The Federal Government's intellectual property rights to this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Conagra Malting has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within ninety (90) days from the date of this published Notice, Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as National Starch & Chemical Company has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within sixty (60) days from the date of this published Notice, Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

The Federal Government's patent rights to this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within ninety (90) days from the date of this published Notice, Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Triple “F,” Inc. has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within sixty (60) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

The Federal Government's intellectual property rights to this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within ninety (90) days from the date of this published Notice, Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act (21 U.S.C. 151 et seq. ), a veterinary biological product must be shown to be pure, safe, potent, and efficacious before a veterinary biological product license may be issued. A field test is generally necessary to satisfy prelicensing requirements for veterinary biological products. Prior to conducting a field test on an unlicensed product, an applicant must obtain approval from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), as well as obtain APHIS' authorization to ship the product for field testing.

To determine whether to authorize shipment and grant approval for the field testing of the unlicensed product referenced in this notice, APHIS conducted a risk analysis to assess the potential effects of this product on the safety of animals, public health, and the environment.

Based on the risk analysis, APHIS has prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) concerning the field testing of the combined unlicensed and licensed veterinary biological product:

Requester: Biomune Company.

Product: Avian Encephalomyelitis-Fowl Pox-Laryngotracheitis Vaccine, Live Virus, Fowl Pox Vector.

Field test locations: Georgia, Kentucky, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia.

The above-mentioned product is a modified live avian encephalomyelitis vaccine in combination with a live, attenuated fowl pox virus that has been genetically modified to express fowl laryngotracheitis antigens. The vaccine is for use in chickens as an aid in the prevention of avian encephalomyelitis, fowl pox, and laryngotracheitis.

The draft EA has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provision of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

Unless substantial environmental issues are raised in response to this notice, APHIS intends to issue a final EA and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) and authorize shipment of the above product for the initiation of field tests following the close of the comment period for this notice.

Because the issues raised by field testing and by issuance of a license are identical, APHIS has concluded that the EA that is generated for field testing would also be applicable to the proposed licensing action. Provided that the field test data support the conclusions of the original EA and the issuance of a FONSI, APHIS does not intend to issue a separate EA and FONSI to support the issuance of the product license, and would determine that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. APHIS intends to issue a veterinary biological product license for this vaccine following completion of the field test provided no adverse impacts on the human environment are identified and provided the product meets all other requirements for licensure.

Scrapie is a degenerative and eventually fatal disease affecting the central nervous systems of sheep and goats. To control the spread of scrapie within the United States, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, administers regulations at 9 CFR part 79 that restrict the interstate movement of certain sheep and goats. APHIS also has regulations at 9 CFR part 54 that describe a voluntary scrapie control program.

On April 20, 2001, we published a notice in the Federal Register (66 FR 20231, Docket No. 97-093-7) soliciting comments on the draft Scrapie Eradication Uniform Methods and Rules(UM&R). The UM&R is a set of proposed cooperative procedures and standards to aid in the control and eradication of scrapie. The legal requirements for interstate movement of sheep and goats due to scrapie are contained in title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Scrapie Eradication UM&R provides guidance to the States regarding the minimum standards necessary for a State to participate in the national eradication program.

Comments on the UM&R were required to be received on or before June 19, 2001. We are reopening and extending the comment period on Docket No. 97-093-7. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.

The terms used in this notice shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the regulations governing the CACFP (7 CFR part 226).

Pursuant to sections 4, 11 and 17 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) (42 U.S.C. 1753, 1759a and 1766), section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (CNA) (42 U.S.C. 1773) and sections 226.4, 226.12 and 226.13 of the regulations governing the CACFP (7 CFR Part 226), notice is hereby given of the new payment rates for institutions participating in CACFP. These rates shall be in effect during the period July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002.

As provided for under the NSLA and the CNA, all rates in the CACFP must be revised annually on July 1 to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the most recent 12-month period. In accordance with this mandate, the Department last published the adjusted national average payment rates for centers, the food service payment rates for day care homes, and the administrative reimbursement rates for sponsors of day care homes on June 27, 2000, at 65 FR 39589 (for the period July 1, 2000-June 30, 2001).

The changes in the national average payment rates for centers reflect a 2.85 percent increase during the 12-month period, May 2000 to May 2001, (from 168.3 in May 2000 to 173.1 in May 2001) in the food away from home series of the CPI for All Urban Consumers.

The changes in the food service payment rates for day care homes reflect a 3.16 percent increase during the 12-month period, May 2000 to May 2001, (from 167.5 in May 2000 to 172.8 in May 2001) in the food at home series of the CPI for All Urban Consumers.

The changes in the administrative reimbursement rates for sponsoring organizations of day care homes reflect a 3.74 percent increase during the 12-month period, May 2000 to May 2001, (from 171.3 in May 2000 to 177.7 in May 2001) in the series for all items of the CPI for All Urban Consumers, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.

The total amount of payments available to each State agency for distribution to institutions participating in the program is based on the rates contained in this notice.

This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. This notice has been determined to be exempt under Executive Order 12866.

This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.558 and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, and final rule related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983.)

This notice imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping provisions that are subject to Office of Management and Budget review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3518).

Pursuant to section 3 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1772), the Department announces the rate of reimbursement for a half-pint of milk served to nonneedy children in a school or institution which participates in the Special Milk Program for Children. This rate is adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Producer Price Index for Fluid Milk Products, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.

For the period July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002, the rate of reimbursement for a half-pint of milk served to a nonneedy child in a school or institution which participates in the Special Milk Program is 14.5 cents. This reflects an increase of 10.8 percent in the Producer Price Index for Fluid Milk Products from May 2000 to May 2001 (from a level of 142.5 in May 2000 to 157.9 in May 2001).

As a reminder, schools or institutions with pricing programs which elect to serve milk free to eligible children continue to receive the average cost of a half-pint of milk (the total cost of all milk purchased during the claim period divided by the total number of purchased half-pints) for each half-pint served to an eligible child.

Pursuant to sections 11 and 17A of the National School Lunch Act, (42 U.S.C. 1759a and 1766a), and Section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, (42 U.S.C. 1773), the Department annually announces the adjustments to the National Average Payment Factors and to the maximum Federal reimbursement rates for lunches and afterschool snacks served to children participating in the National School Lunch Program and breakfasts served to children participating in the School Breakfast Program. Adjustments are prescribed each July 1, based on changes in the Food Away From Home series of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor. The changes in the national average payment rates for schools and residential child care institutions for the period July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002 reflect a 2.85 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers during the 12-month period May 2000 to May 2001 (from a level of 168.3 in May 2000 to 173.1 in May 2001). Adjustments to the national average payment rates for all lunches served under the National School Lunch Program, breakfasts served under the School Breakfast Program, and afterschool snacks served under the National School Lunch Program are rounded down to the nearest whole cent.

Section 4 of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1753) provides general cash for food assistance payments to States to assist schools in purchasing food. The National School Lunch Act provides two different Section 4 payment levels for lunches served under the National School Lunch Program. The lower payment level applies to lunches served by school food authorities in which less than 60 percent of the lunches served in the school lunch program during the second preceding school year were served free or at a reduced price. The higher payment level applies to lunches served by school food authorities in which 60 percent or more of the lunches served during the second preceding school year were served free or at a reduced price.

To supplement these section 4 payments, section 11 of the National School Lunch Act provides special cash assistance payments to aid schools in providing free and reduced price lunches. The Section 11 National Average Payment Factor for each reduced price lunch served is set at 40 cents less than the factor for each free lunch.

As authorized under sections 8 and 11 of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1757, 1759a), maximum reimbursement rates for each type of lunch are prescribed by the Department in this Notice. These maximum rates are to ensure equitable disbursement of Federal funds to school food authorities.

Section 17A of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766a) establishes National Average Payments for free, reduced price and paid afterschool snacks as part of the National School Lunch Program.

Section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773) establishes National Average Payment Factors for free, reduced price and paid breakfasts served under the School Breakfast Program and additional payments for free and reduced price breakfasts served in schools determined to be in “severe need” because they serve a high percentage of needy children.

The following specific Section 4, Section 11 and Section 17A National Average Payment Factors and maximum reimbursement rates for lunch, the afterschool snack rates, and the breakfast rates are in effect from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002. Due to a higher cost of living, the average payments and maximum reimbursements for Alaska and Hawaii are higher than those for all other States. The District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Guam use the figures specified for the contiguous States.

Section 4 National Average Payment Factors —In school food authorities which served less than 60 percent free and reduced price lunches in School Year 1999-00, the payments for meals served are: Contiguous States —paid rate—20 cents, free and reduced price rate—20 cents, maximum rate—28 cents; Alaska —paid rate—32 cents, free and reduced price rate—32 cents, maximum rate—44 cents; Hawaii —paid rate—23 cents, free and reduced price rate—23 cents, maximum rate—32 cents.

In school food authorities which served 60 percent or more free and reduced price lunches in School Year 1999-00, payments are: Contiguous States —paid rate—22 cents, free and reduced price rate—22 cents, maximum rate—28 cents; Alaska —paid rate—34 cents, free and reduced price rate—34 cents, maximum rate—44 cents; Hawaii —paid rate—25 cents, free and reduced price rate—25 cents, maximum rate—32 cents.

Section 11 National Average Payment Factors—Contiguous States —free lunch—189 cents, reduced price lunch—149 cents; Alaska —free lunch—306 cents, reduced price lunch—266 cents; Hawaii —free lunch—221 cents, reduced price lunch—181 cents.

Afterschool Snacks in Afterschool Care Programs —The payments are: Contiguous States —free snack—57 cents, reduced price snack—28 cents, paid snack—5 cents; Alaska —free snack—93 cents, reduced price snack—46 cents, paid snack—8 cents; Hawaii —free snack—67 cents, reduced price snack—33 cents, paid snack—6 cents.

For schools “not in severe need” the payments are: Contiguous States —free breakfast—115 cents, reduced price breakfast—85 cents, paid breakfast—21 cents; Alaska —free breakfast—182 cents, reduced price breakfast—152 cents, paid breakfast—31 cents; Hawaii —free breakfast—133 cents, reduced price breakfast—103 cents, paid breakfast—24 cents.

For schools in “severe need” the payments are: Contiguous States —free breakfast—137 cents, reduced price breakfast—107 cents, paid breakfast—21 cents; Alaska —free breakfast—218 cents, reduced price breakfast—188 cents, paid breakfast—31 cents; Hawaii —free breakfast—159 cents, reduced price breakfast—129 cents, paid breakfast—24 cents.

The following chart illustrates: the lunch National Average Payment Factors with the Sections 4 and 11 already combined to indicate the per lunch amount; the maximum lunch reimbursement rates; the reimbursement rates for afterschool snacks served in afterschool care programs; the breakfast National Average Payment Factors including “severe need” schools; and the milk reimbursement rate. All amounts are expressed in dollars or fractions thereof. The payment factors and reimbursement rates used for the District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Guam are those specified for the contiguous States.

Title: Agricultural Prices.

OMB Control Number: 0535-0003.

Expiration Date of Approval: 09/30/01.

Type of Request: To extend a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The primary objective of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is to prepare and issue State and national estimates of crop and livestock production and prices. The Agricultural Prices surveys provide data on the prices received by farmers and prices paid by them for production goods and services. NASS estimates based on these surveys are used by agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to prepare the economic accounts of the United States. These price estimates are also used to compute Parity Prices in accordance with requirements of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as amended (Title III, Subtitle A, Section 301a). In addition, price data are used by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to help determine payment rates, program option levels, and disaster programs.

The Agricultural Surveys program was last approved by OMB in 1998 for a 3-year period. NASS intends to request that the surveys be approved for another 3 years.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 minutes per response.

Respondents: Farmers and farm-related businesses.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 82,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 17,000 hours.

These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents.

Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from Ginny McBride, the Agency OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 720-5778.

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 will have practical utility; (b) 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; (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 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. Comments may be sent to: Ginny McBride, NASS OMB Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5330B South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-2024 or gmcbride@nass.usda.gov.

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

Title: Fruits, Nuts, and Specialty Crops Surveys.

OMB Control Number: 0535-0039.

Expiration Date of Approval: 09/30/01.

Type of Request: To extend a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The primary objective of the National Agricultural Statistics Service is to prepare and issue state and national estimates of crop and livestock production. The Fruits, Nuts, and Specialty Crops survey program collects information on acreage, yield, production, price, and value of citrus and non-citrus fruits and nuts and other specialty crops in States with significant commercial production. The program provides data needed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other government agencies to administer programs and to set trade quotas and tariffs. State Departments of Agriculture and universities also use forecasts and estimates provided by these surveys.

The Fruits, Nuts, and Specialty Crops Program was last approved by OMB in1998 for a 3-year period. NASS intends to request that the survey be approved for another 3 years.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 17 minutes per response.

Respondents: Producers, processors, and handlers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 53,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 17,000 hours.

These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents.

Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from Ginny McBride, the Agency OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 720-5778.

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 will have practical utility; (b) 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; (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 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. Comments may be sent to: Ginny McBride, Agency OMB Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5330B South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-2024 or gmcbride@nass.usda.gov.

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

FIPS 140-1, Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules, first issued in 1994, identified requirements for four security levels for cryptographic modules to provide for a wide spectrum of data sensitivity (e.g., low value administrative data, million dollar funds transfers, and life protecting data), and a diversity of application environments. Over 140 modules have been tested by accredited private-sector laboratories and validated to-date as conforming to this standard. The standard provided that it be reviewed within five years to consider its continued usefulness and to determine whether new or revised requirements should be added.

A notice was published in the Federal Register (63 FR 56910) on October 23, 1998, soliciting public comments on reaffirming FIPS 140-1. The comments supported reaffirming FIPS 140-1 with technical modifications to address advances in technology since FIPS 140-1 was issued. A notice was published in the Federal Register (64 FR 62654) on November 17, 1999, soliciting public comments on proposed FIPS 140-2, a revision of FIPS 140-1 making such technical modifications. The comments received (available at http://csrc.nist.gov/cryptval/) supported the issuance of proposed FIPS 140-2 with technical and editorial changes. None of them opposed the proposed revision of FIPS 140-1.

The Secretary of Commerce, after making appropriate revisions to proposed FIPS 140-2, approves it, and makes it compulsory and binding on Federal agencies for the protection of sensitive, unclassified information.

E.O. 12866: This notice has been determined to be significant for the purposes of E.O. 12866.

Electronic Commerce needs well-established cryptographic schemes that can provide such services as data integrity and confidentiality. Symmetric encryption schemes such as Triple DES, as defined in FIPS 46-3, and the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) make attractive choices for the provision of these services. Systems using symmetric techniques are efficient, and their security requirements are well understood. Furthermore, these schemes have been or will be standardized to facilitate interoperability between systems. However, the implementation of such schemes requires the establishment of a shared secret key in advance. As the size of a key management system or the number of entities using a system grows, the need for key establishment can lead to a key management problem.

In 1997, NIST announced plans to develop a public key-based key management standard and solicited comments from the public. In February of 2000, a public workshop was held to examine key establishment techniques that are currently available and to discuss the approach to the development of a Key Management Standard for Federal Government use. The workshop attendees suggested (1) the development of a “framework” document that discusses the documents to be developed and their proposed content, (2) the identification of key establishment schemes, and (3) the development of key management guidance.

Following the workshop, the framework document was prepared and made available for review on the Key Management web page (http://www.nist.gov/kms). A key establishment scheme definition document and a key management guidance document are currently under development. Initial drafts of these documents will be made available on the Key Management web page at least one month prior to the workshop and will be the subjects under discussion during that workshop.

For planning purposes, advance registration is encouraged. To register, please fax your name, address, telephone, fax and e-mail address to 301-926-2733 (Attn: Key Management Workshop) by October 19, 2000. Registration questions should be addressed to Vickie Harris on 301-975-2034. Registration will also be available at the door, space permitting. The workshop will be open to the public and is free of charge.

On April 12, 2001, notice was published in the Federal Register ( 66. FR 18904) that a request for a scientific research permit to take several species of small cetaceans around Hawaii, California and on the high seas had been submitted by the above-named individual. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq .), and the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216).

SUMMARY: On June 14, 2001 the Chairman of CITA received a petition from Amicale Industries, Inc. alleging that certain yarns of cashmere and of camel hair, classified in heading 5108.10.60 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting that the President proclaim a modification of the NAFTA rules of origin. The yarns are described as (1). Yarns of cashmere, singles, multiple or plied, of fiber 17.5 to 19 microns average diameter, of natural, bleached, or dyed fiber, of metric count 9.7 or finer (3 run or finer), mule spun or frame spun. (2). Yarns of camel hair, singles, multiple or plied, of fiber 18 microns average diameter or finer, of bleached or dyed fiber, of metric count 16 or finer (5 run or finer), mule spun or frame spun.

Such a proclamation may be made only after reaching agreement with the other NAFTA countries on the modification. CITA hereby solicits public comments on this petition, in particular with regard to whether cashmere and camel hair yarn can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be submitted by July 27, 2001 to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room 3001, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230.

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), NAFTA countries are required to eliminate customs duties on textile and apparel goods that qualify as originating goods under the NAFTA rules of origin, which are set out in Annex 401 to the NAFTA. The NAFTA provides that the rules of origin for textile and apparel products may be amended through a subsequent agreement by the NAFTA countries. In consultations regarding such a change, the NAFTA countries are to consider issues of availability of supply of fibers, yarns, or fabrics in the free trade area and whether domestic producers are capable of supplying commercial quantities of the good in a timely manner. The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) that accompanied the NAFTA Implementation Act stated that any interested person may submit to CITA a request for a modification to a particular rule of origin based on a change in the availability in North America of a particular fiber, yarn or fabric and that the requesting party would bear the burden of demonstrating that a change is warranted. The SAA provides that CITA may make a recommendation to the President regarding a change to a rule of origin for a textile or apparel good. The NAFTA Implementation Act provides the President with the authority to proclaim modifications to the NAFTA rules of origin as are necessary to implement an agreement with one or more NAFTA country on such a modification.

On June 14, 2001 the Chairman of CITA received a petition from Amicale Industries, Inc. alleging that certain yarns of cashmere and of camel hair, classified in HTSUS heading 5108.10.60, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting that the President proclaim a modification of the NAFTA rules of origin. The yarns are described as (1). Yarns of cashmere, singles, multiple or plied, of fiber 17.5 to 19 microns average diameter, of natural, bleached, or dyed fiber, of metric count 9.7 or finer (3 run or finer), mule spun or frame spun. (2). Yarns of camel hair, singles, multiple or plied, of fiber 18 microns average diameter or finer, of bleached or dyed fiber, of metric count 16 or finer (5 run or finer), mule spun or frame spun. The referenced yarns would be used to produce woven fabrics for use in suits, coats and suit-type jackets classified under HTS subheadings 6201.11, 6202.11, 6203.11, 6203.31, 6204.11 and 6204.31.

CITA is soliciting public comments regarding this request, particularly with respect to whether the yarns of cashmere and of camel hair described above, classified in HTSUS heading 5108.10.60, can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. The petition states that potential North American suppliers of the referenced yarns would be required to deliver them within 21 days of receipt of a purchase order. Also relevant are whether there has been a change in availability and whether other products that are supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner are substitutable for the yarn for purposes of the intended use. Comments must be received no later than July 27, 2001. Interested persons are invited to submit six copies of such comments or information to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, room 3100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.

If a comment alleges that yarns of cashmere or of camel hair can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner, CITA will closely review any supporting documentation, such as a signed statement by a manufacturer of the yarn stating that it produces the yarn that is in the subject of the request, including the quantities that can be supplied and the time necessary to fill an order, as well as any relevant information regarding past production.

CITA will protect any business confidential information that is marked business confidential from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law. CITA will make available to the public non-confidential versions of the request and non-confidential versions of any public comments received with respect to a request in room 3100 in the Herbert Hoover Building, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Persons submitting comments on a request are encouraged to include a non-confidential version and a non-confidential summary.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the following are the names and titles of the executives who have been appointed to serve as members of the DCAA Performance Review Boards. They will serve one-year terms, effective upon publication of this notice.

Mr. Larry Uhlfelder, Assistant Director, Policy and Plans, Defense Contract Audit Agency, Chairperson.

Mr. Earl Newman, Assistant Director, Operations, Defense Contract Audit Agency, member.

Mr. Kirk Moberley, General Counsel, Defense Contract Audit Agency, member.

Mr. Frank Summers, Regional Director, Eastern, Defense Contract Audit Agency, Chairperson.

Mr. James Lovelace, Director, Field Detachment, Defense Contract Audit Agency, member.

Mr. Steve Hernandez, Deputy Regional Director, Northeastern, Defense Contract Audit Agency, member.

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 May 4, 2001, Enron filed an application with the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) for a Presidential permit. Enron proposes to construct two 300-megawatt (MW) converter stations in the vicinity of Brownsville, Texas, and a double-circuit 230,000 volt (230-kV) alternating current (AC) transmission line across the U.S. border to connect with similar facilities of the Comision Federal de Electricidad, the national electric utility of Mexico, in the vicinity of Matamoros, Mexico. The first converter station would convert 138-kV AC power from the City of Brownsville Public Utility Board's Loma Alta Substation to 150-kV DC power. A 150-kV DC transmission line would connect the first converter station with the second which would then convert the DC power to 230-kV AC power. The 230-kV transmission line proposed to cross the U.S.-Mexican border would extend from the second converter station. Depending on the configuration of the two converters (co-located at one site or constructed at separate sites) total length of the DC and AC transmission lines within the US would be between 5.7 and 8.7 miles.

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 Enron'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: Robert Frank, Director, Government Affairs, Enron Corp., 1400 Smith Street, Houston, TX 77002 AND Jeffrey D. Watkiss/Andrea M. Settanni, Bracewell & Patterson, L.L.P., 2000 K Street, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20006.

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.”

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those which may want to request critical use exemptions from the phaseout of methyl bromide, such as State agencies responsible for the regulation of pesticides.

Title: Request for Applications for Critical Use Exemptions from the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide (ICR #2031.01)

Abstract: The international treaty, The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol) and Title VI of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establish the phaseout of methyl bromide. The Protocol and Section 604(d)(6) of the CAA, added by Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law No. 105-277; October 21, 1998), provide an exemption from the phaseout of methyl bromide that allows for the continued import and/or production of methyl bromide for critical uses. The critical use exemption applies to critical methyl bromide uses agreed to by the Parties to the Protocol as of the complete phaseout of methyl bromide, January 1, 2005.

Under the Montreal Protocol, exemptions are granted for uses that are determined by the Parties to be “critical” as defined by Decision IX/6. The critical-use allowances will be allocated to the United States entities based on the nominations made to the Protocol which will be decided upon by the Parties at the 2003 meeting and at meetings thereafter.

This data collection is designed to: (1) Maintain consistency with the international treaty, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer; (2) ensure that any critical use exemption complies with Section 604(d) of the CAA; and (3) provide EPA with necessary data to evaluate an application for a critical use exemption and to evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives in the circumstances of the specific use. Requests for critical use exemptions, thus submission of the application, are at the discretion of a State. Should one of these entities apply for the exemption, then the information and data herein are requested by EPA.

Pursuant to regulations 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, you are entitled to assert a business confidentiality claim covering any part of the submitted business information as defined in 40 CFR 2.201(c). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

The EPA would like to solicit comments to:

(i) 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;

(ii) 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;

(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv) 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 submission of responses.

Burden Statement: The burden hours shown below represent the hours for the information collection request (ICR). The ICR provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is only briefly summarized in this notice. The annual public burden for collection of information associated with the exemption is estimated to average 125 hours per application, including time for reading the request for applications, processing, compiling and reviewing the requested data, generating application correspondence or summary reports, and storing, filing, and maintaining the data. The following is a summary of the estimates taken from the ICR:

Respondents/affected entities: 200.

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 200.

Frequency of response: Annual.

Estimated total/average number of responses for each respondent: 1.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 25,000.

Estimated total annual burden costs: $1,500,000.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

On July 7, 1999, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) issued a Federal prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit, pursuant to Section 165 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7475, to Steel Dynamics, Inc. for construction and operation of a new steel mill in Whitley County, Indiana. The United Association of Plumbers and Steamfitters, Local Union 166, and Citizens Organized Watch (COW) subsequently appealed IDEM's decision to the Board. On June 22, 2000, the Board issued an opinion and order ( see In re Steel Dynamics, Inc. , PSD Appeal Nos. 99-4 and 99-5, 9 E.A.D. __ (EAB, June 22, 2000), denying review in part and granting review of several issues. The Board remanded the permit to IDEM for reconsideration of three issues: the best available control technology (BACT) determination for nitrogen oxide emissions from the proposed mill's reheat furnace; the form of the BACT limitations selected for nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide emissions from the mill's electric arc furnace; and the analysis of the mill's potential to emit lead.

On September 29, 2000, following reconsideration of the remanded issues, IDEM issued a revised draft permit for public comment. On January 10, 2001, following public comment and a public hearing, IDEM issued a revised final permit. On February 14, 2001, COW filed a petition for review of the revised permit. On April 23, 2001, the EAB issued an order, denying COW's petition for review.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19(f)(2), for purposes of judicial review, final Agency action occurs when a final PSD permit is issued and Agency review procedures are exhausted. This notice, published today in the Federal Register , constitutes notice of the final Agency action denying review of the PSD permit. If available, judicial review of these determinations under Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA may be sought only by filing of a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days from the date on which this notice of final Agency action appears in the Federal Register . Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, final Agency action with respect to which review could be obtained as described above, shall not be subject to later judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for enforcement.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who are concerned about implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). Passed in 1996, this new law strengthens the nation's system for regulating pesticides on food.Participants may include environmental/public interest and consumer groups; industry and trade associations; pesticide user and grower groups; Federal, State and local governments; food processors; academia; general public; etc. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

2. In person . The Agency has established an administrative record for this meeting under docket control number OPP-00726. The administrative record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this notice and other information related to the “Committee to Advise on Reassessment and Transition.” This administrative record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents.The public version of the administrative record is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and services Division, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, CM2, 1921 Jefferson Davis HWY., Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the PIRIB is (703) 305-5805.

3. By mail . You may submit a written request to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460.

CARAT meetings and workgroup meetings are open to the public under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463). Outside statements by observers are welcome. Oral statements will be limited to 3 to 5 minutes, and it is preferred that only l person per organization present the statement. Any person who wishes to file a written statement may do so before or after the workgroup meeting. These statements will become part of the permanent record and will be available for public inspection at the address listed in Unit II.B. of this document.

Documents relevant to this matter are available for inspection at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Attention: Docket No. A-2001-19, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., room M-1500, Washington, DC 20460, Telephone (202) 260-7548, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

Persons planning to attend the hearing or wishing to present oral testimony should notify Mr. Lorence Pope, Office of Air Quality, Planning, and Standards, Division of Policy Analysis and Communications, MD-10, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Telephone (919) 541-0682, E-mail: pope.lorence@epa.gov. at least two (2) days in advance of each respective public meeting. Each meeting will be strictly limited to the subject matter covered in the NSR 90-Day Draft Study Report. Oral Testimony will be limited to five (5) minutes each. Any member of the public may file a written statement before or during the public meeting, or up until the close of the comment period for the background paper. Written statements (duplicate copies preferred) should be submitted to Docket No. A-2001-19 at the following address: Attention: Docket No. A-2001-19, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street S.W., room M-1500, Washington, D.C. 20460, Telephone (202) 260-7548. Any updates to the meeting schedule will be posted on the World Wide Web at http://www.opa.gov/air/NSR-review .

Following each public meeting, a verbatim transcript of the hearing and written statements will be made available for copying during normal working hours at the Air and Radiation Docket Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street S.W., room M-1500, Washington, DC 20460; Telephone (202) 260-7548, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

This announcement consists of three parts. The first part contains general information. The second part addresses the registrants' requests for registration cancellations and amendments to delete uses. The third part proposes existing stock provisions that will be set forth in the cancellation order that the Agency intends to issue at the close of the comment period for this announcement.

This action is directed to the public in general. You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, sell, distribute, or use chlorpyrifos products. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq ., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule, for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-34203F. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-34203F in the subject line on the first page of your response.

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

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

3. Electronically . You may submit your comments electronically by e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov, or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number OPP-34203F. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

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

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity.

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

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

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

In the Federal Register of September 20, 2000, (65 FR 56886) (FRL-6743-7), EPA published a notice of the Agency's receipt of amendments and cancellations for manufacturing use products and associated end use products for signatories of the Agreement signed on June 7, 2000 and subsequent ancillary agreements. These requests were submitted as a result of the Agreement that was signed on June 7, 2000 between EPA and the basic manufacturers of chlorpyrifos. A copy of the Agreement that was signed on June 7, 2000 is located in docket control number OPP-34203D.

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

Under section 6(f)(1)(A) of FIFRA, registrants may request, at any time, that EPA cancel any of their pesticide registrations. Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA requires that EPA provide a 30-day period in which the public may comment before the Agency may act on the request for voluntary cancellation. In addition, section 6(f)(1)(C) of FIFRA requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless (1) the registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or (2) the Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. The registrants have requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. In light of this request, EPA is granting the request to waive the 180-day comment period and is providing a 30-day public comment period before taking action on the requested cancellations. Given the potential risks, both dietary and non-dietary, that chlorpyrifos use poses, especially to children, EPA intends to grant the requested cancellations at the close of the comment period for this announcement.

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

Under section 6(f)(1)(A) of FIFRA, registrants may request, at any time, that their pesticide registrations be amended to delete one or more pesticide uses. The registrants have requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. In light of this request, EPA is granting the request to waive the 180-day comment period and is providing a 30-day public comment period before taking action on the requested amendments to delete uses. Given the potential dietary and non-dietary risks that chlorpyrifos use poses, especially to children, EPA intends to grant the requested amendments to delete uses at the close of the comment period for this announcement.

The registrants have requested voluntary cancellation of the chlorpyrifos registrations identified in Table 1 and voluntary amendment to terminate certain uses of the chlorpyrifos registrations identified in Table 2. Pursuant to section 6(f) of FIFRA, EPA intends to grant the requests for voluntary cancellation and amendment. For purposes of the cancellation order that the Agency intends to issue at the close of the comment period for this announcement, the term “existing stocks” will be defined, pursuant to EPA's existing stocks policy at June 26, 1991,(56 FR 29362) as those stocks of a registered pesticide product which are currently in the United States and which have been packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation or amendment. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks after the effective date of the cancellation order that the Agency intends to issue that is not consistent with the terms of that order will be considered a violation of section 12(a)(2)(K) and /or 12(a)(1)(A) of FIFRA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Use of existing stocks . Except for products bearing those uses identified above in Unit III.3. of this document, EPA intends to permit the use of existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 or 2 until such stocks are exhausted, provided such use is in accordance with the existing labeling of that product.

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

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

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

To access a fact sheet which provides more detail on this registration, go to the Home Page for the Office of Pesticide Programs at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/, and select “fact sheet.”

2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-30488A. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as confidential business information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

In accordance with section 3(c)(2) of FIFRA, a copy of the approved label, the list of data references, the data and other scientific information used to support registration, except for material specifically protected by section 10 of FIFRA, are also available for public inspection. Requests for data must be made in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and must be addressed to the Freedom of Information Office (A-101), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The request should: Identify the product name and registration number and specify the data or information desired.

A paper copy of the fact sheet, which provides more detail on this registration, may be obtained from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

The Agency approved the application after considering all required data on risks associated with the proposed use of Coniothyrium minitans strain CON/M/91-08, and information on social, economic, and environmental benefits to be derived from use. Specifically, the Agency has considered the nature of the chemical and its pattern of use, application methods and rates, and level and extent of potential exposure. Based on these reviews, the Agency was able to make basic health and safety determinations which show that use of Coniothyrium minitans strain CON/M/91-08 when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects to the environment.

EPA issued a notice, published in the Federal Register of December 28, 1999, (64 FR 72658) (FRL-6484-7), which announced that PROPHYTA Biologischer Pflanzenschutz GmbH, c/o Technology Sciences Group, Inc., 101 17th St., NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036, had submitted an application to register the pesticide product, Contans WG, a microbial fungicide (EPA File Symbol 72444-1), containing Coniothyrium minitans strain CON/M/91-08. This product was not previously registered.

The application was approved on March 16, 2001, as Contans WG (EPA Registration Number 72444-1) for use in agricultural soils to control Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and Sclerotinia minor , common plant pathogens which cause white mold, pink rot, and water soft rot.

The draft Plan Inventory reflects EPA's commitment to help entities comply with regulatory requirements and improve environmental performance through compliance assistance. Compliance assistance includes activities, tools, or technical assistance that provides clear and consistent information for: (1) Helping the regulated community understand and meet its obligations under environmental regulations; or (2) compliance assistance providers to aid the regulated community in complying with environmental regulations.

The comprehensive approach of the Plan Inventory allows interested stakeholders to understand the Agency's current compliance assistance priorities and activities and to suggest where tools or additional emphasis are still needed. The consolidated information will also assist compliance assistance providers in determining how to focus their resources without duplicating EPA's efforts. Additionally, the regulated community will be able to anticipate what compliance assistance will be available to them in the near future.

The draft fiscal year 2002 Plan Inventory continues the coordinated, intra-agency planning that marked the first Compliance Assistance Activity Plan, fiscal year 2001, published April 2001. Stakeholder comments played a significant role in the development of the fiscal year 2001 Plan. To better assist the Agency, EPA would particularly welcome comments addressing the following issues:

1. What are the most important environmental or regulatory problems where the EPA should focus its compliance assistance efforts?

2. What type of compliance assistance would be most useful and effective at addressing the environmental or regulatory problems identified above? What entities should EPA direct that assistance toward?

3. What activities suggest opportunities for collaboration between EPA and other compliance assistance providers? How might that collaboration work?

4. Are any of EPA's compliance assistance activities unnecessary or duplicative of other efforts? Which ones? Why?

The Agency looks to stakeholder comments to influence the directions in which we focus our compliance assistance resources. The Agency is committed to using stakeholder comments as we continuously improve the way we do business.

In 1993, under the authority of section 6217(g) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments, EPA issued Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. That guidance document details management measures appropriate for the control of five categories of nonpoint sources of pollution in the coastal zone: Agriculture, forestry, urban areas, marinas and recreational boating, and hydromodification. The document also includes management measures for wetlands, riparian areas, and vegetated treatment systems because they are important to the abatement of nonpoint source pollution in coastal waters. States and territories were required to adopt measures “in conformity” with the coastal management measures guidance for their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs.

State, territory, and tribal water quality assessments continue to identify nonpoint source pollution as a major cause of degradation in surveyed waters nationwide. In 1987 Congress enacted section 319 of the Clean Water Act to establish a national program to control nonpoint sources of water pollution. Under section 319, States, territories, and tribes address nonpoint source pollution by assessing the nonpoint source pollution problems within the State, territory, or tribal lands; identifying the sources of pollution; and implementing management programs to control the pollution. Section 319 also authorizes EPA to award grants to States, territories, and tribes to assist them in implementing management programs that EPA has approved. Program implementation includes nonregulatory and regulatory programs, technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, and demonstration projects. In fiscal year 2000, Congress appropriated and EPA awarded $200 million for nonpoint source management program grants. EPA has awarded a total of $1 billion to States, territories, and Indian tribes since 1990.

The 1993 management measures guidance focused on conditions and examples of management measure implementation from the coastal zone. To date, technical guidance on the best available, economically achievable measures for controlling nonpoint sources with a national focus has not been released. The draft national management measures guidance for forestry is intended to partially address this gap. Although the practices detailed in the 1993 coastal guidance apply generally to inland areas, EPA has recognized the utility of developing and publishing technical guidance that explicitly addresses nonpoint source pollution on a nationwide basis. Moreover, additional information and examples from research and experience to date with implementation of the management measures are available to enrich the national guidance. These changes have helped to prompt the revision and expansion of the forestry chapter of the 1993 guidance.

The draft technical guidance continues to focus on the major sources of pollution from forestry identified for the 1993 coastal guidance by EPA in consultation with a number of other Federal agencies and other leading national experts, including several experts from the U.S. Forest Service. Specifically, the guidance identifies management measures for the following:

i. Preharvest planning;

ii. Streamside management areas;

iii. Road construction and reconstruction;

iv. Road management;

v. Timber harvesting;

vi. Site preparation and forest regeneration;

vii. Fire management;

viii. Revegetation of disturbed areas;

ix. Forest chemical management; and

x. Wetlands forest management.

The draft national management measures guidance is based in large part on the 1993 coastal guidance. The coastal guidance was developed using a workgroup approach to draw upon technical expertise within other Federal agencies as well as State water quality and coastal zone management agencies.

The 1993 text has been expanded to include information on the application and effectiveness of forestry BMPs from recent research, the cost of installing BMPs, watershed-scale and ecological impacts of forestry activities, technological advances that affect BMP use and installation, State BMP monitoring programs, logger education and certification programs, and BMP installation and use considerations for nonindustrial private forest landowners.

EPA is soliciting comments on the draft guidance on management measures to control nonpoint source pollution from forestry. The Agency is soliciting additional information and supporting data on the measures specified in this guidance and on additional measures that may be as effective or more effective in controlling nonpoint source pollution from forestry. EPA requests that commenters focus their comments on the technical soundness of the draft management measures guidance.

In its May 2001 report, the energy task force headed by Vice President Cheney recommended that “the Administrator of the EPA, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and other relevant agencies, review the New Source Review regulations, including administrative interpretation and implementation, and report to the President within 90 days on the impact of the regulations on investment in new utility and refinery generation capacity, energy efficiency, and environmental protection.”

New Source Review is a program that was first incorporated into the Clean Air Act in 1977. It requires that a source of air pollution install the best pollution control equipment when it is built or when it makes a major modification that increases emissions. NSR has been an important part of EPA's efforts to protect air quality. At the same time, it is widely recognized that the NSR program is overly complex and burdensome both for affected companies and for the state and local agencies that are responsible for implementing it. For several years, EPA has been exploring options designed to simplify the program, reduce the length of the review process, and remove any barriers it may pose to innovation and improved energy efficiency.

Consistent with the Report, EPA has undertaken a 90-day review of NSR to determine if changes should be made to help the program work more efficiently while still maintaining environmental safeguards. In particular, the Agency will study the impact of NSR regulations on investment in new utility and refinery capacity, energy efficiency, and pollution emissions.

The final report, which is scheduled to be submitted to the President on August 17, will summarize NSR data related to the electricity generating and petroleum refining industries, and examine whether NSR, including enforcement cases filed against those industries, have had a negative impact on investments in new capacity. The report will also include recommendations on how to improve NSR and minimize any adverse impacts on the energy industry.

EPA is conducting this review in close cooperation and consultation with the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, the Office of Management and Budget, the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and the National Economic Council.

In addition to today's notice of availability and opportunity to submit comments on the background paper, the Agency is taking additional steps to seek input from the public and from affected stakeholders. We will hold several public meetings across the U.S. to collect information and public views on NSR. Information about these meetings will be published separately in the Federal Register , and will be available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/air/NSR-review . We will also hold separate meetings with outside stakeholders, including affected industries, environmental groups, and state and local governments.

You may be affected by this document if you are, or may in the future be, a manufacturer or importer of a monomer acid derivative that requires submission of a Premanufacture Notice (PMN) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Special rules apply to persons who manufactured, between August 2, 1985, and the effective date of this Federal Register notice, monomer acid derivatives that, in reliance on EPA's guidance of August 2, 1985, could have been viewed as covered by corresponding TOFA chemicals listed on the TSCA Inventory. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to the following:

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

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

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPPTS-50040A. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as confidential business information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center, North East Mall Rm. B-607, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC. The Center is open from noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Center is (202) 260-7099.

An August 2, 1985 letter from EPA erroneously equated monomer acid and its derivatives with Tall Oil Fatty Acid (TOFA) and its corresponding derivatives for TSCA inventory purposes when, in fact, they are chemically distinct. As a result, many manufacturers of monomer acid derivatives have not submitted PMNs under TSCA section 5, because the letter incorrectly indicated that monomer acid derivatives were covered by TOFA derivatives already on the Inventory. This notice implements a correction to the 1985 letter on nomenclature of monomer acid and derivatives. With this correction, monomer acid derivatives that are not on the Inventory will be considered new chemical substances under section 5 of TSCA. Today's nomenclature correction finalizes the Federal Register notice of October 31, 2000 (65 FR 64944) (FRL-6746-7).

Section 5 of TSCA requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory) to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Section 8(b) of TSCA requires EPA to compile, keep current, and publish a list of each chemical substance which is manufactured or processed in the United States (the TSCA Inventory). This requirement includes defining the scope of the chemical listings on the Inventory.

1. The 1985 letter . The August 2, 1985 EPA letter to an industry representative on the nomenclature for monomer acids states:

2. Discussion . Tall oil is a source for natural fatty acids, commonly referred to as Tall Oil Fatty Acids (“TOFA”). TOFA may be reacted with other substances to create TOFA derivatives. TOFA that is heated in the presence of an acid clay catalyst forms a “dimer acid” together with small amounts of “trimer acid” and higher oligomers. The “dimer acid” process also produces “monomer acid” as a co-product. The monomer acid is often used as an inexpensive fatty acid source to make monomer acid derivatives or other downstream products for use in lubricants, greases, hot melt adhesives, printing ink resins, ore flotation agents, corrosion inhibitors, etc.

It is clear that the TOFA dimerization process yields distinct chemical substances that may be separated by distillation: dimer acid, trimer acid, and monomer acid. Whereas the natural source-derived TOFA largely consists of linear C18-unsaturated carboxylic acids, principally oleic and linoleic acids, monomer acid contains relatively small amounts of oleic and linoleic acids, and instead contains significant amounts of branched, and some cyclic, C18 acids, both saturated and unsaturated, as well as elaidic acid. The more diverse and significantly branched composition of monomer acid results from the thermal catalytic processing carried out on TOFA or analogous feedstocks.

Further, the reaction of monomer acid with other chemical substances also yields unique, identifiable derivative substances which are chemically different from corresponding TOFA derivatives. Therefore, it is incorrect to equate monomer acid to TOFA, or a monomer acid derivative to a TOFA derivative.

Oleic acid and octadecenoic acid are also unique, identifiable substances that are distinguished from monomer acid because of their essentially linear, unsaturated acid composition. Thus, the derivatives of oleic and octadecenoic acid are also unique, identifiable, and different from monomer acid derivatives.

Through dialogue over the last 6 years, EPA and industry have worked toward a mutual understanding of the correct nomenclature for these chemical substances that previously were believed to be on the Inventory, and have mutually developed procedures to implement the nomenclature change. In 1994, the Pine Chemicals Association (PCA), then known as the Pulp Chemicals Association asked EPA to clarify the Agency's chemical nomenclature policy for dimer acids. At that time, several alternative listings for dimer acid were present in the Inventory. PCA and EPA agreed that one description, “Fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers (CAS Registry Number 61788-89-4),” would describe dimer acids irrespective of the fatty acid source (except for the crude form of dimer acid that is not made from oleic acid or linoleic acid, and is used directly as a crude chemical intermediate, which is instead named “Fatty acids, C16-18 and C18-unsatd., dimerized (CAS Registry Number 71808-39-4)”). Subsequently, over 100 Inventory corrections were filed and the dimer acid issue successfully resolved. During this program it was also realized that a similar issue existed for a co-product, monomer acid, as there were at least two ways in which it was identified in the Inventory. As a consequence, different types of chemical names exist on the Inventory for derivatives and other downstream products based on monomer acids. EPA and PCA agreed that it would be necessary to correct the existing Inventory listings under a uniform nomenclature.

EPA also acknowledged that the August 2, 1985, Agency letter had erroneously equated monomer acid derivatives with TOFA derivatives and derivatives of oleic acid or octadecenoic acid, when in fact they are chemically distinct. Because the guidance found in the 1985 letter led the manufacturers to believe that the products they manufactured were already on the Inventory under a name based on TOFA, oleic acid, or octadecenoic acid, since 1985 a number of manufacturers of monomer acid products have not submitted PMNs required under section 5 of TSCA.

Today's nomenclature correction finalizes the Federal Register notice of October 31, 2000 (65 FR 64944), and constitutes official notice that EPA's August 2, 1985, letter was erroneous and that monomer acids are not equivalent to TOFA, oleic acid, or octadecenoic acid for Inventory purposes. Under this notice, PMNs are required for monomer acid derivatives that are not explicitly on the TSCA Inventory and which are manufactured on or after the effective date of this notice.

The Agency reviewed and considered the two comments that were received on the October 31, 2000 Federal Register notice. A complete copy of the comments is available in the public docket for this action.

Comment . Both commenters agreed that monomer acid and its derivatives are not synonymous with tall oil fatty acid and its derivatives; however, they objected to the burdensome mechanism of PMN preparation and submission to correct the chemical nomenclature. One commenter suggested alternative methods, such as opening a TSCA 8(b) Inventory reporting period that would mirror the original compilation of the Inventory, or EPA working with the Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) to simply add the new CAS Registry Numbers to the Inventory as an Inventory correction. The commenter asserted that the latter alternative approach would be similar to what EPA proposed in its discussion with the Soap and Detergent Association (SDA) and fatty acid producers.

Response . As mentioned in the October 31, 2000 Federal Register notice, because these monomer acid derivatives were not manufactured during the Initial Inventory reporting period and were never reported for the Initial TSCA Inventory, under the Inventory correction guidelines (July 29, 1980; 45 FR 50544) they are not eligible for Inventory correction as an alternative to PMN submission. Furthermore, the circumstances of this monomer acid nomenclature are not similar to the project proposed by the SDA regarding certain multi-component fatty acids and their derivatives. Under the proposed SDA project, the objective is to simplify and consolidate multiple existing Inventory listings under one preferred name for those substances that are considered to be identical. All of the substances that would be considered under the proposed SDA project are currently listed on the Inventory. There are no chemicals to be added to the Inventory. EPA believes that the monomer acid situation is more like that for polymer salts under 40 CFR 710.4(d)(7) and 720.30(h)(7), in which certain chemicals that did not qualify for the reporting exclusions under 40 CFR 710.4(d)(7) and 720.30(h)(7) were never reported for the Inventory or reviewed by EPA under the PMN program due to a confusion in the regulatory language. In both the current case and the one involving the polymer salts, those chemicals in question that were reportable were manufactured after the close of the Inventory reporting period and PMNs would have been submitted had there not been any erroneous guidance from EPA. Therefore, the net PMN reporting burden should be no greater than if EPA had issued accurate guidance on monomer acid and its derivatives in 1985.

Those who already reported monomer acid derivatives initially manufactured since August 2, 1985, will not need to do anything, while those who have not yet reported such substances must do so by the effective date of this notice. In this way, PMNs will finally have been submitted for all of the monomer acid derivatives initially manufactured for a non-exempt commercial purpose subsequent to the Agency's erroneous 1985 guidance (see exception for those monomer acid derivatives not currently being manufactured, under Unit III.F.). However, due to the confusion caused by EPA's 1985 erroneous guidance, the Agency wishes to minimize any inconvenience to the chemical industry by taking two specific steps to facilitate the PMN submission and review process: suspending EPA's policy of a limit of six chemical substances per consolidation notice and waiving PMN fees (see Unit III.C.).

EPA no longer considers as valid the nomenclature interpretation in the August 2, 1985 EPA letter which stated:

The nomenclature correction affects anyone who manufactures or imports, or who plans to manufacture or import, a monomer acid derivative or other “downstream” substance based on monomer acid for a non-exempt commercial purpose. Monomer acid is considered to be the combination of non-dimerized fatty acids formed and separated as a co-product from the manufacture of dimer acid containing 36 carbon atoms that is listed in the TSCA Inventory as “Fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers” (CAS Registry Number 61788-89-4). The correct nomenclature now required for monomer acid is “Fatty acids, C16-18 and C18-unsatd., branched and linear” (CAS Registry Number 68955-98-6). For TSCA Inventory purposes, derivatives and other downstream products made from monomer acid must be named consistently with this nomenclature for monomer acid.

The effective date for this new nomenclature interpretation, described in Unit III.A., will be June 27, 2002. Prior to this date, EPA will allow manufacturers to continue commercial production of existing monomer acid derivatives and downstream products under the old nomenclature. After the effective date, companies that manufacture monomer acid derivatives and downstream products under the old nomenclature will no longer be in compliance with TSCA section 5. Therefore, companies should submit PMNs at least 90 days before the effective date to ensure that Agency review is completed before this nomenclature correction takes effect. EPA encourages conversion to the new nomenclature immediately instead of delaying the correction to the effective date of this notice.

EPA is taking two additional steps to facilitate the Premanufacture Notice process for chemical substances currently using the incorrect nomenclature. For the purposes of this nomenclature correction only, EPA is (1) Suspending its TSCA New Chemicals Program policy of a limit of six chemical substances per consolidated PMN and (2) Waiving PMN fees for any PMN submissions required as a result of the nomenclature correction. However, in order to facilitate the review of these special PMN submissions, submitters should use the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Inventory Expert Service to develop correct Chemical Abstracts (CA) names for all of their reported substances in accordance with Method 1 as described at 40 CFR 720.45(a)(3)(i).

On the first page of the PMN form, the PMN submitter or filing organization should insert the word “WAIVER” in the boxes reserved for the User Fee (“TS”) Numbers, because these PMNs are exempt from the user fee. On page 2 of the PMN form, submitters should check the box for the $2,500 user fee certification statement and also type the following statement: “No fee required, per EPA's “Correction to Chemical Nomenclature for Monomer Acid Derivatives for TSCA Inventory Purposes” June 27, 2001. For item 3 on page 3 of the PMN form, submitters should list Prenotice Communication number “PC 4078.” “PC 4078” has been established for all pre-notice communication regarding this nomenclature correction, except that, if an individual company or group of companies submits a consolidated PMN covering more than one chemical substance, they will need to request a separate PC number for the consolidated notice. The individual manufacturers and importers of monomer acid derivatives will be the submitter of record for each PMN chemical substance. Other information, such as toxicity data on the PMN chemical substance that are in the possession or control of the PMN submitter, or known to or reasonably ascertainable by the PMN submitter, must also be submitted or described by each individual manufacturer or importer, as specified in 40 CFR 720.50.

On the effective date of this nomenclature correction notice, TOFA, oleic acid, or octadecenoic acid will no longer be considered equivalent to monomer acid. Starting on the effective date, anyone manufacturing a chemical substance based on monomer acid that is not specifically listed on the TSCA Inventory using the correct nomenclature for the monomer acid component of the chemical substance will be in violation of TSCA. A person may, of course, continue to manufacture TOFA derivatives and derivatives of oleic acid or octadecenoic acid that are listed on the Inventory without submitting a PMN.

A PMN must be submitted by those persons who intend to manufacture, on or after the effective date of this nomenclature correction notice, monomer acid derivatives and other downstream products based on monomer acid that are not on the TSCA Inventory. For example, if you initially manufactured such a monomer acid derivative in 1986 but are not currently manufacturing or intending to resume manufacture, you are not required to submit a PMN now.Note, however, that the substance will not appear on the TSCA Inventory by virtue of your previous manufacture of it. Moreover, if you plan to manufacture the monomer acid derivative on or after the effective date of this nomenclature correction notice and the substance has not in the interim been placed on the Inventory due to another company's manufacture or import, you will need to submit a PMN at least 90 days before commencing manufacture.

No. The special procedures described above in Unit III.C. (i.e.; waiver of user fee, allowing consolidated PMNs of more than 6 chemicals, and the PMN requirement becoming effective 1-year from publication of this notice) apply only to persons who manufactured, between August 2, 1985, and the date of this Federal Register notice, a monomer acid derivative that, in reliance on EPA's erroneous guidance, could be viewed as covered by a corresponding TOFA listing already on the TSCA Inventory. These procedures do not apply to monomer acid derivatives that either: (1) were never manufactured between August 2, 1985, and the date of this Federal Register notice, or (2) for which there is/was no corresponding TOFA listing on the TSCA Inventory. Manufacture of monomer acid derivatives that were never manufactured between August 2, 1985, and the date of this Federal Register notice, or for which there is no corresponding TOFA listing on the TSCA Inventory, requires compliance with all the regular PMN rules of TSCA section 5 and 40 CFR part 720.

EPA expects that there will be both individual and consolidated PMNs submitted as a result of this nomenclature correction. It may be possible that only one consolidated PMN is necessary for each chemical class of product based on monomer acid. Notices can be submitted by individual companies or as part of an organized effort to submit consolidated PMNs. Where there is an organized filing of consolidated PMNs, PMN Standard Form pages 8 through 11 of each consolidated PMN may be filled out by the filing group of companies (this information is expected to be of a more general nature, applicable to a given class of monomer acid derivative). Pages 1 through 7, however, pertain to information that is specific to individual submitters, and will need to be filled out by the individual manufacturers and importers.

Consistent with 40 CFR 720.40(e), multiple persons submitting information required in a specific PMN or consolidated PMN may make separate submissions to EPA so as not to disclose confidential business information (CBI) to one another. For example, a customer of a PMN submitter of record who also is a manufacturer of a monomer acid derivative may submit a letter of support, confidential from the supplier, directly to EPA for TSCA section 5 notification, giving complete chemical identity, health and safety, use, production volume, and/or process information, etc., for his or her substance. This enables the customer to disclose any specific CBI to EPA but not to the other parties in the PMN.

No. This document is not a rule. It only makes a correction to TSCA Inventory nomenclature. As such, this action does not require review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).

Because this action is not economically significant as defined by section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).

This action will not result in environmental justice related issues and does not, therefore, require special consideration under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

This action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, and is not subject to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq .), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA. This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Nor does this action have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000).

This action does not involve any technical standards that require the Agency's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

In issuing this action, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988, entitled Civil Justice Reform (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996).

EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630, entitled Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988), by examining the takings implications of this action in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the Executive Order.

This document does not contain any new information collection requirements that would require additional OMB review and approval. The information collection activities related to the submission of information pursuant to TSCA section 5 have been already approved by OMB under OMB control number 2070-00012 (EPA ICR No. 574). The annual respondent burden for this information collection activity is estimated to average 100 hours per respondent, including time for reading the regulations, processing, compiling and reviewing the requested data, generating the request, storing, filing, and maintaining the data. The additional reporting requirement is estimated to be 100 additional PMNs over and above the current annual projections of PMN submissions. The ICR projects about 185,000 burden hours annually. An additional 100 PMNs at 100 hours each would be covered by this current estimate.

As defined by the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.3(b), “burden” means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq ., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966, does not apply because this action is not a rule for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Nevertheless, EPA has provided a courtesy copy of this action to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States.

The purpose of this program announcement is to announce the anticipated availability of fiscal year 2002 funds, authorized under the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (Act), as amended, to promote the goal of social and economic self-sufficiency for American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Native American Pacific Islanders in three competitive areas. Funding authorization is provided under sections 803(a), and 803(d) of the Native American Programs Act of 1974, as amended (Pub. L. 93-644, 88 Stat. 2324, 42 U.S.C. 2991b). The Indian Environmental Regulatory Enhancement Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-408) authorizes financial assistance for projects to address environmental regulatory concerns (section 803(d) of the Native American Programs Act of 1974, as amended).

The Administration for Native Americans assists eligible applicants for the three competitive areas to undertake 12 to 36 month development projects that are part of long-range comprehensive plans to move toward governance, social, and/or economic self-sufficiency.

In order to streamline the application process for eligible applicants under three competitive areas, ANA is issuing a single program announcement for fiscal year 2002 funds. Information regarding ANA's mission, policy, goals, application requirements, review criteria and closing dates for all three competitive areas are included in this announcement.

The Administration for Native Americans promotes the goal of self-sufficiency in Native American communities primarily through Social and Economic Development Strategies (SEDS) projects. The Native American Programs Act also authorizes ANA to establish an additional program for environmental regulatory enhancement.

This program announcement is being issued in anticipation of the appropriation of funds for fiscal year 2002 and the availability of funds for the three competitive areas is contingent upon sufficient final appropriations. Proposed projects will be reviewed on a competitive basis against the specific evaluation criteria presented under each competitive area in this announcement.

ANA continues a variety of requirements directed towards enforcing its policy that an eligible grant recipient may only have one active ANA grant awarded from a competitive area at any time. Therefore, while eligible applicants may compete for a grant in each of the three competitive areas, an applicant may only submit one application per competitive area and no applicant may receive more than one grant in each competitive area, including any existing ANA grant. Also, an Alaska Native entity may not submit an application under both Competitive Areas 1 and 2 for the May closing date. Alaska Native entities may receive a grant under either competitive area 1 or 2, but not under both. All applicants are strongly encouraged to demonstrate a plan for an employee fringe benefit package that includes an employee retirement plan benefit, and new grantee recipients must fund travel for key personnel (such as the Financial Officer or Project Director) to attend post-award grant management and administration training sponsored by ANA. This travel funding is optional for grantees that have had ANA grants in the past.

Before receiving a grant, every successful applicant will be encouraged to commit in writing to, and budget for an employee retirement fringe benefit that meets the standards found in the budget evaluation criteria within this announcement.

Continuing for fiscal year 2002, to foster goals under the Executive Order on tribally controlled colleges and universities (TCUs), TCUs may now independently apply for an ANA grant without impacting eligibility of the Tribe to apply. Previously, only one application was accepted, either from the Tribe or the TCU. Now both the Tribe and TCU may compete for and receive ANA grants at the same time, in the same program(s).

Ongoing for fiscal year 2002, are two White House Initiatives relating to Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders and People with Disabilities. In accordance with the Executive Order on Asian American and Pacific Islanders, ANA encourages greater participation from Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities. The Executive Order on People with Disabilities encourages all communities to address the needs of people with disabilities in all programs in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). ANA encourages all Native communities to address the needs of People with Disabilities in all aspects of their programs. ANA also encourages greater participation from Native organizations serving People with Disabilities.

In FY2002, a special emphasis is announced for incorporating a capacity for tribes who are operating or plan to operate Tribal Child Support Enforcement programs either solely or in conjunction with a tribal TANF program. As a part of a tribal social development project, capacity building can include cooperative agreements with States to deliver critical elements of a comprehensive child support program or such capacity of tribal governments to run solely tribal programs with no cooperative agreement with a state.

This program announcement consists of three parts.

The mission of the Administration for Native Americans (ANA) is to promote the goal of social and economic self-sufficiency for American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and other Native American Pacific Islanders.

The Administration for Native Americans believes that a Native American community is self-sufficient when it can generate and control the resources necessary to meet its social and economic goals, and the needs of its members.

The Administration for Native Americans also believes that the responsibility for achieving self-sufficiency resides with the governing bodies of Indian tribes, Alaska Native villages, and in the leadership of Native American groups. A community's progress toward self-sufficiency is based on its efforts to plan, organize, and direct resources in a comprehensive manner which is consistent with its established long-range goals.

The Administration for Native Americans' policy is based on three interrelated goals:

1. Governance: To assist tribal and Alaska Native village governments, Native American institutions, and local leadership to exercise local control and decision-making over their resources.

2. Economic Development: To foster the development of stable, diversified local economies and economic activities which will provide jobs and promote economic well being.

3. Social Development: To support local access to, control of, and coordination of services and programs which safeguard the health, well-being and culture of people, provide support services and training so people can work, and which are essential to a thriving and self-sufficient community in the spirit of respect for indigenous peoples' cultural and intellectual property rights.

Applicants must comply with certain of the following administrative policies:

• Current grantees whose grant project period extends beyond September 30, 2001, or who have requested an extension of the grant project beyond that date, are not eligible to apply for a grant under the same program area. Current SEDS or Alaska-specific SEDS grantees with project periods beyond September 30, 2002, may not compete for additional SEDS or Alaska-specific SEDS grants. Current Indian Environmental Regulatory Enhancement grantees with project periods beyond September 30, 2002, may not compete for additional Indian Environmental Regulatory Enhancement grants.

• Applicants for any competitive area may propose 12 to 36 month projects.

• Applicants must describe a locally determined strategy to carry out a proposed project with fundable objectives and activities.

• Local long-range planning must consider the maximum use of all available resources, how the resources will be directed to development opportunities, and present a strategy for overcoming the local issues that hinder movement toward self-sufficiency in the community.

• An application from a federally recognized Tribe, Alaska Native Village or Native American organization must be from the governing body of the Tribe or organization.

• ANA will not accept applications from tribal components which are tribally-authorized divisions of a larger tribe, unless the application includes a Tribal resolution which clearly demonstrates the Tribe's support of the project and the Tribe's understanding that the other applicant's project supplants the Tribe's authority to submit an application under that specific competitive area both for the current competition and for the duration of the approved grant period, should the application be funded.

• If a federally recognized Tribe or Alaska Native village chooses not to apply, it may support another applicant's project (e.g., a tribal organization) which serves or impacts their reservation. In this case, the applicant must include a Tribal resolution which clearly demonstrates the Tribe's approval of the project and the Tribe's understanding that the other applicant's project supplants the Tribe's authority to submit an application under that specific competitive area both for the current competition and for the duration of the approved grant period, should the application be funded.

• An applicant may submit a separate application under any of the competitive areas, as long as the applicant meets the eligibility requirements. However, for the May closing, applications for SEDS grants from Alaska Native entities may be submitted under either Competitive Area 1 or Competitive Area 2, but not both.

• Under each competitive area, ANA will only accept one application, which serves or impacts a reservation, Tribe, or Native American community.

• Any non-profit organization submitting an application must submit proof of its non-profit status in the application at the time of submission. The non-profit agency can accomplish this by providing a copy of the applicant's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax exempt organizations described in Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code or by providing a copy of the currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate, or by providing a copy of the articles of incorporation bearing the seal of the State in which the corporation or association is domiciled.

• If the applicant, other than a tribe or an Alaska Native Village government, is proposing a project benefiting Native Americans or Alaska, or both, it must provide assurance that its duly elected or appointed board of directors is representative of the community, to be served. To establish compliance with the requirement in the regulations for a Board representative of the community, applicants should provide information establishing that at least ninety (90) percent of the individuals serving on a non-profit applicant's board fall into one or more of the following categories: (1) A current or past member of the community to be served; (2) a prospective participant or beneficiary of the project to be funded; or (3) have a cultural relationship with the community to be served.

• Organizations incorporating in American Samoa are cautioned that the Samoan government relies exclusively upon IRS determinations of non-profit status; therefore, articles of incorporation approved by the Samoan government do not establish non-profit status for these organizations for the purpose of eligibility for ANA funds.

• Grantees must provide at least 20 percent of the total approved cost of the project. The total approved cost of the project is the sum of the ACF share and the non-Federal share. The non-Federal share may be met by cash or in-kind contributions, although applicants are encouraged to meet their match requirements through cash contributions. Therefor, a project requesting $100,000 in Federal funds (based on an award of $125,000 per budget period) must provide a match of at least $25,000 (20% total approved project cost). Grantees will be held accountable for commitments of non-Federal resources even if over the amount of the required match. Failure to provide the amount will result in disallowance of Federal match.

As per 45 CFR Part 74.2, In-Kind contributions are defined as the value of non-cash contributions provided by non-Federal third parties. Third party in-kind contributions may be in the form of real property, equipment, supplies and other expendable property, and the value of goods and services directly benefiting and specifically identifiable to the project or program.

In addition it may include other Federal funding sources where legislation or regulations authorize using specific types of funds for match and provided the source relates to the ANA project; examples follow:

• Indian Child Welfare funds, through the Department of Interior;

• Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance funds, through the Department of Interior and the Department of Health and Human Services; and

• Community Development Block Grant funds, through the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

An itemized budget detailing the applicant's non-Federal share, and its source(s), must be included in an application.

• If an applicant plans to charge or otherwise seek credit for indirect costs in its ANA application, a current copy of its Indirect Cost Agreement must be included in the application.

• A request for a waiver of the non-Federal share requirement may be submitted in accordance with 45 CFR 1336.50(b)(3) of the Native American Program Regulations.

• Applications originating from American Samoa, Guam, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are covered under section 501(d) of Public Law 95-134, as amended (48 U.S.C. 1469a) under which HHS waives any requirement for matching funds under $200,000 (including in-kind contributions). Therefore, for the ANA grants under these announced programs, no match is required for grants to these insular areas.

The three competitive areas under this Part describe ANA's funding authorities, priorities, special initiatives, special application requirements, and review criteria. The standard requirements necessary for each application, as well as standard ANA program guidance and technical guidance are described in Part III of this announcement.

This competitive area promotes the goal of social and economic self-sufficiency for American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Native American Pacific Islanders through locally developed social and economic development strategies (SEDS).

Approximately $20 million of financial assistance is anticipated to be available under this priority area for governance, social and economic development projects. ANA anticipates awarding approximately 150 competitive grants ranging from $50,000 to $1,000,000.

ANA assists tribal and village governments, and Native American organizations, in their efforts to develop and implement community-based, long-term governance, social and economic development strategies (SEDS). These strategies must promote the goal of self-sufficiency in local communities.

The SEDS approach is based on ANA's program goals and incorporates two fundamental principles:

1. The local community and its leadership are responsible for determining goals, setting priorities, and planning and implementing programs aimed at achieving those goals. The local community is in the best position to apply its own cultural, political, and socio-economic values to its long-term strategies and programs.

2. Governance and social and economic development are interrelated. In order to move toward self-sufficiency, development in one area should be balanced with development in the others. Consequently, comprehensive development strategies should address all aspects of the governmental, economic, and social infrastructures needed to promote self-sufficient communities.

ANA's SEDS policy uses the following definitions:

• Governmental infrastructure includes the constitutional, legal, and administrative development requisite for independent governance.

• Economic infrastructure includes the physical, commercial, technological, industrial and/or agricultural components necessary for a functioning local economy which supports the life-style embraced by the Native American community.

• Social infrastructure includes those components through which health, economic well being and culture are maintained within the community and that support governance and economic goals.

These definitions should be kept in mind as a local social and economic development strategy is developed as part of a grant application.

A community's movement toward self-sufficiency could be jeopardized if a careful balance between governmental, economic and social development is not maintained. For example, expansion of social services, without providing opportunities for employment and economic development, could lead to dependency on social services.

Conversely, inadequate support services and training could seriously impede productivity and local economic development. Additionally, the necessary infrastructures must be developed or expanded at the community level to support social and economic development and growth. In designing their social and economic development strategies, ANA encourages an applicant to use or leverage all available human, natural, financial, and physical resources.

ANA encourages the development and maintenance of comprehensive strategic plans, which are an integral part of attaining and supporting the balance necessary for successful activities that lead to self-sufficiency.

This section provides descriptions of activities, which are consistent with the SEDS philosophy. Proposed activities should be tailored to reflect the governance, social and economic development needs of the local community and should be consistent and supportive of the proposed project objectives. The types of projects which ANA may fund include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Improvements in the governmental, judicial and/or administrative infrastructures of tribal and village governments (such as strengthening or streamlining management procedures or the development of tribal court systems);

• Increasing the ability of tribes, villages, and Native American groups and organizations to plan, develop, and administer a comprehensive program to support community social and economic self-sufficiency (including strategic planning);

• Increasing awareness of and exercising the legal rights and benefits to which Native Americans are entitled, either by virtue of treaties, the Federal trust relationship, legislative authority, executive orders, administrative and court decisions, or as citizens of a particular state, territory, of the United States;

• Status clarification activities for Native groups seeking Federal or State tribal recognition, such as performing research or any other function necessary to submit a petition for Federal acknowledgment or in response to any obvious deficiencies cited by the Bureau of Acknowledgment and Research (BAR), Department of Interior, in a petition from a Native group seeking Federal recognition; and

• Development of and/or amendments to tribal constitutions, court procedures and functions, by-laws or codes, and council or executive branch duties and functions.

• Development of a community economic infrastructure that will result in businesses, jobs, and an economic support structure;

• Establishment or expansion of businesses and jobs in areas such as tourism, specialty agriculture, energy development, light and/or heavy manufacturing, technology and Internet activities, fabrication and construction companies, housing and fisheries or aqua-culture

• Stabilizing and diversifying a Native community's economic base through business development and enterprise zone ventures.

• Enhancing tribal capabilities to design or administer programs aimed at strengthening the social environment desired by the local community;

• Developing local and intertribal models related to comprehensive planning and delivery of services;

• Developing programs or activities to preserve and enhance tribal heritage and culture; and

• Establishing programs, which involve extended families or tribal societies in activities that strengthen cultural identity and promote community development or self-esteem.

Other SEDS Relationships. ANA encourages projects designed to use the SEDS approach to help achieve current priorities of the Administration for Children and Families which are to:

• Address welfare reform initiatives such as moving families to work.

• Help ensure child support from both parents.

• Create access to affordable child care for low income working families.

• Reach children earlier to promote full development, including links to Head Start, Early Head Start and Child Care.

• Help enroll children in quality Head Start and prepare them to be ready to learn.

• Provide safety, permanency and well-being for children and double the number of adoptions from the public child welfare system.

The following organizations are eligible to apply under this competitive area:

• Federally recognized Indian Tribes;

• Consortia of Indian Tribes;

• Incorporated non-federally recognized Tribes;

• Incorporated nonprofit multi-purpose community-based Indian organizations;

• Urban Indian Centers;

• National or regional incorporated nonprofit Native American organizations with Native American community-specific objectives;

• Alaska Native villages as defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and/or nonprofit village consortia;

• Incorporated nonprofit Alaska Native multi-purpose community-based organizations;

• Nonprofit Alaska Native Regional Corporations/Associations in Alaska with village specific projects;

• Nonprofit Native organizations in Alaska with village specific projects;

• Public and nonprofit private agencies serving Native Hawaiians (The populations served may be located on these islands or on the continental United States);

• Public and nonprofit private agencies serving native peoples from Guam, American Samoa, the Republic of Palau, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. (The populations served may be located on these islands or in the United States); and

• Tribally controlled community colleges, Tribally controlled cost-secondary vocational institutions, and colleges and universities located in Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, Palau, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands which serve Native American Pacific Islanders.

• Non-profit Alaska Native community entities or tribal governing bodies (Indian Reorganization Act or traditional Councils) as recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Further information on eligibility requirements is presented in Part I, ANA Policy and Goals. Some important policies found in Part I are highlighted as follows:

Current ANA SEDS grantees whose grant project period ends on or before September 30, 2001 are eligible to apply for a grant award under this program announcement. The Project Period is noted in Block 9 of the “Financial Assistance Award” document. Applicants for new grants may not have a pending request to extend their existing grant beyond September 30, 2002.

Any non-profit organization submitting an application must submit proof of its non-profit status in the application at the time of submission. The non-profit agency can accomplish this by providing a copy of the applicant's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax exempt organizations described in Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code or by providing a copy of the currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate, or by providing a copy of the articles of incorporation bearing the seal of the State in which the corporation or association is domiciled.

If the applicant, other than a tribe or an Alaska Native Village government, is proposing a project benefiting Native Americans or Alaska Natives, or both, it must provide assurance that its duly elected or appointed board of directors is representative of the community, to be served. To establish compliance with the requirement in the regulations for a Board representative of the community applicants should provide information establishing that at least ninety (90) percent of the individuals serving on a non-profit applicant's board fall into one or more of the following categories: (1) A current or past member of the community to be served; (2) a prospective participant or beneficiary of the project to be funded; or (3) have a cultural relationship with the community to be served. A list of board members with this information including Tribal or Village affiliation, is one of the most suitable approaches for demonstrating compliance with this requirement.

Under each competitive area, ANA will only accept one application which serves or impacts a reservation, Tribe, or Native American community except that a tribally controlled college or university (TCU) may apply in addition to the Tribe. Tribally controlled colleges need only to submit a resolution from their Board of Directors or similar. If a federally recognized Tribe or Alaska Native village chooses not to apply, it may support another applicant's project (e.g., a tribal organization) which serves or impacts their reservation. In this case, the applicant must include a Tribal resolution which clearly demonstrates the Tribe's approval of the project and the Tribe's understanding that the other applicant's project supplants the Tribe's authority to submit an application under that specific competitive area both for the current competition and for the duration of the approved grant period.

Grantees must provide at least 20 percent of the total approved cost of the project; i.e. the sum of the Federal share and the non-Federal share. Further information on this requirement is presented in Part I, ANA Policy and Goals.

A proposed project should reflect the purposes of ANA's SEDS policy and program goals described in the Background section of this competitive area; include a social and economic development strategy which reflects the needs and specific circumstances of the local community; and address the specific developmental steps that the tribe or Native American community is undertaking toward self-sufficiency.

The evaluation criteria are closely related to each other and are considered as a whole in judging the overall quality of an application.

Points are awarded only to applications, which are responsive to this competitive area and these criteria. Proposed projects will be reviewed on a competitive basis using the following evaluation criteria:

(a) The application describes the long-range goals and strategy, including:

• How specific social, governance and economic long-range community goals relate to the proposed project and strategy;

• How the community intends to achieve these goals;

• The relationship between the long-range goals and the applicant's comprehensive community social and economic development plan. (Inclusion of the community's entire development plan is not necessary); and

• A clearly delineated social and economic development strategy (SEDS).

• In discussing their community-based, long-range goals, and the objectives for the proposed projects, non-Federally recognized and off-reservation groups must include a description of what constitutes their specific community.

The application identifies and documents pre-existing and planned involvement and support of the community in the planning process and implementation of the proposed project except for those communities such as Hawaii and the Pacific Islands, where the systems of governance make such involvement inappropriate. The type of community you serve and nature of the proposal being made will influence the type of documentation necessary. For example, a Tribe may choose to address this requirement by submitting a resolution stating that community involvement has occurred in the project planning or may determine that additional community support work is necessary.

A tribal organization may submit resolutions supporting the project proposal from each of its member tribes, as well as a resolution from the applicant organization. Other examples of documentation include: community surveys; minutes of community meetings; questionnaires; tribal presentations; and/or discussion/position papers.

Applications from National Indian and Native organizations must clearly demonstrate a need for the project, explain how the project was originated, state who the intended beneficiaries will be, and describe how the recipients will actually benefit from the project. National Indian and Native organizations should define their membership and describe how the organization operates.

(b) Available resources (other than ANA and the non-Federal share) which will assist, and be coordinated with the project are described.

Letters of commitment should document these resources, not merely letters of support. Letters of commitment are binding when they specifically state the nature, the amount, and conditions under which another agency or organization will support a project funded with ANA funds. Letters of support merely express another organization's endorsement of a proposed project. Support letters are not binding commitment letters or do not factually establish the authenticity of other resources and do not offer or bind specific resources to the project.

For example, a letter from another Federal agency or foundation pledging a commitment of $200,000 in construction funding to complement proposed ANA funded pre-construction activity is evidence of a firm funding commitment. These resources may be human, natural or financial, and may include other Federal and non-Federal resources. Statements that additional funding will be sought from other specific sources are not considered a binding commitment of outside resources and therefore carry less significance.

Non-ANA resources should be leveraged to strengthen and broaden the impact of the proposed project in the community. Project designs should explain how those parts of projects which ANA does not fund will be financed through other sources. For example, ANA does not fund construction. Applicants must show the relationship of non-ANA funded activities to those objectives and activities that are funded with ANA grant funds.

(a) The management and administrative structure of the applicant is explained. Evidence of the applicant's ability to manage a project of the proposed scope is demonstrated. The application clearly shows the successful management of projects of similar scope by the organization, and/or by the individuals designated to manage the project.

(b) Position descriptions and/or resumes of key personnel, including those of consultants, are presented. The position descriptions and/or resumes relate specifically to the staff proposed in the Objective Work Plan and in the proposed budget. Position descriptions very clearly describe each position and its duties and clearly relate to the personnel staffing required to achieve the project objectives. Resumes and/or proposed position descriptions demonstrate that the proposed staff are or will be qualified to carry out the project activities. Either the position descriptions or the resumes contain the qualifications and/or specialized skills necessary for overall quality management of the project. Resumes must be included if individuals have been identified for positions in the application.

The application proposes specific project Objective Work Plan(s) with activities related to each specific objective.

The Objective Work Plan(s) in the application includes project objectives and activities for each budget period proposed and demonstrates that each of the objectives and its activities:

• Is measurable and/or quantifiable in terms of results or outcomes;

• Supports the community's social and economic development strategy;

• Clearly relates to the community's long-range goals;

• Can be accomplished with the available or expected resources during the proposed project period;

• Indicates when the objective, and major activities under each objective, will be accomplished;

• Specifies who will conduct the activities under each objective; and

• Supports a project that will be completed, self-sustaining, or financed by other than ANA funds at the end of the project period.

Completion of the proposed objectives will result in specific, measurable results. The application shows how the expected results will help the community meet its long-range goals. The specific information provided in the narrative and objective work plans on expected results or benefits for each objective is the standard upon which its achievement can be evaluated at the end of each budget year.

A detailed and fully explained budget is provided for each budget period requested which:

• Justifies each line item, with a well-written justification, in the budget categories in Section B of the Budget Information of the application, including the applicant's non-Federal share and its source. Applicants from American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands are not required to provide a 20% match for the non-Federal share since the level of funding available for the planned ANA grants would not invoke a required match for grants to these insular areas. Therefore, applicants from these insular areas may not have points reduced for the lack of matching funds. They are, however, expected to coordinate and organize the delivery of any non-ANA resources they propose for the project, as are all ANA applicants.

• Includes and justifies sufficient cost and other necessary details to facilitate the determination of allowable costs and the relevance of these costs to the proposed project; and

• Requests funds which are appropriate and necessary for the scope of the proposed project.

• Includes sufficient funds for principal representatives, for example; the chief financial officer or project director, from the applicant organization to travel to one post-award grant training and technical assistance conference. This expenditure is mandatory for new grant recipients and optional for grantees that have had ANA grants in the past. This travel and training should occur as soon as practical.

• For business development projects, the proposal demonstrates that the expected return on the funds used to develop the project provides a reasonable operating income and return within a future specified time frame.

• Where implemented, includes an employee fringe benefit budget that provides grant-funded employees with a retirement plan in addition to Social Security. The applicant is strongly encouraged to provide a retirement plan fringe benefit for grant-funded employees' salaries up to five (5) percent. Grantees selecting the retirement benefit option will have these costs funded by ANA above and beyond the applicants project funding level.

• ANA supports a retirement plan as a necessary, reasonable and allowable cost in accordance with OMB rules. Minimum recommended standards for an acceptable retirement fringe benefit plan are:

• The plan exists for the exclusive benefit of the participants; funds are to be used for retirement and certain other pre-retirement needs, not for the organization's needs.

• The plan must have a vesting schedule that does not exceed the initial budget period of the ANA grant.

• An alternate proposal may be submitted for review and approval during grant award negotiations. Alternate proposals may include the use of Individual Retirement Accounts, Money Purchase Pension Plans, Defined Benefit Pension Plans, Combination Plans, etc.

The closing dates for submission of applications under this Competitive Area 1 are: October 26, 2001, February 28, 2002 and May 17, 2002.

Contact the ANA Applicant Help Desk toll free at 1-877-922-9262 for assistance.

This competitive area funds Alaska Native social and economic development projects. Approximately $2.0 million amounts of financial assistance is anticipated to be available for Alaska Native governance, social and economic development projects.

ANA plans to award approximately 10-15 grants under this competitive area. For individual village projects, the funding level for a budget period of 12 months will be up to $125,000; for regional nonprofit and village consortia, the funding level for a budget period of 12 months will be up to $175,000, commensurate with approved multi-village objectives.

Based on the three ANA goals described in Part I, ANA implemented a special Alaska social and economic development initiative in fiscal year 1984. This special effort was designed to provide financial assistance at the village level or for village-specific projects aimed at improving a village's governance capabilities and for social and economic development.

This competitive area continues to implement this special initiative. ANA believes both the nonprofit and for-profit corporations in Alaska can play an important supportive role in assisting individual villages to develop and implement their own locally determined strategies which capitalize on opportunities afforded to Alaska Natives under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), Public Law 92-203.

While the Administration for Native Americans does not fund objectives or activities for the core administration of an organization. ANA will consider funding core administrative capacity building projects at the village government level if the village does not have governing systems in place.

Examples of the types of projects that ANA may fund include, but are not limited to, projects that will:

• Initiate demonstration programs at the regional level to allow Native people to become involved in developing strategies to maintain and develop their economic subsistence base;

• Assist villages in developing land use capabilities and skills in the areas of land and natural resource management and protection, resource assessment and conducting environmental impact studies;

• Assist village consortia in the development of tribal constitutions, ordinances, codes and tribal court systems;

• Develop agreements between the State and villages that transfer programs jurisdictions, and/or control to Native entities;

• Strengthen village government control of land management, including land protection, through coordination of land use planning with village corporations and cities, if appropriate;

• Assist in status clarification activities;

• Initiate village level mergers between village councils, village corporations and others to coordinate programs and services which safeguard the health, well being and culture of a community and its people;

• Strengthen local governance capabilities through the development of village consortia and regional IRAs (Indian Reorganization Act councils organized under the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 473a);

• Assist villages in preparing and coordinating plans for the development and/or improvement of water and sewer systems within the village boundaries;

• Assist villages in establishing initiatives through which youth may participate in the governance of the community and be trained to assume leadership roles in village governments; and

• Consider strategies and plans to protect against, monitor, and assist when catastrophic events occur, such as oil spills or earthquakes.

• Assist villages in developing businesses and industries which: (1) Use local materials; (2) create jobs for Alaska Natives; (3) are capable of high productivity at a small scale of operation; and (4) complement traditional and necessary seasonal activities;

• Substantially increase and strengthen efforts to establish and improve the village and regional business infrastructure and the capabilities to develop and manage resources in a highly competitive cash-economy system;

• Assist villages, or consortia of villages, in developing subsistence compatible industries that will retain local dollars in villages;

• Assist in the establishment or expansion of native-businesses; and

• Assist villages in labor export; i.e., people leaving the local communities for seasonal work and returning to their communities.

• Assist in developing training and education programs for local jobs in education, government, and health-related fields; and work with these agencies to encourage job replacement of non-Natives by trained Natives;

• Develop local models related to comprehensive planning and delivery of social services;

• Develop new service programs, initially established with ANA funds, which will be funded by local communities or the private sector for continued operation after the ANA grant expires.

• Develop or coordinate with State-funded projects, activities designed to decrease the incidence of child abuse and neglect, fetal alcohol syndrome, and/or suicides;

• Assist in obtaining licenses to provide housing or related services from State or local governments; and

• Develop businesses to provide relief for caretakers needing respite from human service-related care work.

The following organizations are eligible to apply under this competitive area:

• Federally recognized Indian Tribes in Alaska;

• Alaska Native villages as defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and/or nonprofit village consortia;

• Incorporated nonprofit Alaska Native multi-purpose community-based organizations;

• Nonprofit Alaska Native Regional Corporations/Associations in Alaska with village specific projects; and

• Nonprofit Native organizations in Alaska with village specific projects.

Further information on eligibility requirements is presented in Part I, ANA Policy and Goals. Some important policies found in Part I are highlighted as follows:

Current ANA SEDS grantees in Alaska whose project period ends on or before September 30, 2002 are eligible to apply for a grant award under this program announcement. The Project Period is noted in Block 9 of the Financial Assistance Award document. Applicants for new grants may not have a pending request to extend their existing grant beyond September 30, 2002.

Any non-profit organization submitting an application must submit proof of its non-profit status in the application at the time of submission. The non-profit agency can accomplish this by providing a copy of the applicant's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax exempt organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code or by providing a copy of the currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate, or by providing a copy of the articles of incorporation bearing the seal of the State in which the corporation or association is domiciled.

If the applicant, other than a tribe or an Alaska Native Village government, is proposing a project benefiting Native Americans or Alaska Natives, or both, it must provide assurance that its duly elected or appointed board of directors is representative of the community, to be served. To establish compliance with the requirement in the regulations for a Board representative of the community applicants should provide information establishing that at least ninety (90) percent of the individuals serving on a non-profit applicant's board fall into one or more of the following categories: (1) A current or past member of the community to be served; (2) a prospective participant or beneficiary of the project to be funded; or (3) have a cultural relationship with the community to be served. A list of board members with this information including Tribal or Village affiliation, is one of the most suitable approaches for demonstrating compliance with this requirement.

Under each competitive area, ANA will only accept one application which serves or impacts a reservation, Tribe, or Native American community except that a tribally controlled college or university (TCU) may apply in addition to the Tribe. If a federally recognized Tribe or Alaska Native village chooses not to apply, it may support another applicant's project (e.g., a tribal organization) which serves or impacts their reservation. In this case, the applicant must include a Tribal resolution, which clearly demonstrates the Tribe's approval of the project and the Tribe's understanding that, the other applicant's project supplants the Tribe's authority to submit an application under that specific competitive area both for the current competition and for the duration of the approved grant period.

Although for-profit regional corporations established under ANCSA are not eligible applicants, individual villages and Indian communities are encouraged to use for-profit regional corporations as subcontractors and to collaborate with them in joint-venture projects for promoting social and economic self-sufficiency. ANA encourages the for-profit corporations to assist the villages in developing applications and to participate as subcontractors in a project.

Grantees must provide at least 20 percent of the total approved cost of the project; i.e. the sum of the Federal share and the non-Federal share. Further information on this requirement is presented in Part I, ANA Policy and Goals.

A proposed project should reflect the purposes of ANA's SEDS policy and goals (described in the Background section of this competitive area and in the Background section of Competitive Area 1), include a social and economic development strategy which reflects the needs and specific circumstances of the local community, and address the specific developmental steps that the tribe or Native American community is undertaking toward self-sufficiency.

The evaluation criteria are closely related to each other and are considered as a whole in judging the overall quality of an application. Points are awarded only to applications, which are responsive to this competitive area and these criteria. Proposed projects will be reviewed on a competitive basis using the following evaluation criteria:

(a) The application describes the long-range goals and strategy, including:

• How specific social, governance and economic long-range community goals relate to the proposed project and strategy;

• How the community intends to achieve these goals;

• The relationship between the long-range goals and the applicant's comprehensive community social and economic development plan. (Inclusion of the community's entire development plan is not necessary); and

• A clearly delineated social and economic development strategy (SEDS).

The application identifies and documents pre-existing and planned involvement and support of the community in the planning process and implementation of the proposed project except in those communities such as Hawaii and the Pacific Islands where systems of governance make such strategies inappropriate. The type of community you serve and nature of the proposal being made, will influence the type of documentation necessary. For example, a Tribe may choose to address this requirement by submitting a resolution stating that community involvement has occurred in the project planning or may determine that additional community support work is necessary.

A tribal organization may submit resolutions supporting the project proposal from each of its members tribes, as well as a resolution from the applicant organization. Other examples of documentation include: community surveys; minutes of community meetings; questionnaires; tribal presentations; and/or discussion/position papers.

Applications from National Indian and Native organizations must clearly demonstrate a need for the project, explain how the project was originated, state who the intended beneficiaries will be, and describe how the recipients will actually benefit from the project. National Indian and Native organizations should describe their membership and define how the organization operates.

(b) Available resources (other than ANA and the non-Federal share) which will assist, and be coordinated with the project are described. Letters of commitment of should document these resources, not merely letters of support. Letters of commitment are binding when they specifically state the nature, the amount, and conditions under which another agency or organization will support a project funded with ANA funds. Letters of support merely express another organization's endorsement of a proposed project. Support letters are not binding commitment letters or do not factually establish the authenticity of other resources and do not offer or bind specific resources to the project.

For example, a letter from another Federal agency or foundation pledging a commitment of $200,000 in construction funding to complement proposed ANA funded pre-construction activity is evidence of a firm funding commitment. These resources may be human, natural or financial, and may include other Federal and non-Federal resources. (Applicant statements that additional funding will be sought from other specific sources are not considered a binding commitment of outside resources.)

Non-ANA resources should be leveraged to strengthen and broaden the impact of the proposed project in the community. Project designs should explain how those parts of projects which ANA does not fund will be financed through other sources. For example, ANA does not fund construction. Applicants must show the relationship of non-ANA funded activities to those objectives and activities that are funded with ANA grant funds.

(a) The management and administrative structure of the applicant is explained. Evidence of the applicant's ability to manage a project of the proposed scope is demonstrated. The application clearly shows the successful management of projects of similar scope by the organization, and/or by the individuals designated to manage the project.

(b) Position descriptions and/or resumes of key personnel, including those of consultants, are presented. The position descriptions and/or resumes relate specifically to the staff proposed in the Approach Page and in the proposed Budget of the application. Position descriptions very clearly describe each position and its duties and clearly relate to the personnel staffing required to achieve the project objectives. Resumes demonstrate that the proposed staff are qualified to carry out the project activities. Either the position descriptions or the resumes contain the qualifications and/or specialized skills necessary for overall quality management of the project. Resumes must be included if individuals have been identified for positions in the application.

The application proposes specific project objective work plans with activities related to each specific objective. The objective work plan(s) in the application includes project objectives and activities for each budget period proposed and demonstrates that each of the objectives and its activities:

• Is measurable and/or quantifiable in terms of results or outcomes;

• Supports the community's social and economic development strategy;

• Clearly relates to the community's long-range goals;

• Can be accomplished with the available or expected resources during the proposed project period;

• Indicates when the objective, and major activities under each objective, will be accomplished;

• Specifies who will conduct the activities under each objective; and

• Supports a project that will be completed, self-sustaining, or financed by other than ANA funds at the end of the project period.

Completion of the proposed objectives will result in specific, measurable results. The application shows how the expected results will help the community meet its long-range goals. The specific information provided in the narrative and objective work plans on expected results or benefits for each objective is the standard upon which its achievement can be evaluated at the end of each budget year.

A detailed and fully explained budget is provided for each budget period requested which:

• Justifies each line item, with a well-written justification, in the budget categories in Section B of the Budget Information of the application, including the applicant's non-Federal share and its source. All applicants are expected to coordinate and organize any non-ANA resources they propose for the project, as are all ANA applicants.

• Includes and justifies sufficient cost and other necessary details to facilitate the determination of allowable costs and the relevance of these costs to the proposed project; and

• Requests funds, which are appropriate and necessary for the scope of the proposed project.

• Includes sufficient funds for principal representatives from the applicant organization to travel to one post-award grant training and technical assistance conference. This travel and training should occur as soon as practical.

• For business development projects, the proposal demonstrates that the expected return on the funds used to develop the project provides a reasonable operating income and return within a future specified time frame.

• Where implemented, includes an employee fringe benefit budget that provides grant-funded employees with a retirement plan in addition to Social Security. The applicant is strongly encouraged to provide a retirement plan fringe benefit up to five (5) percent of grant-funded employees' salaries. ANA will solely fund these costs above and beyond the applicant project funding level. ANA supports a retirement plan as a necessary, reasonable and allowable cost in accordance with OMB rules. Minimum standards for an acceptable retirement fringe benefit plan are:

• The plan exists for the exclusive benefit of the participants; funds are to be used for retirement and certain other pre-retirement needs, not for the organization's needs.

• The plan must have a vesting schedule that does not exceed the initial budget period of the ANA grant.

• An alternate proposal may be submitted for review and approval during grant award negotiations. Alternate proposals may include the use of Individual Retirement Accounts, Money Purchase Pension Plans, Defined Benefit Pension Plans, Combination Plans, etc.

The closing date for submission of applications under this competitive area is: May 10, 2002. Applicants are reminded that for this May closing, applications for SEDS grants from Alaska Native entities may be submitted under either Competitive Area 1 or Competitive Area 2, but not both.

Contact the ANA Applicant Help Desk toll free at 1-877-922-9262 for assistance.

This competitive area funds environmental regulatory enhancement projects. Approximately $3 million of financial assistance is anticipated to be available for environmental regulatory enhancement projects. ANA expects to award approximately 35 grants under this competitive area. The funding level for a budget period of 12 months will be up to $250,000. An applicant may propose project periods of between 12 and 36 months.

Despite an increasing environmental responsibility and growing awareness of environmental issues on Indian lands, there has been a lack of resources available to tribes to develop tribal environmental programs that are responsive to tribal needs. In many cases, this lack of resources has resulted in a delay in action on the part of the tribes.

Some of the critical issues identified by tribes before congressional committees include:

• The need for assistance to train professional staff to monitor and enforce tribal environmental programs;

• The lack of adequate data for tribes to develop environmental statutes and establish environmental quality standards; and

• The lack of resources to conduct studies to identify sources of pollution and the ability to determine the impact on existing environmental quality. As a result, Congress enacted the Indian Environmental Regulatory Enhancement Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-408) to strengthen tribal governments through building capacity within the tribes in order to identify, plan, develop, and implement environmental programs in a manner that is consistent with tribal culture. ANA is to support these activities on a government-to-government basis in a way that recognizes tribal sovereignty and is consistent with tribal culture.

The Administration for Native Americans believes that responsibility for achieving environmental regulatory enhancement rests with the governing bodies of Indian tribes, Alaska Native villages, and with the leadership of Native American groups. Environmental regulatory enhancement includes (but is not limited to) the planning, development, and application of laws, training, monitoring, and enforcement procedures, tribal courts, environmental laboratories and other facilities, and associated regulatory activities to strengthen the tribal government's capacity to enhance the quality of reservation life as measured by the reduction of pollutants in the air, water, soil, food and materials encountered by inhabitants of tribes and villages.

Progress toward the goal of environmental regulatory enhancement would include the strengthening of tribal environmental laws, providing for the training and education of those employees responsible for ensuring compliance with and enforcement of these laws, and the development of programs to conduct compliance and enforcement functions.

Other functions leading toward enhancing local regulatory capacity include, but are not limited to:

• Environmental assessments;

• Development and use of environmental laboratories; and

• Developments of court systems for enforcement of tribal and Federal environmental laws.

Ultimate success in this program will be realized when the applicant's desired level of environmental quality is acquired and maintained.

Financial assistance provided by ANA is available for developmental projects designed to assist tribes in advancing their capacity and capability to plan for and:

• Develop or enhance the tribal environmental regulatory infrastructure required to support a tribal environmental program, and to regulate and enforce environmental activities on Indian lands pursuant to Federal and Indian law;

• Develop regulations, ordinances and laws to protect the environment;

• Develop the technical and program capacity to carry out a comprehensive tribal environmental program and perform essential environmental program functions;

• Promote environmental training and education of tribal employees;

• Develop technical and program capability to meet tribal and Federal regulatory requirements;

• Develop technical and program capability to monitor compliance and enforcement of tribal environmental regulations, ordinances, and laws; and

• Ensure that tribal court system enforcement requirements are developed in concert with and support the tribe's comprehensive environmental program.

The following organizations are eligible to apply under this competitive area:

• Federally recognized Indian tribes;

• Incorporated non-federally and State recognized Indian tribes;

• Alaska Native villages as defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and/or nonprofit village consortia;

• Nonprofit Alaska Native Regional Corporations/Associations with village specific projects; and

• Other tribal or village organizations or consortia of Indian tribes.

• Tribal governing bodies (IRA or traditional councils) as recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The following organizations are not eligible to apply based on the determination that they do not own or manage resources for which environmental regulatory projects are directed and therefore are not empowered to perform such projects:

• Urban Indian Centers;

• Incorporated nonprofit multi-purpose community-based Indian organizations;

• Public and nonprofit private agencies serving: Native Hawaiians, peoples from Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, and the Republic of Palau;

• Incorporated nonprofit Alaska Native multi-purpose community based organizations; and

• National or regional incorporated nonprofit Native American organizations with Native American community-specific objectives.

Further information on eligibility requirements is presented in Part I, ANA Policy and Goals. Some important policies found in Part I are highlighted as follows:

Current ANA Indian Environmental Regulatory Enhancement project grantees whose grant project period ends on or before September 30, 2002 are eligible to apply for a grant award under this program announcement. The Project Period is noted in Block 9 of the “Financial Assistance Award” document. Applicants for new grants may not have a pending request to extend their existing grant beyond September 30, 2001.

Any non-profit organization submitting an application must submit proof of its non-profit status in the application at the time of submission. The non-profit agency can accomplish this by providing a copy of the applicant's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax exempt organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code or by providing a copy of the currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate, or by providing a copy of the articles of incorporation bearing the seal of the State in which the corporation or association is domiciled.

If the applicant, other than a tribe or an Alaska Native Village government, is proposing a project benefiting Native Americans or Native Alaskans, or both, it must provide assurance that its duly elected or appointed board of directors is representative of the community, to be served. To establish compliance with the requirement in the regulations for a Board representative of the community applicants should provide information establishing that at least ninety (90) percent of the individuals serving on a non-profit applicant's board fall into one or more of the following categories: (1) A current or past member of the community to be served; (2) a prospective participant or beneficiary of the project to be funded; or (3) have a cultural relationship with the community to be served. A list of board members with this information including Tribal or Village affiliation, is one of the most suitable approaches for demonstrating compliance with this requirement.

Under each competitive area, ANA will only accept one application, which serves or impacts a reservation, Tribe, or Native American community. If a federally recognized Tribe or Alaska Native village chooses not to apply, it may support another applicant's project (e.g., a tribal organization) which serves or impacts their reservation. In this case, the applicant must include a Tribal resolution which clearly demonstrates the Tribe's approval of the project and the Tribe's understanding that the other applicant's project supplants the Tribe's authority to submit an application under that specific competitive area both for the current competition and for the duration of the approved grant period.

Grantees must provide at least 20 percent of the total approved cost of the project; i.e. the sum of the Federal share and the non-Federal share. Further information on this requirement is presented in Part I, ANA Policy and Goals.

A proposed project should reflect the environmental regulatory purposes stated and described in the Background section of this competitive area. The evaluation criteria are closely related to each other and are considered as a whole in judging the overall quality of an application. Points are awarded only to applications, which are responsive to this competitive area and these criteria. Proposed projects will be reviewed on a competitive basis using the following evaluation criteria:

(a) The application describes the long-range goals and strategy, including:

• How specific environmental regulatory enhancement long-range goal(s) relate to the proposed project and strategy;

• How the community intends to achieve these goals;

• The applicant's specific environmental regulatory needs; and

• A clearly delineated strategy to improve the capability of the governing body of a tribe to regulate environmental quality through enhancing local capacity to perform necessary regulatory functions.

The application identifies and documents pre-existing and planned involvement and support of the community in the planning process and implementation of the proposed project. The type of community you serve and nature of the proposal being made, will influence the type of documentation necessary. For example, a Tribe may choose to address this requirement by submitting a resolution stating that community involvement has occurred in the project planning or may determine that additional community support work is necessary.

Similarly, a tribal organization may submit resolutions supporting the project proposal from each of its member tribes, as well as a resolution from the applicant organization. Other examples of documentation include: community surveys; minutes of community meetings; questionnaires; tribal presentations; and/or discussion/position papers.

(b) Available resources (other than ANA and the non-Federal share) which will assist, and be coordinated with the project are described.

Letters of commitment of should document these resources, not merely letters of support. Letters of commitment are binding when they specifically state the nature, the amount, and conditions under which another agency or organization will support a project funded with ANA funds. Letters of support merely express another organization's endorsement of a proposed project. Support letters are not binding commitment letters or do not factually establish the authenticity of other resources and do not offer or bind specific resources to the project.

For example, a letter from another Federal agency or foundation pledging a commitment of $200,000 in construction funding to complement proposed ANA funded pre-construction activity is evidence of a firm funding commitment. These resources may be human, natural or financial, and may include other Federal and non-Federal resources. (Applicant statements that additional funding will be sought from other specific sources are not considered a binding commitment of outside resources.)

Non-ANA resources should be leveraged to strengthen and broaden the impact of the proposed project in the community. Project designs should explain how those parts of projects which ANA does not fund will be financed through other sources. For example, ANA does not fund construction. Applicants must show the relationship of non-ANA funded activities to those objectives and activities that are funded with ANA grant funds.

(a) The management and administrative structure of the applicant is described and explained. Evidence of the applicant's ability to manage a project of the scope proposed is well documented. The application clearly shows the successful management of projects of similar scope by the organization, and/or by the individuals designated to manage or consult on the project. The tribe itself may not have experience to meet this requirement but the proposed staff and consultants should have the required qualifications and experience. The application should clearly describe any previous or current activities of the applicant organization or proposed staff and/or consultants in support of environmental regulatory enhancement.

(b) Position descriptions and/or resumes of key personnel, including those of consultants, are presented. The position descriptions and/or resumes relate specifically to the staff proposed in the Approach Page and in the proposed Budget of the application. Position descriptions very clearly describe each position and its duties and clearly relate to the personnel staffing required to achieve the project objectives. Resumes indicate that the proposed staff are qualified to carry out the project activities. Either the position descriptions or the resumes contain the qualifications and/or specialized skills necessary for overall quality management of the project. Resumes must be included if individuals have been identified for positions in the application.

The application proposes specific project objective work plans with activities that are related to each specific objective. The objective work plan(s) in the application includes project objectives and activities for each budget period proposed and demonstrates that each of the objectives and its activities:

• Is measurable and/or quantifiable in terms of results or outcomes;

• Supports the community's strategy for environmental regulatory enhancement;

• Clearly relates to the community's long-range environmental goals;

• Can be accomplished with the available or expected resources during the proposed project period;

• Indicates when the objective, and major activities under each objective, will be accomplished;

• Specifies who will conduct the activities under each objective; and

• Supports a project that will be completed, self-sustaining, or financed by other than ANA funds at the end of the project period.

Completion of the proposed objectives will result in specific, measurable results. The application shows how the expected results will help the community meet its long-range environmental goals. The specific information provided in the narrative and objective work plans on expected results or benefits for each objective is the standard upon which its achievement can be evaluated at the end of each budget year.

A detailed and fully explained budget is provided for each budget period requested which:

• Justifies each line item, with a well-written justification, in the budget categories in Section B of the Budget Information of the application, including the applicant's non-Federal share and its source. All applicants are expected to coordinate and organize the delivery of any non-ANA resources they propose for the project, as are all ANA applicants.

• Includes and justifies sufficient cost and other necessary details to facilitate the determination of allowable costs and the relevance of these costs to the proposed project; and

• Requests funds, which are appropriate and necessary for the scope of the proposed project.

• Includes sufficient funds for principal representatives from the applicant organization to travel to one post-award grant training and technical assistance conference. This travel and training should occur as soon as practical.

• For business development projects, the proposal demonstrates that the expected return on the funds used to develop the project provides a reasonable operating income and return within a future specified time frame.

• Where implemented, includes an employee fringe benefit budget that provides grant-funded employees with a retirement plan in addition to Social Security. The applicant is strongly encouraged to provide a retirement plan fringe benefit of up to five (5) percent of grant funded employees-salaries. ANA will solely fund these costs above and beyond the applicant project funding level. ANA supports a retirement plan as a necessary, reasonable and allowable cost in accordance with OMB rules. Minimum standards for an acceptable retirement fringe benefit plan are:

• The plan exists for the exclusive benefit of the participants; funds are to be used for retirement and certain other pre-retirement needs, not for the organization's needs.

• The plan must have a vesting schedule that does not exceed the initial budget period of the ANA grant.

• An alternate proposal may be submitted for review and approval during grant award negotiations. Alternate proposals may include the use of Individual Retirement Accounts, Money Purchase Pension Plans, Defined Benefit Pension Plans, Combination Plans, etc.

The closing date for submission of applications under this competitive area is March 22, 2002.

Contact the ANA Applicant Help Desk at 202-690-7776 for assistance.

Funding areas in this program announcement are based on the following definitions:

A multi-purpose community-based Native American organization is an association and/or corporation whose charter specifies that the community designates the Board of Directors and/or officers of the organization through an elective procedure and that the organization functions in several different areas of concern to the members of the local Native American community. These areas are specified in the by-laws and/or policies adopted by the organization. They may include, but need not be limited to, economic, artistic, cultural, and recreational activities, and the delivery of human services such as health care, day care, counseling, education, and training.

• A multi-year project is a project on a single theme that requires more than 12 months to complete and affords the applicant an opportunity to develop and address more complex and in-depth strategies than can be completed in one year. A multi-year project cannot be a series of unrelated objectives with activities presented in chronological order over a two or three year period.

• Budget Period is the interval of time (usually 12 months) into which the project period is divided for budgetary and funding purposes.

• Core administration is funding for staff salaries for those functions which support the organization as a whole, or for purposes unrelated to the actual management or implementation of work conducted under an ANA approved project.

• Environmental regulatory enhancement includes (but is not limited to) the planning, development, and application of laws, training, monitoring, and enforcement procedures, tribal courts, environmental laboratories and other facilities, and associated regulatory activities to strengthen the tribal government's capacity to enhance the quality of reservation life as measured by the reduction of pollutants in the air, water, soil, food and materials encountered by inhabitants of tribes and villages.

• Real Property means land, including land improvements, structures and appurtenances thereto, excluding movable machinery and equipment.

• Construction is the term, which specifies a project supported through a discretionary grant or a cooperative agreement, to support the initial building of a facility.

• Core administration is funding for staff salaries for those functions which support the organization as a whole, or for purposes unrelated to the actual management or implementation of work conducted under an ANA approved project. Under Competitive Area 2, ANA will consider funding core administrative capacity building projects at the village government level if the village does not have governing systems in place. However, functions and activities that are clearly project related are eligible for grant funding. For example, the management and administrative functions necessary to carry out an ANA approved project are not considered core administration and are, therefore, eligible costs. Additionally, ANA will fund the salaries of approved staff for time actually and reasonably spent to implement a funded ANA project.

The Administration for Native Americans does not fund:

• Projects that operate indefinitely or require ANA funding on a recurring basis.

• Projects in which a grantee would provide training and/or technical assistance (T/TA) to other tribes or Native American organizations which are otherwise eligible to apply to ANA (third party T/TA). However, the purchase of T/TA by a grantee for its own use or for its members' use (as in the case of a consortium), where T/TA is necessary to carry out project objectives, is acceptable. In addition, T/TA is an allowable activity for environmental regulatory enhancement projects submitted under Competitive Area 3.

• The support of on-going social service delivery programs or the expansion, or continuation, of existing social service delivery programs.

• ANA will not fund the purchase of real property.

• ANA will not fund construction.

• Objectives or activities for the support of core administration of an organization.

• Costs of fund raising, including financial campaigns, endowment drives, solicitation of gifts and bequests, and similar expenses incurred solely to raise capital or obtain contributions are unallowable under a grant award. However, even though these costs are unallowable for purposes of computing charges to Federal awards, they must be treated as direct costs for purposes of determining indirect cost rates and be allocated their share of the organization's indirect costs if they represent activities which (1) include the salaries of personnel, (2) occupy space, and (3) benefit from the organization's indirect costs.

Projects or activities that generally will not meet the purposes of this announcement are discussed further in Part III, Section G, General Guidance to Applicants, below.

A multi-year project is a project on a single theme that requires more than 12 months to complete and affords the applicant an opportunity to develop and address more complex and in-depth strategies than can be completed in one year. Applicants are encouraged to develop multi-year projects. A multi-year project cannot be a series of unrelated objectives with activities presented in chronological order over a two or three year period.

Awards, on a competitive basis, will be for a one-year budget period, although project periods may be for up to three years. Applications for continuation grants funded under these awards beyond the one-year budget period, but within a two-to-three year project period, will be entertained in subsequent years on a non-competitive basis, subject to the availability of funds, satisfactory progress of the grantee and determination that continued funding would be in the best interest of the Government. Therefore, this program announcement does not apply to current ANA grantees with multi-year projects that apply for continuation funding for their second or third year budget periods.

This program is not covered by Executive Order 12372 or 45 CFR part 100.

One signed original, and two copies, of the grant application, including all attachments, must be mailed on or before the specific closing date of each ANA competitive area to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, ACYF/Office of Grants Management, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Mail Stop HHH 326-F, Washington, DC 20447-0002, Attention: Lois B. Hodge, ANA No. 93612-2002.

Hand delivered applications are accepted between the hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, if they are either received on or before the deadline date or postmarked on or before the established closing date at: Administration for Children and Families, ACYF/Office of Grants Management, ACF Mail Room, Second Floor Loading Dock, Aerospace Center, 901 D Street, SW., Washington, DC 20024, Attention: Lois B. Hodge, ANA No. 93612-2002.

The ANA Commissioner determines the final action to be taken on each grant application received under this program announcement.

All applicants should take the following points into consideration:

• Incomplete applications and applications that do not conform to this announcement will not be accepted for review.

• ANA will notify applicants in writing of any such determination.

• An incomplete application is one that is:

• Missing Form SF 424

• Does not have a signature on Form SF 424

• Does not include proof of non-profit status, if applicable

• The application (Form 424) must be signed by an individual authorized (1) to act for the applicant tribe or organization, and (2) to assume the applicant's obligations under the terms and conditions of the grant award, including Native American Program statutory and regulatory requirements.

• Complete applications that conform to all the requirements of this program announcement are subjected to a competitive review and evaluation process (discussed in section G below). Independent review panels consisting of reviewers familiar with American Indian Tribes and Native American communities and organizations, and environmental issues, as appropriate, evaluate each application using the published criteria in each funding competitive area. As a result of the review, a normalized numerical score will be assigned to each application. A normalized score reflects the average score from the reviewers, adjusted to reflect the average score from the panels.

• The Commissioner's funding decision is based on the review panel's analysis of the application, recommendation and comments of ANA staff, State and Federal agencies having contract and grant performance related information, and other parties.

• The Commissioner makes grant awards consistent with the purpose of the Act, all relevant statutory and regulatory requirements, this program announcement, and the availability of funds.

• Successful applicants are notified through an official Financial Assistance Award (FAA) document. The FAA will state the amount of Federal funds awarded, the purpose of the grant, the terms and conditions of the grant award, the effective date of the award, the project period, the budget period, and the amount of the non-ACF matching share requirement.

• Each tribe, Native American organization, or other eligible applicant may compete for a grant award in each of the three competitive areas. However, no applicant may receive more than one SEDS grant. The Administration for Native Americans will accept only one application per competitive area from any one applicant. Alaska Native entities may receive a grant under either competitive area 1 or 2, but not under both. Therefore, applications for SEDS grants from Alaska Native entities may be submitted under either Competitive Area 1 or Competitive Area 2, but not both at the same time.

• If an eligible applicant sends in two applications for the same competitive area, the one with the earlier postmark will be accepted for review unless the applicant withdraws the earlier application.

Applications submitted by the closing date and verified by the postmark under this program announcement will undergo a pre-review to determine that:

• The applicant is eligible in accordance with the Eligible Applicants Section of this announcement; and

• The application is signed and submitted by the deadline explained in section G, Application Due Date, in each competitive area of this announcement.

• The application narrative, forms and materials submitted are adequate to allow the review panel to undertake an in depth evaluation and the project described is an allowable type. (All required materials and forms are listed in the Grant Application Checklist in the Application Kit).

• Applications subjected to the pre-review described above which fail to satisfy one or more of the listed requirements will be ineligible or otherwise excluded from competitive evaluation.

Applications which pass the pre-review will be evaluated and rated by an independent review panel on the basis of the specific evaluation criteria listed in Part II. These criteria are used to evaluate the quality of a proposed project, and to determine the likelihood of its success.

ANA staff cannot respond to requests for information regarding funding decisions prior to the official notification to the applicants.

After the Commissioner has made decisions on all applications, unsuccessful applicants are notified in writing within 30 days. The notification will be accompanied by a critique including recommendations for improving the application.

Applicants who are initially excluded from competitive evaluation because of ineligibility, may appeal an ANA decision of applicant ineligibility. Likewise, applicants may also appeal an ANA decision that an applicant's proposed activities are ineligible for funding consideration. The appeals process is stated in the final rule published in the Federal Register on August 19, 1996 (61 FR 42817).

The following information is provided to assist applicants in developing a competitive application.

• The Administration for Native Americans funds projects that demonstrate the strongest prospects for addressing the stated purposes of this program announcement.

• Projects will not be ranked on the basis of general financial need.

• In discussing the goals, strategy, and problems being addressed in the application, include sufficient background and/or history of the community concerning these issues and/or progress to date, as well as the size of the population to be served. This material will assist the reviewers in determining the appropriateness and potential benefits of the proposed project.

• In the discussion of community-based, long-range goals, non-Federally recognized and off-reservation groups are encouraged to include a description of what constitutes their specific community. Applicants must document the community's support for the proposed project and explain the role of the community in the planning process and implementation of the proposed project. For tribes, a current signed resolution from the governing body of the tribe supporting the project proposal stating that there has been community involvement in the planning of this project will suffice as evidence of community support/involvement. For all other eligible applicants, the type of community you serve will determine the type of documentation necessary. For example, a tribal organization may submit resolutions supporting the project proposal from each of its member's tribes, as well as a resolution from the applicant organization. Other examples of documentation include: community surveys; minutes of community meetings; questionnaires; tribal presentations; and/or discussion/position papers that make specific reference to the proposed project submitted for funding.

• Applications from National Indian and Native American organizations must demonstrate a need for the project, explain how the project was originated, state who the intended beneficiaries will be, and describe how the recipients will actually benefit from the project.

• An application should describe a clear relationship between the proposed project, the social and economic development strategy, or environmental or language goals, as appropriate, and the community's long-range goals or plan.

• The project application, including the Objective Work Plans, must clearly identify in measurable terms the expected results, benefits or outcomes of the proposed project, and the positive or continuing impact that the project will have on the community.

• Supporting documentation, including letters of support, if available, or other specific testimonies from concerned interests other than the applicant should be included to demonstrate support for the feasibility of the project and the commitment of other resources to the proposed project.

• In the ANA Project Narrative, Section A of the application package, “Resources Available to the Proposed Project,” the applicant should describe any specific financial circumstances which may impact on the project, such as any monetary or land settlements made to the applicant, and any restrictions on the use of those settlements. When the applicant appears to have other resources to support the proposed project and chooses not to use them, the applicant should explain why it is seeking ANA funds and not utilizing these resources for the project.

• Applicants proposing an Economic Development project should address the project's feasibility. A business plan describing the project's feasibility and approach for the implementation and marketing of the business is recommended. ANA has included sample business plans in the application kit. It is strongly recommended that an applicant use these materials as guides in developing a proposal for an economic development project or business that is part of the application.

• Applications, which were not funded under a previous closing date and revised for resubmission, should make reference to the changes, or reasons for not making changes, in their current application.