well.

The Division and state representatives will discuss ways to prevent misuse of this exemption and consider other issues of mutual interest.

During 1999, the Commission continued to meet with small businesses in town hall meetings conducted throughout the United States. These meetings—started in 1996—are intended to provide basic information about the securities offering process to small business issuers and educate the Commission about the concerns and problems facing small businesses in raising capital. Fifteen town hall meetings have been held to date. The group will discuss the results and prospects of this program.

Many underwriters have begun using the Internet to offer and sell securities in public offerings. These “e-brokers” are posting preliminary prospectuses and sometimes other materials on their websites. They also have set procedures that relate to prospectus access, account funding and the timing of offers and sales of the securities. Different firms have established diverse procedures.

The Division addressed the procedures of one e-broker in July, 1999.  14 The staff, without concurring in counsel's analysis, agreed not to recommend enforcement action to the Commission against the e-broker for its conduct of initial public offerings using the procedures described in the no-action letter request. The request described many procedures; one of which involved the solicitation of conditional electronic offers to buy the securities before effectiveness of the registration statement. The staff also has considered the transmission of “road shows” over the Internet.  15 Road shows generally are meetings between an issuer's senior management, brokers involved in the offering and a limited audience of select prospective investors that occur after the registration statement is filed with the Commission.

The group will discuss the various issues raised by offerings that are made electronically.

Beginning October 1, 1998, issuers filing Securities Act registration statements must use plain English writing principles when drafting the front part of prospectuses, i.e., the cover page and the summary and risk factors sections.  16 These plain English principles include: active voice; short sentences; everyday language; tabular presentation or “bullet lists” for complex material, if possible; no legal jargon or highly technical business terms; and, no multiple negatives.

The Division's staff, in its full review of a registration statement, examines the prospectus for compliance with the plain English requirements. If appropriate, the Division staff will issue comments to obtain improved plain English disclosures. Some states also review and issue comments on prospectus disclosures. The concurrent comment process from different regulators raises the prospect of inconsistent comments. For instance, the Division may ask for changes to conform to plain English requirements which seem contrary to state disclosure standards. The group will consider issues that have arisen in this area and ways to facilitate federal and state coordination in the comment process.

A committee of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws is in the process of drafting a new version of the Uniform Securities Act. The Uniform Securities Act is a uniform state securities law statute. Two versions are currently in force—The Uniform Securities Act of 1956 and the Revised Uniform Securities Act of 1985. The new version will modernize and update the law for many changes including, for example, NSMIA, technology advances, and internationalization of securities trading. The group will discuss the status of this redrafting effort and related matters.

Section 103 of the 1996 Act prohibits any state from imposing broker-dealer books and records requirements that differ from, or are in addition to, the Commission's requirements. In addition, the same section directs the Commission to consult periodically with the state securities authorities concerning the adequacy of the Commission's books and records requirements.

On October 2, 1998, the Commission reproposed amendments to the books and records rules to clarify and expand recordkeeping requirements with respect to purchase and sale documents, customer records, associated person records, customer complaints, and certain other matters. The reproposed amendments also specified the books and records that broker-dealers would make available at their local offices. The Commission modified the reproposed amendments to reduce the burden on broker-dealers without substantially detracting from the original objective of establishing rules that would facilitate examinations and enforcement activities of the Commission, self regulatory organizations (SROs), and state securities regulators.  17 Among other changes in the reproposed amendments, the Commission redefined the term local office to include a place where two or more associated persons regularly conduct a securities business. The original proposal  18 defined the term local office to include a place where one associated person conducted a securities business. As reproposed, a broker-dealer would be required to update its customer account records at least once every three years. The original proposal required broker-dealers to update the customer account records annually.

The comment period closed December 9, 1998. The Commission received approximately 120 comment letters in response to the release re-proposing the amendments. The Commission staff has been reviewing the comments that have been submitted. The participants will discuss these efforts to amend Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4.

The participants will discuss broker-dealer systems capacity issues in light of the increasing number of online brokerage accounts being opened by investors (9.7 million online accounts opened by the end of the second quarter of 1999, as compared to 7.3 million in 1998 and 3.7 million in 1997), and the instances of systems problems at broker-dealers.

On January 28, 2000, the Commission issued an order directing SROs to develop a plan to implement decimal pricing in the equities and options markets beginning no later than July 3, 2000.  19 The SROs are required to submit their decimalization implementation plan by March 13, 2000, and rule changes necessary to implement the plan by March 28, 2000. The participants intend to discuss the issues associated with the decimalization implementation plan submitted, as well as any comment letters submitted in response to proposed rule changes necessary to implement the plan.

Day trading practices continue to be the focus of media attention. Presently, the Commission is carefully considering the various issues relating to day trading activities. In particular, the Commission has been considering proposed rule changes by the NYSE and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD) to amend margin requirements for day trading customers of member firms.

On January 14, 2000, the Commission published the NYSE's proposal raising margin requirements for day traders. The NASD filed a similar proposal on January 13, 2000, which was published on February 11, 2000. The Commission has received numerous comment letters, which are under review. Both the NYSE and NASD proposals are available on the Commission's web site.

After over twenty years of debate, on November 22, 1999, the President signed S. 900—the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999—into law. S. 900 permits securities, insurance, and banking firms to enter each other's lines of business. In the coming years, the Commission staff will continue to work with other financial regulators and the financial services industry to implement the various provisions of S. 900. One early project will be to implement regulations regarding the privacy of customer financial information. The participants will discuss this legislation.

The Central Registration Depository (CRD) system is operated and maintained by the NASD and is used by the Commission, the SROs, and state securities regulators in connection with registering and licensing broker-dealers and their registered personnel. On August 16, 1999, the old “Legacy” CRD system was replaced by Web CRD, a new Internet-based system. The ability to file electronically through Web CRD is expected to further streamline and lower the costs associated with the one-stop registration process for broker-dealers and their associated persons. In connection with this transition, the Commission adopted technical amendments to Forms BD and BDW, the uniform forms for broker-dealer registration and withdrawal from registration, and related rules under the Exchange Act. 20 The Commission also issued an order approving changes proposed by NASD Regulation, Inc. to Form U-4 (the Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer) and Form U-5 (the Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration). These changes were also needed to conform to the Web CRD environment.  21 The participants may discuss issues related to Web CRD.

State and federal regulators also will discuss various examination-related issues of mutual interest, including: summits and examination coordination; branch office examinations; micro-cap issues; and day trading.

In the 1996 Act, Congress amended the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”)  22 to divide regulatory responsibility for investment advisers between the Commission and state securities regulators. Advisers that have assets under management of $25 million or more, or that advise registered investment companies, generally register with the Commission while advisers that have assets under management of less than $25 million must register with the appropriate state securities authorities.  23 Approximately 8,500 investment advisers are currently registered with the Commission.

The conferees will discuss cooperation between Commission and state adviser programs, including sharing information about examinations of advisers, advisers switching between federal and state registration, advisers that may no longer qualify for SEC registration, advisers whose registration has been canceled by the SEC, and advisers located in the state of Wyoming—the only state that does not have an investment adviser statute. The conferees also will discuss advisers that provide advice over the Internet and best execution reviews.

Congress also amended the Advisers Act to require the Commission to establish and maintain a “readily accessible telephonic or other electronic process” to receive public inquiries about the disciplinary histories of investment advisers and persons associated with investment advisers. 24

To satisfy this mandate, the Commission, in cooperation with NASAA and the state securities authorities, has been working with NASD Regulation, Inc. to design, build, and operate the Investment Adviser Registration Depository (IARD) system. The IARD will be a one-stop electronic filing system that investment advisers will use to apply for registration with the Commission or the appropriate state securities authorities, to update their registration, and to make notice filings with the states. The Commission and state authorities will have access to the resulting database to review adviser registration materials and the database will be available to the public on an Internet web site. Clients and prospective clients of investment advisers will be able to quickly obtain disciplinary and other information about investment advisers and persons associated with investment advisers.

The conferees will discuss the transition to electronic filing by investment advisers on the IARD, which is expected to begin receiving investment adviser submissions later this year.

The Commission and NASAA are revising the investment adviser registration and disclosure forms. The revised registration form would provide more useful information to the Commission and the state securities regulators. The new disclosure form would require advisers to provide clear and complete disclosures in plain English to clients and prospective clients.

The conferees will discuss the revised forms, which the Commission staff expects soon to recommend that the Commission propose for comment.

The Commission currently pursues a number of programs to educate investors on how to invest wisely and to protect themselves from fraud and abuse. The states and NASAA have a long-standing commitment to investor education, and the SEC intends to complement those efforts to the greatest extent possible. The investor education working group will discuss the following investor education initiatives and potential joint projects:

The SEC's staff will brief NASAA on the steps it has taken to fight Internet fraud and to educate investors on how to use the Internet to invest wisely. Similarly, NASAA will discuss state initiatives to enhance online investor protection.

In the spring of 1998, NASAA, the NASD, and the Investor Protection Trust (IPT) joined forces to launch “Financial Literacy 2001” (FL2001), an unprecedented $1 million campaign targeting 25,000 high school teachers across America. The goal of FL2001 is to encourage—and make it easier for—teachers in every state to teach the basics on saving and investing. Working together, NASAA, the NASD, and the IPT have developed a state-by-state customized classroom guide and have begun to provide aggressive distribution and teacher training. During the working group session, the states will brief the SEC on the progress of FL2001 and plans for dissemination of the FL2001 program in the coming year.

In the spring of 1998, NASAA and the SEC, in conjunction with the Council of Securities Regulators of the Americas (COSRA), launched the Facts on Saving and Investing Campaign. The campaign is an ongoing, grassroots effort to educate individuals about saving, investing, and avoiding financial fraud. Twenty-one countries throughout the Western Hemisphere participated in the campaign's enormously successful kick-off week. In the U.S., campaign partners—including more than thirty government agencies, consumer organizations, and financial industry associations—held educational events and distributed information on saving and investing throughout the country. During the working group session, participants will discuss the campaign and future campaign initiatives. They'll also discuss other initiatives for international investor education.

Participants will brainstorm ideas for new investor education programs, including joint NASAA and SEC initiatives.

The group will assess existing resources for investor education—including brochures, videotapes, online materials, and other media—and identify gaps. They will further discuss the most efficient and effective ways to provide educational resources to individuals at the grassroots level.

In addition to the above topics, state and federal regulators will discuss various enforcement-related issues of mutual interest.

There are a number of matters which are applicable to all, or a number, of the areas noted above. These include EDGAR—the Commission's electronic disclosure system, rulemaking procedures, training and education of staff examiners and analysts, and information sharing.

The Commission and NASAA request specific public comments and recommendations on the above-mentioned topics. Commenters should focus on the agenda but may also discuss or comment on other proposals which would enhance uniformity in the existing scheme of state and federal regulation, while helping to maintain high standards of investor protection.

We encourage interested persons to participate in this information-gathering initiative by submitting written data, views, or other relevant documents. Persons submitting comments should include their names and addresses, and identify this notice (USCG-2000-6942) by the date and give the reasons for each comment. You may submit your comments and material by mail, delivery, fax, or electronic means to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES, but please submit your comments and material by only one means. Please submit all comments and attachments in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 x 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing to the DOT Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES . If you want acknowledgement of receipt of your comments, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed post card or envelope. Comments received, whether submitted in writing to the docket or presented during the regional listening sessions, will be considered in refining the CFVSAP.

In response to the alarming number of deaths in the fishing industry, the Coast Guard chartered a Task Force to identify ways to improve safety. The Task Force examined fishing vessel casualties in the context of historical data, reviewed the Coast Guard's existing Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Program, reviewed past safety recommendations, and provided quick feedback to the fishing industry by recommending measures believed to have the greatest potential for reducing loss of life and property. The Task Force completed a report containing safety recommendations in March 1999 and presented the report to the Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Advisory Committee (CFIVAC) and Coast Guard District Fishing Vessel Safety Coordinators. The Task Force report is available at http://www.get.to/thefishingreport or from Commandant (G-MOA), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, 202-267-1430. The Coast Guard consolidated the Task Force recommendations commonly supported by both the CFIVAC and the District Fishing Vessel Safety Coordinators and subsequently developed the CFVSAP. The CFVSAP was presented at the October 4-5, 1999, meeting of the CFIVAC. The CFIVAC agreed with the concepts presented in the CFVSAP. Also, the CFIVAC agreed with the Coast Guard that holding regional listening sessions would result in valuable input from a larger segment of the fishing industry. By publication of this notice, the Coast Guard is seeking further feedback from fisherman on the CFVSAP. The CFVSAP is available at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/advisory/cfivac/fishexpo99.pdf or from Commandant (G-MOC), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, 202-267-2008.

The objective of the regional listening sessions and the request for comments is to receive information from the general public and the fishing industry pertaining to the CFVSAP and other possible safety issues affecting the fishing industry. The Coast Guard wishes to identify ways to improve safety in the fishing industry.

The Coast Guard is specifically interested in information pertaining to the following:

The most critical safety issues in your region.

Ways the Coast Guard might better communicate with the fishing industry.

Ways the Coast Guard might assist in improving safety in the fishing industry.

Ways the fishing industry might improve its safety record without Coast Guard or other government involvement.

The minimum level of training that should be considered in a training-based certificate program.

The most safety-beneficial composition of a vessel examination program.

Whether the Territorial Sea Baseline is the best reference parameter for setting certain safety equipment carriage requirements.

Each listening session will follow a presentation by the Coast Guard on the CFVSAP. After the presentation the audience will have an opportunity to comment on the specifics of the CFVSAP. The Coast Guard will then present a list of standardized issues similar to those contained in Objectives and Issues and then open the listening session to general comments from the audience.

For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meetings, reach LT Paitl or ENS O'Neal where noted in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT as soon as possible.

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. app. III), notice is given of an ARAC meeting to be held March 30, in Renton, WA.

The agenda will include:

Attendance is open to the public, but will be limited to the space available. The public must make arrangements by March 24 to present oral statements at the meeting. Written statements may be presented to the committee at any time by providing 25 copies to the Assistant Executive Director for Emergency or by providing copies at the meeting.

If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable accommodation for the meeting or meeting documents, please contact the person listed under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Sign and oral interpretation, as well as a listening device, can be made available if requested 10 calendar days before the meeting.

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. app. III), notice is given of an ARAC meeting ARAC meeting to be held March 28-29, 2000, in Renton, WA.

The agenda will include:

Ten HWG's-Engine, Powerplant Installation, Seat Test, Avionics Systems, General Structures, Flight Test, Electromagnetic Effects, Loads and Dynamics, Mechanical Systems, and Electrical Systems—plan to request approval of reports completed to address tasking statements.

Two HWG's-Braking Systems and Loads & Dynamics—plan to request a vote to submit dispositions of comments to the FAA. The Braking Systems HWG's request addresses comments relating to documents that were published in the Federal Register on August 10, 1999, on brakes and braking systems certification and analysis; the comment period closed November 8, 1999. The Loads and Dynamics HWG's request addresses comments relating to documents that were published in the Federal Register on June 18, 1999, on revised landing gear shock absorption test requirements; the comment period closed October 18, 1999.

The Engine HWG plans to request a vote for formal FAA legal and economic reviews for proposed rules addressing safety analysis and one-engine inoperative procedures.

Attendance is open to the public, but will be limited to the space available. The public must make arrangements by March 23 to present oral statements at the meeting. Written statements may be presented to the committee at any time by providing 25 copies to the Assistant Executive Director for Transport Airplane and Engine issues or by providing copies at the meeting. Copies of the documents to be voted upon may be made available by contacting the person listed under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable accommodation for the meeting or meeting documents, please contact the person listed under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Sign and oral interpretation, as well as a listening device, can be made available if requested 10 calendar days before the meeting.

The FHWA, in cooperation with the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT), will prepare an environmental impact statement on the proposed extension of Dave Lyle Boulevard (S.C. route 122) from the S.C. route 161 Extension east of Rock Hill in York County to U.S. route 521 in Lancaster County, South Carolina. The proposed route would be approximately 10 miles in length and would consist of two travel lanes for each direction of traffic with an earth median. Alternatives under consideration include: (1) taking no action (no-build); (2) Transportation System Management (improvement of existing routes); and (3) several alternative corridor alignment build alternatives.

The FHWA and SCDOT are seeking input as a part of the scoping process to assist in determining and clarifying issues relative to this project. Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments have been sent by the SCDOT to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and to private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have interest in this proposal. No formal scoping meeting is planned at this time. Early coordination with State and Federal permit and resource agencies will be completed in the development of the draft EIS. The U.S. Corps of Engineers is being requested to be a cooperating agency due to the likely involvement of the proposal with wetlands in the Catawba River flood plain area. Two public informational meetings have been held to inform the public and solicit their input. At least one location public hearing will be held for which public notice will be given of the time and place of the hearings. The draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the public hearing.

To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments, and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Title: Motor Vehicle Information.

OMB Number: 2127—0002.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) statute at 49 U.S.C. Subchapter III Importing Noncomplying Motor Vehicles and Equipment (49 U.S.C. section 30141 et seq. ) Requires that a motor vehicle which does not conform to applicable Federal Motor vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) be refused admission into the United States. NHTSA may authorize importation of nonconforming vehicles upon specified terms and conditions to insure that any such vehicle or equipment will be brought into conformity with all applicable FMVSS or will be exported out of or abandoned to the United States at no cost.

Affected Public: Those businesses or persons requesting to import a motor vehicle into the United States.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 77,500.

Customs invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The comments should address: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operations, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the Customs request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document Customs is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

Title: Foreign Assembler's Declaration (with Endorsement by Importer).

OMB Number: 1515-0088.

Form Number: N/A.

Abstract: The Foreign Assembler's Declaration with Importer's Endorsement is used by Customs to substantiate a claim for duty free treatment of U.S. fabricated components sent abroad for assembly and subsequently returned to the United States.

Current Actions: There are no changes to the information collection. This submission is to extend the expiration date.

Type of Review: Extension (without change).

Affected Public: Businesses, Individuals.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,730.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 50 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 302,402.

Estimated Total Annualized Cost on the Public: N/A.

Customs invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The comments should address: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operations, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the Customs request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document Customs is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

Title: Protest.

OMB Number: 1515-0056.

Form Number: Customs Form 19.

Abstract: This collection is used by an importer, filer, or any party at interest to petition the Customs Service, or Protest, any action or charge, made by the port director on or against any; imported merchandise, merchandise excluded from entry, or merchandise entered into or withdrawn from a Customs bonded warehouse.

Current Actions: There are no changes to the information collection. This submission is to extend the expiration date.

Type of Review: Extension (without change).

Affected Public: Businesses, Individuals, Institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,750.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 30 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 41,250.

Estimated Total Annualized Cost on the Public: N/A.

Customs invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The comments should address: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operations, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the Customs request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document Customs is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

Title: Declaration of Free entry of Returned American Products.

OMB Number: 1515-0043.

Form Number: Customs Form 3311.

Abstract: This collection of information is used as a supporting documents which substantiates the claim for duty free status for returning American products.

Current Actions: There are no changes to the information collection. This submission is to extend the expiration date.

Type of Review: Extension (without change).

Affected Public: Businesses, Individuals.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 12,000.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 6 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 51,000.

Estimated Total Annualized Cost on the Public: $198,000.

Customs invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The comments should address: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operations, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the Customs request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document Customs is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

Title: Certificate of Registration.

OMB Number: 1515-0014.

Form Number: Customs Forms 4455 and 4457.

Abstract: The Certificate of Registration is used to expedite free entry or entry at a reduced rate on foreign made personal articles which are taken abroad. There articles are dutiable each time they are brought into the United States unless there is acceptable proof of prior possession.

Current Actions: There are no changes to the information collection. This submission is being submitted to extend the expiration date.

Type of Review: Extension (without change).

Affected Public: Individuals, travelers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 200,000.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 3 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 10,000.

Estimated Total Annualized Cost on the Public: N/A.

Customs invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The comments should address: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operations, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the Customs request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document Customs is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

Title : Importers ID Input Record.

OMB Number : 1515-0191.

Form Number : Customs Form 5106.

Abstract : This document is filed with the first formal entry which is submitted or the first request for services that will result in the issuance of a bill or a refund check upon adjustment of a cash collection.

Current Actions : There are no changes to the information collection. This submission is to extend the expiration date.

Type of Review : Extension (without change).

Affected Public : Businesses/Institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents : 500.

Estimated Time Per Respondent : 6 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours : 100.

Estimated Total Annualized Cost on the Public : N/A.

Customs invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The comments should address: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operations, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the Customs request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document Customs is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

Title : Free Admittance Under Conditions of Emergency.

OMB Number : 1515-0130.

Form Number : N/A.

Abstract : This collection of information will be used in the event of emergency or catastrophic event to monitor goods temporarily admitted for the purpose of rescue or relief.

Current Actions : There are no changes to the information collection. This submission is to extend the expiration date.

Type of Review : Extension (without change).

Affected Public : Nonprofit Assistance Organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents : 1.

Estimated Time Per Respondent : 1 minute.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours : 1.

Estimated Total Annualized Cost on the Public : N/A.

Customs invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The comments should address: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operations, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the Customs request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document Customs is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

Title: Harbor Maintenance Fee.

OMB Number: 1515-0158.

Form Number: Customs Forms 349 and 350.

Abstract: This collection of information will be used to verify that the Harbor Maintenance Fee paid is accurate and current for each individual, importer, exporter, shipper, or cruise line.

Current Actions: There are no changes to the information collection. This submission is to extend the expiration date.

Type of Review: Extension (without change).

Affected Public: Businesses, Institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 18,095.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 26 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 32,245.

Estimated Total Annualized Cost on the Public: N/A.