OMB No.: OMB 0412-0542.

Form No.: AID 1558-2.

Title: Request for Advance or Reimbursement.

Type of Review: Renewal of Information Collection.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this information collection is to assure that American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA) grasnt recipients are permitted to obtain advances or reimbursements for expenditures that are authorized by the grant agreement. The information is used by (a) ASHA to monitor grant implementation relative to financial matters, (b) the Office of Financial Management (FM) to track disbursements and expenditures, and (c) the Department of the Treasury to effect payments.

Annual Reporting Burden:

Respondents: 70.

Total annual responses: 400.

Total annual hours requested: 17,866 hours.

OMB No.: 0412-0543.

Form Nos.: AID 1558-1 and AID 1558-1A.

Title: Financial Status Report (Form 268 and 269 Worksheet).

Type of Review: Renewal of Information Collection.

Purpose: The purpose of this information collection is to assure that ASHA grant recipients are accountable for expenditures incurred under the grant agreement for only those items authorized by the agreement. The information is used by ASHA to monitor the expenditures under each authorized line item and calculate the monetary gain or loss realized during the life of the grant.

Annual Reporting Burden:

Respondents: 70.

Total annual responses: 400.

Total annual hours requested: 50,296 hours.

Respondents will be commercial fishing industry individuals, partnerships, and corporations that want to enter into Capital Construction Fund agreements with the Secretary of Commerce. Such agreements allow deferral of Federal taxation on fishing vessel income deposited into a fund for the respondent for use in the acquisition, construction, or reconstruction of a fishing vessel. Deferred taxes are recaptured by reducing an agreement vessel’s basis for depreciation by the amount withdrawn from the fund for its acquisition, construction, or reconstruction. The information collected from agreement holders is used to determine their eligibility to participate in the Capital Construction Fund Program pursuant to 50 CFR part 259. At the completion of the construction/reconstruction, a certificate to that effect must be submitted.

The information will be collected on forms: the Fishing Vessel Capital Construction Fund Application, the Interim Capital Construction Fund Agreement, and the Certificate of Construction/Reconstruction.

OMB Number: 0648-0090.

Form Number: NOAA Form 88-14.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Business and other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,000.

Estimated Time Per Response: 3.5 hours for an agreement, 1 hour for a certificate.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,250.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $1,000.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed 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 estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

Issuance of permits and permit modifications, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits/modifications: (1) are applied for in good faith; (2) would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits and modifications are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NMFS regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226).

Those individuals requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES). The holding of such hearing is at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. All statements and opinions contained in the permit action summaries are those of the applicant and do not necessarily reflect the views of NMFS.

The following species and evolutionarily significant units (ESU's) are covered in this notice:

Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)

Application 1275: The applicant proposes to conduct a two year survey of the Nuese River to prepare a baseline study of the possible existance of shortnose sturgeon in the river. The research will use the NMFS sampling protocols for determining presence or absence of shortnose sturgeon in a selected river. The goals of the study are to determine whether shortnose sturgeon are present within the Nuese River system, and to determine if suitable shortnose sturgeon habitat is available within the river system.

Application 1276: The applicants propose to conduct an absence/presence study for shortnose sturgeon in the St. John River, Florida. Shortnose sturgeon were last reported in the system in the 1970s and 1980s. The primary objective of the study is to determine the existing population level of shortnose sturgeon within the river system. The applicant will use the NMFS approved sampling prototcols for a presence/absence study. Obtaining an estimate of shortnose sturgeon numbers will allow resource partners to implement the secondary objective whereby other recovery plan strategies for the species can proceed.

The permit was issued under the authority of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) and NMFS regulations governing ESA-listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-227).

The permit covers activities associated with manufacturing of forest products and commercial forest management, including timber harvest, tree planting, stand maintenance, fire suppression, prescribed burning, cattle grazing, sales of gravel and landscaping stones, habitat restoration, scientific surveys and studies, special forest use permits, and manufacturing plants in Idaho, Washington, and Montana, as described in the Plum Creek Native Fish Habitat Conservation Plan and associated Environmental Impact Statement, and Record of Decision. The Record of Decision was signed on November 20, 2000. -

Notice was published on December 17, 1999 (64 FR 70695), that an application had been filed by Plum Creek for an incidental take permit. Permit 1267 was issued to the Plum Creek on November 20, 2000. Permit 1267 authorizes Plum Creek incidental take of threatened Columbia River Chum Salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus keta), Lower Columbia River chinook salmon ESU (O. tschawytscha), Lower Columbia River steelhead ESU (O. mykiss), Mid-Columbia River steelhead ESU (O. mykiss), Snake River steelhead ESU (O. mykiss), Snake River spring/summer chinook ESU (O. tschawytscha), and Snake River fall chinook salmon ESU (O. tschawytscha). In addition, Permit 1267 would authorize incidental take of the following unlisted species if they become listed prior to expiration of the permit: Upper Columbia River summer/fall chinook salmon ESU (O. tschawytscha), Mid-Columbia River spring chinook salmon ESU (O. tschawytscha), and Lower Columbia River/Southwest Washington coho salmon ESU (O. kisutch). Permit 1267 expires on November 20, 2030.

Issuance of the permit was based on a finding that Plum Creek had met the permit issuance criteria of 50 CFR 222.22(c). The permit will take effect for listed covered species on the effective date of a rule under Section 4(d) of the ESA prohibiting take of the species. For unlisted covered species, the permit will take effect upon the listing of a species as endangered, and for a species listed as threatened, on the effective date of a rule under section 4(d) of the ESA prohibiting take of the species.

The Bilateral Textile Agreement, effected by exchange of notes dated August 13, 1996 and September 9, 1996, as amended on December 15, 2000 and January 12, 2001, between the Governments of the United States and the Russian Federation establishes a limit for wool textile products in Category 435 for the period January 1, 2001 through March 31, 2001.

In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner of Customs to establish the limit for the period January 1, 2001 through March 31, 2001.

This limit may be revised if Russia becomes a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United States applies the WTO agreement to Russia.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 65 FR 82328, published on December 28, 2000).

Dear Commissioner: Pursuant to section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; and the Bilateral Textile Agreement, effected by exchange of notes dated August 13, 1996 and September 9, 1996, as amended on December 15, 2000 and January 12, 2001, between the Governments of the United States and the Russian Federation, you are directed to prohibit, effective on January 25, 2001, entry into the United States for consumption and withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of wool textile products in Category 435, produced or manufactured in Russia and exported during the three-month period beginning on January 1, 2001 and extending through March 31, 2001, in excess of 13,801 dozen.

The limit set forth above is subject to adjustment pursuant to the current bilateral agreement between the Governments of the United States and the Russian Federation.

Products in the above category exported during 2000 shall be charged to the applicable category limit for that year (see directive dated September 13, 1999) to the extent of any unfilled balance. In the event the limit established for that period has been exhausted by previous entries, such products shall be charged to the limit set forth in this directive.

This limit may be revised if Russia becomes a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United States applies the WTO agreement to Russia.

In carrying out the above directions, the Commissioner of Customs should construe entry into the United States for consumption to include entry for consumption into the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that this action falls within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

The department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The specific changes to the records systems being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

Department of the Army records are identified by the directive number which prescribes the records created, maintained and used, and are published in numerical sequence by identification number. For example, a system of records about assignment of military personnel may be found in the 614 series; assignments, details and transfers'. Some subjects, such as investigations, are treated as sub-elements of a series, e.g., ‘criminal investigations’, ‘security’, and ‘military intelligence’.

To locate a particular system of records, follow this general guide. The series subject corresponds to the system identification number. For example: medical records for military and civilian personnel are in the 40 series. The first letter, ‘A’, represents the Army, the number 40-66 is the prescribing directive, and the suffix letters are internal management devices.

Any questions should be addressed to the Records Management Division, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, ATTN: TAPC-PDD-RP, Stop 5603, 6000 6th Street, Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-5603.

Ms. Janice Thornton at (703) 806-4390 or DSN 656-4390 or Ms. Christie King at (703) 806-3711 or DSN 656-3711.

In Addition, the Department of the Army Maintains Systems of Records in Accordance with Government-Wide Privacy Act Systems of Records Notices.

Records are retrieved by name or by some other personal identifier. It is therefore especially important for expeditious service when requesting a record that particular attention be provided to the Notification and/or Access Procedures of the particular record system involved so as to furnish the required personal identifiers, or any other pertinent personal information as may be required to locate and retrieve the record.

Certain “blanket routine uses” of the records have been established that are applicable to every record system maintained within the Department of Defense unless specifically stated otherwise within a particular record system. These additional blanket routine uses of the records are published below only once in the interest of simplicity, economy and to avoid redundancy.

In the event that a system of records maintained by this component to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the appropriate agency, whether Federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation or order issued pursuant thereto.

A record from a system of records maintained by this component may be disclosed as a routine use to a Federal, state, or local agency maintaining civil, criminal, or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary to obtain information relevant to a component decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other benefit.

A record from a system of records maintained by this component may be disclosed to a Federal agency, in response to its request, in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.

Disclosure from a system of records maintained by this component may be made to a Congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the Congressional office made at the request of that individual.

Relevant information contained in all systems of records of the Department of Defense published on or before August 22, 1975, may be disclosed to the Office of Management and Budget in connection with the review of private relief legislation as set forth in OMB Circular A-19 at any stage of the legislative coordination and clearance process as set forth in that Circular.

A record from a system of records maintained by this component may be disclosed to foreign law enforcement, security, investigatory, or administrative authorities in order to comply with requirements imposed by, or to claim rights conferred in, international agreements and arrangements including those regulating the stationing and status in foreign countries of Department of Defense military and civilian personnel.

Any information normally contained in IRS Form W-2 which is maintained in a record from a system of records maintained by this component may be disclosed to state and local taxing authorities with which the Secretary of the Treasury has entered into agreements pursuant to Title 5, U.S. Code, Sections 5516, 5517, 5520, and only to those state and local taxing authorities for which an employee or military member is or was subject to tax regardless of whether tax is or was withheld. This routine use in in accordance with Treasury Fiscal Requirements Manual Bulletin Number 76-07.

A record from a system of records subject to the Privacy Act and maintained by this component may be disclosed to the Office of Personnel Management concerning information on pay and leave, benefits, retirement deductions, and any other information necessary for the Office of Personnel Management to carry out its legally authorized Government-wide personnel management functions and studies.

A record from a system of records maintained by this component may be disclosed as a routine use to any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the Department of Defense, or any officer, employee or member of the Department in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.

Information as to current military addresses and assignments may be provided to military banking facilities who provide banking services overseas and who are reimbursed by the Government for certain checking and loan losses. For personnel separated, discharged, or retired from the Armed Forces, information as to last known residential or home of record address may be provided to the military banking facility upon certification by a banking facility officer that the facility has a returned or dishonored check negotiated by the individual or the individual has defaulted on a loan and that if restitution is not made by the individual, the U.S. Government will be liable for the losses the facility may incur.

A record from a system of records maintained by this component may be disclosed as a routine use to the General Services Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

A record from a system of records maintained by this component may be disclosed as a routine use to the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

A record from a system of records maintained by this component may be disclosed as a routine use to the Merit Systems Protection Board, including the Office of the Special Counsel for the purpose of litigation, including administrative proceedings, appeals, special studies of the civil service and other merit systems, review of OPM or component rules and regulations, investigation of alleged or possible prohibited personnel practices; including administrative proceedings involving any individual subject of the DOD investigation, and such other functions, promulgate din 5 U.S.C. 1205 and 1206, or as may be authorized by law.

A record from a system of records maintained by this component may be disclosed as a routine use outside the DOD or the U.S. Government for the purpose of counterintelligence activities authorized by U.S. law or Executive Order or for the purpose of enforcing laws which protect the national security of the United States.

Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the Navy in cooperation with the USFS has prepared and filed with the EPA a DEIS for the renewal of USFS authorization to allow the Navy continued use of the Pinecastle Bombing Range located in the Ocala National Forest, FL. A Notice of Intent for this DEIS was published in the Federal Register on April 1, 1997 (62 FR 15470). Two public scoping meetings were held in Umatilla, FL, on April 17, 1997, and in Ocala, FL, on April 29, 1997.

The DEIS is written to provide Navy and USFS decision-makers information of the potential impacts associated with the renewal of the Navy's authorization to continue using the range. The Navy is not proposing to select a new range or expand the current range under this action.

The Navy previously conducted a preliminary analysis of alternatives, including the plausibility of moving training operations to other military ranges in the southeast United States. These alternatives did not meet the Navy's operational criteria, thus were eliminated from detailed analysis in the DEIS. The preferred alternative presented in the DEIS would renew the Navy's authorization to use the range. There are no significant environmental impacts associated with either the preferred or no-action alternatives.

The DEIS has been distributed to various Federal, state, and local agencies, elected officials, and special interest groups, and is available for public review at the following public libraries:

—Umatilla Public Library, 412 Hatfield Drive, Umatilla, FL.

—Marion County Public Library, 15 Southeast Osceola Avenue, Ocala, FL.

The DEIS is also available to the public at two addresses on the worldwide web at www.nasjax.navy.mil or www.efdsouth.navfac.navy.mil. A limited number of printed copies are available to the public by contacting the project coordinator, Mr. Darrell Molzan by telephone (843) 820-5796, facsimile (843) 820-7472, or e-mail: molzandj@efdsouth.navfac.navy.mil.

The Navy will conduct three public hearings to receive oral and written comments concerning the DEIS. Each public hearing will be split into three segments. The first segment will be an Open-House from from 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., where attendees can circulate among poster stations that will highlight the main points of the DEIS, talk to Navy and USFS personnel about the document, and submit written comments. The second segment, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., will provide a public hearing format where individuals can provide comments orally. The third segment will be a continuation of the Open-House format from 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Those who intend to speak will be asked to submit a speaker card available at the registration tables located at the entrance to each of the hearings. Oral comments will be transcribed by a stenographer. In the interest of available time, each speaker will be asked to limit oral comments to three minutes. Longer comments should be summarized at the public hearings and submitted in writing either at the hearings or mailed to Commander, Southern Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command (Attn: Mr. Darrell Molzan, Code 064DM), P.O. Box 190010, North Charleston, SC 29419-9010. Written comments are requested not later than February 20, 2001.

HEP assists migrant and seasonal farmworkers to obtain a general education diploma (GED) and to be placed in postsecondary education or training, career positions, or the military. By locating the programs at IHEs, migrant and seasonal farmworkers also have opportunities to attend cultural events, academic programs, and other educational and cultural activities usually not available to them. CAMP assists migrant and seasonal farmworkers to successfully complete the first academic year of study in a college or university, and provides follow-up services to help students continue in postsecondary education.

The selection criteria used to review applications are included in the application package.

The Congress has appropriated a total of $20,000,000 for HEP and $10,000,000 for CAMP for FY 2001. The increases in the FY 2001 appropriations ($5,000,000 for HEP and $3,000,000 for CAMP) will be used to fund new applications.

(a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 82, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99; (b) 34 CFR part 206, and the definitions of a migrant and seasonal farmworker in 34 CFR 200.40 and 20 CFR part 652, respectively.

On January 13, 1993, EPA published a Notice Regarding Waiver of Federal Preemption granting California a waiver of federal preemption for the California LEV program. (58 FR 4166). The California LEV waiver included California's original ZEV requirements.

In March 1996, CARB amended the LEV program by eliminating the ZEV sales requirement for model years 1998 through 2002 along with several other modifications noted above.

On February 26, 1997, CARB submitted to the Administrator a request that EPA confirm the CARB Board's determination that the amendments to its regulations are within-the-scope of the existing LEV waiver. CARB also entered into, on March 29, 1996, memoranda of agreement (MOAs) with the seven largest vehicle manufacturers. These MOAs provide for the introduction of a certain number of ZEVs into the California market for calendar years 1998 through 2000 and require CARB to perform certain tasks.

When EPA receives new waiver requests from CARB, EPA publishes a notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment and then publishes a decision in the Federal Register following the public comment period. In contrast, when EPA receives within-the-scope waiver requests from CARB, EPA traditionally publishes a decision in the Federal Register and concurrently invites public comment if an interested party is opposed to EPA's decision.

Because EPA had already received written comment on this within-the-scope request, EPA held a hearing and invited comment on several issues before issuing today's decision. (See 58 FR 14715, 14716, March 26, 1999). The hearing was held on April 23, 1999. The public comment period closed on May 10, 1999.

Subsequent to the hearing and comment period, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued a decision regarding the State of Massachusetts' adoption of California's MOAs as its own regulations, including a ruling on the question of whether the MOAs are federally preempted by section 209(a) of the Act. (See Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. v. Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 208 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000)).

EPA may consider CARB's amendments or regulations to be within the scope of a previously granted waiver if the amendment does not undermine California's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are as protective of public health and welfare as comparable Federal standards, does not affect the consistency of California's requirements with section 202(a) of the Act, and does not raise new issues affecting EPA's previous waiver determination.

I have determined that California's ZEV amendments to its LEV regulations as applied in the 1994 model year and beyond are within the scope of previous waivers of Federal preemption granted pursuant to section 209(b) of the Act. The basis for this determination is described in detail in the Decision Document, which can be found in the docket for this action. The ZEV amendments to the LEV requirements which are applicable under California state law to 1998 through 2002 model year passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles require manufacturers to provide the following:

(1) The elimination of the requirement upon manufacturers to certify, produce, and offer for sale in California ZEVs in amounts equal to two percent of their total California sales of passenger cars and light-duty trucks weighing less than 3,750 pounds beginning with the 1998 model year, increasing to five percent in the 2001 model year and ten percent in the 2003 model year (the ten percent ZEV requirement for the 2003 model year has been retained by California);

(2) the creation of multiple ZEV credits for vehicles produced prior to the 2003 model year; and

(3) the creation of test procedures for determining All-Electric Vehicle Range.

In a February 26, 1997 letter to EPA, CARB notified EPA of the above-described ZEV amendments to its LEV regulations affecting 1988 and subsequent model year vehicles, and requested that EPA confirm that the ZEV amendments are within the scope of existing waivers of Federal preemption. The Executive Officer stated that “[t]he Board found that the amendments covered by this letter will not cause California motor vehicle emission standards, in the aggregate, to be less protective of public health and welfare than applicable Federal standards.* * *” 1

On January 7, 1993, EPA granted a waiver of Federal preemption for California's LEV program.2 In doing so, EPA found that CARB's protectiveness determination was not arbitrary or capricious. As explained more fully in the Decision Document, EPA finds that CARB's protectiveness determination is not undermined by the ZEV amendments. Despite the elimination of the ZEV sales requirements from 1998 to 2002, CARB's NMOG fleet average standard remains the same and CARB's tiered LEV standards are at least as protective as comparable federal standards.

In addition, EPA finds that CARB's amendments do not affect their consistency with section 202(a) of the Act. The elimination of the ZEV sales requirement places no additional burden on the manufacturers; in fact, the manufacturers now have additional lead time to develop and implement ZEV technology. EPA also finds that the test procedure consistency requirement is not adversely affected by the CARB amendments as manufacturers of ZEVs are only required to test according to CARB's procedures. Finally, the ZEV amendments raise no new issues affecting EPA's previous waiver determination. Thus, these amendments are within the scope of the previous waiver granted on January 13, 1993.

Within the initial Federal Register notice regarding CARB's request,3 EPA sought comment as to “the significance of the MOAs and issues that may arise out of the MOAs and their relevance to the within-the-scope waiver request CARB has submitted to EPA, addressing how the MOAs and related issues affect EPA's consideration either under the within-the-scope or waiver criteria.”

As more fully explained in the Decision Document, EPA has determined that the existence of the MOAs does not affect the within-the-scope determination. EPA believes that it has the authority and discretion to examine the MOAs, and similar methodologies and realities in California, to determine whether they have any adverse impact on either the waiver or within-the-scope criteria. As noted in the Decision Document, no such adverse impact was found in today's determination.

My decision will affect not only persons in California but also the manufacturers outside the State who must comply with California's requirements in order to produce motor vehicles for sale in California. For this reason, I hereby determine and find that this is a final action of national applicability.

As with past waiver decisions, this action is not a rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget as required for rules and regulations by Executive Order 12866.

In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. sec. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of this action on small business entities.

Finally, the Administrator has delegated the authority to make determinations regarding waivers of Federal preemption under section 209(b) of the Act to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.

This action is directed to the public in general. You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, sell, distribute, or use chlorpyrifos products. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule, for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3). 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,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” 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/. To access information about the risk assessment for chlorpyrifos, go to the Home Page for the Office of Pesticide Programs or go directly http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/chlorpyrifos.htm.

2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-34203E. 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.

In a memorandum of agreement (Agreement) effective June 7, 2000, EPA and the basic manufacturers of the active ingredient chlorpyrifos agreed to several voluntary measures that will reduce the potential exposure to children associated with chlorpyrifos containing products. EPA initiated the negotiations with registrants after finding chlorpyrifos, as currently registered, was an exposure risk especially to children. As a result of the Agreement, registrants that hold the pesticide registrations of end-use products containing chlorpyrifos (who are in large part the customer of these basic manufacturers) have asked EPA to cancel or amend their registrations for these products. Pursuant to section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA announced the Agency's receipt of these requests from the registrants by a Federal Register notice published on November 17, 2000 (65 FR 69518) (FRL-6753-3). With respect to the registration amendments, the registrants have asked EPA to amend end-use product registrations to delete the following uses: all termite control uses (these will be phased out); all residential uses (except for ant and roach baits in child resistant packaging (CRP) and fire ant mound drenches for public health purposes by licensed applicators and mosquito control for public health purposes by public health agencies); all indoor non-residential uses (except ship holds, industrial plants, manufacturing plants, food processing plants, containerized baits in CRP, and processed wood products treated during the manufacturing process at the manufacturing site or at the mill); all outdoor non-residential sites (except golf courses, road medians, industrial plant sites, fence posts, utility poles, railroad ties, landscape timbers, logs, pallets, wooden containers, poles, posts, processed wood products, manhole covers, and underground utility cable and conduits; and fire ant mound drenches for public health purposes by licensed applicators and mosquito control for public health purposes by public health agencies); and use on post-bloom apple trees. In addition, the companies agreed to limit the maximum chlorpyrifos end-use dilution to 0.5% active ingredient (a.i.) for termiticide uses that will be phased out, limit the maximum label application rate for outdoor non-residential use on golf courses, road medians, and industrial plant sites to 1 lb/a.i. per acre, and either classify all new/amended chlorpyrifos products (except baits in CRP) as Restricted Use or package the products in large containers, depending on the formulation type, to ensure that remaining chlorpyrifos products are not available to homeowners. In return, EPA stated that with this Agreement, it had no current intention to initiate any cancellation or suspension proceedings under section 6(b) or 6(c) of FIFRA with respect to the issues addressed in the Agreement.

In the Federal Register of November 17, 2000, EPA published a notice of the Agency's receipt of end-use product amendments and cancellations from registrants that hold the pesticide registrations containing chlorpyrifos (who are in large part the customer of the basic manufacturers). These requests were submitted as a result of the Memorandum of Agreement that was signed on June 7, 2000 between EPA and the basic manufacturers of chlorpyrifos. A copy of the Memorandum of Agreement that was signed on June 7, 2000 is located in docket control number OPP-34203D.

Pursuant to the Agreement and FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(A), several registrants have submitted requests for voluntary cancellation of registrations for their end-use products. The registrations for which cancellations were requested are identified in the following Table 1.

In the Federal Register notice of November 17, 2000, EPA requested public comment on the voluntary cancellation and use deletion requests, and provided a 30-day comment period. The registrants requested that the Administrator waive the 180-day comment period provided under FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(C).

No public comments were submitted to the docket in response to EPA's request for comments.

Pursuant to section 6(f)(1)(A) of FIFRA, several registrants have also submitted requests to amend their end-use registrations of pesticide products containing chlorpyrifos to delete the aforementioned uses. The registrations for which amendments to delete uses were requested are identified in the following Table 2.

In the Federal Register notice of November 17, 2000, EPA requested public comment on the voluntary cancellation and use deletion requests, and provided a 30-day comment period. The registrants requested that the Administrator waive the 180-day comment period provided under FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(C).

Pursuant to section 6(f) of FIFRA, EPA is approving the requested use deletions and the requested registration cancellations. Accordingly, the Agency orders that the registrations identified in Table 2 are hereby amended to delete the following uses: All post-construction termite control uses, except spot and local treatment ( use of such products for spot and local treatment will be prohibited after December 31, 2002 by product labeling); all other termite control uses, effective December 31, 2004 (unless EPA has made a decision prior to that date that preconstruction use may continue); all residential uses (except for ant and roach baits in child resistant packaging (CRP) and fire ant mound drenches for public health purposes by licensed applicators and mosquito control for public health purposes by public health agencies); all indoor non-residential, non-agricultural uses (except ship holds, industrial plants, manufacturing plants, food processing plants, containerized baits in CRP, and processed wood products treated during the manufacturing process at the manufacturing site or at the mill); all outdoor non-residential, non-agricultural sites (except golf courses, road medians, industrial plant sites, fence posts, utility poles, railroad ties, landscape timbers, logs, pallets, wooden containers, poles, posts, processed wood products, manhole covers, and underground utility cable and conduits; and fire ant mound drenches for public health purposes by licensed applicators and mosquito control for public health purposes by public health agencies); and use on post-bloom apple trees (except for tree trunk use). The Agency also orders that the registrations identified in Table 1 are hereby canceled. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Tables 1-2 in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this Order or the Existing Stock Provisions in Unit IV. of this notice will be considered a violation of section 12(a)(2)(K) of FIFRA and/or section 12(a)(1)(A) of FIFRA.

For purposes of this Order, the term existing stocks is defined, pursuant to EPA's existing stocks policy (56 FR 29362, June 26, 1991), as those stocks of a registered pesticide product which are currently in the United States and which have been packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the amendment or cancellation.

1. Distribution, sale and use of products bearing instructions for use on apples trees post-bloom. The distribution or sale of existing stocks by any person of any product listed in Table 1 or 2 that bears instructions for post-bloom application to apple trees (other than tree trunk use) will not be lawful under FIFRA after [insert date of publication in the Federal Register], except for the purposes of returns for relabeling consistent with the June 7, 2000 Memorandum of Agreement, shipping such stocks for export consistent with the requirements of section 17 of FIFRA, or proper disposal. Any use of such products for post-bloom application to apple trees (other than tree trunk use) will not be lawful after [insert date of publication in the Federal Register]. All other use of such products may continue until stocks are exhausted, provided such use is in accordance with the existing labeling of that product.

2. Distribution or sale by registrants of products bearing other uses—(i) Restricted use and package size limitations. Except for the purposes of returns for relabeling consistent with the June 7, 2000 Memorandum of Agreement, shipping for export consistent with the requirements of section 17 of FIFRA, or proper disposal:

(a) The distribution or sale by registrants of existing stocks of any EC formulation product listed in Table 1 or 2 will not be lawful under FIFRA after February 1, 2001 unless the product is labeled as restricted use;

(b) The distribution or sale by registrants of existing stocks of any product listed in Table 1 or 2 labeled for any agricultural use and that is not an EC, will not be lawful under FIFRA after February 1, 2001, unless the product is either labeled for restricted use or packaged in containers no smaller than 15 gallons of a liquid formulation, 50 pounds of a granular formulation, or 25 pounds of any other dry formulation;

(c) The distribution or sale by registrants of existing stocks of any product listed in Table 1 or 2 labeled solely for non-agricultural uses (other than containerized baits in CRP) and that is not an EC, will not be lawful under FIFRA after of February 1, 2001, unless the product is either labeled for restricted use or packaged in containers no smaller than 15 gallons of a liquid formulation or 25 pounds of a dry formulation.

(ii) Prohibited uses. Except for the purposes of returns for relabeling consistent with the June 7, 2000 Memorandum of Agreement, shipping for export consistent with the requirements of section 17 of FIFRA, or proper disposal, the distribution or sale of existing stocks by registrants of any product identified in Table 1 or 2 that bears instructions for any of the following uses will not be lawful under FIFRA after February 1, 2001:

(a) Termite control, unless the product bears directions for use of a maximum 0.5% active ingredient chlorpyrifos end-use dilution;

(b) Post-construction termite control, except for spot and local termite treatment, provided the label of the product states that the product may not be used for spot and local treatment after December 31, 2002;

(c) Indoor residential except for containerized baits in CRP;

(d) Indoor non-residential except for containerized baits in CRP and products with formulations other than EC that bear labeling solely for one or more of the following uses: Warehouses, ship holds, railroad boxcars, industrial plants, manufacturing plants, food processing plants, or processed wood products treated during the manufacturing process at the manufacturing site or at the mill;

(e) Outdoor residential except for products bearing labeling solely for one or more of the following public health uses: individual fire ant mound treatment by licensed applicators or mosquito control by public health agencies;

(f) Outdoor non-residential, non-agricultural except for products that bear labeling solely for one or more of the following uses: Golf courses, road medians, and industrial plant sites, provided the maximum label application rate does not exceed 1lb./ai per acre; mosquito control for public health purposes by public health agencies; individual fire ant mound treatment for public health purposes by licensed applicators; and fence posts, utility poles, railroad ties, landscape timbers, logs, pallets, wooden containers, poles, posts, processed wood products, manhole covers, and underground utility cable and conduits.

3. Retail and other distribution or sale. The retail sale of existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 or 2 bearing instructions for the prohibited uses set forth in Unit IV.2.(ii)(a)-(f) of this notice will not be lawful under FIFRA after December 31, 2001. Except as otherwise provided in this order, any other distribution or sale (for example, return to the manufacturer for relabeling) is permitted until stocks are exhausted.

4. Final distribution, sale and use date for preconstruction termite control. The distribution, sale or use of any product listed in Table 1 or 2 bearing instructions for pre-construction termiticide use will not be lawful under FIFRA after December 31, 2005, unless, prior to that date, EPA has issued a written determination that such use may continue consistent with the requirements of FIFRA.

5. Use of existing stocks. Except for products bearing those uses identified in Units IV.1. and IV.4. of this notice, EPA intends to permit the use of existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 or 2 until such stocks are exhausted, provided such use is in accordance with the existing labeling of that product.

EPA has prepared a preliminary administrative determination describing EPA's opinion on how to interpret the term “cyanides” (40 CFR 401.15, 40 CFR 302.4, and Table 302.4) as it applies to ferric ferrocyanide. (40 CFR 401.15 contains the list of toxic pollutants, 40 CFR 302.4 provides the designation of hazardous substances, and Table 302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4 contains the list of hazardous substances and reportable quantities.) This preliminary administrative determination document has been prepared in order to respond to a referral from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. By order dated October 19, 1995, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts stayed the proceedings in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Blackstone Valley Electric Co. (No. 94-2286) and referred the question of whether ferric ferrocyanide qualifies as one of the “cyanides” within the meaning of 40 CFR 401.15, 40 CFR 302.4, and Table 302.4 to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This District Court order followed a U.S. Court of Appeals decision in which the First Circuit determined that it was appropriate to refer this question to EPA for an “administrative determination.” Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Blackstone Valley Electric Co., 67 F.3d 981 (1st Cir. 1995).

As explained in the preliminary administrative determination document, it is EPA's preliminary administrative determination that ferric ferrocyanide is one of the “cyanides” within the meaning of 40 CFR 401.15, 40 CFR 302.4, and Table 302.4. This preliminary administrative determination is being issued in order to respond to the referral from the District Court. It is not a legislative rule and notice and comment is not required. However, EPA is soliciting public comment because it had previously notified interested parties of its intent to do so.

The National Coastal Condition Report describes the condition of coastal waters based on available information. The report concludes that the overall condition of coastal waters is fair to poor with some variation in conditions from region to region. A combination of data, mostly from EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is used to present indicators of coastal condition and a broad baseline picture of the condition of coastal waters. The Report also highlights several exemplary programs at the Federal, State, Tribal, and local levels that show coastal condition at various regional scales.

This Report is the first attempt to provide the public with a comprehensive picture of the health of the Nation's coastal waters. It will serve as a useful benchmark for analyzing the progress of coastal management programs in the future. We recognize that data are not currently available to characterize all the estuarine and near-coastal waters of the country and that work is still needed in formulating improved indicators of the coastal condition. Public input on the draft Report regarding data completeness, the choice of indicators, the methodologies used to synthesize data, the “bars” set for each indicator, the choice of spatial scales and the overall Report presentation is important to us in preparing this and future reports.

You may view and download the draft Report on EPA's Internet site at the Office of Water homepage at http://epa.gov/ow/ under What's New in Water. You may submit comments by sending electronic mail (e-mail) to burgan.barry@epa.gov; comments may also be mailed to Barry Burgan at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (4504-F), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. Submit comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Identify all comments and data in electronic form by docket number.

Notice of proposed administrative settlement under Section 122 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622: In accordance with Section 122 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622, notice is hereby given that the terms of the Administrative Order on Consent (“AOC”) have been agreed to by the following settling parties:

By the terms of the proposed AOC, the settling parties will perform a CERCLA Removal Action which involves the installation of an air sparging/soil vapor extraction system on two of the three industrial properties that comprise the Site (the properties owned by Thoro Products Company and Hwy. 72 Properties, Inc.). The estimated future cost to the settling parties to perform the Removal Action is $3,715,000.

The United States and the State are providing the settling parties with a covenant not to sue under Sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607(a), the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (also known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act), federal claims for natural resources damages, and state law related to the presence or migration of hazardous substances on the Site for: the work performed under the AOC, response actions associated with the GWI facility at the Site, and specific work performed by the settling parties in the past at the Site.

All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the California Special General and Special Runoff Elections and all other political committees that support candidates in these elections shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report on March 29, 2001, with coverage dates from the close of the last report filed, or the day of the committee's first activity, whichever is later, through March 21, 2001; a Pre-Runoff Report on May 24, 2001, with coverage dates from March 22 through May 16, 2001; and a Post-Runoff Report on July 5, 2001, with coverage dates from May 17 through June 25, 2001.

All principal campaign committees of candidates in the Special General Election only and all other political committees that support candidates in the Special General Election shall file a 12-day Pre-General Report on March 29, 2001, with coverage dates from the close of the last report filed, or the day of the committee's first activity, whichever is later, through March 21, 2001; and a Post General Report on May 10, 2001, with coverage dates from March 22 through April 30, 2001.

All political committees that support candidates in the Special Runoff only shall file a 12-day Pre-Runoff Report on May 24, 2001, with coverage dates from the last report filed through May 16, 2001; and a Post-Runoff Report on July 5, 2001, with coverage dates from May 17 through June 25, 2001.

Committees filing monthly that support candidates in the California Special General or Special Runoff Elections should continue to file according to the non-election year monthly reporting schedule.

In May 1999, the World Health Assembly, the governing body of the World Health Organization, unanimously adopted resolution WHA 52.18 calling for negotiation of a Framework Convention on Tobacco Control support (FCTC). The United States joined other countries in voicing support for negotiation of the convention, which is intended to address the global problem of tobacco use. Following two meetings of an FCTC working group held in Geneva in October 1999 and March 2000, an Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) was established to negotiate the text of the FCTC and related protocols. The first session of the INB was held in October 2000. A negotiating team headed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for International and Refugee Health (HHS) represented the United States. Other members of the negotiating team represented HHS, the Departments of State, Treasury, and Agriculture, and the U.S. Trade Representative. An interagency working group developed the guidance for the negotiating team.

The second INB session is scheduled for April 30-May 5, 2001.

Written Comments: In preparation for the second INB session, the U.S. negotiating delegation is seeking comments from the public on the FCTC. If the WHO publishes a draft FCTC before the date of the hearing, we will seek comments on the provisions of that draft. Further opportunity for public input is envisioned before subsequent negotiating sessions.

Announcement of Meeting: The U.S. government is seeking to understand the perspectives of various organizations and individuals on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). The comment period and public meeting are intended to give interested persons, including public health and medical professionals, state and local officials, farmers, retailers, manufacturers and others an opportunity to comment on the FCTC. Panels of respondents to this notice will be formed to facilitate the discussion between the public and representatives of the government.

Meeting Location and Registration: The public meeting will be held on March 8, 2001, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium, 99 Grove Street, 4th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102.

If you would like to attend the public meeting, you are encouraged to register early by providing your name, title, firm name, address, and telephone number to Amal Thomas (contact information above). The U.S. government encourages individuals to submit written comments, either electronically or by mail. Comments also will be accepted during the meeting. If you would like to speak at the meeting, please notify Amal Thomas (address above) when you register.

The transcript of the public meeting and submitted comments will be posted on the Internet at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco.

Head Start and Early Head Start are authorized under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.). It is a national program providing comprehensive developmental services to low-income preschool children, primarily from age three to the age of compulsory school attendance, and their families. Early Head Start programs enroll children from birth to three years old and pregnant women. To help enrolled children achieve their full potential, Head Start and Early Head Start programs provide comprehensive health, nutritional, educational, social and educational services. ACF has proposed amendments to existing Head Start regulations (44 CFR part 1309) to establish procedures for grantees to apply to use grant funds to cover the cost of constructing and making major renovations to Head Start and Early Head Start facilities and the steps necessary to protect the federal interest in those facilities. The regulations at 45 CFR part 1309 currently establish procedures for grantees to request to use Head Start and Early Head Start grant funds to purchase facilities and to protect the federal interest in those facilities. The authority for use of Head Start and Early Head Start grant funds to purchase, construct or undertake major renovations is found in section 644 (f) and (g) of the Head Start Act.

ACF prepared and published for comment a Draft Environmental Assessment on November 9, 2000 (65 FR 67377). The alternative assessed included the Proposed Action, which would include the full range of authorized activities including facility purchase, new construction and major renovation. The Alternative Action to the Proposed Action assessed a more restrictive alternative in which only minor construction and renovations would be conducted. The No Action Alternative under which only incidental alterations and renovations would be conducted was also assessed. The assessment considered the Proposed Action, Alternative Action and the No Action Alternative and the effects of each on water quality, air quality, noise, land use, transportation, waste management, human health and safety, soils, vegetation and wildlife, wetlands, cultural resources, socioeconomic factors, environmental justice, recreation, aesthetics, public services and utilities.

ACF has chosen to implement the Proposed Action. Environmental resources may be affected by implementing the Proposed Action and these impacts are analyzed in the Programmatic Environmental Assessment. Given the nationwide nature of this Assessment and the variety of possible environmental conditions it was not deemed prudent to define the affected environment for all possible sites. Instead, the Assessment identifies circumstances which may result in significant impacts which must be avoided or mitigated when costs of purchasing, constructing or making major renovations to a Head Start or Early Head Start facility are met with grant funds. In the course of implementing the Proposed Action, there will be some impacts to environmental resources. Most of these impacts, however, are expected to be minimal, largely due to mitigating measures during the site selection, construction, operation and decommissioning phases. In many cases compliance with state, local and tribal regulations will lead to the avoidance of significant impacts, simply by requiring mitigation or by leading the grantee to select a different site.

The Programmatic Environmental Assessment described the following possible significant impacts and means for mitigating them.

(a) Water Quality—An impact would be considered significant if effluent or pollutant emissions result in exposure of people, wildlife, or vegetation to surface or ground waters that do not meet the standards established under the Clean Water Act, or interfere with state water quality standards. Significant impacts on the environment from operation, construction or renovation will be mitigated by grantees adhering to all state, local and tribal regulations regarding zoning, planning and construction.

(b) Air Quality—An impact would be considered significant if pollutant emissions result in exposure of people, wildlife, or vegetation to ambient air that does not meet the standards established under the Clean Air Act, or interfere with state ambient air quality standards. Significant impacts on the environment will be mitigated by grantees adhering to all state, local and tribal regulations regarding construction and operational emissions.

(c) Noise—An impact would be considered significant if it resulted in exposure of sensitive receptors to a Day-Night Level (DNL) of greater than 65 A-weighted decibels (dBA). A significant impact on the environment from operation, renovation or construction sites can be mitigated by maintaining normal daylight hours for construction and normal operation. Significant impacts on the environment will be mitigated by grantees adhering to all state, local and tribal noise regulations.

(d) Land Use—An impact would be considered significant if the proposed action conflicted with any federal, regional, state, or local land use plans. If land use patterns are changed in the immediate project area due to the proposed action, the impact would also be considered significant. Significant impacts can be mitigated by requiring grantees to comply with state, local and tribal land use plans and ordinances.

(e) Transportation— An impact would be considered significant if there is a traffic increase, which is predicted to upset the normal flow of traffic, create the need for major road repair as a result of the action, or generate traffic levels requiring the expansion of existing roadways or facilities. Significant impacts can be mitigated by using flaggers on busy roads during construction phases. Transit can be subsidized if a facility is on a major road to discourage automobile use.

(f) Waste Management— An impact would be considered significant if there an increase in the generation of solid or hazardous waste beyond the present facility capacity or new facility capacity to safely handle and dispose of that waste. Significant impacts will be mitigated by grantees adhering to state, local and tribal regulations and ordinances for waste management.

(g) Human Heath and Safety—An impact would be considered significant if there is inadequate protection against serious injury to any worker or user during construction, maintenance, or operation of the project. Exposure to hazardous compounds or fumes at concentrations above health-based levels would be a significant impact. Significant impacts can be mitigated by making use of Head Start provided design guides, and by following state, local and tribal licensing requirements. Grantees will avoid new construction at sites with a history of hazardous material use or storage or sites near pollution sources. As required under 45 CFR 1304.22 all Head Start grantees must establish and implement policies and procedures to respond to medical and dental health emergencies with which all staff are familiar and trained. In addition all grantees are required to post emergency evacuation routes and other procedures for emergencies which are practiced regularly.

(h) Soils—An action would cause of significant impact if soil erosion produced gullying, damage to vegetation, or a sustained increase in sedimentation in streams. An action would also constitute a significant impact if the action causes ground fracturing, folding, subsistence or instability. Impacts associated with soil contamination would be significant if the affected area was no longer able to support its current function or vegetable cover. Significant impacts will be mitigated by grantees adhering to all applicable state, local and tribal regulations.

(i) Vegetation and Wildlife—An action would cause a significant impact if the degradation or loss of habitat sufficient to cause indigenous populations to leave or avoid the area occurred. Significant impacts will be avoided by Head Start and Early Head Start grantees choosing sites which do not raise substantial biological concerns.

(j) Wetlands—An action would cause a significant impact if the soil structure, or water related hydrologic features or the vegetation of more than acre (1/10 ha) of a wetland would be altered, or a floodplain area is altered enough to present a reasonable flood danger to the area, or causes the degradation or loss of habitat for populations indigenous to the floodplain area, or prohibits farming activities. Significant impacts will be avoided by Head Start and Early Head Start grantees choosing sites other than wetlands.

(k) Cultural Resources—An impact would be significant if an effect on a historic property occurs that may diminish the integrity of the historic property's location, design, setting, workmanship, feeling or association as set forth in 36 CFR 800.9. Significant impacts will be avoided by Head Start and Early Head Start grantees choosing sites which are not historic sites.

(l) Socioeconomics—A change of more than 2 percent of the previously projected level of local employment, population, or gross domestic product would be considered a significant impact. Also, if school populations decrease by more than 2 percent, revenues decrease by more than 2 percent and if the vacancy rate increased by more than 2 percent that would constitute a significant impact. Mitigation of significant impacts are not expected to be likely as the impacts in this area are considered to be positive.

(m) Environmental Justice—A significant impact would occur if a disproportionate number of minority and/or low income populations were adversely affected by the project. Mitigation of significant impacts are not expected to be necessary because facilities are not expected to have significant adverse environmental impacts.

(n) Recreation—Significant impacts on recreation facilities and resources would occur when the project conflicts with local, state or tribal recreation plans for the community, or a physical invasion by the project prevents current and/or future recreational use of adjacent properties. Significant impacts will be mitigated by including recreation sites in plans for child care centers to reduce reliance on public resources.

(o) Aesthetics—A significant impact would be the addition, into a predominantly natural setting, of incongruous human-made elements such as structures, noise, trash or pollutants, to the extent that they degrade the enjoyment of the setting for a majority of visitors or residents. Significant impacts will be mitigated by grantees adhering to with local or tribal ordinances and regulations on building appearance.

(p) Public Services—An impact would be considered significant if the proposed project inhibited the public services by preventing fire, police, emergency or social services from responding to calls in a timely way or if the project would impose excessive demands on public services. Significant impacts will be mitigated by grantees using public services in appropriate and responsible ways and by complying with state, local or tribal licensing regulations to reduce dangers of fires or other emergencies.

(q) Utilities—Significant impacts would occur where the proposed project would inhibit the use of such services by any other property owner, or if the project created an unreasonable demand on utility companies. Significant impacts will be mitigated by incorporating energy efficient features in building design.

(r) Cumulative Effects—Considered on a nationwide scale, activities related to the purchase, construction and major renovation of Head Start and Early Head Start facilities are expected to have a negligible cumulative impact.

In the course of implementing the Proposed Action, there will be some impacts to environmental resources. ACF believes that compliance by grantees with State, local or tribal requirements will prevent significant impacts by requiring mitigation or will lead grantees to select other sites for their projects which do not raise issues of environmental impact. When existing requirements do not fully address the need for mitigation of environmental impacts, ACF will require the grantee to take additional steps.

ACF does not contemplate approving the purchase, construction or major renovation of Head Start or Early head Start facilities located, or to be located, on wet lands or floodplains, at sites where the project would affect significantly sensitive natural habitats, or at sites where the project would significantly affect historic properties. This policy reflects concern not only with the adverse effects on the environment that selection of such sites would have but also in recognition of the prohibitive costs which would likely be incurred in mitigating significant impacts at those sites.

Pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, Public Law 83-277, 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. 1161, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983), the Secretary of the Interior shall certify and publish in the Federal Register notice of adopted liquor ordinances for the purpose of regulating liquor transaction in Indian country. The Big Valley Rancheria Liquor Control Ordinance, Resolution No. 07-22-00-08, was duly adopted by the General Community Council of the Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians on July 22, 2000. The Big Valley Rancheria, in furtherance of its economic and social goals, has taken positive steps to regulate retail sales of alcohol and use revenues to combat alcohol abuse and its debilitating effects among individuals and family members within the Big Valley Rancheria community.

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

I certify that by Resolution No. 07-22-00-08, the Big Valley Rancheria Liquor Control Ordinance was duly adopted by the General Community Council of the Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians on July 22, 2000.

The Big Valley Rancheria Liquor Control Ordinance, Resolution No. 07-22-00-08, reads as follows:

Whereas, pursuant to applicable Federal law (the Act of August 15, 1953, Pub. L. 83-277, 67 Stat. 588, 18 U.S.C. § 1161) in order for sales, possession and introduction of liquor within Indian Country to be lawful, the Tribe must enact a liquor control ordinance, and said ordinance must be approved by the Secretary of the Interior and published in the Federal Register; and

Whereas, the General Community Council of the Big Valley Tribe wishes to permit tribally owned and operated enterprises within the Big Valley Rancheria to sell alcohol in order to preserve the economic viability of said enterprises and to provide additional income to support provision of tribal government services to tribal members; and

Whereas, the Big Valley Liquor Control Ordinance provides for sales, introduction and possession of alcohol in conformity with the laws of the State of California.

It is therefore resolved, That the Big Valley Liquor Control Ordinance is hereby enacted as a law of the Big Valley Rancheria.

Be it enacted by the General Community Council of the Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians, as follows:

Article 1. Name. This ordinance shall be known as the Big Valley Liquor Control Ordinance.

Article 2. Authority. This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, (Pub. L. 83-277, 67 Stat. 588, 18 U.S.C. § 1161) and Article IV of the Constitution and Bylaws of the Big Valley Tribe.

Article 3. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to regulate and control the possession and sale of liquor on the Big Valley Rancheria, and to permit alcohol sales by tribally owned and operated enterprises, and at tribally approved special events, for the purpose of the economic development of the Big Valley Tribe. The enactment of a tribal ordinance governing liquor possession and sales on the Big Valley Rancheria will increase the ability of tribal government to control Rancheria liquor distribution and possession, and will provide an important source of revenue for the continued operation and strengthening of the tribal government, the economic viability of tribal enterprises, and the delivery of tribal government services. This Liquor Control Ordinance is in conformity with the laws of the State of California as required by 18 U.S.C. 1161, and with all applicable federal laws.

Article 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of its publication in the Federal Register.

Article 5. Possession of Alcohol. The introduction or possession of alcoholic beverages shall be lawful within the exterior boundaries of the Big Valley Rancheria; Provided, That such introduction or possession is in conformity with the laws of the State of California.

Article 6. Sales of Alcohol.

(a) The sale of alcoholic beverages by business enterprises owned by and subject to the control of the Big Valley Tribe shall be lawful within the exterior boundaries of the Big Valley Rancheria; Provided, That such sales are in conformity with the laws of the State of California.

(b) The sale of alcoholic beverages by the drink at special events authorized by the Big Valley Tribe shall be lawful within the exterior boundaries of the Big Valley Rancheria; Provided, That such sales are in conformity with the laws of the State of California and with prior approval by the Big Valley Tribe.

Article 7. Age Limits. The drinking age within the Big Valley Rancheria shall be the same as that of the State of California, which is currently 21 years. No person under the age of 21 years shall purchase, possess or consume any alcoholic beverage. At such time, if any, as California Business and Profession Code § 25658, which sets the drinking age for the State of California, is repealed or amended to raise or lower the drinking age within California, this Article shall automatically become null and void, and the Business Committee shall be empowered to amend this Article to match the age limit imposed by state law, such amendment to become effective upon publication in the Federal Register by the Secretary of the Interior.

Article 8. Civil Penalties. The Big Valley Tribe, through its Business Committee and duly authorized security personnel, shall have authority to enforce this ordinance by confiscating any liquor sold, possessed or introduced in violation hereof. The Business Committee shall be empowered to sell such confiscated liquor for the benefit of the Big Valley Tribe and to develop and approve such regulations as may become necessary for enforcement of this ordinance.

Article 9. Prior Inconsistent Enactments. Any prior tribal laws, resolutions or ordinances which are inconsistent with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent they are inconsistent with this ordinance.

Article 10. Sovereign Immunity. Nothing contained in this ordinance is intended to, nor does in any way, limit, alter, restrict, or waive the sovereign immunity of the Big Valley Tribe or any of its agencies from unconsented suit or action of any kind.

Article 11. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance is found by any agency or court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be unaffected thereby.

Article 12. Amendment. This ordinance may be amended by majority vote of the General Council of the Big Valley Tribe at a duly noticed General Community Council meeting, such amendment to become effective upon publication in the Federal Register by the Secretary of the Interior.

Public hearings will be held at the following times and locations.

Both oral and written comments may be given at the hearings. Written comments may also be submitted to the BLM, Las Cruces Field Office, 1800 Marquess, Las Cruces, NM 88005 on or before April 23, 2001. This date reflects an agreed upon 60-day extension to the public comment period.

A time limit for oral testimony at the hearings will be established by the presiding hearings officer, based on the number of people wishing to make comments at each hearing. Written text of prepared comments may be filed at the hearing whether or not the speaker has been able to complete the oral delivery in the allotted time.

All oral and written comments on the adequacy of the Draft RMPA/EIS will receive consideration in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS.

Copies of the Draft RMPA/EIS have been distributed to a mailing list of identified interested parties. Single copies of the Draft RMPA/EIS may be obtained from the BLM Las Cruces Field Office, 1800 Marquess, Las Cruces, New Mexico. Public reading copies are available for review at public and university libraries in Las Cruces, Alamogordo, Truth or Consequences, Roswell, and Santa Fe, New Mexico and El Paso, Texas.

The RMPA amends the 1986 Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the White Sands Resource Area. The objective of the RMPA is to determine (1) which lands overlying Federal fluid minerals are suitable and available for leasing and subsequent development and (2) how those leased lands will be managed. The EIS identifies the potential impacts that alternative plans for fluid minerals leasing and subsequent activities could have on the environment and identifies appropriate measures to mitigate those impacts.

The proposed exemptions were requested in applications filed pursuant to section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990). Effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type requested to the Secretary of Labor. Therefore, these notices of proposed exemption are issued solely by the Department.

The applications contain representations with regard to the proposed exemptions which are summarized below. Interested persons are referred to the applications on file with the Department for a complete statement of the facts and representations.

The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990). If the exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a), 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (E) of the Code, shall not apply to the proposed sales by the individually directed accounts of certain participants (the Participants) in the Plan of certain limited partnership units (the Units) to the Participants, provided the following conditions are satisfied: (a) Each sale is a one-time transaction for cash; (b) no commissions are charged in connection with the sales; (c) the Plan receives not less than the fair market value of the Units at the time of the transactions; and (d) the fair market value of the Units is determined by a qualified entity independent of the Plan and the Participants.

1. The Plan is a 401(k) profit sharing plan which is sponsored by Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O'Neill & Mullis Professional Association (Trenam), a law firm in Tampa, Florida. The Plan has 183 participants and had total assets of $10,688,388 as of September 30, 1999. Until June 18, 1999, the date of the most recent Plan amendment, the Plan was designed to allow for almost unlimited flexibility and choice by its participants to direct the Plan's trustee to invest the vested portion of their accounts in various investments, in which case the Plan provided for separate individual accounting of the participants' accounts. Therefore, each participant bore the sole risk of loss attributable to his or her investment decision. As of June 30, 1999, approximately one-third of the Plan's participants were choosing to self-direct at least some of their individual accounts.

2. Recently, SouthTrust Asset Management Company of Florida, N.A., the Plan's custodian and directed trustee (the Trustee) advised Trenam that it was no longer willing to perform its current function, unless the Plan provisions allowing unlimited flexibility and choice of self-directed investment options for Plan participants were modified. The Trustee felt that the administration and record-keeping of the Plan had become far too complex. Trenam accordingly amended the self-directed investment provision of the Plan so that participants will still be able to direct their investments, but among a more limited universe of investment options. This change was also intended to alleviate the difficulty that certain of the investments cause in fully complying with the Department's reporting requirements.

3. In order to accomplish this necessary change in Plan design, all participants must liquidate their directed investments that they have “earmarked” to their accounts. This Plan change created no problems in relation to those participants that held marketable investments in their “earmarked” accounts; however, it does present a problem for the Participants, who hold non-marketable or worthless investments. Thus, the applicant has requested an exemption to permit these Participants to buy these investments from their accounts in the Plan for cash at an amount equal to their independently determined fair market value on the date of sale.

4. The limited partnerships involved in the proposed transactions are as follows: (a) Fishhawk Investment Fund, Ltd. Real Estate Florida Limited Partnership (Fishhawk); (b) Florida Crossroads, Ltd., Real Estate Florida Limited Partnership (Crossroad); and (c) Williams Road Investment Fund, Ltd., Real Estate Florida Limited Partnership (Williams). The Units were acquired from each limited partnership in connection with the original syndication thereof. The arrangement usually called for payments of the cost of the Units to be provided in installments on a specified payment schedule. The terms were the same for all investors, and the Participants were only a few of the investors. In some instances, additional funds were requested at a later date as a result of a capital call to all partners, and in some instances the Participant's account provided the extra funds, but in other cases the Participant's account's ownership was diluted for failure to respond to the capital call (as permitted under the Partnership Agreement). The following chart describes the Participants involved in the subject transactions and provides information concerning the Units:

5. The specific terms of the transaction are as follows: (a) Marvin E. Barkin, a shareholder in and Vice President of Trenam, will purchase 1.357 Units of Fishhawk for $53,407 and 0.951 Units of Crossroad for $19,972 from his individual account in the Plan. Mr. Barkin's account has had a cost for the Units of Fishhawk of $225,000, and a cost of $34,191 for the Units of Crossroad;

(b) William C. Frye, a shareholder in and Treasurer of Trenam, will purchase 0.905 Units of Fishhawk for $35,618, and 0.952 Units of Crossroad for $19,993 from his individual account in the Plan. Mr. Frye's account has had a cost for the Units of Fishhawk of $150,000, and a cost of $34,191 for the Units of Crossroad;

(c) Harold W. Mullis, Jr., a shareholder in and President of Trenam, will purchase 0.587 Units of Fishhawk for $17,238, 0.453 Units of Crossroad for $9,513, and 1.0 Unit of Williams for $42,000 from his individual account in the Plan. Mr. Mullis's account has had a cost for the Units of Fishhawk of $97,143, a cost of $42,000 for the Unit of Williams, and a cost of $16,281 for the Units of Crossroad;

(d) Keith E. Rounsaville, a former shareholder in Trenam, will purchase 0.360 Units of Fishhawk for $14,168 from his individual account in the Plan. Mr. Rounsaville's account has had a cost for the Units of Fishhawk of $60,000;

(e) Richard H. Sollner, a shareholder in Trenam who heads up the Real Estate Department, will purchase 0.307 units of Fishhawk for $12,082 from his individual account in the Plan. Mr. Sollner's account has had a cost for the Units of Fishhawk of $60,000; and

(f) William K. Zewadski, a shareholder in Trenam who works in the Litigation Department, will purchase 0.145 units of Fishhawk for $5,707 from his individual account in the Plan. Mr. Zewadski's account has had a cost for the Units of Fishhawk of $24,286.

6. The proposed sales prices for the Units were determined by the general partners (the GPs) of each of the partnerships involved. The GPs will update their appraisals as of the dates of the sales so that the Plan will receive not less than the fair market value of the Units as of the dates of the sales.

Mr. Glen E. Cross (Mr. Cross) is the GP of both Fishhawk and Crossroad. Mr. Cross represents that as of September 9, 1999, a one (1) percent interest in Fishhawk would have a fair market value of $35,000. Mr. Cross also represents that as of September 9, 1999, a one (1) percent interest in Crossroad would have a fair market value of $21,000. Mr. Cross, who serves as a general partner in other Florida limited partnerships involved in the ownership and development of land, has been in the real estate development business since 1965.

Mr. David A. Kennedy (Mr. Kennedy) is the GP of Williams. Mr. Kennedy represents that as of June 30, 1999, a one Unit interest in Williams would have a fair market value of $42,000. Mr. Kennedy, who serves as a general partner in other limited partnerships involved in the ownership and development of land, has been in the real estate development business since 1970. The applicant represents that Mr. Cross and Mr. Kennedy (and/or their respective business enterprises) are clients of Trenam, but the combined fees paid by the two of them together, and all business interests of either, constitute less than 1% of Trenam's total gross fee income for any fiscal year. The applicant further represents that neither has any relationship to Trenam, the Plan or the Participants, other than as GP for the partnerships and clients as described above.

7. The applicant represents that the proposed transactions are in the best interests of the Plan and the affected participants and beneficiaries. Each of the Participants' individual accounts in the Plan (the Accounts) will receive an amount in cash equal to the fair market value of the Units which it owns, as determined by an independent, qualified appraiser at the time of the transaction. The Accounts will be able to sell the Units without having to pay any commissions or other expenses for the transactions. The proposed transactions will enable the plan to effectively modify the current self-directed investment options of the Plan in order to simplify the Plan's administrative and record-keeping requirements. Thus, the proposed transactions will help reduce the Plan's expenses and enable the Plan to continue to utilize the services of the Trustee.1

8. In summary, the applicant represents that the proposed transactions will satisfy the criteria contained in section 408(a) of the Act because: (a) the sales are one-time transactions for cash; (b) no commissions or other fees will be charged in connection with the transactions; (c) the sales prices for the Units will be at fair market value at the time of the sale based on the appraisals of the Units performed by the GPs of the respective partnerships.

1. The Clothing Welfare Fund and Cotton Pension Fund are interrelated, in that some of the same employers contribute to both the Clothing Welfare Fund and the Cotton Pension Fund. In this regard, approximately 18% of the active participants in the Clothing Welfare Fund are also participants of the Cotton Pension Fund. The Cotton Pension Fund is an “employee pension benefit plan,” as defined under section 3(2) of the Act. The Clothing Welfare Fund is an “employee welfare benefit plan,” as defined under section 3(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Cotton Pension Fund and the Clothing Welfare Fund are “employee benefit plans,” as defined under section 3(3) of the Act. In this regard, there is jurisdiction under Title I of the Act with respect to both funds. It is also represented that the Cotton Pension Fund offers pension benefits covered under Title II of the Act. Accordingly, the Cotton Pension Fund is also subject to section 4975 of the Code.

2. The Cotton Pension Fund is a multiemployer pension plan jointly trusteed by individuals selected by the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE) and by individuals selected by various employers who contribute to the Cotton Pension Fund. The Cotton Pension Fund provides pension benefits primarily to unionized workers in the cotton garment industry. As of December 31, 1999, the estimated number of participants and beneficiaries in the Cotton Pension Fund was approximately 72,105. The approximate aggregate fair market value of the total assets of the Cotton Pension Fund was $682.1 million, as of June 30, 2000.

The trustees of the Cotton Pension Fund have appointed an independent committee (the Cotton Committee) comprised of four trustees from the total number of trustees. Aside from appointing the Cotton Committee, the trustees of the Cotton Pension Fund have no other participation in the proposed transaction.

Two members of the Cotton Committee are UNITE representatives and two members are employer representatives. It is represented that the members on the Cotton Committee are trustees only of the Cotton Pension Fund. The Cotton Committee is prepared to assist the I/F with the proposed transaction.

3. The Clothing Welfare Fund is a multiemployer welfare plan jointly trusteed and administered by: (a) individuals selected by UNITE, and (b) individuals selected by the Clothing Manufacturing Association of the United States of America. The Clothing Welfare Fund provides health and life insurance benefits primarily to unionized workers of men's suit manufacturers. As of December 31, 1999, the estimated number of participants and beneficiaries in the Clothing Welfare Fund was approximately 39,910. The approximate aggregate fair market value of the total assets of the Clothing Welfare Fund was $31.6 million, as of June 30, 2000.

The trustees of the Clothing Welfare Fund have appointed an independent committee (the Clothing Committee) comprised of four trustees from the total number of trustees. Aside from appointing the Clothing Committee, the trustees of the Clothing Welfare Fund have no other participation in the proposed transaction.

Two members of the Clothing Committee are UNITE representatives and two members are employer representatives. It is represented that the members of the Clothing Committee are trustees only of the Clothing Welfare Fund. The Clothing Committee is empowered to determine whether the Clothing Welfare Fund should engage in the proposed transaction, and if so, the committee is authorized to set the terms and conditions under which the Clothing Welfare Fund will engage in such transaction.

4. ASC is a holding company that is wholly-owned by the Clothing Welfare Fund. As a holding company, ASC wholly owns four (4) subsidiaries: (a) Amalgamated Life Insurance Company (ALICO); (b) Alicare Inc. (Alicare); (c) Alicare Medical Management, Inc. (AMM); and (d) Amalgamated Fund Administrators, Inc. (AFA) (collectively, the ASC Subsidiaries). All of the ASC Subsidiaries are operated for profit, with the exception of AFA.

ALICO, a New York life insurance company, was established in 1943 to serve as the non-profit administrative arm of the Clothing Welfare Fund. At the time of ALICO's formation, the Clothing Welfare Fund was a self-funded health plan sponsored by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers' Union of America (ACWA), a predecessor of UNITE. Over time, ALICO began to serve a similar administrative role for other ACWA funds. In 1991, the Clothing Welfare Fund formed ASC in order to sell products and services on a commercial for-profit basis. Subsequently, the not-for-profit administrative services were handled by AFA. Currently, ALICO provides life and disability insurance primarily to unions and union-sponsored trust funds. ALICO also provides fully retrospectively rated group life insurance to various jointly administered funds, including the Clothing Welfare Fund.

It is represented that the proposed transaction will not close until it is approved by the Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York. In this regard, it is represented that the reserves of ALICO are adequate to cover all future policy liabilities. Accordingly, no additional reserves shall be required as a result of the proposed transaction. In addition, it is represented that following the proposed transaction, ASC and ALICO are and shall continue to be going concerns.

Alicare is a full-service third-party fund administrator focusing on the Taft-Hartley market. Alicare also provides computer services, insurance brokerage, and printing services. Alicare's services are delivered through its four (4) divisions: (a) Alicare, (b) Alicomp, (c) Aligraphics, and (d) Amalgamated Agency.

AMM provides medical cost management services, including utilization management, comprehensive claims cost containment, and a 24 Hour Nurse HelpLine to provide health information and education to patients.

AFA is a not-for-profit, tax-exempt enterprise. In this regard, AFA provides third-party administration for the Clothing Welfare Fund, the Cotton Pension Fund, the Amalgamated Service and Allied Industries Fund, the Amalgamated Washable Clothing Sportswear and Allied Industries Fund, and the Amalgamated Retail Fund (collectively, the Patron Funds), on a cost allocation basis. The specific services provided by AFA include claims processing, distribution and preparation of plan documents, collections of contributions by employers, record retention, and reporting to government authorities.

5. ASC Subsidiaries provide services to the Cotton Pension Fund. If the proposed transaction is granted, certain ASC Subsidiaries also intend to continue to provide administrative services to the Clothing Welfare Fund. Accordingly, as service providers, the ASC Subsidiaries are or will be parties in interest with respect to the Cotton Pension Fund and the Clothing Welfare Fund under section 3(14)(B) of the Act. In addition, because the Clothing Welfare Fund currently owns all of the outstanding ASC Common Stock, the Clothing Welfare Fund is a party in interest with respect to the Cotton Pension Fund under section 3(14)(H) of the Act. The Clothing Welfare Fund may also be a disqualified person, pursuant to section 4975(e)(2) of the Code, because of its relationships to the Cotton Pension Fund.

6. The Clothing Welfare Fund has requested an individual exemption in order to sell to the Cotton Pension Fund all of the outstanding shares of ASC Common Stock. In this regard, the value of the ASC Common Stock constitutes a significant portion of the Clothing Welfare Fund's otherwise liquid investment portfolio. It is represented that the proposed transaction will provide the Clothing Welfare Fund with liquidity and allow for further diversification of its assets.

7. Absent an exemption, the proposed transaction would constitute a sale of property between a plan and a party in interest, and a transfer of assets from a plan to a party in interest in violation of section 406(a)(1)(A) and section 406(a)(1)(D) of the Act, respectively. Accordingly, the Cotton Pension Fund is seeking relief with respect to section 406(a)(1)(A) and 406(a)(1)(D) of the Act. Further, to the extent that the Clothing Welfare Fund is a disqualified person under the Code, the proposed transaction would also violate sections 4975(c)(1)(A) and 4975(c)(1)(D) of the Code, for which relief is requested.

The proposed transaction may also violate section 406(b)(2) of the Act, because certain trustees of the Clothing Welfare Fund are also trustees of the Cotton Pension Fund (the Overlapping Trustees). In this regard, the Overlapping Trustees, as fiduciaries of the Clothing Welfare Fund, could be viewed as acting on behalf of the Cotton Pension Fund, an adverse party to the Clothing Welfare Fund in connection with the proposed transaction. The Cotton Pension Fund has represented that the Cotton Pension Fund and the Clothing Welfare Fund intended to avoid a violation of section 406(b)(2) of the Act by employing the Cotton Committee and the Clothing Committee as decision makers for each committee's respective fund. However, because of the concerns that may be raised as a result of the Overlapping Trustees, the Cotton Pension Fund has also requested relief with respect to section 406(b)(2) of the Act.

8. For the purpose of determining the fair market value of Common Stock, the Clothing Welfare Fund sought the opinion of Willamette Management Associates (WMA), as an independent, qualified appraiser. WMA is experienced in that it has prepared valuations of ASC for the Clothing Welfare Fund for approximately the past four (4) years. In addition, Scott D. Levine (Mr. Levine), a senior manager of WMA who signed the appraisal report is a certified public accountant, a member of the Maryland Society of Certified Public Accountants, a Chartered Financial Analyst of the Association for Investment Management and Research, and a candidate for the accredited senior appraiser designation in business valuation of the American Society of Appraisers. Mr. Levine's primary areas of expertise are the appraisal of closely held companies and business interests and the appraisal of fractional and nonmarketable security interests in private and public corporations.

WMA is independent in that the average percentage of WMA's annual income derived from work for the Clothing Welfare Fund over the past four (4) year period is less than one percent (1%). Further, WMA's professional fees were not contingent upon the opinion expressed in the valuation report, and WMA represents that other than the services provided attendant to the valuation, neither it nor any of its employees has a present or intended financial interest in ASC.

At the request of the Clothing Welfare Fund, WMA prepared a preliminary valuation report of the fair market value of the shares of ASC Common Stock, as of December 31, 2000. In preparing the valuation report, WMA was asked to assume that projected results for fiscal year 2000 are achieved. Since these projected results had not been realized, as of October 17, 2000, the date on the valuation report, WMA represents that the conclusions expressed in the valuation report were of a hypothetical nature.

In developing the valuation analysis, WMA conducted interviews with officers of ASC, reviewed and analyzed, among other things: (a) The audited financial statements of ASC for the fiscal years ended December 31, 1995-1999; (b) the financial statement projections for ASC for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2000-2004; and (c) the company profile for ASC completed by management. Further, WMA researched and analyzed, among other things: (a) guideline industry data; (b) economic information; (c) information related to publicly traded companies considered suitable for comparison to ASC; and (d) capital market evidence regarding investment rates of return.

In the opinion of WMA the hypothetical fair market value of ASC Common Stock on a controlling ownership interest basis, as of December 31, 2000, is $25.3 million. WMA represents that this conclusion was reached after giving proper consideration to the historical and prospective operating characteristics of ASC, as well as the after-tax expected cash flows and earnings attributable to ASC, the current and forecasted capital structure of ASC, the risk/return relationship reflected for comparable companies having securities traded in the public market, capital market and related industry macroeconomic evidence available as of the date of the report and other relevant factors.

In addition, it is represented that WMA will offer a fairness opinion as to the price of the ASC Common Stock and will determine that the Clothing Welfare Fund is receiving no less than the fair market value for its ASC Common Stock. WMA's fairness opinion will also assess whether the proposed transaction is fair and reasonable from a financial standpoint.

9. It is represented that the actual sale price for the Cotton Pension Fund's proposed purchase of the ASC Common Stock shall be negotiated by the I/F, ASA Fiduciary Counselors, Inc. (ASA Fiduciary), which is acting on behalf of the Cotton Pension Fund, and by George Cochran, (Mr. Cochran), a principal at Cochran, Caronia & Co. (Cochran), who is negotiating on behalf of the Clothing Welfare Fund. In this regard, the Clothing Welfare Fund engaged Mr. Cochran, an investment banker with significant experience in mergers and acquisitions in the insurance industry, to act as an investment advisor.

On behalf of the Clothing Welfare Fund, Cochran has conducted a valuation of ASC. On behalf of the Cotton Pension Fund, ASA Fiduciary, with the aid of American Express Tax and Business Services (AmEx), a party independent of the Cotton Pension Fund, has conducted its own valuation of ASC. In this regard, AmEX has been retained by the Cotton Committee to assist ASA Fiduciary in evaluating the ASC Subsidiaries for the purpose of valuing the ASC Common Stock. Prior to the publication of the final exemption, it is represented that ASA Fiduciary will provide an oral report to the Department, containing ASA Fiduciary's determination of whether the ASC Common Stock should be purchased by the Cotton Pension Fund based on the final terms of such sale. Such report shall include, among other things, a summary of the activities ASA Fiduciary conducted on behalf of the Cotton Pension Fund in connection with its determination, as well as an affirmation that the purchase price for the ASC Common Stock paid by the Cotton Pension Fund is no greater than the fair market value of such stock on the date of the purchase. The applicant represents that a final written report will be provided to the Department by ASA Fiduciary following the completion of the transaction.

Using the WMA valuation ($25.3 million, as of December 31, 2000) as an estimate, the percentage of the fair market value of the total assets of the Cotton Pension Fund expected to be involved in the proposed transaction will be approximately 3.71 percent (3.71%). The percentage of the fair market value of the total assets of the Clothing Welfare Fund expected to be involved in the proposed transaction will be approximately 70.67 percent (70.67%).

10. It is represented that the proposed transaction is feasible in that the sale of the ASC Common Stock by the Clothing Welfare Fund to the Cotton Pension Fund will be a one-time occurrence for cash with no ongoing oversight requirements.

11. It is represented that the proposed transaction is in the interest of the Cotton Pension Fund, because the ownership by such fund of the ASC Common Stock will ensure the continuity of the unique, highly specialized and low cost customized services provided by ASC Subsidiaries to the Cotton Pension Fund. In this regard, the allocation of overhead to profit making activities will benefit the Cotton Pension Fund directly by offsetting user fees and further will ensure that the low cost services continue to all of the Patron Funds.

It is represented that a significant part of the value of ASC is its niche in the Taft-Hartley and labor communities. This niche is enhanced by ASC being owned by an entity affiliated with the labor movement in general and with UNITE in particular. Were ASC to be controlled by other than an entity that is affiliated with labor, it is represented that the value of ASC might diminish significantly.

12. The proposed transaction is protective of the participants and beneficiaries of the Cotton Pension Fund. In this regard, it is represented that the proposed transaction is prudent, will be priced at fair market value, not to exceed $30 million, and offers a limited risk of capital loss relative to most other equity investments.

Additional protections are provided to the Cotton Pension Fund by the appointment of ASA Fiduciary. In this regard, the Cotton Pension Fund has entered into an engagement letter, dated October 26, 2000, as amended (the Agreement) with ASA Fiduciary, a registered investment advisor, in order to retain ASA Fiduciary to provide independent fiduciary services in connection with the purchase of all of the outstanding shares of the ASC Common Stock. In this regard, ASA Fiduciary has acknowledged and agreed to serve as an I/F to the Cotton Pension Fund with respect to such fund's decision to purchase the ASC Common Stock. It is represented that the Cotton Pension Funds's obligation to pay ASA Fiduciary a fee for its services is not contingent upon either the completion of the contract for purchase of the ASC Common Stock or the close of the proposed transaction.

ASA Fiduciary has acknowledged and agreed that it is a fiduciary, under section 3(21) of the Act with respect to any actions taken pursuant to its Agreement with the Cotton Pension Fund. Further, ASA Fiduciary has represented that it is independent and unrelated to the parties to the proposed transaction.

Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, ASA Fiduciary has undertaken the following duties and responsibilities: (a) To determine whether the purchase of the ASC Common Stock is a prudent private equity investment by the Cotton Pension Fund; (b) to negotiate and approve the terms of the purchase of all of the outstanding shares of ASC Common Stock; (c) to monitor the terms of the purchase of the ASC Common Stock and ensure that the Cotton Pension Fund and the Clothing Welfare Fund comply with the approved purchase terms; (d) to determine that the purchase price for the ASC Common Stock is no less favorable to the Cotton Pension Fund than to any third party under similar circumstances; and (e) to affirm that the purchase price for the ASC Common Stock paid by the Cotton Pension Fund is no greater than the fair market value of such stock on the date of the purchase.

It is represented that Nell Hennessy, Esq., President of ASA Fiduciary, shall be the lead individual from ASA Fiduciary in the execution of the duties set forth above. Further, under the terms of the Agreement, ASA Fiduciary is responsible for maintaining records with respect to the performance of its duties for a period of six (6) years from the date on which the proposed transaction closes or ASA Fiduciary determines that the Cotton Pension Fund should not purchase the ASC Common Stock or the Clothing Welfare Fund will not sell such stock.

13. As an additional protection, the trustees of the Cotton Pension Fund will determine based on a written opinion from the Marco Consulting Group (Marco) whether the investment in ASC, as negotiated and approved by ASA Fiduciary, is consistent with the overall investment policies and overall portfolio composition of the Cotton Pension Fund and that with such an investment the Cotton Pension Fund will be sufficiently diversified to satisfy the requirements of the Act. In this regard, Marco, an independent investment consultant, has been providing consulting services for the Cotton Pension Fund for approximately the past four (4) years. It is represented that Marco will issue a written opinion as to whether the purchase of the Common Stock by the Cotton Pension Fund is consistent with the overall investment policies and portfolio composition of such fund, so that the investment portfolio will remain diversified to minimize the risk of large losses in accordance with section 404(a)(1)(C) of the Act.

14. In summary, the applicant represents that the proposed transaction meets the statutory criteria of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code because: (a) the Clothing Committee will determine whether the Clothing Welfare Fund will engage in the proposed transaction, and, if so, such committee will be authorized to determine the terms and conditions under which the Clothing Welfare Fund will engage in such transaction; (b) prior to entry into the proposed transaction, ASA Fiduciary, the I/F acting on behalf of the Cotton Pension Fund, will determine that such transaction is feasible, in the interest of, and protective of the Cotton Pension Fund and its participants and beneficiaries; (c) ASA Fiduciary will determine, on behalf of the Cotton Pension Fund, whether the ASC Common Stock should be purchased by the Cotton Pension Fund; (d) the Cotton Committee will assist ASA Fiduciary; (e) ASA Fiduciary will review, negotiate, and approve the terms of the proposed transaction; (f) ASA Fiduciary will monitor the terms of the purchase of the ASC Common Stock and ensure that the Cotton Pension Fund and the Clothing Welfare Fund comply with the approved terms; (g) ASA Fiduciary will determine that the terms of the purchase of the ASC Common Stock are no less favorable to the Cotton Pension Fund than terms negotiated at arm's length with an unrelated third party under similar circumstances; (h) ASA Fiduciary will determine that the purchase price for the ASC Common Stock paid by the Cotton Pension Fund is no greater than the fair market value of such stock, as of the date the proposed transaction is entered; (i) an independent, qualified appraiser will issue a fairness opinion as to the price of the ASC Common Stock and will determine, as of the date the proposed transaction is entered, that the Clothing Welfare Fund is receiving no less than the fair market value for such stock; (j) the Cotton Pension Fund will incur no fees, commissions, or other charges or expenses as a result of its participation in the proposed transaction other than the fees incurred in making this exemption request, the fee payable to ASA Fiduciary, and the fees payable to the parties representing the Cotton Pension Fund in the proposed transaction; and (k) the proposed transaction is a one-time occurrence for cash.

Those persons who may be interested in the pendency of the requested exemption include the trustees of the Cotton Pension Fund and the trustees of the Clothing Welfare Fund, all of the participants and beneficiaries of such funds, UNITE, whose members are participants in the Funds, all contributing employers of such funds, ASC, and the ASC Subsidiaries. These various classes of interested persons will be notified as follows. Notice will be provided to all participants and beneficiaries of the Cotton Pension Fund and the Clothing Welfare Fund, the trustees of the Cotton Pension Fund, the trustees of the Clothing Welfare Fund, UNITE, all contributing employers to such funds, and members of the board of ASC, and the ASC Subsidiaries by sending a copy of the notice of pendency of this proposed exemption (the Notice) plus a copy of the supplemental statement (the Supplemental Statement), as required, pursuant to 29 CFR 2570.43(b)(2). The Notice and the Supplemental Statement will be delivered by first class mail within fifteen (15) days of the publication of the Notice in the Federal Register. For the purpose of sending the Notice and Supplemental Statement by mail, current addresses maintained by the Cotton Pension Fund and the Clothing Welfare Fund will be used.

In addition, the Notice and the Supplemental Statement will be provided to all locals, joint boards, and regional offices of UNITE who represent members who are participants in either the Cotton Pension Fund or the Clothing Welfare Fund and to contributing employers which employ members who are participants in either the Cotton Pension Fund or the Clothing Welfare Fund. The Cotton Pension Fund shall request that such parties post the Notice and Supplemental Statement immediately upon receipt at their respective locations.

All written comments and requests for a hearing must be received by the Department no later than forty-five (45) days from the date that the Notice and the Supplemental Statement are published in the Federal Register.

The Commission gives notice of major changes to “Applications for Registration or Exemption under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Investment Company Act of 1940' (SEC-2), which results in the establishment of a new system—“Investment Adviser Records” (SEC-50).

Currently, the Commission treats paper and microfiche copies of applications for registration by investment advisers (Form ADV) and their related amendments and withdrawal notices as agency records subject to the Privacy Act. Accordingly, the Commission has published and periodically updated a system of records notice for these records, designated as SEC-2. These records contain names of individuals and information about those individuals, such as disciplinary information. However, the current Privacy Act notice does not address the electronic filing of such forms and new ways of maintaining and retrieving them through any SEC or non-SEC system. The Commission is therefore proposing to transfer investment adviser records, whether in paper, microfiche, or electronic format from SEC-2 to “Investment Adviser Records” (SEC-50), a new Privacy Act records system.

On September 12, 2000, the Commission adopted amendments to rules 30-5 and 30-11 of the SEC's Organization and Program Management rules (17 CFR 200.30-5 and 200.30-11), new rule 203-3 and Form ADV-H; adopted amendments to rules 0-2, 0-7, 203-1, 203-2, 203A-1, 203A-2, and 204-1 (17 CFR 275.0-2, 275.0-7, 275.203-1, 275.203-2, 275.203A-1, 275.203A-2, and 275.204-1); and Form ADV, Form ADV-W, and Form 4-R (17 CFR 279.1, 279.2, and 279.4) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1) (the Advisers Act or the Act).1 The Commission also withdrew rule 204-5 (17 CFR 275.204-5) and Forms 5-R, 6-R, 7-R, and ADV-Y2K (17 CFR 279.5, 279.6, 279.7, and 279.9) under the Advisers Act.2

These amendments require investment advisers to submit all Form ADV applications for registration, Form ADV amendments, and Form ADV-W withdrawal requests electronically through the IARD. As a result of these amendments, NASDR, which is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the IARD system, effectively will be the custodian of investment adviser registration records filed electronically through the IARD after January 1, 2001. Under 5 U.S.C. 552a(m), the SEC and the NASDR intend to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding, under which the NASDR will assume, among other things, responsibilities for compliance with the Privacy Act with respect to those records and further will maintain those records in accordance with federal recordkeeping requirements.3

All investment adviser records on paper and microfiche, received by the SEC before January 1, 2001, will remain in its custody and control and their routine uses are unchanged by the development of the IARD. All investment adviser records received by the SEC after January 1, 2001 that are on paper or microfiche also will be in the SEC's custody and control.

As 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) requires, the SEC has submitted its reports of the new and the altered systems of records to the Congress and the Office of Management and Budget. This complies with Appendix I to OMB Circular A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” as amended on February 20, 1996.4 Accordingly, the SEC proposes to amend SEC-2 and establish SEC-50, to read as follows:

The SSI program established under title XVI of the Act provides monthly benefits for aged, blind and disabled individuals with limited income and resources. For SSI applicants and recipients, income is a factor in determining eligibility for, and the amount of, SSI benefits. In determining an individual's countable income for SSI program purposes, title XVI of the Act specifies certain items that are included as well as certain items and/or amounts that are excluded. Earnings from employment, minus certain exclusions, are counted as income to the individual. The amount of an individual's resources is used to determine whether he or she is eligible for SSI benefits for any given month. If an individual's countable resources are within the statutory limit for eligibility, they have no effect on the amount of the SSI payment to the recipient.

This is a demonstration project which we are conducting under the authority of section 1110(b) of the Act to test whether altering certain requirements, conditions, or limitations under title XVI of the Act and the implementing regulations, relating to the counting of an SSI recipient's income and resources and to the initiation of certain continuing disability reviews for SSI recipients with disabilities or blindness, will encourage recipients of SSI benefits based on disability or blindness to attempt to work for the first time, return to work, or increase their work activity and earnings. Under the project, we will test, on a demonstration basis, the effectiveness of certain alternative SSI program rules as incentives for SSI recipients with disabilities or blindness who want to work to attempt work activity or increase their level of work activity. We are conducting the SSI Work Incentives Demonstration Project in connection with certain return-to-work projects for which we awarded cooperative agreement funds to certain States under SSA's State Partnership Initiative.

The State Partnership Initiative (SPI), established by SSA, is the first activity launched under Executive Order 13078, Increasing Employment of Adults with Disabilities, signed on March 13, 1998 by President Clinton. This initiative is designed to help States develop innovative and integrated, state-wide programs of services and supports for their residents with disabilities.

In 1998, under the SPI program, SSA awarded five-year cooperative agreements to a number of States to develop innovative projects to increase job opportunities and enhance the coordination and delivery of rehabilitation, employment and other support services for adults who are recipients of SSI benefits based on disability or blindness, or who are Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) beneficiaries, to assist them to return to work or work for the first time and reduce their dependence on SSI and SSDI benefits. These cooperative agreement projects under the SPI program are expected to continue in operation through September 30, 2003.

We are conducting the SSI Work Incentives Demonstration Project, which consists of two models, in conjunction with the SPI projects in the States of California, New York, Vermont and Wisconsin. The SPI projects in these States are as follows:

(1) California's Individual Self-Sufficiency Planning Project is providing enhanced services to 150 project participants with severe psychiatric disabilities who receive SSI and/or SSDI benefits at two demonstration sites, One-Stop Career Centers in San Mateo and Kern Counties. Selected individuals from other counties who are clients of the Department of Rehabilitation will serve as the control group for the research design.

(2) The New York Works: Self Sufficiency Through Employment Incentives project is testing the impact of full program services or enhanced services to recipients on return to work outcomes. Full services include a client-centered “team” approach, a vocational case manager/employment coordinator, intensive benefits counseling and management, in addition to any federal program rules waivers, access to SSA work incentives, expedited access to a Plan for Achieving Self-Support (PASS), and presumed vocational rehabilitation (VR) eligibility.

SSI recipients with serious mental illness, residing in New York City or Erie County, will be randomly assigned to a full service model, an enhanced service model, or a control group. Each treatment group will have 450 members, with 650 in the control group.

(3) Vermont Work Incentives Project is examining the impact of benefits counseling, benefits assessment plans, peer benefits counseling, training of VR staff on mental health issues, and any federal program rules waivers and Medicaid Buy-In in its overall project evaluation. The statewide program expects to have 1,200 participants (SSI/SSDI recipients) with a range of disabilities.

(4) Wisconsin Pathways to Independence includes benefits counseling as a core service with additional options including targeted vocational planning, greater use of existing SSA work incentives, and health care and income support policy changes derived from federal waivers. The Wisconsin Project will also implement the Medicaid Purchase Plan, an amendment to Wisconsin's Medicaid Program. It is anticipated that approximately 1,200 individuals with severe disabilities (including physical disabilities, mental illness, HIV/AIDS, and developmental disabilities) will be served in 15 sites throughout the State.

SSA is committed to supporting the work efforts of disabled or blind SSI recipients, as well as SSDI beneficiaries, who want to work and become more self-sufficient. SSA seeks to develop new strategies and incentives that will assist SSI recipients and SSDI beneficiaries to enter and remain in the workforce and reduce their dependence on SSI and SSDI benefits.

Our overall objective in conducting this project is to demonstrate whether providing additional work incentives under the SSI program will remove potential barriers to work for recipients of SSI benefits based on disability or blindness. Under the project, we will test whether altering certain SSI program rules provides effective work incentives for disabled or blind SSI recipients and concurrent SSI/SSDI beneficiaries to attempt to work for the first time, return to work, or increase their work activity and earnings.

We are conducting the SSI Work Incentives Demonstration Project under the authority of section 1110(b) of the Act. Section 1110(b) of the Act authorizes the Commissioner of Social Security to waive any of the requirements, conditions, or limitations of title XVI of the Act to the extent necessary to carry out experimental, pilot, or demonstration projects which, in the Commissioner's judgment, are likely to assist in promoting the objectives or facilitate the administration of the SSI program.

The alternative SSI program rules that we are testing under the demonstration project consist of the following four elements. Elements 1 through 3 will apply to participants in the project who are SSI-only recipients or concurrent SSI/SSDI beneficiaries. Element 4 will only apply to participants who are SSI-only recipients; it will not apply to concurrent SSI/SSDI beneficiaries.

SSA will test the effectiveness, as a work incentive, of using modified earned income exclusion in determining an SSI recipient's countable income for SSI program purposes. Under this work incentive, SSA will exclude the first $65 of a project participant's monthly earned income plus an additional 75 percent of any remaining gross monthly earned income, or an additional $3 for every $4 earned. This differs from the current rules under which SSA excludes the first $65 of monthly earned income plus an additional 50 percent of any remaining gross monthly earned income, or an additional $1 for every $2 earned.

SSA will test, as an additional work incentive, treating certain types of temporary unearned income related to work activity in the same manner as earned income will be treated under element 1 above for purposes of determining an SSI recipient's countable income. That is, for a project participant, SSA will exclude the first $65 per month of certain types of unearned income that result from work activity plus 75 percent of the remainder of such unearned income in a month. This differs from current SSI rules under which SSA excludes the first $20 of unearned income in a month. The only types of temporary unearned income that result from work activity that would be subject to the alternative rule are: Unemployment insurance benefits, worker's compensation benefits, State disability benefits, and disability-related benefits paid through private insurance plans. Other types of benefits, such as Social Security benefits or veterans benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, will continue to be treated as unearned income based on current rules.

SSA will study the use of an additional resource exclusion as a work incentive. SSA will allow a project participant to maintain an “Independence Account” as a resource, beyond the current $2,000 resource limit. For purposes of determining an SSI recipient's countable resources, SSA will exclude monies conserved (including any accrued interest) in one separate account for saved wages, not to be commingled with other monies, and with deposits limited to 50 percent of gross earnings, not to exceed $8,000 per year. The account may be a checking or savings account, certificate of deposit, money market or mutual fund account. It cannot be any type of retirement plan such as an IRA, Roth IRA, 401(k) plan, or 403(b) plan. The period during which a participant will be permitted to deposit a portion of his or her wages into an “Independence Account” will end September 30, 2003 or, if earlier, when he or she ceases to be a project participant. Following the close of the period for making deposits, SSA will provide for a 24-month spend-down period during which the resource exclusion under the demonstration project would continue to apply to monies in the account.

SSA will test suspending medical continuing disability reviews (CDRs) as a work incentive for certain individuals. SSA will suspend medical CDRs for participants in the demonstration project who are SSI-only recipients with “medical improvement possible” (MIP) or “medical improvement not expected” (MINE) diaries. For a project participant meeting these criteria, SSA will not initiate a medical CDR during the period this work incentive is in effect (i.e., through September 30, 2003), so long as the individual remains a project participant. The suspension of CDRs would not apply to redeterminations of disability that are required for childhood disability recipients who attain age 18.

The alternative SSI program rules under the demonstration project will become effective on January 26, 2001. Except for the spend-down period for the “Independence Account,” the alternative SSI program rules will cease to be effective after September 30, 2003. The spend-down period for the “Independence Account” will begin on October 1, 2003 (or, if earlier, when an individual's participation in the demonstration project ends) and will end after a period of 24 months.

Model one of the demonstration project will use the alternative SSI program rules described in items 1 through 4 above, and will be carried out in conjunction with the SPI projects in California, New York, and Wisconsin. Model two of the demonstration project will use the alternative SSI program rules described in items 2 through 4 above, and will be carried out in conjunction with the SPI project in Vermont.

The participation of an SSI recipient or concurrent SSI/SSDI beneficiary in the SSI Work Incentives Demonstration Project will be voluntary, as required under section 1110(b)(2)(B) of the Act and the implementing regulation at 20 CFR 416.250(d). Only those disabled or blind SSI recipients and concurrent SSI/SSDI beneficiaries who are enrolled or will enroll as participants in the SPI cooperative agreement projects in the States of California, New York, Vermont and Wisconsin will be eligible to become a participant in the SSI Work Incentives Demonstration Project. An enrollee in one of the SPI projects will become a participant in the SSI Work Incentives Demonstration Project by providing a voluntary written consent to be a participant in the SSI demonstration project. The individual's consent to participate in the SSI Work Incentives Demonstration Project may be revoked by the individual at any time. In addition, an individual's status as a participant in the SSI Work Incentives Demonstration Project will end if his or her participation in the SPI project ends.

The four States will collect data for each recipient regarding identifying information, educational and vocational background, services provided, work attempts and outcomes and use of the alternative SSI program rules. Each State will use the data to evaluate the effectiveness of the alternative SSI program rules under the project model in that State. In addition, the data will be sent by each State to Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) for a process evaluation and will be analyzed by Mathematica, Inc., for a net outcomes evaluation. SSA has contracts with VCU and Mathematica to collect and analyze the data from the States to permit evaluation on a cross-State basis for the SSI Work Incentives Demonstration Project.

We are waiving the following requirements, conditions, or limitations under title XVI of the Act and the implementing regulations to the extent necessary to permit the application of the alternative SSI program rules described above to participants in the SSI Work Incentives Demonstration Project.

We are waiving the limitation on the earned income exclusion under sections 1612(b)(4)(A)(i) and (b)(4)(B)(iii) of the Act and 20 CFR 416.1112(c)(7) to the extent necessary to permit, after the exclusion of the first $65 per month of earned income not otherwise excluded as provided under the statute and regulations, the exclusion of three-fourths of a project participant's remaining earned income in a month for the purpose of determining a participant's countable income for SSI program purposes.

We are waiving the limitations on excluding unearned income under section 1612(b) of the Act and 20 CFR 416.1124 to the extent necessary to permit, in addition to any other allowable unearned income exclusions authorized under the statute and regulations, the exclusion of the first $65 per month of specified types of unearned income of a project participant, plus three-fourths of the amount of a participant's remaining specified types of unearned income in a month, for the purpose of determining a participant's countable income for SSI program purposes. The types of unearned income covered by this exclusion are: unemployment insurance benefits, worker's compensation benefits, State disability benefits, and disability-related benefits paid through private insurance plans.

We are waiving the limitations on excluding resources under section 1613 of the Act and 20 CFR 416.1210 to the extent necessary to permit the exclusion of monies conserved (and any interest accrued thereon) in one “Independence Account” of a project participant that meets certain requirements, for the purpose of determining a participant's countable resources for SSI program purposes. Only wages earned by an individual while a project participant and before October 1, 2003, may be deposited in the account, not to be commingled with any other monies, with deposits limited to 50 percent of gross earnings, not to exceed $8,000 per year. A 24-month spend-down period, during which the resource exclusion will continue to apply, will begin October 1, 2003 or, if earlier, when the individual's participation in the project ends.

We are waiving the requirements for SSA to conduct medical CDRs under sections 1619(a)(2) and 1631(j)(2) of the Act, and 20 CFR 416.990, to the extent necessary to preclude the initiation of medical CDRs under these provisions for project participants who are SSI-only recipients with MIP or MINE diaries.

We are publishing this Social Security Acquiescence Ruling in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(2).

A Social Security Acquiescence Ruling explains how we will apply a holding in a decision of a United States Court of Appeals that we determine conflicts with our interpretation of a provision of the Social Security Act (the Act) or regulations when the Government has decided not to seek further review of that decision or is unsuccessful on further review.

We will apply the holding of the Court of Appeals' decision as explained in this Social Security Acquiescence Ruling to claims at all levels of administrative review within the Third Circuit. This Social Security Acquiescence Ruling will apply to all determinations or decisions made on or after January 25, 2001. If we made a determination or decision on your application for benefits between September 18, 2000, the date of the Court of Appeals' decision, and January 25, 2001, the effective date of this Social Security Acquiescence Ruling, you may request application of the Social Security Acquiescence Ruling to the prior determination or decision. You must demonstrate, pursuant to 20 CFR 404.985(b)(2) or 416.1485(b)(2), that application of the Ruling could change our prior determination or decision in your claim.

Additionally, when we received this precedential Court of Appeals' decision and determined that a Social Security Acquiescence Ruling might be required, we began to identify those claims that were pending before us within the circuit that might be subject to readjudication if an Acquiescence Ruling were subsequently issued. Because we determined that an Acquiescence Ruling is required and are publishing this Social Security Acquiescence Ruling, we will send a notice to those individuals whose claims we have identified which may be affected by this Social Security Acquiescence Ruling. The notice will provide information about the Acquiescence Ruling and the right to request readjudication under the Ruling. It is not necessary for an individual to receive a notice in order to request application of this Social Security Acquiescence Ruling to the prior determination or decision on his or her claim as provided in 20 CFR 404.985(b)(2) or 416.1485(b)(2), discussed above.

If this Social Security Acquiescence Ruling is later rescinded as obsolete, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register to that effect as provided for in 20 CFR 404.985(e) or 416.1485(e). If we decide to relitigate the issue covered by this Social Security Acquiescence Ruling as provided for by 20 CFR 404.985(c) or 416.1485(c), we will publish a notice in the Federal Register stating that we will apply our interpretation of the Act or regulations involved and explaining why we have decided to relitigate the issue.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Program Nos. 96.001 Social Security—Disability Insurance; 96.002 Social Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004 Social Security—Survivors Insurance; 96.006—Supplemental Security Income.)

Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2000)—Using the Grid Rules1 as a Framework for Decisionmaking When an Individual's Occupational Base is Eroded by a Nonexertional Limitation—Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.2

Issue: Whether we may apply the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (grid rules) as a framework to deny disability benefits at step 5 of the sequential evaluation process when a claimant has a nonexertional limitation(s) without either:

(1) taking or producing vocational evidence, such as testimony from a vocational expert, reference to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT)3 or other similar evidence; or

(2) providing notice of our intention to take official notice of the fact that the particular nonexertional limitation(s) does not significantly erode the occupational job base.

Statute/Regulation/Ruling Citation: Sections 205(b), 223(d)(2)(A), 1614(a)(3)(B) and 1631(c)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(b), 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B)) and 1383(c)(1)(A); 20 CFR 404.1520(f)(1), 404.1566, 404.1569, 404.1569a, 416.920(f)(1), 416.966, 416.969 and 416.969a; 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, section 200.00(e); Social Security Rulings 83-10, 83-12, 83-14, 85-15 and 96-9p.

Circuit: Third (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Virgin Islands).

Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2000).

Applicability of Ruling: This Ruling applies to determinations or decisions at all levels of the administrative review process (i.e., initial, reconsideration, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing and Appeals Council).

Description of Case: Clifton Sykes filed an application for disability insurance benefits after suffering several job-related injuries. After his claim was denied at both the initial and reconsideration levels of the administrative review process, he requested a hearing before an ALJ. The ALJ found that Mr. Sykes had several “severe” impairments and that, because of these impairments, he was unable to do his past relevant work. At least one of these impairments, blindness in the left eye, resulted in a nonexertional limitation. The other severe impairments included the residual effects of a torn rotator cuff, angina and obstructive pulmonary disease. Applying the grid rules in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2 as a framework for decisionmaking without referring to a vocational expert or other evidence, the ALJ concluded that Mr. Sykes was not disabled because he could perform other work existing in the national economy. The ALJ's conclusion was based on his findings that Mr. Sykes had the exertional capability to perform “light” work and that the exclusion of jobs requiring binocular vision did not significantly compromise the “broad base of light work” established under the grid rules.

After the Appeals Council denied Mr. Sykes' request for review of the ALJ's decision, he sought judicial review. Mr. Sykes argued, among other things, that the ALJ erred in relying exclusively on the grid rules to determine whether there were jobs in the national economy that he could perform when his impairments resulted in both exertional and nonexertional limitations. The district court affirmed the ALJ's decision finding that it was supported by substantial evidence. On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the case to us for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

Holding: After considering the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458 (1983), the court concluded that our “interpretation of 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2 section 200.00(e)(2) does not comport with the Social Security Act * * * .” In view of the ALJ's finding that the claimant had a severe nonexertional impairment, the court stated that we cannot establish the existence of other “jobs in the national economy that Sykes can perform by relying on the grids alone, even if [we use] the grids only as a framework instead of to direct a finding of no disability.” The court further stated that, “in the absence of a rulemaking establishing the fact of an undiminished occupational base, the Commissioner cannot determine that a claimant's nonexertional impairments do not significantly erode his occupational base under the medical-vocational guidelines [alone].”

The Third Circuit also addressed “the question [of] what additional evidence the Commissioner must present to meet the burden of establishing that there are jobs in the national economy that a claimant with exertional and nonexertional impairments can perform.” The court held that the “sort of evidence the Commissioner must present to meet his burden of proof * * * when a claimant has exertional and nonexertional impairments * * * [is] the testimony of a vocational expert or other similar evidence, such as a learned treatise.”

As an alternative to producing additional vocational evidence, the court held that we could rely on official administrative notice to establish that a particular nonexertional limitation does not significantly erode a claimant's occupational job base. The court stated that, “official [administrative] notice * * * allows an administrative agency to take notice of technical or scientific facts that are within the agency's area of expertise,” in addition to commonly acknowledged facts. Under this alternative, we “would have had to provide Sykes with notice of [our] intent to [take administrative] notice [of the] fact [that the occupational base is not significantly eroded by the nonexertional limitation] and, if Sykes raised a substantial objection, an opportunity to respond * * * .”

The court stated that it was not deciding the issue of “whether Social Security Rulings can serve the same function as the rulemaking upheld in Campbell.” The court further stated that it need not resolve the issue of whether “the Commissioner can properly refer to a ruling for guidance as to when nonexertional limitations may significantly compromise the range of work that an individual can perform.”

At step 5 of the sequential evaluation process (or the last step in the sequential evaluation process in continuing disability review claims), we consider the vocational factors of age, education and work experience in conjunction with a claimant's residual functional capacity to determine whether the claimant can do other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. Section 200.00(e)(2) of 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2 provides that, when an individual has an impairment(s) “resulting in both strength [exertional] limitations and [nonstrength] nonexertional limitations,” we use the grid rules first to determine whether a finding of disabled is possible based on strength limitations alone. If not, we use the same grid rules reflecting the individual's maximum residual strength capabilities, age, education, and work experience as a framework for consideration of how much the individual's nonexertional limitations further erode the occupational job base. As stated in 20 CFR 404.1569a and 416.969a, the grid rules “provide a framework to guide our decision” in this situation.

SSR 83-14, Capability to do Other Work—The Medical Vocational Rules as a Framework for Evaluating a Combination of Exertional and Nonexertional Impairments, provides that we use the grid rules to determine how the totality of an individual's limitations or restrictions reduces the occupational base of administratively noticed unskilled jobs when a claimant cannot be found disabled based on exertional limitations alone. In those claims where a person comes very close to meeting the criteria of a grid rule directing a finding of not disabled because it is clear that the additional nonexertional limitation(s) has very little effect on the exertional occupational base, we may rely on the framework of the grid rules to support a finding that the person is not disabled without consulting a vocational expert or other vocational resource. On the other hand, an additional nonexertional limitation may substantially reduce a range of work to the extent that an individual is very close to meeting a grid rule which directs a conclusion of disabled. Particular nonexertional limitation(s) may significantly erode or may have very little effect on the occupational base of jobs an individual can perform.

SSRs 96-9 and 83-14 include examples of nonexertional limitation(s) and provide adjudicative guidance on their effects on an individual's occupational job base. Some of the nonexertional limitations described in the SSRs do significantly reduce an individual's occupational job base and would result in a finding of disability. Other nonexertional limitations described in the SSRs do not significantly reduce an individual's occupational job base and would not ordinarily result in a finding of disability if the person's exertional limitations (or “capabilities”) would result in a finding of not disabled under the grid rules. Regardless of whether the result is a finding of disability or no disability, we rely on our regulations and the SSRs to provide adjudicative guidance on the effects of particular nonexertional limitations on an individual's occupational job base.

Under our interpretation of 20 CFR 404.1569a, 416.969a and section 200.00(e) of Appendix 2 to Subpart P of Part 404, and of SSR 83-14, we are not required to consult a vocational expert or other vocational resource in all instances in which we decide whether an individual who has a nonexertional limitation(s) is or is not disabled. For instance, we are not always required to consult a vocational expert or other vocational resource to help us determine whether a nonexertional limitation significantly erodes a claimant's occupational base when adjudicative guidance on the effect of the limitation is provided in an SSR.

The Third Circuit concluded that, under Campbell, we cannot rely on the framework of our grid rules to deny a claim when a claimant has a nonexertional impairment(s) “without either taking additional vocational evidence * * * or providing notice to the claimant of [our] intention to take official notice of this fact [that the claimant's nonexertional impairment(s) do not significantly erode his or her occupational base] (and providing the claimant with an opportunity to counter the conclusion).” The court held that we cannot establish the existence of other jobs in the national economy that a claimant with a nonexertional limitation “can perform by relying on the grids alone, even if [we] use the grids as a framework instead of to direct a finding of no disability.”

This Ruling applies only to claims in which the claimant resides in Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania or the Virgin Islands at the time of the determination or decision at any level of the administrative review process; i.e., initial, reconsideration, ALJ hearing or Appeals Council review.

In making a disability determination or decision at step 5 of the sequential evaluation process (or the last step in the sequential evaluation process in continuing disability review claims), we cannot use the grid rules exclusively as a framework for decisionmaking when an individual has a nonexertional limitation(s). Before denying disability benefits at step five when a claimant has a nonexertional limitation(s), we must:

(1) take or produce vocational evidence such as from a vocational expert, the DOT or other similar evidence (such as a learned treatise); or

(2) provide notice that we intend to take or are taking administrative notice of the fact that the particular nonexertional limitation(s) does not significantly erode the occupational job base, and allow the claimant the opportunity to respond before we deny the claim.

This Ruling does not apply to claims where we rely on an SSR that includes a statement explaining how the particular nonexertional limitation(s) under consideration in the claim being adjudicated affects a claimant's occupational job base. When we rely on such an SSR to support our finding that jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can do, we will include a citation to the SSR in our determination or decision.

We are considering revising our rules regarding our use of the grid rules as a framework for decisionmaking and may rescind this Ruling once we have made the revision.

On October 14, 1999, a Federal Register Notice was published (Volume 64, Number 198) that suspended all licenses and approvals to export or otherwise transfer defense articles and defense services to Indonesia, except for certain exports related to commercial communication satellites and Y2K compliance activities not for the Indonesian military. The October 14, 1999 Federal Register Notice set forth a policy of denial for new export requests except those that met the exception.

This Notice expands the exception of the items permitted to be exported published October 14, 1999 to, on a case by case basis, C-130 spare parts including when for the Government of Indonesia.

The African Growth and Opportunity Act (Title I of the Trade and Development Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-200) (AGOA) provides preferential tariff treatment for imports of certain textile and apparel products of beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries. The textile and apparel trade benefits provided by the AGOA are available to imports of eligible products from countries that the President designates as “beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries,” provided that these countries (1) have adopted an effective visa system and related procedures to prevent unlawful transshipment and the use of counterfeit documents, and (2) have implemented and follow, or are making substantial progress toward implementing and following, certain customs procedures that assist the Customs Service in verifying the origin of the products.

In Proclamation 7350 of October 2, 2000, the President designated 34 countries as “beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries.” Proclamation 7350 delegated to the United States Trade Representative (USTR) the authority to determine whether these countries have met the two requirements described above. The President directed the USTR to announce any such determinations in the Federal Register and to implement them through modifications of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS). Based on actions that Kenya has taken, I have determined that Kenya has satisfied these two requirements.

The AGOA also directs the President to eliminate the existing quotas on textile and apparel articles imported into the United States from Kenya within 30 days after Kenya adopts an effective visa system to prevent unlawful transshipment of textile and apparel articles and the use of counterfeit documents relating to the importation of such articles into the United States. Proclamation 7350 delegated this responsibility to the USTR.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority vested in the USTR by Proclamation 7350, the HTS is modified as provided in Proclamation 7350 and as specified in the Annex to this notice, effective with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 18, 2001. Importers claiming preferential tariff treatment under the AGOA for entries of textile and apparel articles should ensure that those entries meet the applicable visa requirements. (The visa requirements are described in a separate notice that is being published in the Federal Register concurrently with this notice.) By this notice, I direct the Customs Service to eliminate the existing quotas on textile and apparel articles imported into the United States from Kenya within 30 days of the effective date of this notice.

The African Growth and Opportunity Act (Title I of the Trade and Development Act of 2000, Public Law 106-200) (AGOA) provides preferential tariff treatment for imports of certain textile and apparel products of beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries. The textile and apparel trade benefits provided by the AGOA are available to imports of eligible products from countries that the President designates as “beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries,” provided that these countries (1) have adopted an effective visa system and related procedures to prevent unlawful transshipment and the use of counterfeit documents, and (2) have implemented and follow, or are making substantial progress toward implementing and following, certain customs procedures that assist the Customs Service in verifying the origin of the products.

In Proclamation 7350 of October 2, 2000, the President designated 34 countries as “beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries.” Proclamation 7350 delegated to the United States Trade Representative (USTR) the authority to determine whether these countries have met the two requirements described above. The President directed the USTR to announce any such determinations in the Federal Register and to implement them through modifications of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS).

By Executive Order (January 17, 2001), the President delegated to the USTR the authority to direct the Commissioner of Customs to take such actions as may be necessary to ensure that textile and apparel articles described in section 112(b) of the AGOA (19 U.S.C. 3721(b)) that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption are accompanied by an appropriate export visa, if the preferential treatment described in section 112(a) of the AGOA (19 U.S.C. 3721(a)) is claimed with respect to such articles.

In the letter published below, the USTR directs the Commissioner of Customs to require that importers provide an appropriate export visa from a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country when claiming preferential treatment under section 112(a) of the AGOA for eligible textile and apparel products that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption. This requirement is intended to ensure the effectiveness of the visa systems that beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries have adopted. A facsimile of the export visa stamp for each beneficiary sub-Saharan African country that the USTR has determined to have adopted an effective visa system and related procedures is available for public inspection in the USTR public reading room.

Importers claiming preferential tariff treatment under the AGOA for entries of textile and apparel articles should ensure that those entries meet the visa requirements set forth in the letter to the Commissioner published below.

Dear Commissioner: Pursuant to Sections 112(a) and 113(a)(1) of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Title I of Pub. L. No. 106-200) (“AGOA”) (19 U.S.C. 3721(a) and 3722(a)(1)), the bilateral Visa Arrangements that have been or will be entered into with designated beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries, and the Executive Order signed by the President on January 17, 2001 regarding the implementation of the AGOA and the United States-Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act, you are directed to require importers claiming preferential treatment for textile and apparel articles under section 112(a) of the AGOA to provide an appropriate export visa issued by the country of origin of the articles. This requirement is effective with respect to eligible textile and apparel articles of a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date that the United States Trade Representative determines that such beneficiary sub-Saharan African country has adopted an effective visa system and related procedures and has implemented and follows, or is making substantial progress toward implementing and following, the customs procedures required by the AGOA.

A shipment shall be visaed by stamping an original circular visa, in blue ink only, on the front of the original commercial invoice. The original visa shall not be stamped on duplicate copies of the invoice. The original of the invoice with the original visa stamp shall be required to obtain preferential tariff treatment under section 112(a) of the AGOA. Duplicates of the invoice and/or visa may not be used for this purpose.

Each visa stamp shall include the following information:

1. Visa Number. The visa stamp shall be in a nine digit-letter format beginning with one numeric digit for the designated grouping (1 to 9), as described below. This number is to be followed by the two-character alpha code specified by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for the designated beneficiary sub-Saharan African country, followed by a six-digit numerical serial number identifying the shipment.

Grouping 1—Apparel articles assembled in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries from fabrics wholly formed and cut in the United States, from yarns wholly formed in the United States.

Grouping 2—Apparel articles assembled in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries from fabrics wholly formed and cut in the United States, from yarns wholly formed in the United States if, after such assembly, the articles would have qualified for entry under subheading 9802.00.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) but for the fact that the articles were embroidered or subject to stone-washing, enzyme-washing, acid washing, perma-pressing, oven baking, bleaching, garment-dyeing, screen printing, or other similar processes.

Grouping 3—Apparel articles cut in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries from fabric wholly formed in the United States from yarns wholly formed in the United States if such articles are assembled in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries with thread formed in the United States.

Grouping 4—Apparel articles wholly assembled in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries from fabric wholly formed in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries from yarn originating either in the United States or one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries.

Grouping 5—Apparel articles wholly assembled in one or more lesser developed beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries regardless of the country of origin of the fabric used to make such articles.

Grouping 6—Sweaters in chief weight of cashmere, knit to shape in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries and classifiable under subheading 6110.10 of the HTS.

Grouping 7—Sweaters, 50 percent or more by weight of wool measuring 18.5 microns in diameter or finer, knit-to-shape in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries.

Grouping 8—Apparel articles wholly assembled in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries from fabric or yarn not formed in the United States or any beneficiary sub-Saharan African country, if (1) apparel articles of such fabrics or yarns would be eligible for preferential treatment, without regard to the source of the fabric or yarn, under Annex 401 to the North American Free Trade Agreement, or (2) the President proclaims that apparel articles of such fabric or yarn may be accorded preferential tariff treatment under the AGOA.

Grouping 9—Handmade, handloomed, or folklore articles (qualifying articles will be determined following bilateral consultations).

2. Date of Issuance. The date of issuance shall be the day, month, and year on which the visa was signed by an authorized government official.

3. Authorized Signature. The original signature of an authorized official of the beneficiary sub-Saharan African country or his designate.

4. Correct Grouping and Quantity. The correct grouping, the total quantity, and the unit of quantity in the shipment shall be provided within the visa stamp.

Quantities must be stated in whole numbers. Decimals or fractions shall not be accepted. If the quantity indicated on the visa is less than that of the shipment, only the quantity shown on the visa is eligible for preferential tariff treatment under section 112(a) of the AGOA. If the quantity indicated on the visa is more than that of the shipment, only the quantity of the shipment is eligible for preferential tariff treatment under section 112(a) of the AGOA. Any overage cannot be applied to any other shipment.

A visa shall not be accepted and preferential tariff treatment under section 112(a) of the AGOA shall not be permitted if the visa number, date of issuance, authorized signature, correct grouping, quantity or the unit of quantity is missing, incorrect, illegible or has been crossed out or altered in any way. If the visa is not acceptable, a new visa must be obtained from an authorized official of the beneficiary sub-Saharan African country, or his designate, before preferential tariff treatment under section 112(a) of the AGOA can be claimed. Waivers are not permitted. If the visaed invoice is deemed invalid, the Customs Service will not return the original document after entry, but will provide a certified copy of that visaed invoice for use in obtaining a new correct original visaed invoice.

The product groupings described above are in summary form. Interested persons should refer to section 112(b) of the AGOA for a complete description of the textile and apparel products for which preferential treatment may be claimed under section 112(a) of the AGOA.

This letter will be published in the Federal Register.

OMB Control Number: 2125-0025 (Expiration Date: March 31, 2001)

Title: Highway Safety Improvement Programs.

Abstract: Under sections 130(g) and 152(g) of Title 23, United States Code, each State is required to report annually to the Secretary of Transportation on the progress being made in implementing the Highway Safety Improvement Programs ( Highway-Rail Grade Crossings and Hazard Elimination) and on the effectiveness of these programs. This information provides FHWA with a means for monitoring the effectiveness of these programs. It may also be used by the Congress for determining funding levels for the Highway Safety Improvement Programs and for modifying these programs. States are also required under sections 130(d) and 152(a) of Title 23 to conduct and systematically maintain surveys to determine highway-rail grade crossings in need of improvements and to identify hazardous highway locations, sections, and elements. These surveys are the basis for establishing priorities for corrective measures, for scheduling improvements, and for evaluating the effectiveness of improvements. The States collect safety information by surveying highway-rail grade crossings and public roads for potential safety hazards. In addition, motor vehicle crash data, traffic volume data, and other highway inventory data are used by the States to identify hazards and determine which hazards would be the most cost-effective to improve.

Respondents: 52 State Transportation Departments, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

Frequency: Annually.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 10,400 hours. It is estimated that each State, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico spends 200 hours to provide this information to the FHWA.

OMB Control Number: 2125-0010 (Expiration Date: March 31, 2001).

Title: Bid Price Data.

Abstract: Information collected on Form FHWA-45, Bid Price Data, is needed for the FHWA to monitor changes in purchasing power of the Federal-aid construction dollar. FHWA follows these trends so that changes in highway construction prices can be measured and funding level recommendations to Congress can be justified. The Federal share of the cost of certain projects constructed by the States in advance of regular apportionments is adjusted based on the bid price index (Title 23 United States Code 115). Form FHWA-45 is prepared for Federal-aid highway construction contracts greater than $0.5 million in the 50 States plus Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico. Data is reported on six major items of highway construction, together with the total materials and labor costs of the project, taken from the bid tabulation of construction items submitted by the lowest or winning bidder to the State Transportation Department. The State Transportation Departments furnish copies of the bid tabulation to the FHWA that uses the data to produce the national FHWA bid price index and related statistics.

Respondents: 52 State Transportation Departments, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

Frequency: The data is collected by the States and submitted to FHWA one time, within two weeks after the project has been awarded.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 975 hours. There are approximately 1,300 annual projects that require about 37 of the State DOTs to complete the form. It takes an average of 45 minutes for each form.