Title: Credit Account Approval for Reimbursable Services.

OMB Number: 0579-0055.

Expiration Date of Approval: April 30, 2001.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The services of an Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) inspector to clear imported and exported commodities requiring release by APHIS personnel are covered by user fees during regular working hours. If an importer wishes to have a shipment of cargo cleared at other hours, such services will usually be provided on a reimbursable overtime basis, unless already covered by a user fee. Exporters wishing cargo to be certified during nonworking hours may also utilize this procedure.

Requestors of our services are usually repeat customers who request that we bill them for our services. We need to collect certain information in order for our Field Servicing Office to conduct a credit check on prospective applicants to ensure creditworthiness prior to extending credit services, and to prepare billings for such services performed.

Also, the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that agencies collect tax identification numbers from all persons doing business with the Government for purposes of collecting delinquent debts. This is one field on the APHIS Form 192, and it must be completed before credit is extended.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to extend its approval of our use of this information collection activity for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning this information collection activity. These comments will help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.25 hours per response.

Respondents: Importers/exporters who wish to set up an account for billing of inspection services provided for shipments of cargo or animals cleared during nonworking hours.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 360.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1.

Estimated annual number of responses: 360.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 90 hours.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

Title: Importation of Fruits and Vegetables.

OMB Number: 0579-0128.

Expiration Date of Approval: January 31, 2001.

Type of Request: Reinstatement of an expired information collection.

Abstract: The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible for preventing plant pests from entering the United States and controlling and eradicating plant pests in the United States. The Plant Protection Act authorizes the Department to carry out this mission. The Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) program of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is responsible for implementing the regulations that carry out the intent of this Act. The regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56 through 319.56-8) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests, including fruit flies, that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States.

The regulations in § 319.56-2w allow papayas to be imported into the continental United States, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands from certain regions of Brazil and Costa Rica under specified conditions. Allowing papayas to be imported necessitates the use of certain information collection activities, including completing phytosanitary inspection certificates, maintaining fruit fly monitoring records, and marking the cartons.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response.

Respondents: Growers of papayas in Brazil and Costa Rica and full-time, salaried plant health officials of Brazil and Costa Rica.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 50.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 10.

Estimated annual number of responses: 500.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 500 hours.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

Title: Domestic Quarantines.

OMB Number: 0579-0088.

Expiration Date of Approval: August 31, 2000.

Type of Request: Reinstatement of an expired information collection.

Abstract: The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible for, among other things, the control and eradication of plant pests. The Plant Protection Act authorizes the Department to carry out this mission.

The Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) program of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for implementing the provisions of the Act and does so through the enforcement of its domestic quarantine regulations in 7 CFR part 301 and its Hawaiian and territorial quarantine regulations in 7 CFR part 318.

Those regulations prohibit or restrict the movement of certain articles from infested areas to noninfested areas. For example, if an area of the United States has been placed under quarantine due to witchweed, then certain plants, plant products, or soil that may present a risk of spreading witchweed (regulated articles) can be moved from the quarantined area only under certain conditions (i.e., after having been treated and inspected). In this way, we prevent witchweed from spreading from quarantined areas to noninfested areas of the United States.

Implementing our various domestic quarantines often requires us to collect information from a variety of individuals who are involved in growing, packing, handling, transporting, and exporting plants and plant products. The information we collect serves as the supporting documentation required for the issuance of PPQ forms and documents that authorize the movement of regulated articles and is vital to helping us ensure that injurious plant diseases and insect pests do not spread within the United States.

Collecting this information requires us to use a number of forms and documents, including certificates, limited permits, transit permits, and outdoor household article documents.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve these forms for 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 minutes per response.

Respondents: State plant health protection authorities, State cooperators, and individuals involved in growing, packing, handling, transporting, and exporting plants and plant products.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 180,000.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 10.

Estimated annual number of responses: 1,800,000.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 90,000 hours.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

Wildlife Services (WS) of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) provides technical and operational assistance to growers who request assistance in managing blackbird damage to sunflower crops. WS loans damage abatement equipment (e.g., propane cannons, pyrotechnics) to growers, conducts training workshops, provides informational leaflets on bird damage management and sources of damage abatement tools, and conducts roost management programs to control blackbird populations near sunflower producing areas.

WS previously proposed a blackbird damage management research project for the protection of sunflowers. The environmental assessment was reviewed and several private organizations and State and Federal agencies opposed various aspects of the project, including referring to the project as a research project instead of an operational project. Comments in opposition to the project generally focused on the lack of scientific basis, its potential effect on endangered species, and the likelihood that program would be ineffective in reducing damage caused by blackbirds.

Approximately 80 percent of sunflower production in the United States occurs in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota. Sunflower production in these States has increased from 1 million kg in the early 1960's to about 1.5 billion kg, valued at $315 million, in 1999. However, increased production of sunflowers has been hampered by blackbird damage. Wildlife biologists have been unable to adequately reduce blackbird damage to economically acceptable levels for certain growers.

Sunflower seeds are an ideal food for birds because the seeds contain proteins and fats necessary for growth, molt, fat storage, and weight maintenance. Sunflowers ripen in the fall after the birds' breeding season and provide a source of high-energy food needed for molt and fat storage before the birds' fall migration. Esophageal contents of red-winged blackbirds collected in late summer and fall reveal that 93 percent of the males and 86 percent of the females had eaten sunflower seeds, which comprised 69 percent and 57 percent of the male and female diets, respectively.

Blackbirds damage unharvested sunflowers from early maturation to harvest, but damage is greatest within 18 days of anthesis (i.e., the flowers' blooming period). Damage surveys of sunflower producing areas in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota indicate that overall loss is generally 1 to 2 percent of the crop. If all producers received less than 2 percent damage, there would be little concern for damage caused by blackbirds. However, damage is not equally distributed, can be severe for some producers, and is fairly consistent from year-to-year within a locality. Research has been conducted throughout the northern Great Plains to estimate the amount of damage birds have caused to ripening sunflower crops. Sunflower damage assessments for North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota showed an estimated loss of $5.1 million in 1979 and $7.9 million in 1980. More recent quantitative bird damage surveys were conducted from 1996 to 1998 in Stutsman and Pierce Counties in North Dakota and Brown and Clark Counties in South Dakota. Assuming damage in these four counties is representative of the damage in all the primary sunflower growing areas in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota, sunflower producers in these States lost about $8.26 million annually to blackbirds.

Sunflower growers and Government agencies have used both lethal and nonlethal techniques to reduce red-winged blackbird damage to ripening sunflowers. The goal of nonlethal methods is to decrease the availability or attractiveness of the crop to blackbirds or to disperse the birds so that damage is not concentrated in any given area. Examples of nonlethal methods include altering farming practices, using audio and visual frightening devices, growing bird-resistant sunflowers, increasing weed control in fields, and growing decoy crops. Additionally, research has shown that managing dense cattail stands, which are traditional roost sites for blackbirds, aids in dispersing blackbirds from nearby sunflower crops. To date, nonlethal blackbird damage management initiatives have been somewhat effective in reducing blackbird damage to unharvested sunflowers, but have not alleviated the problem in certain areas.

WS is proposing to use Federal funds authorized by Congress to implement an integrated red-winged blackbird damage management program on private lands when requested by resource owners/managers in North Dakota, South Dakota, or Minnesota. The integrated approach would employ the use of nonlethal and lethal techniques to reduce red-winged blackbird damage to sunflowers.

Under the proposed program, WS would continue to employ the use of nonlethal control methods described earlier in this document. WS would also continue to conduct roost management programs to control red-winged blackbird populations near sunflower producing areas. Roost management activities involve the treatment of cattail stands larger than 10 acres with glyphosate herbicide. Effective management of such cattail stands can eliminate a traditional roosting site for blackbirds that is often in close proximity to sunflower crops.

Sources estimate that 39 million red-winged blackbirds migrate through North Dakota and South Dakota annually. Studies indicate that 86 percent of male red-winged blackbirds using spring roosts in the central United States migrate in a northwesterly direction and are likely to breed in the northern Great Plains sunflower growing areas.

Given the apparently successful use in the past of the avicide DRC-1339 for reducing red-winged blackbird damage to rice, a two-pronged research strategy was implemented using DRC-1339 to reduce red-winged blackbird damage to sunflowers. One strategy was to bait spring-migrating red-winged blackbirds as they migrate north to nesting areas. A second strategy was to bait red-winged blackbirds in and around ripening sunflower fields as they migrate south in late summer. Research results showed that late-summer baiting with DRC-1339 was ineffective in reducing red-winged blackbird damage to unharvested sunflowers, likely because of the availability of other food sources, especially sunflower seeds, at that time of the year. The spring baiting strategy was effective for precisely the opposite reason: Due to the lack of other food sources available to blackbirds in the spring, the birds took the bait.

Under the proposed program, WS would employ the use of 2 percent DRC-1339-treated brown rice at red-winged blackbird staging areas in the spring to reduce breeding populations and subsequent damage to ripening sunflowers in the fall. DRC-1339 baiting would occur on not more than 50 acres in harvested fields near red-winged blackbird staging areas in east-central South Dakota and target not more than 2 million red-winged blackbirds annually. The baiting areas would be determined based on the most current red-winged blackbird roost site distribution and the areas where red-winged blackbirds stage. A baiting dilution rate of one treated rice grain to 25 untreated grains proved to be the most efficient in reducing red-winged blackbird populations in Louisiana. The same ratio would be used to protect sunflowers and reduce the risks to nontarget granivorous birds. Baiting areas and sites would be determined through field observations by trained personnel, and DRC-1339-treated bait would not be distributed until risks to nontarget species were evaluated and red-winged blackbirds readily accept the untreated rice.

Scientists from North Dakota State University, South Dakota State University, and the National Wildlife Research Center's Great Plains Field Station carried out a baiting strategies research program designed to evaluate nontarget effects associated with the use of DRC-1339 treated rice baits.

DRC-1339 was selected for reducing red-winged blackbird damage because of its high toxicity to blackbirds and low toxicity to most mammals, sparrows, finches, and other nontarget species. Red-winged blackbirds likely die as a result of uremic poisoning. The LD50 values for European starlings, other blackbirds, and black-billed magpies range from 1 to 5 mg/kg. DRC-1339 is toxic to doves, pigeons, quails, chickens, ducks, and geese at ≥5.6 mg/kg. In cage trials, 2 percent DRC-1339-treated rice baits did not kill savannah sparrows. Gallinaceous birds and waterfowl may be more resistant to DRC-1339 than blackbirds, and their large size may reduce the chances of ingesting a lethal dose of toxicant.

Whooping cranes (Grus americana) are the only endangered granivorous birds in the northern Great Plains that could potentially be affected by the consumption of DRC-1339 rice baits; however, they feed in large open areas. If whooping cranes are detected in treatment areas, the baiting program would be stopped with minimal risk to the birds. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), located in Pierre, SD, has reviewed environmental assessments related to the use of DRC-1339 rice baits to reduce red-winged blackbird damage in South Dakota. Although two FWS biological opinions on research projects stated the DRC-1339-treated rice baits were not likely to jeopardize endangered species in South Dakota, a new opinion will be sought.

The potential effects of DRC-1339-treated rice baits on ring-necked pheasants is of special concern for wildlife managers. Thus, in 1994 through 1997, the behavior of pheasants in relation to bait sites was studied in South Dakota. The data suggested that pheasants did not favor plots treated with rice over reference (untreated) plots. However, pheasants were observed feeding through the rice-baited plots on a number of occasions. In addition to field studies, scientists of South Dakota State University conducted independent laboratory studies that showed DRC-1339 did not significantly affect normal pheasant egg-laying, egg hatching, chick survival, or adult survivorship until the bird was near death. In early 1995, small cage and large enclosure studies were conducted to determine female pheasant's preference for brown rice. These studies indicated that some female pheasants prefer cracked corn and sorghum over rice.

DRC-1339 is rapidly metabolized and excreted by birds that ingest treated baits, and it does not bioaccumulate, which probably accounts for its low secondary hazard profile. For example, cats, owls, and magpies would be at risk only after exclusively eating DRC-1339-poisoned starlings for 30 continuous days. Studies using the American kestrel as a surrogate species show that secondary hazards to raptors are minimal, and these birds are not put at risk by DRC-1339 baiting. DRC-1339 also degrades rapidly by ultraviolet light and heat and has a half-life of less than 2 days.

The avian toxicant DRC-1339 (3-Chloro-p-toluidine hydrochloride) has been used to reduce blackbird populations causing agricultural damage in Louisiana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas under section 24C of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. In February 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted a section 3 label for “Compound DRC-1339 Concentrate-Staging Areas” for bird control in noncrop staging areas associated with red-winged blackbird roosts. The section 24C label for “Compound DRC-1339 Concentrate—ND and SD” is still in effect for North Dakota because this label allows a broader use pattern, including baiting within ripening sunflower fields during late summer.

We are encouraging members of the public and interested agencies and organizations to assist in the planning of this program and the development of an environmental assessment by answering the following questions:

• What issues or concerns about the proposed sunflower protection program should we analyze?

• What alternatives to the proposed action should we analyze?

• Do you have additional information (i.e., scientific data or studies) that we should consider in the analysis?

Information received will be considered in an environmental assessment (EA) prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act to determine if an environmental impact statement is necessary. Several issues have already been identified as areas of concern for consideration in the EA:

• Cumulative effects of the proposed damage management program on red-winged blackbird populations.

• Safety concerns regarding the potential effects of the proposed damage management program on the public, domestic pets, and nontarget species, including threatened and endangered species.

• Efficacy of DRC-1339 spring baiting in reducing damage to unharvested sunflowers.

• Public concern about WS' use of chemicals.

• DRC-1339 spring baiting effects on biodiversity.

Other issues may also be included in the analysis and will be identified based on comments submitted by the public and other agencies.

Several alternatives that have been identified for consideration are:

• No involvement by WS in sunflower protection.

• Continue the current WS blackbird damage management program.

• Continue the current WS blackbird damage management program, plus implement a DRC-1339 baiting program of spring-migrating red-winged blackbirds in eastern South Dakota (proposed action).

Other alternatives may also be included in the analysis and will be identified based on comments submitted by the public and other agencies.

On May 4, 1999, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) titled “Aquaculture: Farm-Raised Fin Fish” in the Federal Register (64 FR 23795-23796, Docket No. 98-085-1). We published this ANPR after receiving petitions 1 asking us to regulate aquaculture in various ways. Many petitioners asked us to define farmed aquatic animals as livestock. In general, the petitioners seemed to be interested in receiving the same services that domestic producers of livestock receive for animals moving in interstate and foreign commerce. However, based on the petitions alone, it was difficult for us to determine what segments of the industry want services and exactly what services they want. It was also difficult to determine the objectives sought by the petitioners who were requesting Federal regulation. We published the ANPR in an attempt to clarify the industry's needs, the nature of the services sought, and the concerns the petitioners had with regard to such regulations.

We received 55 comments 2 in response to the ANPR. A majority of the commenters supported the idea of APHIS regulation of cultured fin fish. Unfortunately, the commenters generally did not clearly distinguish between fin fish raised for food and ornamental fin fish. Commenters who wanted regulation were, however, very clear that they want programs to prevent and control disease and to support increased commerce, both domestic and export.

The commenters also suggested that any rulemaking initiated by APHIS be a negotiated rulemaking. In negotiated rulemaking, industry representatives and other interested persons meet with APHIS officials and draft proposed regulations together. The proposed regulations are then published for public comment. Negotiated rulemaking is designed to ensure that all interested persons are involved together from the start in the development of regulations.

Unfortunately, negotiated rulemaking is not suitable for all situations. It works well when there is a small number of interested parties and the parties are easy to identify. This is not the case with aquaculture. Because the aquaculture industry is large and diverse, we would have difficulty identifying everyone who should be represented in a negotiated rulemaking. In addition, many parties outside of aquaculture would have a substantial interest in such a rulemaking. In our view, the number of people who would need to participate in a negotiated rulemaking would be too large and would suggest that negotiated rulemaking is not appropriate. Furthermore, a negotiated rulemaking would be expensive, and APHIS does not have adequate funds. Therefore, we have concluded that it would not be appropriate to pursue an aquaculture negotiated rulemaking.

However, we have not decided whether to pursue aquaculture rulemaking by other means. Before we make that decision, we want to have as much information as possible from all interested persons, and we want to provide you with as much opportunity as possible to discuss with us and inform us regarding the relevant issues.

Therefore, we are holding a series of public meetings. Public meetings allow all interested parties—industry representatives, producers, consumers, and others—to present their views and to exchange information among themselves and with APHIS.

There are no set agendas for the meetings. Any issues and concerns related to aquaculture and possible APHIS regulatory action can be discussed. However, we would like more information on three specific issues. These are issues that the people and organizations who commented on our ANPR either did not address or were unclear about. Specifically, if APHIS does propose regulations: (1) Should our program be mandatory or voluntary; (2) should we cover shell fish; and (3) should we cover ornamental fin fish?

Information elicited at the meetings could result in a new APHIS regulatory program or in changes to aquaculture-related services currently provided by APHIS.

We have scheduled this public meeting, the third meeting in our series, for Thursday, April 5, 2001, at the University of Maine at Machias, ME. If you wish to speak at the meeting, please register in advance by calling the Regulatory Analysis and Development voice mail at (301) 734-8139. Leave a message with your name, telephone number, organization, if any, and an estimate of the time you need to speak. You may also register at the meeting. Please register at the meeting room between 9 a.m. and 9:30 a.m., 12 noon and 12:30 p.m., and 4:30 p.m. and 5 p.m., before the meeting officially begins. Starting with the advance registrants, we will call speakers in the order in which they registered.

The meeting will begin at 5 p.m. and is scheduled to end at 8:30 p.m. We may end the meeting early if all the registered speakers have had a chance to speak and if no one else wants to speak. We may also extend the meeting or limit the time allowed for each speaker, if necessary, so all interested persons have an opportunity to participate.

An APHIS representative will preside at the meeting. The meeting will be recorded. We encourage speakers to present written statements, though it is not required. If you choose to present a written statement, please provide the chairperson with a copy. The complete record, including the transcript and all written comments, will be available to the public.

This meeting is the third in our series of public meetings. The first public meeting was held on January 25, 2001, in Lake Buena Vista, FL. The second public meeting was held on February 16, 2001, in Hebron, KY. We plan to hold additional meetings in Idaho (June 2001, in conjunction with the Idaho Aquaculture Association Annual Meeting), Washington (September 2001, in conjunction with the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association Annual Conference), Pennsylvania (October 2001, in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Aquaculture Advisory Committee and Pennsylvania Aquaculture Association Annual Meeting), Mississippi (October 2001, in conjunction with a meeting of the Catfish Farmers of America), and Arkansas (October 2001, in conjunction with a meeting of the Catfish Farmers of Arkansas). We will publish a notice or notices in the Federal Register announcing the dates, times, and locations of the meetings.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has previously announced that it is scheduling the tenth public meeting on veterinary biologics in Ames, IA, on April 10 and 11, 2001 (see 65 FR 69729, Docket No. 00-113-1). In that notice, APHIS requested that interested persons submit suggestions for agenda topics. Based on the submissions received and on other considerations, the agenda for the tenth public meeting includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• International harmonization;

• Labeling;

• Animal care;

• Target animal safety;

• Duration of immunity/efficacy; and

• Updates on current topics of interest.

In addition to the above topics, we will also hold a breakout session to discuss rabies vaccine testing. During the “open discussion” portion of the meeting, attendees will have the opportunity to present their views on any matter concerning the APHIS veterinary biologics program. Comments may be either impromptu or prepared. Persons wishing to make a prepared statement should indicate their intention to do so at the time of registration by indicating the subject of their remarks and the approximate amount of time they would like to speak. APHIS welcomes and encourages the presentation of comments at the meeting.

Registration forms, lodging information, and copies of the agenda for the tenth public meeting maybe obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. This information is also accessible on the world wide web at the following address: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/cvb.

This proposal has a Forest Service permit of up to 1,097 cattle year-round on the 248,792 acres Windmill Allotment. This is the same number of cattle as currently permitted. An additional Arizona State Land Department permit of 160 head in the summer and 155 head in the winter is also included. To meet objectives, approximately $71,450 will be spent on structural improvements. The Forest Service will spend approximately $31,565 primarily for materials and the permittee will spend approximately $39,885 primarily for construction of the improvements. These improvements are designed to reduce cattle impacts in large pastures by improving cattle distribution, reducing graze periods and increasing rest periods. A reduction in pasture size will also improve overall management by reducing time needed to gather cattle from these large and rough pastures. Annual Operating Plans will adjust cattle numbers and/or grazing rotations so cattle use is consistent with current productivity (as in drought condtions) and so plant, soil and watershed condtions can be maintained or improved while range structures are built over time.

The Proposed Action was mailed to over 30 individuals, organizations and cooperating resource agencies for review and comment on July 5, 2000. From comments received, the Team will develop statements to capture the substantive issues and developed alternatives other than the proposed action. If you would like a copy of the proposed action please contact our office. Your comments will be included in our environmental analysis.

It is anticipated that environmental analysis and preparation of the draft and final environmental impact statements will take about four months. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement can be expected June of 2001 and the Final EIS in late summer. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement extends 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register.

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court ruling related to public participation in the environmental review process. To be the most helpful, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible and may address the adequacy of the statement or the merits of the alternatives discussed (see Council of Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3).

In addition, Federal court decisions have established that reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewers' position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC 435 US 519, 553 (1978). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement. City of Angoon v. Hodel 9th Circuit, 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). The reason for this is to ensure that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council of Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Under the authority of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act of 1979, as amended, (50 U.S.C. 98 et seq.), the Department of Defense (DOD), as National Defense Stockpile Manager, maintains a stockpile of strategic and critical materials to supply the military, industrial, and essential civilian needs of the United States for national defense. Section 3314 of the Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (50 U.S.C. 98h-1) formally established a Market Impact Committee (the Committee) to “advise the National Defense Stockpile Manager on the projected domestic and foreign economic effects of all acquisitions and disposals of materials from the stockpile * * *.” The Committee must also balance market impact concerns with the statutory requirement to protect the Government against avoidable loss.

The Committee is comprised of representatives from the Departments of Commerce, State, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Treasury, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and is co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and State. The FY 1993 NDAA directs the Committee to “consult from time to time with representatives of producers, processors and consumers of the types of materials stored in the stockpile.”

The National Defense Stockpile Administrator has proposed revising both the current FY 2001 Annual Materials Plan (AMP) and the proposed FY 2002 AMP (both AMPs previously approved by the Committee) to increase the disposal quantities of Vegetable Tannin (Quebracho) and Talc, and sales of Sebacic Acid and Tungsten Metal Powder as set forth in Attachment 1 to this Notice. The proposed increases will allow for the burial of additional quantities of Vegetable Tannin and Talc; and will permit additional quantities of Sebacic Acid and Tungsten Metal Powder to be sold at high prices into a world market currently experiencing a shortage of these materials. The Committee is seeking public comments on the potential market impact of these proposed increases.

The quantities of Vegetable Tannin (Quebracho), Talc, Sebacic Acid, and Tungsten Metal Powder (including the proposed increases) listed in both the FY 2001 and proposed FY 2002 AMPs are not sales target disposal quantities. They are only a statement of the proposed maximum quantities of these materials that may be disposed of or sold in a particular fiscal year. The quantities of materials that will actually be offered for sale will depend on the market for the materials at the time of their offering as well as on the quantities of the materials approved for disposal by Congress.

The Committee requests that interested parties provide written comments, supporting data and documentation, and any other relevant information on the potential market impact of the proposed increased disposal quantities of Vegetable Tannin (Quebracho) and Talc, and sales of Sebacic Acid and Tungsten Metal Powder. Although comments in response to this Notice must be received by April 23, 2001 to ensure full consideration by the Committee, interested parties are encouraged to submit comments and supporting information at any time thereafter to keep the Committee informed as to the market impact of the sales of these materials. Public comment is an important element of the Committee's market impact review process.

Public comments received will be made available at the Department of Commerce for public inspection and copying. Anyone submitting business confidential information should clearly identify the business confidential portion of the submission and also provide a non-confidential submission that can be placed in the public file. The Committee will seek to protect such information to the extent permitted by law.

The public record concerning this notice will be maintained in the Bureau of Export Administration's Records Inspection Facility, Room 4525, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone (202) 482-5653. The records in this facility may be inspected and copied in accordance with the regulations published in part 4 of Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR 4.1 et seq.).

Information about the inspection and copying of records at the facility may be obtained from Ms. Dawnielle Battle, the Bureau of Export Administration's Freedom of Information Officer, at the above address and telephone number.

The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2000), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with February anniversary dates. The Department also received timely requests to revoke in part the antidumping duty orders on Heavy Forged Hand Tools (axes/adzes, bars/wedges, hammers/sledges, and picks/mattocks) from the People's Republic of China and Stainless Steel Bar from India.

In accordance with section 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than February 28, 2002.

During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under section 351.211 or a determination under section 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspensed investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.

These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 USC 1675(a)), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

Because it is not practicable to complete these administrative reviews within the time limits mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) of Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results. Each of these reviews involves complicated issues related to cost of production. In addition, we are required to verify the information submitted in the Japanese review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.307(iii) and (v). Because we need additional time to analyze the respondents' data, as well as to conduct verification, we have extended the deadline for the completion of the preliminary results until October 1, 2001.

This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(3)(A)) and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to collect information on fishing vessel expenses and earnings in the south Atlantic snapper/grouper fishery to conduct economic analyses that will improve fishery management in that fishery; satisfy NMFS’ legal mandates under Executive Order 12866, the Magnuson-Steven Fishery Conservation and Management Act (U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act; and quantify achievement of the performances measures in the NMFS Strategic Operating Plans. Used in conjunction with catch and effort data already being collected in this fishery as part of its logbook program, this data will be used to assess how fishermen will be impacted by and respond to any regulation likely to be considered by fishery managers.

Owners of selected vessels with Federal commercial permits in the south Atlantic snapper/grouper will be required to report information about trip costs, input usage, input prices, and dockside prices as part of the logbook reporting requirements in this fishery. In addition, these vessel owners will be required to complete and submit by mail a separate form about annual fixed cost information such as expenditures for repair and maintenance, gear purchase and repair, fishing licenses and permits, insurance, dock fees, repayment on boat and business loans, office expenses and so forth.

OMB Number: 0648-0016

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,700.

Estimated Time Per Response: 10 minutes for trip and earnings questions, 20 minutes for annual fixed cost survey.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 6,232.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

United States participation in the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) results in certain recordkeeping requirements for U.S. fishermen who fish in the IATTC’s area of management responsibility. These fishermen must maintain a log of all operations conducted from the fishing vessel, including the date, noon position, and the tonnage of fish aboard the vessel, by species. The logbook form provided by the IATTC is universally used by U.S. fishermen to meet this recordkeeping requirement, as permitted by the regulations. Information in the logbooks includes areas of operation and catch and effort by area. Logbook data are used in stock assessments and other research concerning the fishery. If the data were not collected or if erroneous data were provided, the IATTC assessments would likely be incorrect and there would be an increased risk of overfishing or inadequate management of the fishery.

Vessel operators maintain bridge logs on a daily basis, and the forms are collected by the IATTC at the completion of each trip. The data are processed by the IATTC.

OMB Number: 0648-0148.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Individuals, business and other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 20.

Estimated Time Per Response: 10 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 352.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

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.

Funding for the PEACESAT Program is provided pursuant to Public Law 106-553, the “Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001” and Public Law 106-113, “The Consolidated Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 2000.” Public Law 106-113 provides “That, hereafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Pan-Pacific Education and Communications Experiments by Satellite (PEACESAT) Program is eligible to compete for Public Broadcasting Facilities, Planning and Construction funds.” The PEACESAT Program was authorized under P.L. 100-584 (102 Stat. 2970) and also P. L. 101-555 (104 Stat. 2758) to acquire satellite communications services to provide educational, medical, and cultural needs of Pacific Basin communities. The PEACESAT Program has been operational since 1971 and has received funding from NTIA for support of the project since 1988.

Public Law 106-553 appropriated $43.5 million for this account to be awarded for Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP) grants and for PEACESAT Program grants. The solicitation notice for the PTFP Program was published in the Federal Register on December 21, 2000 (65 FR 80709). Applications submitted in response to this solicitation for PEACESAT applications are not subject to the requirements of the December 21, 2000 Notice and are exempt from the PTFP regulations at 15 CFR part 2301. NTIA anticipates making a single award for approximately $475,000 for the PEACESAT Program in FY2001.

NTIA requests that each applicant for a PEACESAT Program grant supply one (1) original signed application and five (5) copies, unless doing so would present a financial hardship, in which case the applicant may submit one (1) original and two (2) copies of the application. The application form consists of the Standard Form 424 Application for Federal Assistance; Standard Form 424A Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs; Standard Form 424 B, Assurances; Standard Form CD-511 Certification; and Standard Form LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (if applicable). These requirements are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act and have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040 and 0348-0046.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that collection displays a currently valid Office of Managment and Budget control number.

Eligible applicants will include any for-profit or non-profit organization, public or private entity, other than an agency or division of the Federal government. Individuals are not eligible to apply for the PEACESAT Program funds.

Grant recipients under this program will not be required to provide matching funds toward the total project cost.

The costs allowable under this Notice are not subject to the limitation on costs contained in the December 21, 2000 Notice regarding the PTFP Program.

Public Law 106-553 was enacted December 21, 2000. Public Law 106-553 appropriated funds to the Public Broadcasting, Facilities, Planning and Construction Funds account. Pursuant to Public Law 106-113 the Pan-Pacific Education and Communications Experiments by Satellite (PEACESAT) Program can compete for funds from the Public Broadcasting, Facilities, Planning and Construction Funds account. Funds appropriated to the Public Broadcasting, Facilities, Planning and Construction Funds account do not carry fiscal year limitations. A notice published on March 16, 1999 set forth the scope of the project and eligible costs, and a description of the evaluation and selection process for applications for the PEACESAT Program. Since funds for the Public Broadcasting, Facilities, Planning and Construction Funds account are available without limitations, the administrative requirements; scope of project and eligible costs criteria; and evaluation and selection process criteria set forth in the March 16, 1999 notice apply to the 1999 PEACESAT program and to all subsequent years. A copy of the March 16, 1999 Notice is available to potential applicants from NTIA at the address listed in the Addresses section and is also available on the INTERNET at www.ntia.doc.gov/otiahome/peacesat/peacesat.html If, in the future, NTIA changes the administrative requirements; the scope of project and eligible costs criteria; or the evaluation and selection process criteria, a new notice will be published containing the new criteria and requirements.

Any project awarded pursuant to this notice will be for a one-year period.

This meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with the Committee after receiving advance approval for participation. To request advance approval or obtain further information, contact Lieutenant Colonel Cary A. Hilton at the above address or phone number.

This program is a Special Focus Competition to support projects addressing a particular problem area or improvement approach in postsecondary education. The competition also includes an invitational priority to encourage proposals designed to support the formation of educational consortia of American, Canadian and Mexican institutions to encourage cooperation in the coordination of curricula, the exchange of students and the opening of educational opportunities throughout North America. The invitational priority is issued in cooperation with Canada and Mexico. Canadian and Mexican institutions participating in any consortium proposal responding to the invitational priority may apply, respectively, to Human Resources Development Canada and the Mexican Department of Public Education for additional funding under separate Canadian and Mexican competitions.

The Secretary is particularly interested in applications that meet the following invitational priority. However, an application that meets this invitational priority does not receive competitive or absolute preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Invitational Priority: Projects that support consortia of institutions of higher education that promote institutional cooperation and student mobility among the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

The Secretary gives equal weight to the listed criteria. Within each of the criteria, the Secretary gives equal weight to each of the factors.

In evaluating applications for grants under this program competition, the Secretary uses selection criteria chosen from those listed in 34 CFR 75.210 of EDGAR.

For Applications or Information Contact: Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20006-8544. You may also request application forms by calling 732-544-2504 (fax on demand), or application guidelines by calling 202-358-3041 (voice mail) or submitting the name of the competition and your name and postal address to FIPSE@ED.GOV (e-mail).

Applications are also listed on the FIPSE Web Site: http://www.ed.gov/FIPSE; e-APPLICATIONS are available at: http://e-grants.ed.gov.

Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339. For additional program information call the FIPSE office (202-502-7500) between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday.

Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact number listed under For Applications or Information Contact.

Individuals with disabilities also may obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format by contacting that number. However, the Department is not able to reproduce in an alternative format the standard forms included in the application package.

The U.S. Department of Education is expanding its pilot project of electronic submission of applications to include certain formula grant programs, as well as additional discretionary grant competitions. The Program for North American Mobility in Higher Education CFDA No. 84.116N is one of the programs included in the pilot project. If you are an applicant under the Program for North American Mobility in Higher Education, you may submit your application to us in either electronic or paper format.

The pilot project involves the use of the Electronic Grant Application System (e-APPLICATION, formerly e-GAPS) portion of the Grant Administration and Payment System (GAPS). We request your participation in this pilot project. We shall continue to evaluate its success and solicit suggestions for improvement.

If you participate in this e-APPLICATION pilot, please note the following:

• Your participation is voluntary.

• You will not receive any additional point value or penalty because you submit a grant application in electronic or paper format.

• You can submit all documents electronically, including the Title Page, (substitutes for the ED Form 424), Budget Summary Form (substitutes for the ED Form 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

• Fax a signed copy of the Title Page after following these steps:

1. Print the Title Page from the e-APPLICATION system.

2. Make sure that the institution's Authorizing Representative signs this form.

3. Before faxing this form, submit your electronic application via the e-APPLICATION system. You will receive an automatic acknowledgement, which will include a PR/Award number (an identifying number unique to your application).

4. Place the PR/Award number in the upper right hand corner of the Title Page.

5. Fax the Title Page to the Application Control Center within three working days of submitting your electronic application. We will indicate a fax number in e-APPLICATION at the time of your submission.

• We may request that you give us original signatures on all other forms at a later date.

You may access the electronic grant application for the Program for North American Mobility in Higher Education at: http://e-grants.ed.gov.

We have included additional information about the e-APPLICATION pilot project (see Parity Guidelines between Paper and Electronic Applications) in the application package.

You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at either of the following sites:

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader Program which is available free at either of the previous sites. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) toll free at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities at the international border of the United States for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country is prohibited in the absence of a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 10485, as amended by EO 12038.

On February 27, 2001, BCP, a special purpose company and wholly-owned subsidiary of InterGen Aztec Energy V, B.V., and an indirect subsidiary of InterGen N.V., a Dutch limited liability company, filed an application with the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) for a Presidential permit. BCP proposes to construct a double-circuit 230,000-volt (230-kV) across the U.S.-Mexico international border.

The BCP transmission line project will originate at a proposed powerplant to be owned by an affiliate, Energia de Baja California (EBC), an independent power producer. EBC will own and operate the powerplant adjacent to a larger, 750-megawatt (MW) powerplant being constructed by Energia Azteca X (EAX) (also an independent power producer and InterGen affiliate). The EBC and EAX powerplants are to be constructed approximately 10 miles west of the City of Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico. The proposed transmission line would head north from the associated Energia de Baja California powerplant switchyard and cross the Mexico/U.S. border west of Calexico, California, and continue to the SDG&E Imperial Valley Substation by paralleling, to the east, the existing SDG&E Imperial Valley to La Rosita transmission line. The length of the proposed transmission line would be approximately 6 miles in Mexico and an additional 5.4 miles in California. Initially, BCP proposes to install only one set of conductors, thus creating a single electrical circuit. At a later date, the second set of conductors (second electrical circuit) could be added and the transmission facilities could also transmit electric energy generated at the EAX facility to the United States. The EBC generation facilities are expected to be placed in service in June 2002. The EAX generation facilities are expected to be placed in service in March 2003.

Since restructuring of the electric power industry began, resulting in the introduction of different types of competitive entities into the marketplace, DOE has consistently expressed its policy that cross-border trade in electric energy should be subject to the same principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination that apply to transmission in interstate commerce. DOE has stated that policy in export authorizations granted to entities requesting authority to export over international transmission facilities. Specifically, DOE expects transmitting utilities owning border facilities to provide access across the border in accordance with the principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination contained in the FPA and articulated in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Order No. 888 (Promotion Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public utilities; FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶31,036 (1996)), as amended. In furtherance of this policy, on July 27, 1999, (64 FR 40586) DOE initiated a proceeding in which it noticed its intention to condition existing and future Presidential permits, appropriate for third party transmission, on compliance with a requirement to provide non-discriminatory open access transmission service. That proceeding is not yet complete. However, in this docket DOE specifically requests comment on the appropriateness of applying the open access requirement on BCP's proposed facilities.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding or to be heard by filing comments or protests to this application should file a petition to intervene, comment or protest at the address provided above in accordance with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the FERC's rules of practice and procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with the DOE on or before the date listed above.

Additional copies of such petitions to intervene or protests also should be filed directly with: Orlando Martinez, Manager, Development, InterGen, Two Alhambra Plaza, Suite 1100, Coral Gables, Florida 33134-5202.

Before a Presidential permit may be issued or amended, the DOE must determine that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system. In addition, DOE must consider the environmental impacts of the proposed action (i.e., granting the Presidential permit, with any conditions and limitations, or denying the permit) pursuant to NEPA. DOE also must obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense before taking final action on a Presidential permit application.

Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above. In addition, the application may be reviewed or downloaded from the Fossil Energy Home Page at: http://www.fe.doe.gov. Upon reaching the Fossil Energy Home page, select “Electricity” from the options menu, and then “Pending Proceedings.”

The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities at the international border of the United States for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country is prohibited in the absence of a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 10485, as amended by EO 12038.

On March 7, 2001, SER, a non-regulated generating company, filed an application with the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) for a Presidential permit. SER proposes to construct a double-circuit 230,000 volt (230-kV) transmission line originating from San Diego Gas & Electric Company's (SDG&E) existing Imperial Valley Substation, located in Imperial County, California, and extending approximately six miles south to the United States border with Mexico. At the border, the SER facilities will interconnect with similar facilities owned by Termoeléctrica de Mexicali (TDM) and continue an additional three miles to a new 500-megawatt (MW) powerplant being developed by TDM west of the town of Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico.

In Mexico and in California, the transmission line proposed by SER will parallel SDG&E's existing Imperial Valley-La Rosita international transmission line (previously authorized by Presidential Permit PP-79), west of Calexico, California, and is proposed to be sited within land managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

In its application, SER proposes to transmit electricity from the TDM powerplant into the California electrical system. Transmission of electric energy from California to Mexico would occur only for purposes of providing “black start” capability to the powerplant.

Since restructuring of the electric power industry began, resulting in the introduction of different types of competitive entities into the marketplace, DOE has consistently expressed its policy that cross-border trade in electric energy should be subject to the same principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination that apply to transmission in interstate commerce. DOE has stated that policy in export authorizations granted to entities requesting authority to export over international transmission facilities. Specifically, DOE expects transmitting utilities owning border facilities to provide access across the border in accordance with the principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination contained in the FPA and articulated in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Order No. 888 (Promotion Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public utilities; FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 (1996)), as amended. In furtherance of this policy, on July 27, 1999, (64 FR 40586) DOE initiated a proceeding in which it noticed its intention to condition existing and future Presidential permits, appropriate for third party transmission, on compliance with a requirement to provide non-discriminatory open access transmission service. That proceeding is not yet complete. However, in this docket DOE specifically requests comment on the appropriateness of applying the open access requirement on SER's proposed facilities.

Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding or to be heard by filing comments or protests to this application should file a petition to intervene, comment or protest at the address provided above in accordance with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the FERC's rules of practice and procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with the DOE on or before the date listed above.

Additional copies of such petitions to intervene or protests also should be filed directly with: Alberto Abreu, Director, Permitting and Licensing, Sempra Energy Resources, 101 Ash Street, PO Box 1831, San Diego, CA 92112-4150.

Before a Presidential permit may be issued or amended, the DOE must determine that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system. In addition, DOE must consider the environmental impacts of the proposed action (i.e., granting the Presidential permit, with any conditions and limitations, or denying the permit) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. DOE also must obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense before taking final action on a Presidential permit application.

Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above. In addition, the application may be reviewed or downloaded from the Fossil Energy Home Page at: http://www.fe.doe.gov. Upon reaching the Fossil Energy Home page, select “Electricity” from the options menu, and then “Pending Proceedings.”

OMB Control No.: 3060-XXXX.

Title: Promotion of Competitive Networks in Local Telecommunications Markets Multiple Environments (47 CFR Parts 1, 64, and 68).

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households, businesses or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, federal government, and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 6,421.

Estimated Time Per Response: .50-120 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, third party disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 623,910 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket 99-217, to foster competition in local communications markets by implementing measure to ensure that competing telecommunications providers are able to provide services to customers in multiple tenant environments (“MTE”).

Specifically, the Order (1) prohibits carriers from entering into contracts that restrict or effectively restrict a property owner's ability to permit entry by competing carriers; (2) establishes procedures to facilitate moving the demarcation point to the minimum point of entry (“MPOE”) at the building owner's request, and requires incumbent local exchange carriers (“LECs”) to timely disclose the location of existing demarcation points where they are not located at the MPOE; (3) determines that, under section 224 of the Communications Act, utilities, including LECs, must afford telecommunications carriers and cable service providers reasonable and nondiscriminatory access to conduits and right-of-way located in customer buildings and campuses, to the extent such conduits and rights-of-way located are owned and controlled by the utility; and (4) extends to antennas that receive and transmit telecommunications and other fixed wireless signals of the existing prohibition of restrictions that impair the installation, maintenance or use of certain video antennas on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user, where the use has a direct or indirect ownership or leasehold interest in the property.

GSA published GSA Bulletin FPMR G-202 dated June 22, 1999, Eliminating the Use of Standard Form (SF) 1169, U.S. Government Transportation Request (GTR), in the Federal Register on July 2, 1999 (64 FR 36018). The bulletin gave notification of the proposed elimination of SF 1169 with final GSA action anticipated early in the calendar year 2001. GSA also cancelled, effective December 5, 2000, the constructions of the SF 1169 because low user demand (65 FR 75938, December 5, 2000). The 2-part set and 4-part set book are cancelled; only the 4-part single set version of the form is currently available.

Collectively, Federal agencies have supported the concept of GTR elimination; however, there may be some exceptions requiring its continued use in limited cases. GSA is asking Federal agencies to identify any circumstances that would require continued use of SF 1169. GSA is also exploring whether or not the standard form should be converted to an optional form.

GSA is seeking additional information. Transportation service providers and other interested parties are urged to participate by returning comments. Federal agencies are asked to, at a minimum, identify the exceptions for essential use of SF 1169. Official address, contact, and due date are stated above.

Under the provisions of section 2603(7) of Title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Pub. L. 97-35, as amended), we are announcing the estimated median income of a four-person family for each state, the District of Columbia, and the United States for FFY 2002 (the period of October 1, 2001, through September 30, 2002).

Section 2605(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the LIHEAP statute provides that 60 percent of the median income for each state, as annually established by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, is one of the income criteria that LIHEAP grantees may use in determining a household's eligibility for LIHEAP.

LIHEAP is currently authorized through the end of FFY 2004 by the Coats Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-285, which was enacted on October 27, 1998.

Estimates of the median income of four-person families for each State and the District of Columbia for FFY 2002 have been developed by the Bureau of the Census of the U.S. Department of Commerce, using the most recently available income data. In developing the median income estimates for FFY 2002, the Bureau of the Census used the following three sources of data: (1) the March 2000 Current Population Survey; (2) the 1990 Decennial Census of Population; and (3) 1999 per capita personal income estimates, by state, from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Like the estimates for FFY 2001, the FFY 2002 estimates include income estimates from the March Current Population Survey that are based on population controls from the 1990 Decennial Census of Population. Income estimates prior to FFY 1996 from the March Current Population Survey had been based on population controls from the 1980 Decennial Census of Population. Generally, the use of 1990 population controls results in somewhat lower estimates of income.

In 1999, BEA revised its methodology in estimating per capita personal income estimates. BEA's revised methodology is reflected in the FFY 2002 state 4-person family median income estimates. Generally, the revised methodology decreased, on average, state median income estimates by about 0.04 percent. For further information on the estimating method and data sources, contact the Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, at the Bureau of the Census (301-457-3243).

A state-by-state listing of median income, and 60 percent of median income, for a four-person family for FFY 2002 follows. The listing describes the method for adjusting median income for families of different sizes as specified in regulations applicable to LIHEAP, at 45 CFR 96.85(b), which was published in the Federal Register on March 3, 1988 at 53 FR 6824.

Title: National Park Service, National Capital Region Application for a Permit to Conduct a Demonstration Special Event in Park Areas and a Waiver or Numerical Limitations on Demonstrations for White House Sidewalk and/or Lafayette Park.

Department Form Number: None.

OMB Number: 1024-0021.

Expiration Date: To be requested.

Type of Request: Reinstatement without change.

Description of Need: The information collection responds to the statutory requirements that the NPS preserve park resources and regulate the use of units of the National Park System. The information to be collected identifies: (1) Those individuals and/or organizations that wish to conduct a public gathering on NPS property in the National Capital Region, (2) the logistics of a proposed demonstration or special event that aid the NPS in regulating activities to insure that they are consistent with the NPS mission, (3) potential civil disobedience and traffic control issues for the assignment of United States Park Police personnel, (4) circumstances which may warrant a bond to be assigned to the event for purpose of covering potential cost to repair damage caused by the event.

Description of Respondents: Respondents are those individuals or organizations that wish to conduct a special event or demonstration on NPS property within the National Capital Region.

Estimated average number of annual responses: 4200.

Estimated average of burden hours per response: 30 minutes.

Estimated annual reporting burden: 2100 hours.

Background.—Following receipt of a report from the Commission in December 1999 under section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252) containing an affirmative determination and remedy recommendations, the President, on February 18, 2000, pursuant to section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2253), issued Proclamation 7274, imposing import relief in the form of a tariff on imports of circular welded carbon quality line pipe for a period of 3 years and 1 day, effective March 1, 2000. Section 204(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2254(a)(1)) requires that the Commission, so long as any action under section 203 of the Trade Act remains in effect, monitor developments with respect to the domestic industry, including the progress and specific efforts made by workers and firms in the domestic industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition. Section 204(a)(2) requires, whenever the initial period of an action under section 203 of the Trade Act exceeds 3 years, that the Commission submit a report on the results of the monitoring under section 204(a)(1) to the President and the Congress not later than the mid-point of the initial period of the relief, or by August 30, 2001, in this case. Section 204(a)(3) requires that the Commission hold a hearing in the course of preparing each such report.

Participation in the investigation and service list.—Persons wishing to participate in the investigation as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, not later than 14 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The Secretary will prepare a service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to this investigation upon the expiration of the period for filing entries of appearance.

Public hearing.—As required by statute, the Commission has scheduled a hearing in connection with this investigation. The hearing will be held beginning at 9:30 a.m. on June 28, 2001, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before June 20, 2001. All persons desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on June 25, 2001, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2) and 201.13(f) of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 days prior to the date of the hearing.

Written submissions.—Each party is encouraged to submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. The deadline for filing prehearing briefs is June 22, 2001. Parties may also file posthearing briefs. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is July 6, 2001. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigation may submit, on or before July 6, 2001, a written statement concerning the matters to be addressed in the Commission's report to the President. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain confidential business information must also conform with the requirements of section 201.6 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize the filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means.

In accordance with section 201.16(c) of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by the service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

The purpose of the Town Hall Meetings is to provide each interested individual with an opportunity to comment on the Department of Labor's approach to the implementation of changes to the SCSEP occasioned by the revisions to title V of the Older Americans Act (OAA) by the Older American Act Amendments of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-501) (dated November 13, 2000). Each attendee is welcome to offer comments on a variety of subjects, including: (1) Issues and concerns that should be addressed in regulations; (2) issues and concerns that should be addressed in policy guidance; (3) suggestions and comments on the overall implementation plan, such as consultation strategies; (4) specific suggestions on the approach that should be taken in implementing any or all of the new title V provisions; and (5) suggestions on revisions that should be made to the existing title V regulations, which were published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, May 17, 1995 (20 CFR part 641).

Public Participation: All interested parties are invited to attend the Town Hall Meetings. Persons wishing to make statements or presentations at the Town Hall Meetings should limit oral statements to 5 minutes, but extended written statements may be submitted for the record within 30 days after the Town Hall meeting date. Written statements may also be submitted without presenting oral statements. Individuals may submit written comments to the Employment and Training Administration, Division of Older Worker Programs, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N4644, Washington, DC 20210, Attention: Mr. Erich W. (“Ric”) Larisch.

Minutes of all Town Hall Meetings and summaries of other documents will be available to the public on the SCSEP website http://www.wdsc.org/owprog. Any written comments on the minutes should be directed to Mr. Erich W. (“Ric”) Larisch, as shown above.

Individuals with disabilities who are planning to attend one of the Town Hall Meetings should contact Ms. Karen Davis of the Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Division of Older Worker Programs at (202) 693-3761 (this is not a toll-free number), if special accommodations are needed.

Section 13(c)(4) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., authorizes the Secretary of Labor to grant a waiver of the child labor provisions of the FLSA for the agricultural employment of 10 and 11 year old minors in the hand harvesting of short season crops if specific requirements are met. The Act requires that employers who are granted such waivers keep on file a signed statement of the parent or person standing in the place of the parent of each 10 and 11 year old minor, consenting to their employment, along with a record of the name and address of the school in which the minor is enrolled.

The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

The Department of Labor seeks the extension of approval for this information collection in order to determine whether the statutory requirements and conditions for granting a requested exemption have been meet.

Type of Review: Extension.

Agency: Employment Standards Administration.

Title: Waiver of Child Labor Provisions for Agricultural Employment of 10 and 11 Year Old Minors in Hand Harvesting of Short Season Crops—29 CFR Part 575.

OMB Number: 1215-0120.

Affected Public: Farms; Individuals or Households.

Total Respondents: 1.

Frequency: On occasion.

Total Responses: 1.

Average time per Response: 4 hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 4.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): $0.

Survivors of Black Lung Act beneficiaries are entitled to be considered for benefits under Section 412 (30 USC 922) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and 20 CFR 725.212-225. The CM-912 is the form used by applicants to apply for benefits.

The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

The Department of Labor seeks the extension of approval of this information collection in order to gather information to determine eligibility for benefits of a survivor of a Black Lung Act beneficiary.

Type of Review: Extension.

Agency: Employment Standards Administration.

Title: Survivor's Form for Benefits.

OMB Number: 1215-0069.

Agency Number: CM-912.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Total Respondents: 2,500.

Frequency: One time.

Total Responses: 2,500.

Average Time per Response: 8 minutes.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 333.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): $740.

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

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering the issuance of a letter of consent and an amendment pursuant to part 70 to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations approving the transfer of Materials License SNM-33 held by CE Nuclear Power LLC (“CENP”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (“Westinghouse”) as the owner and responsible licensee. The facility is authorized to use Special Nuclear Material (SNM) for research, development, and the fabrication of nuclear fuel pellets and fuel assemblies and operates in Hematite, Missouri. The transfer would be from CENP to its parent, Westinghouse.

The transfer is necessitated by the planned merger of CENP, including all of its assets and personnel, into its parent, Westinghouse, to be effective as of April 2, 2001. The Commission is also considering amending the license for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer.

According to CENP's application dated February 16, 2001, all Commission licensed activities affected by the transfer of the Materials License will be the same before and after the transfer. All personnel having control of licensed activities under the Materials License, as amended and transferred to Westinghouse, will be the same personnel who currently have responsibilities under the Materials License, as held by CENP.

The proposed license amendment would replace references to CENP in the license with references to Westinghouse and make other changes for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 70.36, no license granted under the regulations in Part 70 and no right to possess or utilize special nuclear material granted by any license issued pursuant to the regulations in Part 70 shall be transferred, assigned or in any manner disposed of, either voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of any license to any person unless the Commission shall give its prior consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application for the transfer of a license if the Commission determines that the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto.

Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendment, the Commission will have made the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.

The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene, and written comments with regard to the license transfer application, are discussed below.

By April 11, 2001, any person whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action on the application may request a hearing and may petition for leave to intervene in a hearing proceeding on the Commission's action. Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in subpart M, “Public Notification, Availability of Documents and Records, Hearing Requests and Procedures for Hearings on License Transfer Applications,” of 10 CFR part 2. In particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306, and should address the considerations contained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a). Untimely requests and petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.1308(b), unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In addition, an untimely request or petition should address the factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR 2.1308(b)(1)-(2).

Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be served upon: Mr. Robert S. Bell, Jr., Esq., Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, CE Nuclear Power LLC; 2000 Day Hill Road; Windsor, CT 06095; the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 (e-mail address for filings regarding license transfer cases only: OGCLT@NRC.gov); and the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.1313.

The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A Notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and served on the parties to the hearing.

As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to intervene, by April 23, 2001, persons may submit written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and should cite the publication date and page number of the Federal Register notice.

For further details with respect to this action, see the application dated February 16, 2001, available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, and accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site ((http://www.nrc.gov).

The following is a summary of the Application. The complete Application is available for a fee from the SEC's Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth St., NW., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (tel. (202) 942-8090).

1. First Variable is a stock life insurance company organized under the laws of the state of Arkansas in 1968. ILona Financial Group, Inc. (“ILona”) owns all of First Variable's outstanding stock, and Irish Life & Permanent plc., in turn, owns all of ILona. First Variable serves as depositor for Annuity Fund E. First Variable may in the future establish one or more Future Accounts for which it will serve as depositor.

2. Annuity Fund E is a segregated asset account of First Variable. Annuity Fund E is registered with the Commission as a unit investment trust investment company under the Act. Annuity Fund E will fund the variable benefits available under the Contracts funded through it. Units of interest in Annuity Fund E under the Contracts they fund will be registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “1933 Act”). First Variable may in the future issue Future Contracts through Annuity Fund E or through Future Accounts. Applicants represent that Future Contracts funded by Annuity Fund E or any Future Accounts will be substantially similar in all material respects to the Contracts. That portion of the assets of Annuity Fund E that is equal to the reserves and other Contract liabilities with respect to Annuity Fund E is not chargeable with liabilities arising out of any other business of First Variable. Any income, gains or loses, realized or unrealized, from assets allocated to Annuity Fund E is, in accordance with Annuity Fund E's Contracts, credited to or charged against Annuity Fund E, without regard to other income, gains or losses of First Variable.

3. FVCS is a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Variable and will be the principal underwriter of Annuity Fund E and distributor of the Contracts funded through Annuity Fund E (the “Annuity Fund E Contracts”). FVCS is registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act”) and is a member of the NASD. The Annuity Fund E Contracts will be offered through unaffiliated broker-dealers who have entered into agreements with FVCS. All of such unaffiliated broker-dealers will be registered broker-dealers under the 1934 Act and NASD members. FVCS, or any successor entity, may act as principal underwriter for any Future Accounts and distributor for any Future Contracts issued by First Variable in the future.

4. The Contract is a part of First Variable's line of annuity products. The Contract is an individual deferred variable annuity contract. The Contract may be issued under a qualified plan, specially sponsored program or an individual retirement annuity or as a non-qualified contract. The Contract is designed to provide for the accumulation of assets and for income through the investment. Purchase payments may be made at any time during the accumulation phase. The minimum initial purchase payment is $10,000 for non-qualified contracts and $5,000 for qualified plan contracts. Additional purchase payments of at least $200 can be made.

5. The Contract permits purchase payments to be allocated to a fixed account of First Variable (“Fixed Account”). The Fixed Account is not registered with the Commission.

6. Annuity Fund E currently is divided into 24 sub-accounts, each of which will be available under the Annuity Fund E Contracts. The sub-accounts are referred to as “Investment Options.” Each Investment Option will invest in shares of a corresponding portfolio of the following underlying investment companies (“Funds”): AIM Variable Insurance Funds, Inc.; American Century Variable Portfolios, Inc.; Deutsche Asset Management VIT Funds; Federated Insurance Series; Templeton Variable Products Series Fund; Lord Abbett Series Fund, Inc.; MFS Variable Insurance Trust; Seligman Portfolios, Inc.; Variable Insurance Products Funds I, II and III; and Variable Investors Series Trust. The Funds are registered under the Act as open-end management investment companies and the shares are registered under the 1933 Act.

7. The Contract also provides for transfer privileges among Investment Options, dollar cost averaging, rebalancing and other features. The following charge are assessed under the Contract: (i) annual asset-based charges as follows: 1.25% for mortality and expense risks, plus .15% for administration expenses, (ii) optional additional benefit charges, during the accumulation period and while the rider is in effect, which equal .15% of Contract value for the Best Anniversary Value Death Benefit; .20% of Contract value for Extra Protector Death Benefit Rider; and .25% of Contract value for the Guaranteed Minimum Income Payment Rider; (iii) a withdrawal charge (assessed against each purchase payment withdrawn) which starts at 8.5% in the first year, and declines thereafter to 0% after 9 years 1 with a 15% free withdrawal option; (iv) a $30 per year contract maintenance charge during the accumulation period; and (v) a transfer fee of $10 for each transfer in excess of 12 in a Contract year. The Funds also incur management fees and operating expenses which vary depending upon which Portfolios are selected.

8. Each time a Contract Owner makes a purchase payment, First Variable will add an additional amount to the Contract (“Purchase Payment Credit”). The Purchase Payment Credit will equal: 4% of each purchase payment if the sum of all withdrawals is less than $250,000 on the day First Variable receives the purchase payment, 4.5% of each payment if the sum of all purchase payments reduced by the sum of all withdrawals is equal to or greater than $250,000 but less than $2,000,000, and 5% of each purchase payment if the sum of all purchase payments reduced by the sum of all purchase payments reduced by the sum of all withdrawals is equal to or greater than $2,000,000. First Variable will fund the Purchase Payment Credit from its general account assets. First Variable will allocate the Purchase Payment Credit to the Investment Options in the same proportion as the purchase payment.

9. First Variable will recapture any Purchase Payment Credit applied to a Contract: (i) if the owner returns the Contract within the Free-Look period; (ii) for any purchase payment made within one year prior to the death of the Owner, or Annuitant if the Contract is owned by a non-natural person, however, the Owner will never receive less than the purchase payments; (iii) for any purchase payment made within one year prior to a partial or full withdrawal or surrender; and (iv) for any purchase payment made within three years prior to the annuity date. The Purchase Payment Credit will be recaptured on a pro-rata basis for partial withdrawals, including partial withdrawals under the free withdrawal option.

10. Applicants seek exemption pursuant to Section 6(c) from Sections 2(a)(32), and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder to the extent necessary to permit First Variable to recapture, with respect to the Contracts and Future Contracts, an amount equal to any Purchase Payment Credit in the following instances; (1) when the Contract Owner exercises the right to return the Contract under the Free-Look provision of the Contract (the Contract value refunded will be reduced by any Purchase Payment Credit applied); (ii) if a death benefit if payable (any Purchase Payment Credit based on any purchase payment received within 12 months prior to the date of death of the Contract Owner or annuitant (when the owner is a non-natural person) will be returned to First Variable, however, the Owner will never receive less than the purchase payments; (iii) for withdrawals or surrenders, including partial withdrawals (any Purchase Payment Credit resulting from purchase payments paid within 12 months prior to receipt of the request for the withdrawal or surrender will be deducted from the Contract value prior to determining the amount available for withdrawal or surrender); and (iv) for any purchase payment made within 3 years prior to the annuity date.

1. Section 6(c) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions from the provisions of the Act and the rules promulgated thereunder if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants request that the Commission, pursuant to section 6(c) of the Act, grant the exemptions summarized above with respect to the Contracts and any Future Contracts funded by Annuity Fund E or Future Accounts, that are issued by First Variable and underwritten or distributed by FVCS or First Variable Broker-Dealers. Applicants assert that the requested exemptions are appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.

2. The asset-based charges applicable to Annuity Fund E will be assessed against the entire amounts held in the Annuity Fund E, including the Purchase Payment Credit amount during the Free-Look period and the 12-month period following a purchase payment preceding certain events (i.e., payment of a death benefit and withdrawals or surrenders) and the 3 year period following a purchase payment when an owner annuitizes the Contract. As a result, during such periods, the aggregate asset-based charges assessed against an Owner's Contract value will be higher than those that would be charged if the Owner's Contract value did not include the Purchase Payment Credit.

3. Subsection (i) of Section 27 provides that Section 27 does not apply to any registered separate account funding variable insurance contracts, or to the sponsoring insurance company and principal underwriter of such account, except as provided in paragraph (2) of the subsection. Paragraph (2) provides that it shall be unlawful for any registered separate account funding variable insurance contracts or a sponsoring insurance company of such account to sell a contract funded by the registered separate account unless, among other things, such contract is a redeemable security. Section 2(a)(32) defines “redeemable security” as any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of which the holder, upon presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately his proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent thereof.

4. Applicants assert that the Purchase Payment Credit recapture provisions of the Contract would not deprive an Owner of his or her proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets. Applicants state that an Owner's interest in the amount of the Purchase Payment Credit allocated to his or her Contract value upon receipt of a purchase payment is not vested until the applicable Free-Look period has expired without return of the Contract. Similarly, Applicants state that an Owner's interest in the amount of any Purchase Payment Credit allocated upon receipt of purchase payments made during the 12-month period before a death benefit is payable, or a withdrawal or surrender is made or for purchase payments made during the 3-year period prior to annuitizaiton also is not vested. Until or unless the amount of any Purchase Payment Credit is vested, Applicants assert that First Variable retains the right and interest in the Purchase Payment Credit amount, although not in the earnings attributable to that amount. Thus, Applicants argue that when First Variable recaptures any Purchase Payment Credits it is simply retrieving its own assets, and because an Owner's interest in the Purchase Payment Credit is not vested, the Owner has not been deprived of a proportionate share of Annuity Fund E's assets, i.e., a share of the applicable Annuity Fund E's assets proportionate to the owner's Contract value (including the Purchase Payment Credit).

5. In addition, with respect to Purchase Payment Credit recapture upon the exercise of the free-look privilege, Applicants state that it would be patently unfair to allow an Owner exercising that privilege to retain a Purchase Payment Credit amount under a Contract that has been returned for a refund after a period of only a few days. Applicants state that if First Variable could not recapture the Purchase Payment Credit, individuals could purchase a Contract with no intention of retaining it, and simply return it for a quick profit.

6. Furthermore, Applicants state that the recapture of Purchase Payment Credit relating to purchase payments made within twelve months of the payment of a death benefit, or a withdrawal or surrender or within 3 years of annuitization is designed to provide First Variable with a measure of protection. Applicants state that the risk is that, rather than spreading purchase payments over a number of years, an Owner will make very large purchase payments shortly before certain events, thereby leaving First Variable less time to recover the cost of the Purchase Payment Credits applied, to its financial detriment. Again, the amounts recaptured equal the Purchase Payment Credits provided by First Variable from its own general account assets, and any gain would remain as part of the Contract's value.

7. Applicants assert that the Purchase Payment Credit will be attractive to and in the interest of investors because it will permit Contract Owners to put between 104% and 105% of their purchase payments to work for them in the selected Investment Options. Also, any earning attributable to the Purchase Payment Credit will be retained by Contract Owners and the principal amount of the Purchase Payment Credit will be retained if the contingencies set forth in the Application are satisfied.

8. Applicants assert that the provisions for recapture of any applicable Purchase Payment Credit under the Contracts do not, and any such Future Contract provisions will not, violate Section 2(a)(32) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act. Nevertheless, to avoid any uncertainties, Applicants request an exemption from those Sections, to the extent deemed necessary, to permit the recapture of any Purchase Payment Credit under the circumstances described herein with respect to the Contracts and any Future Contracts, without the loss of the relief from Section 27 provided by Section 27(i).

9. Section 22(c) of the 1940 Act authorizes the Commission to make rules and regulations applicable to registered investment companies and to principal underwiters of, and dealers in, the redeemable securities of any registered investment company, whether or not members of any securities association, to the same extent, covering the same subject matter, and for the accomplishment of the same ends as are prescribed in Section 22(a) in respect of the rules which may be made by a registered securities association governing its members. Rule 22c-1 thereunder prohibits a registered investment company issuing any redeemable security, a person designated in such issuer's prospectus as authorized to consummate transactions in any such security, and a principal underwriter of, or dealer in, such security, from selling, redeeming, or repurchasing any such security except at a price based on the current net asset value of such security which is next computed after receipt of a tender of such security for redemption or of an order to purchase or sell such security.

10. Arguably, First Variable's recapture of the Purchase Payment Credit might be viewed as resulting in the redemption of redeemable securities for a price other than one based on the current net asset value of Annuity Fund E. Applicants contend, however, that recapture of the Purchase Payment Credit is not violative of Rule 22c-1. Applicants argue that the recapture does not involve either of the evils that Rule 22c-1 was intended to eliminate or reduce, namely: (i) The dilution of the value of outstanding redeemable securities of registered investment companies through their sale at a price below net asset value or their redemption or repurchase at a price above it, and (ii) other unfair results including speculative trading practices. See Adoption of Rule 22c-1 under the 1940 Act, Investment Company Release No. 5519 (Oct. 16, 1968). To effect a recapture of a Purchase Payment Credit, First Variable will redeem interests in an Owner's Contract value at a price determined on the basis of current net asset value of Annuity Fund E. The amount recaptured will equal the amount of the Purchase Payment Credit that First Variable paid out of its general account assets. Applicants state that, although Owners will be entitled to retain any investment gain attributable to the Purchase Payment Credit, the amount of such gain will be determined on the basis of the current net asset value of Annuity Fund E. Thus, Applicants state that no dilution will occur upon the recapture of the Purchase Payment Credit. Applicants also assert that the second harm that Rule 22c-1 was designed to address, namely, speculative trading practices calculated to take advantage of backward pricing, will not occur as a result of the recapture of the Purchase Payment Credit. However, to avoid any uncertainty as to full compliance with the Act, Applicants request an exemption from the provisions of Rule 22c-1 to the extent deemed necessary to permit them to recapture the Purchase Payment Credit under the Contracts and Future Contracts.

Applicants assert that their request for an order is appropriate in the public interest. Applicants state that such an order would promote competitiveness in the variable annuity market by eliminating the need to file redundant exemptive applications, thereby reducing administrative expenses and maximizing the efficient use of Applicants' resources. Applicants argue that investors would not receive any benefit or additional protection by requiring Applicants to repeatedly seek exemptive relief that would present no issue under the Act that has not already been addressed in their Application described herein. Applicants assert that having them file additional applications would impair their ability effectively to take advantage of business opportunities as they arise. Further, Applicants state that if they were required repeatedly to seek exemptive relief with respect to the same issues addressed in the Application described herein, investors would not receive any benefit or additional protection thereby.

Applicants assert, based on the grounds summarized above, that their exemptive request meets the standards set out in Section 6(c) of the Act, namely, that the exemptions requested are necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act, and that, therefore, the Commission should grant the requested order.

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 that are 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.

A Federal Register notice was published on January 25, 2001 that permitted review, on a case-by-case basis, of requests for the export of C-130 spare parts to Indonesia, including for the Government of Indonesia.

This Notice expands the exception of those defense articles/defense services eligible for export consideration to, on a case by case basis, those defense articles/defense services exported to Indonesia for ultimate end-use by a third-country.

Notice of these meetings is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2.

National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee. The agenda includes the following:

(1) Report on issues concerning the International Maritime Organization and the International Organization of Standardization.

(2) Report from the Prevention Through People Subcommittee on Adequacy of “12-hour Rule.”

(3) Report from Task Force on development and implementation of STCW Convention for OSVs.

(4) Status report from Incident Reporting Subcommittee.

(5) Progress report from the Subcommittee on Pipeline-Free Anchorages.

(6) Progress report from Subcommittee on Deepwater Activities.

(7) Status reports on revision of 33 CFR chapter I, subchapter N, Outer Continental Shelf Regulations.

(8) Report on the USCG/MMS Memorandum of Understanding.

(9) Presentation by U.S. Navy on their new Water Fog Fixed Fire Extinguishing System.

Subcommittee on Deepwater Activities. The agenda includes the following:

(1) Review and discuss previous work.

(2) Search & Rescue of personnel from deepwater facilities.

Both meetings are open to the public. Please note that the meetings may close early if all business is finished. At the Chair's discretion, members of the public may make oral presentations during the meetings. If you would like to make an oral presentation at a meeting, please notify the Executive Director no later than April 5, 2001. Written material for distribution at a meeting should reach the Coast Guard no later than April 5, 2001. If you would like a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee or subcommittee in advance of the meeting, please submit 25 copies to the Executive Director no later than April 5, 2001.

For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact the Executive Director as soon as possible.

This notice announces that the FAA is reviewing a proposed Noise Compatibility Program for the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport which will be approved or disapproved on or before September 7, 2001. This notice also announces the availability of this program for public review and comment.

An airport operator who has submitted Noise Exposure Maps that are found by the FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Title 14, CFR, part 150, promulgated pursuant to Title I of the Act, may submit a Noise Compatibility Program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes for the reduction of existing noncompatible uses and for the prevention of the introduction of additional noncompatible uses.

The FAA has formally received the Noise Compatibility Program for the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, effective on March 12, 2001. It is requested that the FAA review this material and that the noise mitigation measures, to be implemented jointly by the airport and surrounding communities, be approved as a Noise Compatibility Program under Section 104(b) of the Act. Preliminary review of the submitted material indicates that it conforms to the requirements for the submittal of Noise Compatibility Programs, but that further review will be necessary prior to approval or disapproval of the program. The formal review period, limited by law to a maximum of 180 days, will be completed on or before September 7, 2001.

The FAA's detailed evaluation will be conducted under the provisions of Title 14, CFR, part 150, section 150.33. The primary considerations in the evaluation process are whether the proposed measures reduce the level of aviation safety, create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, or are reasonably consistent with obtaining the goal of reducing existing noncompatible land uses and preventing the introduction of additional noncompatible land uses.

Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed program with specific reference to these factors. All comments, other than those properly addressed to local land use authorities, will be considered by the FAA to the extent practicable. Copies of the Noise Exposure Maps, the FAA's evaluation of the maps, and the proposed Noise Compatibility Program are available for examination at the following locations:

Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The FAA has established an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee to provide advice and recommendations to the FAA Administrator on the FAA's rulemaking activities with respect to aviation-related issues. This includes obtaining advice and recommendations on the FAA's commitments to harmonize Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) with its partners in Europe and Canada.

Phase I. Review the draft part 25 final rule concerning fuel-vent system fire protection, including the FAA's proposed disposition of public comments. Prepare a report for the FAA documenting any recommended changes resulting from this review and any remaining unresolved issues.

Schedule: This report will be due to the FAA no later than 60 days after receipt of the draft document from the FAA.

Phase II. Review the draft advisory material (AC 25.975) associated with the part 25 rule and prepare a report from the FAA similar to the Phase I report, documenting any recommended changes as well as any remaining unresolved issues.

Schedule: This report will be due to the FAA no later than 6 months after receipt of the draft document from the FAA.

The FAA may ask ARAC's assistance in dispositioning any comments received in response to the publication of a Notice of Availability of a draft advisory circular.

ARAC accepted the task and assigned it to the Powerplant Installation Harmonization Working Group, Transport Airplane and Engine Issues. The working group will serve as staff to ARAC and assist in the analysis of the assigned task. ARAC must review and approve the working group's recommendations. If ARAC accepts the working group's recommendations, it will forward them to the FAA.

The Powerplant Installation Harmonization Working group is expected to comply with the procedures adopted by ARAC. As part of the procedures, the working group is expected to:

1. Recommend a work plan for completion of the tasks, including the rationale supporting such a plan for consideration at the next meeting of the ARAC on transport airplane and engine issues held following the publication of this notice.

2. Give a detailed conceptual presentation of the proposed recommendations prior to proceeding with the work stated in item 3 below.

3. Draft the appropriate documents and required analyses and/or any other related materials or documents.

4. Provide a status report at each meeting of the ARAC held to consider transport airplane and engine issues.

The Powerplant Installation Harmonization Working Group will be composed of technical experts having an interest in the assigned task. A working group member need not be a representative or a member of the full committee.

An individual who has expertise in the subject matter and wishes to become a member of the working group should write to the person listed under the caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT expressing that desire, describing his or her interest in the task, and stating the expertise he or she would bring to the working group. All requests to participate must be received no later than April 30, 2001. The requests will be reviewed by the assistant chair, the assistant executive director, and the working group chair. Individuals will be advised whether or not their request can be accommodated.

Individuals chosen for membership on the working group will be expected to represent their aviation community segment and participate actively in the working group (e.g., attend all meetings, provide written comments when requested to do so, etc.). They also will be expected to devote the resources necessary to support the working group in meeting any assigned deadlines. Members are expected to keep their management chain and those they may represent advised of working group activities and decisions to ensure that the agreed technical solutions do not conflict with their sponsoring organization's position when the subject being negotiated is presented to ARAC for approval.

Once the working group has begun deliberations, members will not be added or substituted without the approval of the assistant chair, the assistance executive director, and the working group chair.

The Secretary of Transportation determined that the formation and use of the ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.

Meetings of the ARAC will be open to the public. Meetings of the Powerplant Installation Harmonization Working Group will not be open to the public, except to the extent that individuals with an interest and expertise are selected to participate. The FAA will make no public announcement of working group meetings.

The FAA established the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee to provide advice and recommendations to the FAA Administrator on the FAA's rulemaking activities with respect to aviation-related issues.

1. Review the existing aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) requirements contained in 14 CFR part 139, subpart D and identify ARFF requirements that should be added, modified, or deleted. This review should include the current rule and any other documents the agency may have issued regarding part 139, subpart D, and any ARFF standards issued by other organizations.

As part of this project, ARAC should address the following issues:

a. The number of trucks and amount of agent,

b. Vehicle response times, and

c. Staffing requirements.

2. Develop an NPRM to incorporate the modifications, deletions, and additions identified in the preceding reviews. The NPRM should include the preamble and rule language along with any supporting legal analysis.

3. ARAC may be asked to recommend the disposition of any substantive comments the agency received in response to the NPRM.

Schedule: Recommendations to the FAA in the form of an NPRM will be due to the FAA by April 11, 2003.

ARAC accepted the task and assigned the task to the newly formed Rescue and Firefighting Requirements Working Group, Airport Certification Issues. The working group will serve as staff to ARAC and assist in the analysis of the assigned task. ARAC must review and approve working group recommendations. If ARAC accepts the working group's recommendations, it will forward them to the FAA. The agency seeks ARAC's advice and recommendations on this important issue. Recommendations that are received from ARAC will be submitted to the agency's Rulemaking Management Council to address the availability of resources and prioritization.

The Rescue and Firefighting Requirements Working Group is expected to comply with the procedures adopted by ARAC. As part of the procedures, the working group is expected to:

1. Recommend a work plan for completion of the task, including the rationale supporting such a plan for consideration at the next meeting of the ARAC Airport Certification Issues held following publication of this notice.

2. Give a detailed conceptual presentation of the proposed recommendations prior to proceeding with the work stated in item 3 below.

3. Draft the appropriate documents and required analyses and/or any other related materials or documents.

4. Provide a status report at each meeting of the ARAC held to consider airport certifications issues.

The Rescue and Firefighting Requirements Working Group will be composed of technical experts having an interest in the assigned task. A working group member need not be a representative or a member of the full committee.

An individual who has expertise in the subject matter and wishes to become a member of the working group should write to the person listed under the caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT expressing that desire, describing his or her interest in the task, and starting the expertise he or she would bring to the working group. All requests to participate must be received no later than April 30, 2001. The requests will be reviewed by the assistant chair, the assistant executive director, and the working group chair. Individuals will be advised whether or not their request can be accommodated.

Individuals chosen for membership on the working group will be expected to represent their aviation community segment and actively participate in the working group (e.g., attend all meetings, provide written comments when requested to do so, etc.). They also are expected to devote the resources necessary to support the working group in meeting any assigned deadlines. Members are expected to keep their management chain and those they may represent advised of working group activities and decisions to ensure that the proposed technical solutions do not conflict with their sponsoring organization's position when the subject being negotiated is presented to ARAC for approval.

Once the working group has begun deliberations, members will not be added or substituted without the approval of the assistant chair, the assistant executive director, and the working group chair.

The Secretary of Transportation determined that the formation and use of the ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.

Meetings of the ARAC will be open to the public. Meetings of the Rescue and Firefighting Requirements Working Group will not be open to the public, except to the extent that individuals with an interest and expertise are selected to participate. The FAA will make no public announcement of working group meetings.

The FAA has established an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee to provide advice and recommendations to the FAA Administrator on the FAA's rulemaking activities with respect to aviation-related issues. This includes obtaining advice and recommendations on the FAA's commitments to harmonize Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) with its partners in Europe and Canada.

Review the operational rule changes (parts 121, 125, and 135) proposed in Notice 84-17A, and the public comments received in response to these proposals. Prepare a report for the FAA which will provide, among other things, data from industry supporting a decision on whether a retrofit of the fleet should be mandated, and if so, what airplanes should be affected. This data should include the estimated costs and benefits of retrofitting the fleet.

Schedule: This report will be due within 90 days of publication of the task in the Federal Register.

The FAA will develop a disposition document, e.g., a final rule or supplemental NPRM, based on the ARAC report. The FAA will ask ARAC to review the document. ARAC will prepare a report for the FAA documenting and recommending changes and identifying any remaining unresolved issues.

Schedule: This report will be due to the FAA within 60 days of receipt of the draft document from the FAA.

The FAA may seek ARAC review and comment subsequent to publication of any proposal action on this issue.

ARAC accepted the task and assigned the task to the Powerplant Installation Harmonization Working Group, Transport Airplane and Engine Issues. The working group will serve as staff to ARAC and assist in the analysis of the assigned task. ARAC must review and approve the working group's recommendations. If ARAC accepts the working group's recommendations, it will forward them to the FAA.

The Powerplant Installation Harmonization Working Group is expected to comply with the procedures adopted by ARAC. As part of the procedures, the working group is expected to:

1. Recommend a work plan for completion of the task, including the rationale supporting such a plan for consideration at the next meeting of the ARAC on transport airplane and engine issues held following publication of this notice.

2. Give a detailed conceptual presentation of the proposed recommendations prior to proceeding with the work in item 3 below.

3. Draft the appropriate documents and required analyses and/or any other related materials or documents.

4. Provide a status report at each meeting of the ARAC held to consider transport airplane and engine issues.

The Powerplant Installation Harmonization Working Group will be composed of technical experts having an interest in the assigned task. A working group member need not be a representative or a member of the full committee.

An individual who has expertise in the subject matter and wishes to become a member of the working group should write to the person listed under the caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT expressing that desire, describing his or her interest in the task, and stating the expertise he or she would bring to the working group. All requests to participate must be received no later than April 30, 2001. The requests will be reviewed by the assistant chair, the assistant executive director, and the working group chair. Individuals will be advised whether or not their request can be accommodated.

Individuals chosen for membership on the working group will be expected to represent their aviation community segment and participate actively in the working group (e.g., attend all meetings, provide written comments when requested to do so, etc.). They also will be expected to devote the resources necessary to support the working group in meeting any assigned deadlines. Members are expected to keep their management chain and those they may represent advised of working group activities and decisions to ensure that the agreed technical solutions do not conflict with their sponsoring organization's position when the subject being negotiated is presented to ARAC for approval.

Once the working group has begun deliberations, members will not be added or substituted without the approval of the assistant chair, the assistant executive director, and the working group chair.

The Secretary of Transportation determined that the formation and use of the ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.

Meetings of the ARAC will be open to the public. Meetings of the Powerplant Installation Harmonization Working Group will not be open to the public, except to the extent that individuals with an interest and expertise are selected to participate. The FAA will make no public announcement of working group meetings.

The FAa established an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee to provide advice and recommendations to the FAA Administrator on the FAA's rulemaking activities with respect to aviation-related issues.

Study the effects of multiple complex structural STC modifications installed on transport category airplanes. Develop a report with recommendations for a long term plan addressing the effects of multiple complex STC modifications on the structural integrity and continued safe operation of transport category airplanes, and the ability of the operators to accomplish mandatory FAA aging fleet programs.

The report should identify the types of structural modifications considered to be complex STC modifications, and should propose recommended actions to be taken by the FAA to address the effects complex structural STC modifications have on the structural integrity and continued safe operation of modified airplanes.

The report and recommendations should contain the following:

1. A description of FAA and industry actions necessary to identify the interaction effects of multiple complex STC modifications,

2. A description of FAA and industry actions that will address the effects that complex modifications have on aging aircraft issues, and

3. A description of FAA and industry actions necessary to address the effects that complex modifications have on FAA mandated airworthiness actions (i.e., airworthiness directives, aging aircraft programs).

Schedule: The report should be completed no later than September 28, 2002.

ARAC accepted the task and assigned the task to the Airworthiness Assurance Working Group, Transport Airplane and Engine Issues. The working group will serve as staff to ARAC and assist in the analysis of the assigned task. ARAC must review and approve the working group's recommendations. If ARAC accepts the working group's recommendations, it will forward them to the FAA.

the Airworthiness Assurance Working Group is expected to comply with the procedures adopted by ARAC. As part of the procedures, the working group is expected to:

1. Recommend a work plan for completion of the task, including the rationale supporting such a plan for consideration at the next meeting of the ARAC on transport airplane and engine issues held following publication of this notice.

2. Give a detailed conceptual presentation of the proposed recommendations prior to proceeding with the work stated in item 3 below.

3. Draft the appropriate documents and required analyses and/or any other related materials or documents the working group determines to be appropriate.

4. Provide a status report at each meeting of the ARAC held to consider transport airplane and engine issues.

The Airworthiness Assurance Working Group will be composed of technical experts having an interest in the assigned task. A working group member need not be a representative or a member of the full committee.

An individual who has expertise in the subject matter and wishes to become a member of the working group should write to the person listed under the caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT expressing that desire, describing his or her interest in the task, and stating the expertise he or she would bring to the working group. All requests to participate must be received no later than April 30, 2001. All requests will be reviewed by the assistant chair, the assistant executive director, and the working group chair. Individuals will be advised whether or not the request can be accommodated.

Individuals chosen for membership on the working group will be expected to represent their aviation community segment and actively participate in the working group (e.g., attend all meetings, provide written comments when requested to do so, etc.). They also will be expected to devote the resources necessary to support the working group in meeting any assigned deadlines. Members are expected to keep their management chain and those they may represent advised of working group activities and decisions to ensure that the agreed technical solutions do not conflict with their sponsoring organization's position when the subject being negotiated is presented to ARAC for approval.

Once the working group has begun deliberations, members will not be added or substituted without the approval of the assistant chair, the assistant executive director, and the working group chair.

The Secretary of Transportation determined that the formation and use of the ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.

Meetings of the ARAC will be open to the public. Meetings of the Airworthiness Assurance Working Group will not be open to the public, except to the extent that individuals with an interest and expertise are selected to participate. The FAA will make no public announcement of working group meetings.

The MESA DEIS evaluated four major alternatives: (1) Do-nothing or “No-Build,” (2) Transportation System Management (primarily bus service changes and prioritizations), (3) Build Alternative 1 (subway extension of the Broadway Line, beneath Second Avenue from East 63rd Street to East 125th Street, and bus improvements), and (4) Build Alternative 2 (Build Alternative 1 plus a Light Rail system from 14th Street to Whitehall Street through the Lower East Side). The MESA DEIS suggested that Build Alternative 1 provided the best combination of improved transit mobility and accessibility, reduced auto and taxi trip making, and cost-effectiveness.

In this SDEIS, MTA/NYCT will evaluate a new “Build Alternative 3” and a No-Build Alternative. The Build Alternative 3 is a full-length two-track Second Avenue Subway alignment from the vicinity of 125th Street to the Financial District in Lower Manhattan. The alignment between 125th Street and 63rd Street is unchanged from the alignment presented in the DEIS, including a connection to the 63rd Street/7th Avenue Broadway line. Build Alternative 3 continues the subway beneath Second Avenue south of 63rd Street, and for the portion of the Second Avenue Subway south of 14th Street, two alignment options will be evaluated in the SDEIS: Option A continues the subway beneath Chrystie Street, St. James Place, and Water Street to a terminal in Lower Manhattan. Option B proposes connecting the new subway to the existing tracks of the former BMT “Nassau Loop” beneath Kenmare Street to access Lower Manhattan.

The MESA DEIS originally presented a Light Rail Transit system alternative in the Lower East Side as a complementary project to the initial 125th Street to 63rd Street subway proposal. The SDEIS also will explore additional transit solutions to Lower East Side needs that may have fewer neighborhood impacts. Subsequent findings regarding Lower East Side transit solutions discussed in the SDEIS may supplement Build Alternative 3, or advance as an independent project.

The SDEIS will fully evaluate Build Alternative 3, including Options A and B, with respect to benefits and costs, environmental and other impacts (including any cumulative impacts) and proposed mitigation measures. The SDEIS will also provide responses to public comments received on the MESA DEIS during the public comment period, which occurred between August 13 and October 8, 1999.

While an alignment south of 63rd Street to Lower Manhattan was originally discussed during the preliminary MESA MIS, it was also considered during the Major Investment Study phase of the MTA's Lower Manhattan Access MIS. Much of the technical information gathered in the Lower Manhattan Alternatives MIS will be incorporated into the MESA SDEIS. The MTA will hold public meetings in late spring 2001 to discuss the conclusions and recommendations of the Lower Manhattan Alternatives MIS, which is scheduled for completion by the end of 2001.

As noted above the SDEIS will evaluate the potential social, economic and environmental impacts of a full-length Second Avenue Subway alternative. Upon completion the SDEIS will be made available for public and agency review and comment. Public hearing(s) will be held within the study area. On the basis of the SDEIS as well as comments received from the public participation process, a final EIS will be prepared.