Title: Recordkeeping Requirements for Certified Applicators of Federally Restricted Use Pesticides.

OMB Number: 0581-0164.

Expiration Date of Approval: June 30, 2002.

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

Abstract: The regulations, “Recordkeeping Requirements for Certified Applicators of Federally Restricted Use Pesticides” require certified pesticide applicators to maintain records of federally restricted use pesticide applications for a period of two years. The regulations also provide for access to pesticide records or record information by Federal or State officials, or by licensed health care professionals when needed to treat an individual who may have been exposed to restricted use pesticides, and penalties for enforcement of the recordkeeping and access provisions.

The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, (Pub. L. 101-624; 7 U.S.C. 136i-1), referred to as the FACT Act, directs and authorizes the Department to develop regulations which establish requirements for recordkeeping by all certified applicators of federally restricted use pesticides. A certified applicator is an individual who is certified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a State under cooperative agreement with EPA to use or supervise the use of restricted use pesticides.

Section 1491 of the FACT Act directs and authorizes the Department of Agriculture to ensure compliance with regulations as the Department may prescribe, including levying penalties, for failure to comply with such regulations.

Because this is a regulatory program with enforcement responsibility, USDA must ensure that certified applicators are maintaining restricted use pesticide application records for the two year period required by the FACT Act. To accomplish this, USDA must collect information through personal inspections of certified applicator's restricted use pesticide application records.

The information collected is used only by authorized representatives of the USDA (AMS, Science and Technology national staff, other designated Federal employees, and designated State supervisors and their staffs), which are designated access to the record information through section 1491, subsection (b) of the FACT Act. The information is used to administer the Federal Pesticide Recordkeeping Program. The Agency is the primary user of the information, and the secondary user is each designated State agency which has a cooperative agreement with AMS.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated as follows:

(a) Approximately 602,661 certified private applicators (recordkeepers) apply restricted use pesticides. It is estimated that on average certified private applicators have a total annual burden of .415 hours per recordkeeper. Of the 602,661 certified private applicators, approximately 4,600 are selected annually for recordkeeping inspections. It is estimated that a private applicator that is subject to a pesticide record inspection has an annual burden of .85 hours, which contributes to a total annual burden of 3910 hours.

(b) There are approximately 308,443 certified commercial applicators nationally who are required to provide copies of restricted use pesticide application records to their clients. It is estimated that certified commercial applicators have a total annual burden of 1,520,007 hours.

(c) It is estimated that State agency personnel who work through cooperative agreements with AMS to inspect certified private applicator's records have a total annual burden of 11,020 hours.

Respondents: Certified private and commercial applicators, State governments or employees, and Federal agencies or employees.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 915,780—The total number of respondents includes approximately 308,443 certified commercial applicators, 602,661 certified private applicators (recordkeepers) and designated State agency personnel utilized to inspect certified private applicator's records.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: The estimated number of responses per respondent is as follows:

(a) It is estimated that certified private applicators (recordkeepers), record on an average 5 restricted use pesticide application records annually.

(b) It is estimated that certified commercial applicators provide 616 copies of restricted use pesticide records to their clients annually.

(c) State agency personnel, who work under cooperative agreements with AMS to conduct restricted use pesticide records inspections, have approximately 5,700 responses annually.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,785,041; This revision in the Total Annual Burden on Respondents decreases the current burden by 43,411 hours.

Comments are invited on: (1) 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; (2) 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; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) 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 Bonnie Poli, Chief, Pesticide Records Branch, Science and Technology, AMS, 8609 Sudley Road, Suite 203, Manassas, VA 20110. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.

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

The proposed timber sale is located within Tongass Forest Plan Value Comparison Units 7490 and 8642, Revillagigedo Island, Alaska. Approximately 80% of proposed sale units are located within the North Revilla Inventoried Roadless Area. The Forest Service is reevaluating its Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) and is currently enjoined from implementing all aspects of the Roadless Rule by the U.S. District Court, District of Idaho. The Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District is preparing the Slide Ridge EIS to be consistent with the Forest Service Transportation; Final Administrative Policy (Roads Rule). Among other direction, the Roads Rule requires that an area-specific roads analysis to be completed and a determination of need for amendment or revision of the Forest Plan be made if any roads are to be constructed or reconstructed in inventoried roadless or contiguous unroaded areas, until a forest-wide roads analysis has been completed (FSM 7712.16(c)). This analysis and determination will be made for the Slide Ridge Timber Sale project. In Sierra Club v. Lyons (J00-0009 (CV)), the U.S. District Court, District of Alaska enjoined the Tongass National Forest from taking any action to change the wilderness character of any eligible roadless area until a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been completed. The SEIS is currently being prepared. Planning for the Slide Ridge Timber Sale Project will continue simultaneously and in coordination with the SEIS. The repercussions of delaying the project planning process regarding road building and timber harvest, even for a relatively short period, can have a significant effect on the amount of timber available for sale in the next year. The Slide Ridge Timber Sale Project is consistent with the 1977 Tongass Land Management Plan.

Public participation has been and will continue to be an integral component of the analysis process. The Forest Service will be seeking additional information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, local and tribal agencies, individuals and organizations that may be interested in, or affected by, proposed activities. The scoping process includes: (1) Identification of potential issues; (2) Identification of issues to be analyzed in depth; and (3) Suggestions for possible alternatives. Both written and verbal comments will be accepted during this process. A series of public meetings will be scheduled and a scoping package sent to interested individuals and/or organizations. Scoping began in January 2001 with a notice in the Ketchikan Daily News followed by a public mailing. At that time, we had anticipated preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for this project. As a result of the initial scoping we have decided to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that resulted in the publication of this NOI. Scoping will continue following this publication and through the preparation of the Draft EIS. Based on the results of scoping and the resource conditions within the project area, alternatives including a “no action” alternative will be developed for the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS is scheduled to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in June 2002. The Final EIS is anticipated by January 2003. The comment period on the Draft EIS will be a minimum of 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the notice of availability (NOA) in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service believes that it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of Draft EIS must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553, (1978). Also environmental objections that could have been raised at the Draft EIS stage may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2nd 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are received by the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider and respond to them in the Final EIS.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns of the proposed action, comments during scoping and on the Draft EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the Draft EIS. Comments may also address the adequacy of the Draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR parts 215. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Requesters should be aware that, under FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within 7 days.

Permits required for implementation may include the following:

Thomas Puchlerz, Forest Supervisor, Tongass National Forest, Federal Building, Ketchikan, Alaska 99901, is the responsible official. The responsible official will consider the comments, response, disclosure of environmental consequences, and applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making the decision and stating the rationale in the Record of Decision.

This meeting is open to the public. Public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time. Support staff workloads resulted in a shorter than normal notice period.

On August 17, September 21, September 28, and October 9, 2001, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices (66 FR 43180, 48661, 49615 and 51372) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the commodity and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the commodity and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the commodity and services to the Government.

2. The action will not have a severe economic impact on current contractors for the commodity and services.

3. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the commodity and services to the Government.

4. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the commodity and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following commodity and services are added to the Procurement List:

This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a) (2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice for each service will be required to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information. The following services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

The Marine Corps completed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 1997 addressing its military aviation and associated training impacts on the YTRC. This Complex includes portions of the Barry M. Goldwater Range, AZ, which contains habitat for the Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis), an endangered species.

On February 12, 2001, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia found the cumulative impact analysis in the 1997 YTRC EIS deficient in that it failed to provide sufficient analysis of cumulative impacts on the Sonoran pronghorn in accordance with 40 CFR 1508.7. The court remanded the matter to the Marine Corps for further consideration of such impacts. The court also found the Biological Opinion rendered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act addressing actions described in the 1997 EIS deficient in that it failed to provide sufficient analysis of cumulative impacts on the Sonoran pronghorn. The court remanded the Biological Opinion to USFWS for further consideration of such impacts.

The Department of the Navy prepared a supplement to the EIS, in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.9(c), that evaluates the cumulative impacts on the Sonoran pronghorn of Marine Corps actions when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Also, USFWS reissued the Biological Opinion addressing upgrade of the YTRC based in part on new information provided by the Marine Corps developed during preparation of the SEIS.

Based upon the new Biological Opinion issued by the USFWS and the analysis of cumulative effects in the Supplemental EIS, the Department of the Navy has determined there is no need to amend the actions selected for implementation in the Record of Decision published in the Federal Register on October 2, 1998. Actions approved in this decision will continue to be implemented as funds become available. However, additional mitigation measures identified in the Biological Opinion and Final SEIS will be made a part of the approved actions. Therefore, the October 2, 1998, Record of Decision is modified, as discussed in the following paragraphs, to address the cumulative effects analysis discussed in the SEIS and incorporate additional mitigation measures.

Cumulative effects are those additive or interactive effects that would result from the incremental impact of the proposed actions when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. In accordance with the Court's order, the purpose of the SEIS is limited to a reconsideration of the cumulative impacts of the proposed actions and alternatives examined in the YTRC FEIS together with other relevant past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on Sonoran pronghorn.

Through coordination with agencies operating within and having management responsibilities in the region within the current distribution of Sonoran pronghorn, 68 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were identified. Examples of other actions considered included past mining and ranching, transportation and utility corridors, recreation, agriculture, scientific research, patrol for undocumented aliens, military activities conducted by the Air Force and other branches of service, and proposed residential developments.

All of the YTRC alternatives as well as the 68 other past, present, and reasonably future actions were evaluated using criteria derived from the five delisting factors established in the Endangered Species Act. The evaluation criteria included the following:

In addition, actions in the region (including those within the Chocolate Mountain Range), but outside of the current distribution area of the Sonoran pronghorn, were evaluated for their potential to influence a change that could affect Sonoran pronghorn or its habitat. Actions in the region were also evaluated for their potential to result in an environmental effect that might be transported or transferred (for example, by water runoff or wind) into the current distribution area of the Sonoran pronghorn.

The following summarizes the SEIS findings of the analysis of the potential cumulative effects on Sonoran pronghorn resulting from the YTRC actions combined with and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions:

The original 1997 YTRC FEIS includes ongoing procedures that the Marine Corps implements to help protect environmental resources and mitigation measures to be applied in response to implementation of the proposed actions. These mitigation measures shall continue to be implemented.

Based on the findings of the SEIS, the Marine Corps commits to implementing the following additional mitigation measures:

As noted earlier, USFWS issued a new Biological Opinion addressing the YTRC upgrades. USFWS determined the action will not jeopardize the existence of the Sonoran pronghorn. USFWS believes low-level helicopter use should avoid areas of significant pronghorn use to minimize adverse effects from helicopters on the pronghorn and its habitat, particularly areas important for fawns and their mothers. Accordingly, USFWS issued two terms and conditions regarding low-level helicopter use: one low-level route utilized by helicopters over the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge should be modified in order to further reduce impacts on the Sonoran pronghorn, all helicopters between March 15 and July 15 of year year, except those participating in the Weapons Tactics Instructors course, should remain west of the current range of the Sonoran pronghorn, or on designated transit routes, or above 1,000 feet above ground level. These terms and conditions will be implemented. USFWS anticipates that no more than 6 Sonoran pronghorns could be taken as an incidental result of the proposed action. The incidental take is expected to be in the form of harassment. This incidental take provision will be reviewed concurrent with subsequent reviews of the Barry M. Goldwater Range Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. Said reviews are required every five years.

All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from implementing the upgrades to the YTRC have been considered. After considering the requirements of the Marine Corps, the potential environmental impacts of this action, social and economic concerns, and all comments received during the EIS process, I have determined that the decisions made pursuant to the 1997 YTRC FEIS shall proceed as discussed in the SEIS, and that Marine Corps actions to manage the western portion of the Barry M. Goldwater Range for military aviation activities, when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, will not have cumulative significant impacts on the Sonoran pronghorn.

Pursuant to section 6(c) of the Randolph-Sheppard Act (the Act) 20 U.S.C. 107d-2(c), the Secretary publishes in the Federal Register a synopsis of each arbitration panel decision affecting the administration of vending facilities on Federal and other property.

This dispute concerns the alleged failure by the Maryland Division of Rehabilitation Services, the State licensing agency (SLA), to properly administer the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program by prohibiting the State Committee of Blind Vendors (Committee), who are the complainants in this case, from using allocated funds to pay legal expenses. As a result, the Committee maintained that it had been restricted in participating in the administration of the SLA's Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program pursuant to the provisions of the Act (20 U.S.C. 107 et seq. ) and the implementing regulations in 34 CFR part 395.

A summary of the facts is as follows: In August 1997 the Committee voted to ask for an increase in its budget, which included funds for legal counsel. In a letter dated September 18, 1997, to the Committee, the SLA denied the increase stating three reasons, which were—(1) no significant revenue enhancements had been demonstrated for the FY 1998 and FY 1999 budget year; (2) many of the major budget items were driven by the settlement agreements; and (3) the SLA's Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program had significantly reduced program costs by eliminating two positions. The SLA further stated that, based on a review of the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program, the SLA would initiate a modest increase in the Committee's budget that was previously approved for FY 1998 and FY 1999.

The issue of the use of funds for legal expenses budgeted for the Committee was addressed in a letter dated October 1, 1997, from the Chairman of the Committee to the SLA. The Chairman indicated that it was the Committee's understanding that both parties had a consensus concerning the use of funds for legal counsel. The Committee alleged that the SLA never submitted to the Committee in writing any formal objection to the use of the Committee's funds for legal fees. The Committee also alleged that there is no prohibition in the Act and implementing regulations concerning the use of legal counsel by the Committee; therefore, the Committee was entitled to use its funds for legal representation.

The Committee further alleged that a request for a full evidentiary hearing on their complaint concerning the SLA's refusal of payment of legal fees was filed on July 12, 1998, with the SLA. On August 3, 1998, the SLA informed the Committee through the Office of Administrative Hearings that a pre-hearing conference date had been set for October 1, 1998. However, the Committee maintained that the delay in providing a full evidentiary hearing violated the Act, implementing regulations, Maryland State regulations, and the Committee's due process rights to a speedy resolution of its complaint.

The Committee also challenged the selection of the individual to chair the administrative review conference required by State regulations with respect to vendor complaints and challenged the attendance at those informal conferences of the SLA's attorney.

A majority of the arbitration panel concluded that, while the Committee had raised a number of interesting policy issues in support of their claims, there was no requirement in the Act or the implementing Federal or State regulations to fund the activities of the Committee, to grant the Committee plenary control over the expenditures of any monies budgeted to it by the SLA, or to require that the SLA pay for the attorney fees of the Committee, even if those fees were incurred in furtherance of Committee activities mandated by the Act.

The panel further found that the 1974 Amendments to the Act imposed certain responsibilities upon the Committee and increased the participation of licensed blind vendors in the conduct of the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program. However, the panel ruled that the Act did not grant the Committee any control over the expenditure of program funds (including those program funds that have their source in vendor activities or activities engaged in for the benefit of vendors) and thus did not mandate that the SLA fund any Committee activities in particular.

Concerning the dissatisfaction of the Committee regarding the Administrative Review Conference, the majority of the panel concluded that the selection of the chair and the manner in which the conference was held was consistent with the applicable State regulations.

One panel member dissented.

The views and opinions expressed by the panel do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the U.S. Department of Education.

Through Program Solicitation DE-PS26-02NT41369, the DOE is interested in applications from U.S. colleges and universities, and university-affiliated research centers submitting applications through their respective universities. Applications will be selected to complement and enhance research being conducted in related Fossil Energy programs. Applications may be submitted individually ( i.e., by only one college/university or one college subcontracting with one other college/university) or jointly ( i.e., by “teams” made up of (1) three or more colleges/universities, or (2) two or more colleges/universities and at least one industrial partner. Collaboration, in the form of joint proposals, is encouraged but not required.

Applications submitted in response to this solicitation must address coal research in one of the key focus areas of the Core Program or as outlined in the Innovative Concepts Phase-I & Phase-II Programs.

The current landscape of the U.S. energy industry, not unlike that in other parts of the world, is undergoing a transformation driven by changes such as deregulation of power generation, more stringent environmental standards and regulations, climate change concerns, and other market forces. With these changes come new players and a refocusing of existing players in providing energy services and products. The traditional settings of how energy (both electricity and fuel) is generated, transported, and utilized are likely to be very different in the coming decades. As market, policy, and regulatory forces evolve and shape the energy industry both domestically and globally, the opportunity exists for universities, government, and industry partnerships to invest in advanced fossil energy technologies that can return public and economic benefits many times over. These benefits are achievable through the development of advanced coal technologies for the marketplace.

Energy from coal-fired powerplants will continue to play a dominant role as an energy source, and therefore, it is prudent to use this resource wisely and ensure that it remains part of the sustainable energy solution. In that regard, our focus is on a concept we call Vision 21. Vision 21 is a pathway to clean, affordable energy achieved through a combination of technology evolution and innovation aimed at creating the most advanced fleet of flexible, clean and efficient power and energy plants for the 21st century. Clean, efficient, competitively priced coal-derived products, and low-cost environmental compliance and energy systems remain key to our continuing prosperity and our commitment to tackle environmental challenges, including climate change. It is envisioned that these Vision 21 plants can competitively produce low-cost electricity at efficiencies higher than 60% with coal. This class of facilities will involve “near-zero discharge” energy plants—virtually no emissions will escape into the environment. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollutants would be removed and converted into environmentally benign substances, perhaps fertilizers or other commercial products. Carbon dioxide could be (1) concentrated and either recycled or disposed of in a geologically permanent manner, or (2) converted into industrially useful products, or (3) by creating offsetting natural sinks for CO 2 .

Clean coal-fired powerplants remain the major source of electricity for the world while distributed generation, including renewables, will assume a growing share of the energy market. Technological advances finding their way into future markets could result in advanced co-production and co-processing facilities around the world, based upon Vision 21 technologies developed through universities, government, and industry partnerships.

This Vision 21 concept, in many ways is the culmination of decades of power and fuels research and development. Within the Vision 21 plants, the full energy potential of fossil fuel feedstocks and “opportunity” feedstocks such as biomass, petroleum coke, and other materials that might otherwise be considered as wastes, can be tapped by integrating advanced technology “modules.” These technology modules include fuel-flexible coal gasifiers and combustors, gas for fuels and chemical synthesis. Each Vision 21 plant can be built in the configuration best suited for its market application by combining technology modules. Designers of Vision 21 plant would tailor the plant to use the desired feedstocks and produce the desired products by selecting and integrating the appropriate “technology modules.”

The goal of Vision 21 is to effectively eliminate, at competitive costs, environmental concerns associated with the use of fossil fuel for producing electricity and transportation fuels. Vision 21 is based on three premises: that we will need to rely on fossil fuels for a major share of our electricity and transportation fuel needs well into the 21st century; that it makes sense to rely on a diverse mix of energy resources, including coal, gas, oil, biomass and other renewables, nuclear, and so-called “opportunity” resources, rather than on a reduced subset of these resources; and that R&D directed at resolving our energy and environmental issues can find affordable ways to make energy conversion systems meet even stricter environmental standards.

To accomplish the program objective, applications will be accepted in three program areas: (1) The Core Program, (2) the Innovative Concepts Phase-I Program, and (3) the Innovative Concepts Phase-II Program.

To develop and sustain a national program of university research in fundamental coal studies, the DOE is interested in innovative and fundamental research pertinent to coal conversion and utilization. The maximum DOE funding for each individual college/university award under the University Coal Research Core Program is:

For Joint Universities and Joint University/Industry awards, the maximum DOE funding is $400,000 for a 36-month performance period. Joint University/Industry applications must specify a minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) cost sharing of the total proposed project cost.

The DOE anticipates funding at least one proposal in each focus area under the UCR Core Program; however, high-quality proposals in a higher ranked focus area may be given more consideration during the selection process. Research in this area is limited to the following six (6) focus areas and is listed numerically in descending order of programmatic priority.

Novel sensors and control systems that support the full-scale implementation and operations of highly efficient power generation technologies are of interest, these systems include: advanced combustion, gasification, turbines, and fuel cells, as well as gas cleaning technologies, carbon sequestration, and advanced emissions control technologies. Current technology developments are supported by the Vision 21 program and other programmatic efforts aimed at enhancing the efficiency and reducing emissions, thereby removing the environmental concerns associated with fossil fuel use. To facilitate this effort, several “smart” sensors and advanced control algorithms are needed to operate these complex, integrated technologies in a safe and reliable manner.

Grant applications for novel sensor techniques are sought that can operate reliably and accurately in the presence of high temperature (e.g., 1000 °C or higher), elevated pressure ( e.g ., 100-1000 psig), abrasive streams ( e.g. , high particulate flue gas) and corrosive atmospheres ( e.g ., oxidizing and reducing conditions). Robust sensors for in-situ monitoring of fine particulates ( e.g ., 0-10 microns), environmental contaminants ( e.g ., NO X ), and gases ( e.g. , hydrogen, NH 3 ) are needed. Novel approaches to on-line characterization of solid fuel ( e.g ., coal, biomass) are needed to measure parameters such as: feed rates; heating value; percent water content; ash; sulfur, nitrogen concentrations; and trace elemental contaminants. Robust temperature-sensing techniques and instrumentation are needed for use in coal gasifiers (up to 2600 °C in reducing atmospheres) and gas turbines (up to 4000 °C in oxidizing atmospheres).

In addition to sensors that monitor the operation of advanced and existing power generation technologies, grant applications are sought for instrumentation and sensors to monitor a system's “health” status on-line. Techniques are needed to monitor and predict maintenance of critical equipment. Examples of system health monitoring needs include techniques to indicate or measure (1) refractory wear in coal gasfiers, (2) thermal barrier coating degradation in natural gas turbines, and (3) water-wall wastage associated with low- NO X burner technology.

Gas turbines and membrane reactors are among the enabling technologies that support the Vision 21 concept. Membrane reactor development represents a critical enabling technology for future Vision 21 Systems. Of particular interest are materials needs and property changes to accommodate coal and bio-mass fuels.

Membrane reactors based on microporous and mesoporous ceramic membranes provide a broad array of opportunities regarding the choice materials for membranes, their catalytic properties and possible applications. The most widely used application involves equilibrium displacement by removal of at least one reaction product. Most often, the removal of hydrogen in dehydrogenation or water gas shift reactions has been the process of choice.

Porous ceramic membranes can be made, in whole or in part, of alumina, silica, titania, zirconia, zeolites, etc., materials which are catalytically active under suitable operating conditions. During preparation procedure one can give specific properties to the catalyst; e.g. , successive layers of different materials can be deposited across the membrane radius which would allow one to carry out different consecutive reactions in different regions of the membrane.

The prospects of using dense membranes based on mixed ionic/electronic conducting ceramics for syngas production in a catalytic membrane reactor are constrained by problems related to limited thermodynamic stability and poor dimensional stability of candidate materials. New compositions of oxygen transport membrane materials within or outside of Perovskitic (ABO 3 ) and Brownmillerite (A 2 B 2 O 5 ) structures for separation of oxygen via oxygen anion and electron conduction should be investigated to address the issues. Proton conducting ceramics are also of interest.

In the area of materials for fuel-flexible combustion turbines, an implication of high efficiency is that materials with very high temperature capabilities will be necessary. Practical application of metals and coatings, as structural materials at the ultrahigh temperatures (well above 1000°C) required is a formidable challenge. Among the topics of interest are the following:

Grant applications are sought for proposals to develop catalytic membrane reactors to circumvent thermodynamic equilibrium limitations and derive useful products such as hydrogen from reactants obtained from coal conversion or gasification. Novel membrane materials and reactor configurations as well as new applications to different reaction systems are desired.

Research leading to optimization of single crystal alloys for gas turbine airfoils and modifications that will better tailor the alloy properties to the duty cycle requirements and processing constraints of advanced land-based gas turbines, while building on the technology embodied in current superalloys. Such a modified alloy would have the combination of very long-term mechanical properties and environmental resistance required for advanced gas turbine conditions.

Advanced thermal barrier coatings (TBCs) that have superior durability and performance in an industrial gas turbine environment. Desirable characteristics include TBC compositions resistant to corrosive attack by deposits derived from combustion of low-grade fuel, syngas, and air impurities, and/or sealed gas path surfaces to inhibit deposits from penetrating into the TBCs porous (strain tolerant) microstructure, as well as lower thermal conductivity. Also, develop methods to identify and avoid combustion environments that result in unacceptable TBC life. The research should include modeling and prediction of the rate of fuel ash deposition onto turbine airfoils and the corrosiveness of ash deposits to YSZ and other TBC candidates.

Improvements in catalysts are needed to reduce the cost of producing transportation fuels suitable for use under forthcoming stricter environmental regulations and to broaden the base of feedstocks available for their production. Two examples of particular concern of this solicitation are Fischer Tropsch synthesis and catalytic reforming. The Fischer Tropsch synthesis produces a paraffinic wax that may then be cracked to produce a sulfur-free, aromatic-free, and high cetane diesel fuel. This fuel is a desirable blending stock that can be used to bring diesel fuels within the more strict future regulations on sulfur and aromatics content. A major draw back to the Fischer Tropsch synthesis is that the lack of selectivity of the current catalysts results in a wide distribution of molecular weight in the product slate. Expensive post-synthesis processing is then required that drives up the price of the desired diesel fuel. An ideal Fischer Tropsch synthesis would produce a narrow distillate cut that falls within the diesel range with little production of unwanted byproduct. Catalytic reforming of natural gas is the first step in converting this under-utilized natural resource to liquid fuels. In this case, a major problem lies in the tendency of the catalyst to form carbonaceous deposits that either reduces its lifetime or places restrictions on process operating parameters. The ever-increasing power of the methods and hardware now being applied in computational chemistry needs to be enlisted to help develop better catalysts for both of these processes. Of most value are studies that provide guidance in the means to improve catalyst design through choice of metals, alloys, promoters, supports, size of the active particles, etc.

To provide the fundamental knowledge required to effectively accelerate these efforts in catalyst development, grant applications are sought for the application of computational methods to generate a molecular understanding of the kinetics of competitive reactions on catalytic surfaces. Successful applications will attack the most critical problems in catalyst performance. Applications must show evidence of the intent to develop means to improve catalyst performance through strategies such as: the suppression of the relative rates of surface reactions leading to deactivation, suppression of the production of unwanted co-products, or enhancement of the control of selectivity towards production of desirable products. Grant applications must specifically address either of two problems: determination of the molecular principles that govern the relative rates of chain growth versus chain termination ( ∝ >) on iron or cobalt Fischer Tropsch catalysts, or determination of the molecular factors that govern the relative rates of coke formation versus methane reforming on nickel catalysts. The proposals must be conceived at the fundamental molecular level. Applications based on reactor or process modeling will not be considered.

Solid-oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) offer significant advantages in the conversion of fossil fuels to electrical power. Without an intermediate heat production step the efficiency of an SOFC can be much higher than current methods of producing power. Currently, SOFC configurations and applications are restricted by the high-temperatures needed to maintain adequate area specific resistanceses while ensuring long-term reliability. The only material set (yttria stabilized zirconia, lanthanum strontium manganite, and nickel/ zirconia cermet) that has been successfully demonstrated over a substantial period of time has a lower temperature limit of about 800 °C and possibly 750°C with some modifications.

Grant applications are being sought for identification and characterization of one or more (considering the time and financial constraints) SOFC anode, electrolyte, cathode material set(s) that can operate in the 500°C to 700°C range. The structure(s) should be manufacturable with relatively inexpensive manufacturing techniques. The material cost should be roughly no more than the previously referenced material set or less. (Electrolyte transference numbers should be known or shown to be adequate in a typical SOFC environment before proceeding). The characterization should demonstrate as much as possible that the complete structure can meet the requirements of an SOFC fuel cell with a projected power density of (0.6W/cm 2 at 0.7 V, corrected for test cell resistance) in the indicated temperature range and subject to the typical fuel and oxidant environments. Characterization should include chemical stability between the components. The lifetime effects (phase stability, thermal expansion compatibility, conductivity aging, and electrode sintering) should be considered and characterized as much as possible. The characterization of the material set should in general be, as complete as possible and, not duplicate publicly known information. The proposal should address all aspects of the stated topic.

Power generated from fossil fuels, especially coal, is dependent on water. On average, approximately 30 gallons of water are required for each kWh of power produced from coal. Around 70 trillion gallons of water are consumed or impacted annually in the United States to produce energy. The large quantity of water to produce power has regulatory and technological issues related to both the amount of water used and the potential impact on water quality. The largest single use of water in power generation is for cooling the low-pressure steam from the turbine. An alternative to the use of water for cooling is air. However, air-cooled systems (sometimes referred to as dry systems) can have associated capital-cost and energy-inefficiency penalties, particularly in retrofit applications.

Grant applications are sought to reduce or eliminate the need for water for cooling purposed including: (1) Novel heat-transfer media that is more efficient than air; (2) improved fill materials used in re-circulating (closed loop) wet cooling towers; (3) approaches to reducing evaporative loss from closed wet systems; (4) innovations to improve the efficiency of dry cooling systems, particularly for retrofit applications; and (5) novel, lowcost treatment technology to allow for the use of process water as boiler feed water.

The conversion of coal to Fischer-Tropsch liquids can help supplement petroleum in satisfying our Nation's growing demand for clean transportation fuels, but additional scientific understanding of the entire process is needed to enable technology developers to improve system performance and economics. Historically, empirically-derived laboratory data has been used to develop Fischer-Tropsch reactor systems and to determine operating conditions. Catalysis has played a significant role in helping to establish a reasonable range of operation conditions that provide less residence time, higher product yield and selectivity, and lower energy consumption. However, neither the exact reaction mechanisms nor individual kinetic expressions are known for advanced, iron-based catalysts that are currently being developed for three-phase slurry reactor systems.

Grant applications are requested for projects that focus on deriving mechanistic and kinetic expressions for converting coal-derived synthesis gas to F-T liquids via iron-based catalysts in a three-phase regime that may include a range of reactants and operating parameters that would be reasonable for a commercial F-T system. Proposals may include the use of commercial F-T catalysts as a baseline for comparative evaluations.

The goal of solicited research under the Innovative Concepts (IC) Phase-I Program is to develop unique approaches for addressing fossil energy-related issues. These approaches should represent significant departures from existing approaches, not simply incremental improvements. The IC Phase-I Program seeks “out-of-the-box” thinking; therefore, well-developed ideas, past the conceptual stage, are not eligible for the Phase-I Program. Applications are invited from individual college/university researchers. Joint applications (as described under the Core Program) will also be accepted, although no additional funds are made available for joint versus individual applications. Unlike the Core Program, student participation in the IC Phase-I proposed research is strongly encouraged, however, not required. Funding for Phase-I grants will be limited to a total of $50K over a 12-month period.

In the twenty-first century, the challenges facing coal and the electric utility industry continue to grow. Environmental issues such as pollutant control, both criteria and trace pollutants, waste minimization, and the co-firing of coal with biomass, waste, or alternative fuels will remain important. The need for increased efficiency, improved reliability, and lower costs will be felt as an aging utility industry faces deregulation. Advanced power systems, such as a Vision 21 plant, and environmental systems will come into play as older plants are retired and utilities explore new ways to meet the growing demand for electricity.

Innovative research in the coal conversion and utilization areas will be required if coal is to continue to play a dominant role in the generation of electric power. Technical topics like the ones identified below are potential examples of research areas of interest, however, the areas identified were not intended to be all-encompassing. Therefore, it is specifically emphasized that other subjects for coal research would receive the same evaluation and consideration for support as the examples cited.

The development of innovative concepts and techniques for smart sensing and advanced artificially intelligent control systems are needed to foster concurrent development efforts with advanced power generations technologies such as fuel cells, turbines, and gasification. Similar systems are also needed to deal with increasingly stringent emissions requirements (SO 2 and NO X ) for existing coal-fired power plants. The goal for new sensors and controls technology is to develop low cost, reliable, and accurate systems that permit real time monitoring and optimization of complex systems. For DOE's Vision 21 program, these advanced systems will support the production of power, chemicals, fuels, and/or steam with the highest efficiencies possible and near-zero emissions. The primary barriers for existing technologies are the harsh conditions that sensors may be exposed to combined with the need for extreme accuracy and fast response times. Incremental improvements of existing sensor and control technologies are not desired but rather revolutionary ideas that have the sound scientific basis to support significant advancements in this technology area.

The carbonation of naturally occurring magnesium silicates has shown promise as a method of achieving long-term carbon sequestration. It has been demonstrated that magnesium silicates such as serpentine and olivine can be reacted with CO2 to produce a highly stable solid magnesium carbonate material. This process is based upon the dissolution of the magnesium silicates in an aqueous carbonic acid solution containing chemical additives such as NaCl. The critical rate-limiting step in the carbonation process is currently believed to be the release or dissolution of the magnesium from the silicate into the solution.

Faster and less energy intensive pathways must be identified in order to develop an economically viable process based on mineral carbonation. By gaining a better understanding of the fundamental reaction mechanisms, new approaches could be devised that offered faster and more economical carbonation routes. Consequently, gaining a better understanding of this process is of interest to the USDOE. Skilled investigators having the capability to conduct well-planned experimental and theoretical investigations that can elucidate the detailed reaction path, quantify reaction barriers, and develop strategies to increase carbonation reaction rates are encouraged to apply.

Since the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions, primarily carbon dioxide, is combustion of fossil fuels such as coal or natural gas, options to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are being examined. In particular, inorganic membranes based on metals, ceramics or zeolites are suitable for the separation of such gases because they can sustain severe conditions such as high pressure, chemical corrosion, and high temperature. Approaches are needed whereby the membrane can be tailored to separate carbon dioxide from the nitrogen, the latter being the predominant component in the flue gas of a fossil fuel fired power plant. For example, the separation could be caused by dopants in the inorganic membrane that prefer to bond with carbon dioxide and facilitate its surface diffusion along the pore wall. Proposals are invited wherein factors such as concentration of dopant and pore diameter will be investigated, along with molecular simulations, in order to maximize the separation factor.

Recently, reburning with coal and coal-derived chars have been demonstrated to be an effective route for the reduction of nitrogen oxide emissions in boilers. Research is necessary to identify concepts for further reductions of nitrogen oxides and other detrimental emissions, such as carbon monoxide, through heterogeneous reburning.

One example of such research is research to develop in-furnace combustion NO X reduction technologies that would reduce NO X emissions below 0.15 lb/MMBtu or be utilized in conjunction with other low cost NO X reduction technologies such as SNCR to achieve this objective while significantly reducing the overall cost of compliance when compared to SCR.

The goal of the Phase-II Program, the principal R&D effort of the IC Program, is to solicit research that augments research previously funded through the Phase-I Program. Funding for Phase-II grants will be limited to a total of $200K over a 3-year period and student participation will be required. Only institutions receiving a Phase-I grant awarded in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 will be eligible to submit an application for continuation of their Phase-I projects. It's anticipated that at least 2-3 institutions submitting an application with approaches that appear sufficiently promising from the Phase-I efforts could receive a Phase-II award in 2002.

Applied and/or bench-scale research and development support efforts are to be undertaken. These efforts are expected to be promising new concepts and optimization efforts in support of black liquor recovery and biomass gasification technologies to the point that they can be demonstrated in industrial applications, with primary interest in the demonstration projects that are underway. The scope of funded activities is to cover, applied research and development, applications engineering, and proof of concept at the laboratory-scale. Technical areas needed to be addressed include those that are of immediate needs for the demonstration projects and those that optimize existing systems/concepts to improve/sustain gasification performance. The Government anticipates 5-10 awards. Individual awards may range from $500,000-$1.5 million in Government cost-share. The DOE intends to award cooperative agreements, but reserves the right to award whatever instrument is considered to be in the Government's best interest. In accordance with EPAct, applicants are advised that this solicitation contains a recipient 20% cost share requirement for research and development projects and 50% cost share for demonstration or commercial application projects. This is a percent of the total award value, not as a percent of the Government's share. The duration of these projects is expected to range between 3-5 years.

Once released, the solicitation will be available for downloading from the IIPS Internet page. At this Internet site you will also be able to register with IIPS, enabling you to submit an application. If you need technical assistance in registering or for any other IIPS function, call the IIPS Help Desk at (800) 683-0751 or E-mail the Help Desk personnel at IIPS—HelpDesk@e-center.doe.gov. The solicitation will only be made available in IIPS, hard (paper) copies of the solicitation and related documents will not be made available.

Prospective applicants who would like to be notified as soon as the solicitation is available should subscribe to the Business Alert Mailing List at http://www.netl.doe.gov/business. Once you subscribe, you will receive an announcement by E-mail that the solicitation has been posted on IIPS. Telephone requests, written requests, E-mail requests, or facsimile requests for a copy of the solicitation package will not be accepted and/or honored. Applications must be prepared and submitted in accordance with the instructions and forms contained in the solicitation. The actual solicitation document will allow for requests for explanation and/or interpretation.

Lookingglass Fish Hatchery was originally designed and constructed under the LSRCP program to produce two stocks of fish, the Imnaha stock for the Imnaha subbasin and a second stock for the Grande Ronde subbasin. Production of spring chinook salmon under this program began in the early 1980s. Beginning in the early 1990s, the fishery managers recognized that many natural populations in Northeast Oregon were at imminent risk of extirpation and immediate action was necessary. All natural spring chinook salmon populations in the Snake River, including the Imnaha and Grande Ronde Rivers, were listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in May 1992. In response to the listings, the States, Tribes, and USFWS developed plans to conserve Imnaha and Grande Ronde spring chinook salmon using captive broodstock and hatchery supplementation as the preferred artificial propagation approaches. These programs were designed to shift the emphasis of the LSRCP program from compensation to conservation and restoration. Plans in the mid-1990s to conserve four stocks under ESA permits issued by NMFS were implemented. Because the new programs did not increase numbers of fish to be produced at Lookingglass Fish Hatchery, an assumption was made that the existing facility, with minor modifications, would be sufficient to meet the needs.

Recently, fishery managers determined that it is not possible to meet the entire program's needs at Lookingglass Fish Hatchery and that, without additional facilities, production must be cut from the conservation components of the program. Therefore, this project proposes to modify the existing Lookingglass Fish Hatchery and Imnaha satellite facility and build new facilities on the Lostine and Imnaha Rivers. A new incubation, rearing, and trapping facility is proposed for the Lostine River, a Grande Ronde basin tributary, and a new rearing facility is proposed for the Imnaha River. In addition, modifications are proposed to the Lookingglass Fish Hatchery on the Grande Ronde River and the Imnaha satellite facility on the Imnaha River. This project does not involve program issues or increases in the number of fish to be produced, but rather new and upgraded facilities that support an existing approved program and level of fish production. Potential exists for spanning or locating structures in the surrounding floodplains and activities may involve wetlands on those sites.

Based on similar site-specific projects, an initial decision was made to initiate an Environmental Assessment (EA). An EA Determination was signed on November 20, 2000, with the expectation that a Finding of No Significant Impact would be attained. However, the Imnaha portion of this project is located within the boundaries of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area and the Imnaha Wild and Scenic River. Modifications to the existing Imnaha satellite facility and any new Imnaha facilities may involve construction in the Imnaha River that could create significant impacts. Therefore, it has been determined that the appropriate level of environmental coverage is an EIS.

This is a multi-party project involving Tribal governments, State agencies, and Federal agencies. The parties include the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT), the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), USFS, USFWS, NMFS, and BPA. Scoping began during the EA process and will continue for at least 30 days after the filing of this notice of intent to prepare an EIS, gathering information on the extent of the action, range of alternatives, and the types of effects to be evaluated. NEPA and other environmental laws and regulatory requirements will be merged into an overall integrated process that ensures compliance with all Federal and State legal prerequisites. A review process in accordance with the specific requirements of each agency's NEPA regulations and manuals will allow for an integrated effort that provides a full disclosure.

A reasonable range of alternatives for this project would include a proposed action that examines a combination of facility sites, new and existing with upgrades, that would reasonably accommodate the LSRCP biological criteria and program objectives. Connected, similar, and cumulative actions will be considered, along with a reasonable range of alternatives that could fulfill the purpose and need of the proposed action, including a no-action alternative. Mitigation measures will be considered, separate from features of the proposed action, that could avoid or substantially reduce the environmental consequences of the proposed action.

BPA has reinitiated scoping for this project, establishing a scoping period during which affected landowners, concerned citizens, special interest groups, local governments, and any other interested parties are invited to comment on the scope of the proposed EIS. Scoping will help BPA ensure that a full range of issues related to this proposal is addressed in the EIS, and also will identify significant or potentially significant impacts that may result from the proposed project. At these informal meetings, NPT, CTUIR, ODFW, USFS, USFWS, and BPA will provide detailed information about the proposed facilities and modifications to existing facilities. Written information will also be available, and BPA staff will answer questions and accept oral and written comments. When completed, the Draft EIS will be circulated for review and comment, and BPA will hold public comment meetings for the Draft EIS. BPA will consider and respond in the Final EIS to comments received on the Draft EIS.

The proposed action and alternatives will be examined for environmental effects on the affected environment. The types of impacts that will be considered include foreseeable direct and indirect effects as well as past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future cumulative effects. Issues raised during the scoping process will be examined and addressed in the Draft EIS.

Maps and further information are available from BPA at the address above.

The proposal to relocate a 0.8 mile section of the Granby Pumping Plant-Marys Lake 69-kV transmission line will involve construction activities within a floodplain and a wetland, including removal of eight existing wood pole H-frame transmission line structures and the installation of eight similar structures within a new relocated right-of-way. The structures located at either side of the relocation may be modified, or reconstructed, at the same location. Some construction activities would take place during the winter months when the ground is frozen to facilitate access in the extremely wet areas. The floodplain/wetland assessment will examine the proposed construction activities. The Supply Creek crossing is located in Grand County, Colorado in T.3 N., R. 76 W., sections 11 and 14. Maps and further information are available from the Western contact above.

Under EPA Contract No. GS-35F-0599J, MAI will assist the Information Management Branch, within the Communications, Information, and Resources Management Division, of the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) in operating the RCRA Confidential Business Information Center (CBIC). OSW collects data from industry to support the RCRA hazardous waste regulatory program. Some of the data collected from industry are claimed by industry to contain trade secrets or CBI. In accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, OSW has established policies and procedures for handling information collected from industry, under the authority of RCRA, including RCRA Confidential Business Information Security Manuals. MAI shall protect from unauthorized disclosure all information designated as confidential and shall abide by all RCRA CBI requirements, including procedures outlined in the RCRA CBI Security Manual. MAI will also provide data base management support to the RCRA CBIC document tracking system.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued regulations (40 CFR part 2, subpart B) that outlines business confidentiality provisions for the Agency and require all EPA Offices that receive information designated by the submitter as CBI to abide by these provisions. MAI will be authorized to have access to RCRA CBI under the EPA “Contractor Requirements for the Control and Security of RCRA Confidential Business Information Security Manual.”

EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under all sections of RCRA that EPA will provide HAZMED access to the CBI records located in the RCRA CBIC. Access to RCRA CBI under this contract will take place at EPA Headquarters only. Contractor personnel will be required to sign non-disclosure agreements and will be briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to confidential information.

Anyone desiring a draft agenda may fax their request to Shirley R. Hamilton, (202) 565-2444. The meeting is open to the public. Any member of the public wishing to make comments at the meeting should contact Shirley Hamilton, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Research and Development (8701R), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460 by telephone at (202) 564-6853. In general, each individual making an oral presentation will be limited to a total of three minutes.

This is a summary of the Auction No. 82 Comment Public Notice released November 9, 2001. The complete text of the Auction No. 82 Comment Public Notice, including attachments, is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The Auction No. 82 Comment Public Notice may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

1. By the Auction No. 82 Comment Public Notice, the Mass Media Bureau (“MMB”) and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (“WTB”) (collectively, “Bureaus”) announce the auction of four construction permits for new analog television stations to commence on February 5, 2002 (“Auction No. 82”). A list of the channels and communities of these stations is included as Attachment A of the Auction No. 82 Comment Public Notice. These new television stations are the subject of pending, mutually exclusive short-form applications (FCC Form 175) filed on or before June 29, 2001. Pursuant to the Broadcast First Report and Order, 63 FR 48615 (September 11, 1998), participation in the auction will be limited to those applicants. A list of those applicants is also identified in Attachment A of the Auction No. 82 Comment Public Notice.

2. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires the Commission to “ensure that, in the scheduling of any competitive bidding under this subsection, an adequate period is allowed * * * before issuance of bidding rules, to permit notice and comment on proposed auction procedures. * * *” Consistent with the provisions of the Balanced Budget Act and to ensure that potential bidders have adequate time to familiarize themselves with the specific rules that will govern the day-to-day conduct of an auction, the Commission directed the Bureaus, under their existing delegated authority, to seek comment on a variety of auction-specific procedures prior to the start of each auction. The Bureaus therefore seek comment on the following issues relating to Auction No. 82.

3. The Bureaus propose to award these construction permits in a simultaneous multiple-round auction. As described further, this methodology offers every construction permit for bid at the same time with successive bidding rounds in which bidders may place bids. The Bureaus seek comment on this proposal.

4. The upfront payment is a refundable deposit made by each bidder to determine and establish eligibility to bid on the construction permits being auctioned. For Auction No. 82, the Bureaus propose to make the upfront payments equal to the minimum opening bids, which are established based on similar facts as described in section II.B. The specific upfront payments for each construction permit are set forth in Attachment A of the Auction No. 82 Comment Public Notice. The Bureaus seek comment on this proposal.

5. The upfront payment submitted by a bidder will determine the number of bidding units on which a bidder may place bids. This limit is a bidder's “maximum initial eligibility.” Each construction permit is assigned a specific number of bidding units equal to the upfront payment listed in Attachment A, on a bidding unit per dollar basis. This number does not change as prices rise during the auction. A bidder may place bids on multiple construction permits, if selected on the FCC Form 175, as long as the total number of bidding units associated with those construction permits does not exceed its maximum initial eligibility. Eligibility cannot be increased during the auction. Thus, in calculating its upfront payment amount, an applicant must determine the maximum number of bidding units it may wish to bid on (or hold high bids on) in any single round, and submit an upfront payment covering that number of bidding units. The Bureaus seek comment on this proposal.

6. An activity rule requires bidders to bid actively on a percentage of their current bidding eligibility and/or be the standing high bidder during each round of the auction rather than waiting until the end to participate. The Bureaus propose a single stage auction with the following activity requirement: In each round of the auction, a bidder desiring to maintain its eligibility to participate in the auction is required to be active on one hundred (100) percent of its bidding eligibility. Failure to maintain the requisite activity level will result in the use of an activity rule waiver, if any remain, or a reduction in the bidder's bidding eligibility. The Bureaus seek comment on this proposal.

7. Use of an activity rule waiver preserves the bidder's current bidding eligibility despite the bidder's activity in the current round being below the required activity level. An activity rule waiver applies to an entire round of bidding and not to a particular construction permit. Activity waivers are principally a mechanism for auction participants to avoid the loss of auction rather eligibility in the event that exigent circumstances prevent them from placing a bid in a particular round.

8. The FCC auction system assumes that bidders with insufficient activity would prefer to use an activity rule waiver (if available) rather than lose bidding eligibility. Therefore, the system will automatically apply a waiver (known as an “automatic waiver”) at the end of any bidding period where a bidder's activity is below the required activity level unless: (i) There are no activity rule waivers available; or (ii) the bidder overrides the automatic application of a waiver by reducing eligibility, thereby meeting the minimum requirements. If a bidder has no waivers remaining and does not satisfy the required activity level, the system will permanently reduce their current eligibility to bring them into compliance with the activity rule.

9. A bidder with insufficient activity may wish to reduce its bidding eligibility rather than use an activity rule waiver. If so, the bidder must affirmatively override the automatic waiver mechanism during the bidding period by using the reduce eligibility function in the bidding system. In this case, the bidder's eligibility is permanently reduced to bring the bidder into compliance with the activity rules as described. Once eligibility has been reduced, a bidder will not be permitted to regain its lost bidding eligibility.

10. A bidder may proactively use an activity rule waiver as a means to keep the auction open without placing a bid. If a bidder submits a proactive waiver (using the Proactive Waiver function in the bidding system) during a bidding period in which no bids or withdrawals are submitted, the auction will remain open and the bidder's eligibility will be preserved. An automatic waiver invoked in a round in which there are no new valid bids will not keep the auction open.

11. The Bureaus propose that each bidder in Auction No. 82 be provided with three activity rule waivers that may be used at the bidder's discretion during the course of the auction as set forth. The Bureaus seek comment on this proposal.

12. For Auction No. 82, the Bureaus propose that, by public notice or by announcement during the auction, they may delay, suspend or cancel the auction in the event of natural disaster or national emergency, technical obstacle, evidence of an auction security breach, unlawful bidding activity, administrative or weather necessity, or for any other reason that affects the fair and competitive conduct of competitive bidding. In such cases, the Bureaus, in their sole discretion, may elect to resume the auction starting from the beginning of the current round, resume the auction starting from some previous round, or cancel the auction in its entirety. Network interruption may cause the Bureaus to delay or suspend the auction. The Bureaus emphasize that exercise of this authority is solely within its discretion and its use is not intended to be a substitute for situations in which bidders may wish to apply their activity rule waivers. The Bureaus seek comment on this proposal.

13. The Commission will use its Automated Auction System to conduct the electronic simultaneous multiple round auction format for Auction No. 82. Auction No. 82 will be conducted over the Internet. However, as in prior auctions, the FCC Wide Area Network will be available at the standard charge, and telephonic bidding will also be available. Prospective bidders concerned about their access to the Internet may want to establish a connection to the FCC Wide Area Network as a backup. Full information regarding how to establish such a connection, and related charges, will be provided in the public notice announcing details of auction procedures.

14. In past auctions, the Bureaus have used the timing of bids to select a high bidder when multiple bidders submit identical high bids on a construction permit in a given round. Given that bidders will access the Internet at differing speeds, the Bureaus will not use this procedure in Auction No. 82. For Auction No. 82, the Bureaus propose to use a random number generator to select a high bidder from among such bidders. As with prior auctions, remaining bidders will be able to submit higher bids in subsequent rounds. The initial bidding schedule will be announced in a public notice to be released at least one week before the start of the auction, and will be included in the registration mailings. The simultaneous multiple round format will consist of sequential bidding rounds, each followed by the release of round results. Details regarding the location and format of round results will be included in the same public notice.

15. The Bureaus have discretion to change the bidding schedule in order to foster an auction pace that reasonably balances speed with the bidders' need to study round results and adjust their bidding strategies. The Bureaus may increase or decrease the amount of time for the bidding rounds and review periods, or the number of rounds per day, depending upon the bidding activity level and other factors. The Bureaus seek comment on this proposal.

16. The Balanced Budget Act calls upon the Commission to prescribe methods by which a reasonable reserve price will be required or a minimum opening bid established when FCC licenses or construction permits are subject to auction ( i.e., when the Commission has accepted mutually exclusive applications for licenses or construction permits), unless the Commission determines that a reserve price or minimum bid is not in the public interest. Consistent with this mandate, the Commission has directed the Bureaus to seek comment on the use of minimum opening bids and/or reserve price prior to the start of each auction.

17. Normally, a reserve price is an absolute minimum price below which an item will not be sold in a given auction. Reserve prices can be either published or unpublished. A minimum opening bid, on the other hand, is the minimum bid price set at the beginning of the auction below which no bids are accepted. It is generally used to accelerate the competitive bidding process. Also, in a minimum opening bid scenario, the auctioneer generally has the discretion to lower the amount later in the auction. It is also possible for the minimum opening bid and the reserve price to be the same amount.

18. In light of the Balanced Budget Act's requirements, the Bureaus propose to establish a minimum opening bid for Auction No. 82. The Bureaus believe a minimum opening bid, which has been utilized in other auctions, is an effective bidding tool. A minimum opening bid, rather than a reserve price, will help to regulate the pace of the auction and provides flexibility.

19. For Auction No. 82, the proposed minimum opening bid prices were determined by taking into account various factors related to the efficiency of the auction and the potential value of the spectrum, including the type of service, market size, industry cash flow data and recent broadcast transactions. The specific minimum opening bid for each construction permit is set forth in Attachment A of the Auction No. 82 Comment Public Notice. The Bureaus seek comment on this proposal.

20. If commenters believe that these minimum opening bids will result in unsold construction permits, or are not reasonable amounts, or should instead operate as reserve prices, they should explain why this is so, and comment on the desirability of an alternative approach. Commenters are advised to support their claims with valuation analyses and suggested reserve prices or minimum opening bid levels or formulas. Alternatively, comment is sought on whether, consistent with the Balanced Budget Act, the public interest would be served by having no minimum opening bid or reserve price.

21. In each round, eligible bidders will be able to place bids on a given construction permit in any of nine different amounts. The Automated Auction System interface will list the nine acceptable bid amounts for each construction permit. Once there is a standing high bid on the construction permit, the Automated Auction System will calculate a minimum acceptable bid for that construction permit for the following round, as described. The difference between the minimum acceptable bid and the standing high bid for each construction permit will define the bid increment. The nine acceptable bid amounts for each construction permit consist of the minimum acceptable bid (the standing high bid plus one bid increment) and additional amounts calculated using multiple bid increments ( i.e., the second bid amount equals the standing high bid plus two times the bid increment, the third bid amount equals the standing high bid plus three times the bid increment, etc.).

22. Until a bid has been placed on a construction permit, the minimum acceptable bid for that construction permit will be equal to its minimum opening bid. The additional bid amounts for construction permits that have not yet received a bid will be calculated differently, as explained.

23. For Auction No. 82, the Bureaus propose to calculate minimum acceptable bids by using a smoothing methodology, as they have done in several other auctions. The smoothing formula calculates minimum acceptable bids by first calculating a percentage increment, not to be confused with the bid increment, for each construction permit based on a weighted average of the activity received on each construction permit in all previous rounds. This methodology tailors the percentage increment for each construction permit based on activity, rather than setting a global increment for all construction permits.

24. In a given round, the calculation of the percentage increment for each construction permit is made at the end of the previous round. The computation is based on an activity index, which is calculated as the weighted average of the activity in that round and the activity index from the prior round. The activity index at the start of the auction (round 0) will be set at 0. The current activity index is equal to a weighting factor times the number of new bids received on the construction permit in the most recent bidding round plus one minus the weighting factor times the activity index from the prior round. The activity index is then used to calculate a percentage increment by multiplying a minimum percentage increment by one plus the activity index with that result being subject to a maximum percentage increment. The Commission will initially set the weighting factor at 0.5, the minimum percentage increment at 0.1 (10%), and the maximum percentage increment at 0.2 (20%).

25. Under the smoothing methodology, once a bid has been received on a construction permit, the minimum acceptable bid for that construction permit in the following round will be the high bid from the current round plus the dollar amount associated with the percentage increment, with the result rounded to the nearest thousand if it is over $10,000, to the nearest hundred if it is under $10,000 but over $1,000, or to the nearest ten if it is below $1,000.

26. As stated, until a bid has been placed on a construction permit, the minimum acceptable bid for that construction permit will be equal to its minimum opening bid. The additional bid amounts are calculated using the difference between the minimum opening bid times one plus the minimum percentage increment, rounded as described, and the minimum opening bid. That is, I = (minimum opening bid)(1 + N){rounded}-(minimum opening bid). Therefore, when N equals 0.1, the first additional bid amount will be approximately ten percent higher than the minimum opening bid; the second, twenty percent; the third, thirty percent; etc.

27. In the case of a construction permit for which the standing high bid has been withdrawn, the minimum acceptable bid will equal the second highest bid received for the construction permit. The additional bid amounts are calculated using the difference between the second highest bid times one plus the minimum percentage increment, rounded, and the second highest bid.

28. The Bureaus retain the discretion to change the minimum acceptable bids and bid increments if it determines that circumstances so dictate. The Bureaus will do so by announcement in the Automated Auction System. The Bureaus seek comment on these proposals.

29. For Auction No. 82, the Bureaus propose the following bid removal and bid withdrawal procedures. Before the close of a bidding period, a bidder has the option of removing any bid placed in that round. By using the Remove Selected Bids function in the bidding system, a bidder may effectively “unsubmit” any bid placed within that round. A bidder removing a bid placed in the same round is not subject to a withdrawal payment.

30. Once a round closes, a bidder may no longer remove a bid. However, in any subsequent round, a high bidder may withdraw its standing high bids from previous rounds using the Withdraw function in the bidding system. A high bidder that withdraws its standing high bid from a previous round is subject to the bid withdrawal payment provisions of the Commission rules. The Bureaus seek comment on these bid removal and bid withdrawal procedures.

31. The Bureaus propose to limit each bidder in Auction No. 82 to withdrawing standing high bids in no more than one round during the course of the auction. To permit a bidder to withdraw bids in more than one round would likely encourage insincere bidding or the use of withdrawals for anti-competitive purposes. The round in which withdrawals are utilized will be at the bidder's discretion; withdrawals otherwise must be in accordance with the Commission's rules. There is no limit on the number of standing high bids that may be withdrawn in the round in which withdrawals are utilized. Withdrawals will remain subject to the bid withdrawal payment provisions specified in the Commission's rules. The Bureaus seek comment on this proposal.

32. For Auction No. 82, the Bureaus propose to employ a simultaneous stopping rule approach. The Bureaus have discretion “to establish stopping rules before or during multiple round auctions in order to terminate the auction within a reasonable time.” A simultaneous stopping rule means that all construction permits remains open until the first round in which no new acceptable bids, proactive waivers, or withdrawals are received. After the first such round, bidding closes simultaneously on all construction permits. Thus, unless circumstances dictate otherwise, bidding would remain open until bidding stops on all construction permits.

33. However, the Bureaus propose to retain the discretion to exercise any of the following options during Auction No. 82:

i. Utilize a modified version of the simultaneous stopping rule. The modified stopping rule would close the auction for all construction permits after the first round in which no bidder submits a proactive waiver, withdrawal, or a new bid on any construction permit on which it is not the standing high bidder. Thus, absent any other bidding activity, a bidder placing a new bid on a construction permit for which it is the standing high bidder would not keep the auction open under this modified stopping rule.

ii. Keep the auction open even if no new acceptable bids or proactive waivers are submitted and no previous high bids are withdrawn. In this event, the effect will be the same as if a bidder had submitted a proactive waiver. The activity rule, therefore, will apply as usual, and a bidder with insufficient activity will either lose bidding eligibility or use a remaining activity rule waiver.

iii. Declare that the auction will end after a specified number of additional rounds (“special stopping rule”). If the Bureaus invoke this special stopping rule, it will accept bids in the specified final round(s) only for construction permits on which the high bid increased in at least one of the preceding specified number of rounds.

34. The Bureaus propose to exercise these options only in certain circumstances, such as, for example, where the auction is proceeding very slowly, there is minimal overall bidding activity, or it appears likely that the auction will not close within a reasonable period of time. Before exercising this option, the Bureaus are likely to attempt to increase the pace of the auction by, for example, increasing the number of bidding rounds per day, and/or increasing the amount of the minimum bid increments for the limited number of construction permits where there is still a high level of bidding activity. The Bureaus seek comment on these proposals.

35. Potential bidders are solely responsible for investigating and evaluating all technical and market place factors that may have a bearing on the value of the television facilities in this auction. The FCC makes no representations or warranties about the use of this spectrum for particular services. Applicants should be aware that a FCC auction represents an opportunity to become a FCC permittee in the broadcast service, subject to certain conditions and regulations. A FCC auction does not constitute an endorsement by the FCC of any particular service, technology, or product, nor does a FCC construction permit or license constitute a guarantee of business success. Applicants should perform their individual due diligence before proceeding as they would with any new business venture.

36. Potential bidders are strongly encouraged to conduct their own research prior to Auction No. 82 in order to determine the existence of pending proceedings that might affect their decisions regarding participation in the auction. Participants in Auction No. 82 are strongly encouraged to continue such research during the auction.

37. Potential bidders should note that, in November 1999, Congress enacted the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 (CBPA) which established a new Class A television service. In response to the enactment of the CBPA, the Commission adopted rules to establish the new Class A television service. In the Class A Report and Order, the Commission adopted rules to provide interference protection for eligible Class A television stations from new full power television stations. Given the Commission's ruling in the Class A Report and Order, the winning bidders in Auction No. 82, upon submission of their long-form applications (FCC Form 301), will have to provide interference protection to qualified Class A television stations. Therefore, potential bidders are encouraged to perform engineering studies to determine the existence of Class A television stations and their effect on the ability to operate the full power television stations proposed in this auction. Information about the identity and location of Class A television stations is available from the Mass Media Bureau's Consolidated Database System (CDBS) (public access available at: http://www.fcc.gov/mmb ) and on the Mass Media Bureau's Class A television web page: http://www.fcc.gov/mmb/vsd/files/classa.html.

38. Potential bidders are also reminded that full service television stations are in the process of converting from analog to digital operation and that stations may have pending applications to construct and operate digital television facilities, construction permits and/or licenses for such digital facilities. Bidders should investigate the impact such applications, permits and licenses may have on their ability to operate the facilities proposed in this auction.

39. Bidders are reminded that § 1.2105(c) of the Commission's rules prohibits applicants for the same geographic license area from communicating with each other during the auction about bids, bidding strategies, or settlements unless they have identified each other as parties with whom they have entered into agreements under § 1.2105(a)(2)(viii). For Auction No. 82, this prohibition became effective at the short-form application filing deadline on Friday, June 29, 2001, and will end on the post-auction down payment deadline, which will be announced in a future public notice. If parties had agreed in principle on all material terms, those parties must have been identified on the short-form application under § 1.2105(c), even if the agreement had not been reduced to writing. If parties had not agreed in principle by the filing deadline, an applicant should not have included the names of those parties on its application, and must not have continued negotiations with other applicants for licenses in the same geographic area.

40. In addition, § 1.65 of the Commission's rules requires an applicant to maintain the accuracy and completeness of information furnished in its pending application and to notify the Commission within 30 days of any substantial change that may be of decisional importance to that application. Thus, § 1.65 requires an auction applicant to notify the Commission of any violation of the anti-collusion rules upon learning of such violation. Bidders therefore are required to make such notification to the Commission immediately upon discovery. In the Competitive Bidding Seventh Report & Order, 66 FR 54447 (October 29, 2001), the Commission amended § 1.2105 to require auction applicants to report prohibited communications in writing to the Commission immediately, but in no case later than five business days after the communication occurs.

41. As noted in the Auction No. 82 Filing Window Public Notice, 66 FR 33699 (June 25, 2001), after the short-form filing deadline, applicants may make only minor changes to their FCC Form 175 applications. For example, permissible minor changes include deletion and addition of authorized bidders (to a maximum of three) and certain revision of exhibits. At this time, filers must submit a letter summarizing the changes to: Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Room 4-A760, Washington, DC 20554.

42. A separate copy of the letter should be mailed to Shaun Maher, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Room 2-A820, Washington, DC 20554 and faxed to the attention of Kathryn Garland at (717) 338-2850. Questions about other changes should be directed to Shaun Maher at (202) 418-1600.

43. Comments are due on or before November 26, 2001, and reply comments are due on or before December 3, 2001. An original and four copies of all pleadings must be filed with the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-A325, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20054, in accordance with § 1.51(c) of the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 1.51(c). In addition, one copy of each pleading must be delivered to each of the following locations: (i) The Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; (ii) Office of Media Relations, Public Reference Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Suite CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554; (iii) Rana Shuler, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Suite 4-A628, Washington, DC 20554; (iv) Shaun Maher, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Suite 2-A820, Washington, DC 20554. Applicants that send their comments via Federal Express or any other express mail service should use the zip code “20024.” Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered comments will be accepted at 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capital Heights, Maryland, 20743. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Public Reference Room, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition, the Bureaus request that commenters fax a courtesy copy of their comments and reply comments to the attention of Kathryn Garland at (717) 338-2850.

44. This proceeding has been designated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.

This conference call is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. To access the teleconference you must dial 1/888/556-5771. International callers should dial 712-257-2273. To be connected to the call, you will need to provide the attendant with the pass code “ACIP meeting” and leader name Gloria Kovach. You will then be automatically connected to the call.

On April 27, 1999, we published a notice (64 FR 22619) that established the procedures used for making national coverage decisions. The April 27, 1999 notice also described the procedures we used to implement national coverage decisions. Under that section of the notice, we stated that if we chose to “withdraw or reduce coverage for a service,” we would publish the decision as a general notice in the Federal Register .

This notice announces our decision to reduce Medicare coverage of certain 2-[F-18] Fluoro-D-Glucose (FDG) Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scanners. For those clinical indications already covered by Medicare before July 1, 2001, PET imaging must be performed on either FDA-approved full- or partial-ring scanners, or coincidence systems that have the following features:

• Crystal at least 5/8 -inch thick.

• Techniques to minimize or correct for scatter and/or randoms.

• Digital detectors and iterative reconstruction.

Scans performed with gamma camera PET systems with crystals thinner than 5/8 -inch will not be covered. In addition, scans performed with systems with crystals greater than or equal to 5/8 -inch in thickness, which do not meet the other listed design characteristics, are not covered.

On August 13, 1999, we published a notice in the Federal Register (64 FR 44231) to describe the Medicare Coverage Advisory Committee (the Committee), which provides advice and recommendations to us about clinical issues. This notice announces the following public meeting of the Diagnostic Imaging Panel (the Panel) of the Committee.

Frank Papatheofanis, M.D., Ph.D.; Barbara McNeil, M.D., Ph.D.; Carole Flamm, M.D., M.P.H.; Jeffrey Lerner, Ph.D.; Michael Manyak, M.D.; Donna Novak, B.A.; Manuel Cerqueira, M.D.; Kim Burchiel, M.D.; Steven Guyton, M.D.; Sally Hart, J.D.; and Michael Klein, M.B.A.

The Panel will hear and discuss presentations from interested persons regarding FDG Positron Emission Tomography (PET) imaging for Alzheimer's disease (AD), mild cognitive impairment, and dementia.

This meeting is open to the public. The Panel will hear oral presentations from the public for approximately 90 minutes. The Panel may limit the number and duration of oral presentations to the time available. If you wish to make formal presentations, you must notify the Executive Secretary named in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and submit the following by the Deadline for Presentations and Comments date listed in the DATES section of this notice: a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments you wish to present, and the names and addresses of proposed participants. A written copy of your presentation must be provided to each Panel member before offering your public comments. We will request that you declare at the meeting whether or not you have any financial involvement with manufacturers of any items or services being discussed (or with their competitors).

After the public and CMS presentations, the Panel will deliberate openly on the topic. Interested persons may observe the deliberations, but the Panel will not hear further comments during this time except at the request of the chairperson. The Panel will also allow approximately a 30-minute open public session for any attendee to address issues specific to the topic. At the conclusion of the day, the members will vote and the Panel will make its recommendation.

On December 21, 2000, the Congress passed the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA), Pub. L. 106-554. Section 531(b) of BIPA mandates that we establish, no later than 1 year after the date of enactment, procedures that permit public consultation for coding and payment determinations for new clinical diagnostic laboratory tests and new DME under Part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act) in a manner consistent with the procedures established for implementing coding modifications for ICD-9-CM. The ICD-9-CM process involves holding regularly scheduled public meetings that are announced in the Federal Register 30 days before the meeting date. The ICD-9-CM meetings are open to the public and are held in the CMS auditorium. The agenda for each meeting is posted on the CMS website before each meeting under the heading for meetings and announcements. A preliminary ICD-9-CM coding determination for each agenda item is presented by CMS at the meeting.

The procedures and public meetings announced in this notice for new clinical laboratory tests and new DME are in response to the mandate of section 531(b) of BIPA. Also, our HCPCS website at http//www.hcfa.gov/medicare/hcpcs.htm includes a description of our existing HCPCS coding process and the additional public consultation process. The website provides a detailed explanation of the procedures we use to make coding and payment determinations for DME and other items and services that are coded in the HCPCS. We may make modifications to our process in the future as a result of comments we receive or based on our experience in implementing these procedures in 2002 and subsequent years.

Deadline for Registration: Individuals must register for the meetings by the following dates:

Laboratory Agenda Item: Individuals who want to make a presentation on the Laboratory agenda item must register by sending a fax to the attention of Anita Greenberg at (410) 786-0169, no later than July 24, 2002. Please provide name, company name, address, and telephone number.

DME Agenda Item: Individuals who want to make presentations on a DME agenda item must register by sending a fax to the attention of Joel Kaiser at (410) 786-0765, by the registration dates listed above. Please provide name, company name, address, telephone number, and agenda item you want to address.

The agenda will consist of HCPCS coding requests for new DME. Requests must be submitted through the HCPCS coding process to Kaye Riley; Center for Medicare Management; Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; 7500 Security Boulevard; Mail Stop C5-08-27; Baltimore, MD 21244. Requests must be received by April 1 of each year in order to be considered during the review cycle for the next annual HCPCS update. The annual HCPCS update is January 1 of each year. Requests will be reviewed by CMS's HCPCS Alpha-Numeric Workgroup, which will make CMS's preliminary recommendation on what action needs to be taken in response to the request. Once the Workgroup's preliminary recommendation has been developed, the request will be added to the agenda for the next available public meeting.

The meetings will be held in a government building; therefore, security measures will be applicable. Anyone without government identification will need to present photo identification, sign-in, and provide registration information.

Persons attending the meetings in Baltimore who are hearing or visually impaired and have special requirements or a condition that requires special assistance or accommodations, should notify the individuals listed below.

Laboratory Meeting: Anita Greenberg at fax number (410) 786-0169 or call (410) 786-4601.

DME Meetings: Joel Kaiser at fax number (410) 786-0765 or call (410) 786-4499.

New Laboratory Tests: The introduction of new codes may call for us to determine the rates at which the new codes will be paid. The laboratory meeting is intended to provide us with expert input on the nature of new tests before rate determinations are made. Discussion will be limited to the codes listed on the CMS Internet website at www.hcfa.gov/audience/planprov.htm by June 26, 2002.

New DME: Beginning in March 2002, CMS plans to schedule three public meetings per year on coding and pricing of new DME that will allow interested parties the opportunity to make oral presentations and submit written comments regarding coding and pricing recommendations for new DME that have been submitted using the HCPCS coding modification process. These public meetings will be held during the months of March, May, and June. Each meeting will be a full day.

Before each public meeting, the HCPCS workgroup will meet to review the coding requests that will be on the agenda for the next public meeting. In advance of a meeting, the Workgroup will complete a fact sheet that will include the following information for each agenda item:

• The nature of the request for a coding modification.

• Background information pertinent to the request.

• The fact sheet will also include for each request on the agenda the HCPCS workgroup's preliminary recommendation, and the rationale for this recommendation.

In addition, the fact sheet will also include the Workgroup's preliminary recommendation regarding the applicable payment category and the methodology that will be used to set a payment amount, for example, supplier price lists, price of a comparable item, or reasonable charge data. The preliminary recommendations of the HCPCS workgroup regarding the coding requests and CMS's preliminary payment methodology decision will be presented at the public meetings for discussion. After a public meeting, the workgroup will reconsider its preliminary coding recommendations, and CMS staff will reconsider pricing recommendations in view of the information presented at the public meeting. After reconsidering its preliminary coding recommendations in light of the discussions at the public meeting, the workgroup will decide what recommendations it should make to the HCPCS National Alpha-Numeric Editorial Panel, the entity that maintains the permanent HCPCS level II codes and that is hereafter referred to as the National Panel. The HCPCS National Panel is comprised of the Health Insurance Association of America, the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, and CMS.

New Laboratory Tests: This meeting is open to the public. The on-site check-in for visitors who have registered to attend the meeting will be held from 8 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., followed by opening remarks. Registered persons from the public may present discussion and individual recommendations on payment determinations for specific new Current Procedural Terminology (CPT-4) codes for the 2003 Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule, which are to become effective January 1, 2003. A newly created CPT-4 code can represent either a refinement or modification of existing test methods, or a substantially new test method. Decisions regarding payment levels or methods for determining them for the newly created CPT-4 codes will not be made at this meeting. However, the meeting will provide an opportunity for us to receive public input before we determine payments for the new codes. All presentations should be brief, and three written copies should be submitted to accompany any oral presentations. Information we find helpful for presenters to address includes the nature of the test method, applications, costs, and any recommendation the presenter may have regarding the method for establishing a payment rate (as discussed below). Due to time constraints, we may limit the number and duration of oral presentations to fit the time available. The specific codes that will be discussed at the meeting will be identified on the CMS Internet website at www.hcfa.gov/audience/planprov.htm by June 26, 2002.

New DME: This meeting is open to the general public. The on-site check-in for visitors who have registered to attend the meeting will be held from 7:30 a.m. to 8 a.m., followed by opening remarks. The purpose of the open meeting is to allow the public an opportunity, in a public forum, to do the following:

• Present to CMS representatives information and recommendations regarding the coding requests listed on the agenda.

• Discuss with representatives of the HCPCS Workgroup its preliminary recommendation regarding these coding requests.

• Discuss preliminary recommendations of CMS regarding payment for new DME items.

For each item on the agenda, the discussion will begin with CMS's presenting an overview of the request and the factors we considered in reaching our preliminary recommendations. Following the CMS overview, the entity that requested the HCPCS coding change will be given a maximum of 15 minutes to make a public presentation concerning its coding change application and payment for the item. For a requestor to participate in the public meeting as a primary presenter, the requestor must be registered with the HCPCS Coordinator, Kaye Riley, (410) 786-5323. For purposes of registering as a primary presenter, you must, at least 15 days prior to the meeting, submit the following to the HCPCS coordinator:

• A brief statement, one to two pages, of the general nature of the information you plan to present.

• The names and addresses of the proposed presenters.

• An estimate of the time required to make the presentation.

Primary presenters will be given up to 15 minutes for their presentations. Other presenters will be permitted to sign up at the meeting on a first come basis to make 5-minute presentations on agenda items. Time constraints will determine how many presenters, besides the primary presenter, will be allowed to make a public presentation. Speakers following the primary presenters will also be required to submit on the day of the meeting a one to two-page summary of their presentation. Other persons in attendance, who do not have the opportunity to make a presentation, may, at the meeting, submit their comments in a written statement of one to two typed pages.

We will request that speakers declare at the meeting and in any written statements whether or not they have any financial involvement with manufacturers of any items or services being discussed (or with their competitors). This would include any payment, salary, remuneration, or benefit provided to the speaker by the manufacturer. A summary of each meeting will be posted on the HCPCS website within 3 weeks following the meeting. The HCPCS website is http://www.hcfa.gov/medicare/hcpcs.htm.

The DME public meetings will be held in the main auditorium at CMS's Central Office, located at 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD, 21244. The first meeting is scheduled for March 11, 2002. For the remainder of 2002, meetings are also scheduled for May 13 and June 17. The meetings will begin at 8 a.m., E.S.T. For a coding request to be included on the agenda for the May or June meeting, it must received by April 1. For a coding request to be included on the agenda for the March meeting, it must be received at least 45 days before the scheduled date of the March meeting. If a coding request does not meet this deadline, it will be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.

The agenda for an upcoming DME public meeting will be posted on the HCPCS website at least 30 days before the scheduled date for the meeting. Posted with the agenda, there will also be a fact sheet, as described above, for each coding request to be reviewed at the meeting.

The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) 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; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

The Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Evaluation Study of Rounds 3-5 of HUD's Lead Hazard Control Grant Program.

OMB Control Number: To be assigned.

Need for the Information and Proposed Use: In order to assist in fulfilling its mission of eliminating lead-based paint hazards and other housing-related threats to children's health and safety in low-income privately-owned homes, HUD's Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control operates a grant program for State and local governments to develop and implement cost-effective methods for the inspection and reduction of lead-based paint hazards in private owner-occupied and rental housing for low and moderate income families. From 1995 through 1998, HUD initiated Rounds 3-5 of this Lead Hazard Control Grant Program, awarding grants to 73 different States and localities. The purpose of this information collection is to study the effectiveness of the lead hazard control treatments that these recipient programs administered under the HUD grants, at specified time points (e.g., from 1 to 4 years) after the treatments were administered. To do this, HUD will study selected housing units that received lead hazard control treatments within approximately ten programs that received grants in Rounds 3-5 of this program. In housing units that agree to participate in the study, researchers will collect household information, will visually inspect the integrity of the applied treatments, and will collect environmental samples (e.g., dust and soil) to be analyzed for lead content. The data will be combined with similar types of “baseline” data for the same housing units that the grant programs collected prior to administering the treatments in these units. The pre-treatment data will be obtained for this evaluation directly from the grant programs with their cooperation. The data collected during this Rounds 3-5 Evaluation Project should allow HUD to assess how post-treatment dust-lead levels, or changes in dust-lead levels between post-treatment and pre-treatment, may differ between housing units administered treatments of different intensity or cost. The data will also contribute to HUD's awareness of long-term performance of selected lead hazard control treatments.

For a participating housing unit, this information will involve: (1) A brief interior and exterior visual inspection to assess housing conditions and the integrity of the applied treatments; (2) collection of dust-wipe samples (from floors, window sills, window troughs, selected wall surfaces, and selected exterior surfaces) and soil samples for lead analysis; and (3) a brief visual survey of the immediate neighborhood to identify and record potential releases of lead in the neighborhood environment. At least one, but possibly two, information collection visits will be made to participating housing units over a two- to three-year period. If appropriate, the results of this information collection will be used to improve existing HUD guidance for cost-effective and safe lead hazard control treatments.

Agency Form Numbers: None.

Members of affected public: Selected property owners and residents of housing units that agree to participate in the study representing approximately ten state-, county-, or city-level lead hazard control grant programs across the United States.

Total Burden Estimate:

Number of Respondents: 600.

Frequency of Response: maximum of 2.

Total hours of Response: 4,050.

Average Response Time: 6.75 hours (assuming 2 visits for conducting surveys and sampling).

Total Burden for 600 units: 4,050 hours.

Status of the Proposed Information Collection: New collection.

In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

To further the recovery of humpback chub ( Gila cypha ), bonytail ( Gila elegans ), Colorado pikeminnow (formerly named Colorado squawfish; Ptchocheilus lucius ), and razorback sucker ( Xyrauchen texanus ), the Service announced on September 10, 2001, the availability of the Draft Recovery Goals for these endangered fishes of the Colorado River Basin and a 45-day comment period. These goals will serve as a supplement and amendment to the respective recovery plans for each species. We solicit review and comments from agencies and the public on these Draft Recovery Goals.

The purpose of these supplements and amendments are to describe site-specific management actions/tasks needed to minimize or remove threats; provide objective, measurable recovery criteria for downlisting and delisting that identify levels of demongraphic and genetic viability needed for self-sustaining populations; and provide estimates of the time required to achieve recovery of each of the four endangered fish species. Downlisting and delisting criteria by listing factors and management actions, as well as demographic criteria, are presented for populations of each species within recovery units. In addition, updated life-history information and statistical criteria for monitoring are identified. The recovery goals for the humpback chub, razorback sucker and bonytail are identified by two recovery units, upper basin (above Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona) and lower basin. Recovery of the Colorado pikeminnow is currently considered only for the upper basin.

Section 9 of the Act prohibits the “taking” of endangered species such as the Houston toad. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), under limited circumstances, may issue permits to take endangered wildlife species incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Regulations governing permits for endangered species are at 50 CFR 17.22.

An Environmental Assessment/Habitat Conservation Plan (EA/HCP) for the incidental take application has been prepared. A determination of jeopardy to the species or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will not be made until at least 30 days from the date of publication of this notice. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act and National Environmental Policy Act regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

Applicant: Virginia Bartlett plans to construct a single-family residence, within 7 years, on approximately 0.75 acres of a 33.525-acre property on FM 2104, Bastrop County, Texas. This action will eliminate 0.75 acres or less of Houston toad habitat and result in indirect impacts within the lot. The Applicant proposes to compensate for this incidental take of the Houston toad by providing $3,000.00 to the Houston Toad Conservation Fund at the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for the specific purpose of land acquisition and management within Houston toad habitat.

This temporary closure is implemented pursuant to Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 8341.2(a). The closure was approved November 15, 2001 and will remain in effect until a Record of Decision is signed on the West Mojave Coordinated Management Plan (WEMO Plan), which is expected to be signed June 2003.

Exceptions to this closure include government vehicles conducting official business which shall be allowed inside the closed areas as authorized and an interim route network signed as open routes on the ground and identified on the map. Official business may include public service emergencies, resource monitoring/research, and management activities, and other actions authorized by BLM's Barstow Field Office.

If you wish to submit comments about this document within the 30 days; mail them to the post office address provided above, hand-deliver them to the park at the street address provided above, or electronically file them to the e-mail address provided above. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of responders, available for public review during regular business hours.

ACCSH will meet December 6, 2001, in Washington, DC. This meeting is open to the public. The agenda for this meeting includes:

• Remarks by the Assistant Secretary for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, John L. Henshaw

• Special Presentation—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

• ACCSH Work Group updates

• OSHA Training Institute—Distance Learning

• Tower Erection—Update on North Carolina's Initiatives

• World Trade Center—Update

• Directorate of Construction report

An official record of the meeting will be available for public inspection at the OSHA Docket Office, Room N-2625, at the address above, telephone (202)-693-2350. All ACCSH meetings and those of its work groups are open to the public. Individuals needing special accommodation should contact Veneta Chatmon no later than November 30, 2001, at the above address.

Interested parties may submit written data, views or comments, preferably with 20 copies, to Veneta Chatmon, at the address listed above. OSHA will provide submissions received prior to the meeting to ACCSH members and will include each submission in the record of the meeting.

Attendees may also request to make an oral presentation by notifying Veneta Chatmon before the meeting. The request must state the amount of time desired, the interest represented by the presenter (e.g., the names of the business, trade association, government Agency) if any, and a brief outline of the presentation. The Chair of ACCSH may grant the request at his discretion and as time permits.

The following ACCSH works groups will meet in the Francis Perkins Building:

• Supart N—Cranes—8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Tuesday, December 4 in room N-4437 A&B and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Wednesday, December 5 in room S-4215 A&B.

For further information on meetings of ACCSH works groups, please refer to the OSHA Web site at http://www.osha.gov or contact Jim Boom at the telephone number listed above.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) hereby gives notice that TUV America, Inc. (TUVAM), has applied for recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). The scope of this recognition would include testing and certification of the equipment or materials (i.e., products), and include the sites, described later in this notice. TUVAM also seeks to use the supplemental programs also described later herein. The applicant's NRTL activities will be handled by its TUV Product Services division.

OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization has met the legal requirements in § 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products “properly certified” by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification.

The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition or for expansion or renewal of this recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the application and provides its preliminary finding and, in the second notice, the Agency provides its final decision on the application. These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of that scope. We maintain an informational web page for each NRTL, which details its scope of recognition. These pages can be accessed from our web site at http://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html .

The current address of the facilities (sites) covered by this application are: TUV Product Services (TUVAM), 5 Cherry Hill Drive, Danvers, Massachusetts 01923, TUV Product Services (TUVAM), 10040 Mesa Rim Road, San Diego, California 92121, TUV Product Services (TUVAM), 1775 Old Highway 8 NW, Suite 104, New Brighton (Minneapolis), Minnesota 55112.

According to the application, TUV America, Inc., is a “privately held Massachusetts” corporation. At time of application, the applicant was TUV Product Services, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of TUVAM and also a “privately held Massachusetts” corporation, according to the application. However, TUVAM informed OSHA recently that TUV Product Services, Inc. (TPS), no longer exists as a separate legal entity but is now a division within TUVAM. As stated above, this division would handle TUVAM's NRTL activities. As a result, OSHA has primarily evaluated the testing and certification capabilities of this division and former separate entity.

The application states that TUV Product Services, Inc., was incorporated in 1990, and that it has “10 years of experience with [testing] medical, telecommunications, computing, industrial machinery and controls, software, consumer electronics, sporting, and appliance products.” The applicant submitted information that traces its origins to German steam boiler inspection associations founded in the 1870's “to help regulate and supervise the safety of steam installations in the interest of public safety.” TUV Product Services GmbH (TUVPSG), which is organizationally part of TUVAM's parent company, included similar information in its application for recognition. OSHA has already processed TUVPSG's application and granted it recognition on July 20, 2001 (see Federal Register notice: 66 FR 38032).

Although TUVAM and TUVPSG are affiliated, they have separate operations and are legally distinct, and their recognition would be separate. However, by their own arrangement, both organizations would utilize the same registered certification mark for purposes of their NRTL certifications. OSHA imposed a condition on TUVPSG regarding use of this mark and would impose a related condition on TUVAM, as described later in this notice.

The application showed that TUVAM was owned by TUV Suddeutschland and TUV Nord, both based in Germany. However, as mentioned in the March 16 notice for TUVPSG, recently TUV Suddeutschland became sole owner of TUVAM. Also, it provides testing and other technical services in a number of areas throughout the world. The on-site review report (see Exhibit 3) indicates that TUVAM “receives administrative and technical direction” from TUVPSG. Moreover, the report indicates that TUVAM owns and its TPS division operates laboratories at additional U.S. locations, i.e., sites not listed above. The application only covers the three sites listed above, of which the Danvers site is currently TUVAM's headquarters.

TPS and therefore TUVAM submitted an application for recognition, dated February 1, 1999 (see Exhibit 2). In response to a request from OSHA for clarification and additional information, TUVAM supplemented its application in a submission dated November 9, 1999 (see Exhibit 2-1). In addition, the applicant provided additional documents on April 28 and May 1, 2000. It also supplemented its application on May 9, 2001 (see Exhibit 2-2), clarifying the test standards it requests for recognition and the supplemental programs it wishes to use.

The applicant originally requested recognition for 18 test standards. However, the NRTL Program staff determined that 3 of these test standards are not “appropriate test standards,” within the meaning of 29 CFR 1910.7(c). The staff makes such determinations in processing NRTL applications. Therefore, OSHA would recognize TUVAM for the 15 test standards listed below (see List of Test Standards).

Some documents in the November 9 submission, and virtually all of its documents in the original application, have been designated as “confidential” by the applicant. We follow provisions of 29 CFR part 70 in determining whether we can or must disclose application information. This part generally deals with procedures to process a request for disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Under subpart B of this part 70, information designated as confidential by a business submitter may be afforded protection under Exemption 4 of the FOIA. This exemption protects commercial or financial information, the disclosure of which would cause substantial competitive harm to the submitter.

As part of our normal process for handling applications, OSHA requested that the applicant provide reasons for designating application documents as confidential, and specifically whether disclosure would cause it substantial competitive harm. The applicant provided the necessary justification in its response dated November 9, 1999 (see Exhibit 2-1). Generally, the applicant maintains the 4 levels of operational documentation mentioned in international quality standards. It generally considers its level 3 and 4 documents to be confidential or privileged, and so stated in revising the designations in its November 9 response. These documents are detailed internal procedures that explain more specifically how the applicant does or will operate.

OSHA has evaluated the applicant's designations and determined that disclosure of certain documents in the original application, and all or a portion of the documents in the November 9, April 28, and May 1 supplements to the application described above, could potentially give to prospective or current competitors knowledge that could cause the applicant substantial competitive harm. Therefore, under the provisions of 29 CFR part 70, those documents could be withheld from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Accordingly, we are not making them available for public review and have not included those documents in the public docket for the application, which we further describe later in this notice. OSHA has previously withheld from disclosure similar such documents in response to FOIA requests received concerning documents submitted by other NRTLs.

Staff of the NRTL Program performed an on-site review (assessment) of the Danvers, Massachusetts, facility on October 23-26, 2000. The staff performed the reviews of the sites at San Diego and New Brighton on December 4-8, 2000. In the on-site review report (see Exhibit 3), the program staff recommended a “positive finding,” signifying that the applicant appears to meet the requirements for recognition in 29 CFR 1910.7.

Regarding the merits of the application, the applicant has presented detailed documentation that describes how it currently performs its testing and certification activities. The policies, procedures, work instructions, methods, and other practices described in this documentation would be used in its operations as an NRTL. Where appropriate, it has supplemented or modified the policies and procedures to conform to OSHA's requirements for an NRTL under 29 CFR 1910.7.

TUVAM currently performs product testing and certification activities, primarily for purposes of showing conformity to European based testing standards, such as EN and IEC standards, as indicated in the review report. It provided forms it uses when performing tests required under EN 60950. One of the test standards for which it requests recognition is UL 1950, which is equivalent to EN60950 but includes the US deviations. TUVAM has also performed testing to US-based test standards, such as UL 1950. As part of its current certification activities, it conducts initial and follow-up inspections at manufacturers' facilities, one facet of the activities that NRTLs recognized by OSHA must perform. It also authorizes the use of certification marks, another aspect of the work that NRTLs must perform. For purposes of its certifications under OSHA's NRTL Program, TUVAM will utilize a US certification mark. At the time of preparation of this notice, the registration of this mark is still pending. As already mentioned, both TUVAM and TUVPSG would utilize the same registered certification mark for purposes of their NRTL certifications.

The four recognition requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 are presented below, along with an explanation illustrating how TUVAM has met or plans to meet each of these requirements.

Section 1910.7(b)(1) states that for each specified item of equipment or material to be listed, labeled or accepted, the laboratory must have the capability (including proper testing equipment and facilities, trained staff, written testing procedures, and calibration and quality control programs) to perform appropriate testing.

The application and on-site review report indicate that TUVAM has adequate testing equipment and adequate facilities to perform the tests required under the test standards for which it seeks recognition. Security measures are in place to restrict or control access to their facility, and procedures exist for handling test samples. The application and report also indicate that testing and processing procedures are in place, and the application describes the program for the development of new testing procedures. The applicant submitted a listing and examples of specific test methods that it currently uses and would utilize for its proposed NRTL testing activities.

It utilizes outside calibration sources and does not intend to perform internal calibrations of equipment used for its NRTL testing activities. The application indicates that TUVAM maintains records on testing equipment, which include information on repair, routine maintenance, and calibrations. The application and on-site review report address personnel qualifications and training, and identify the applicant's staff involved with product testing, along with a summary of their education and experience. Also, the report indicates that TUVAM personnel have adequate technical knowledge for the work they perform. Moreover, the review report describes the applicant's quality assurance program, which is explained in more detail in its Integrated Management System (IMS) manual. Finally, the applicant performs internal system and internal technical audits of its operations on a regular basis.

Section 1910.7(b)(2) requires that the NRTL provide certain controls and services, to the extent necessary, for the particular equipment or material to be listed, labeled, or accepted. They include control procedures for identifying the listed or labeled equipment or materials, inspections of production runs at factories to assure conformance with test standards, and field inspections to monitor and assure the proper use of identifying marks or labels.

The applicant has procedures and related documentation for initially qualifying a manufacturer and for performing the required follow-up inspections at a manufacturer's facility. In its procedures, TUVAM identifies criteria it will use to determine the frequency for performing these follow-up factory inspections. It has adopted the criteria detailed in OSHA policies for NRTLs, which specify that NRTLs perform no fewer than four (4) inspections per year at certain facilities and no fewer than two (2) inspections per year under certain conditions. The factory inspections would be one part of the activities that the applicant will utilize in controlling its certification mark. In its application, TUVAM included evidence of its application for registration of a TUV certification mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). As previously mentioned, this mark is still pending approval by the USPTO.

The applicant has procedures for control and issuance of product certifications. According to the review report, TPS “has been involved in a certification program for over ten years.” As indicated in the report, the TPS Certification Body has been recently established under the TPS division but will operate in a manner consistent with the applicant's current certification practices, under which a Technical Certifier issues the formal product certification. As stated in the report, only those certifiers that are “[TPS] employees and reside at one of the recognized sites will be authorized to certify” a product for purposes of TUVAM's NRTL operations. The applicant maintains a detailed database of the product certifications, which would serve as its listing record. The application contains policies and terms and conditions to address control of a certification mark, and the procedures for such control are integral to more detailed procedures that the applicant uses for processing its certification certificates. For purposes of OSHA's NRTL Program, control by the NRTL of its certification mark is uppermost in importance and procedures for such control must ensure that the NRTL's registered mark is applied to those products that the NRTL has certified. Such control must be proactive and not just reactive. TUVAM's control of a US registered certification mark under the type of certification process required in OSHA's NRTL Program regulations will be a new activity for the applicant, and we propose to include a condition related to this control.

Section 1910.7(b)(3) requires that the NRTL be completely independent of employers subject to the tested equipment requirements, and of any manufacturers or vendors of equipment or materials being tested for these purposes.

As previously stated, TUV Suddeutschland is currently the sole owner of TUVAM. In addition, the information reviewed by OSHA has not indicated that TUVAM has the kinds of relationships described in OSHA policy that would cause the applicant to fail to meet the independence requirement. This information shows that TUVAM does not own or control and is not owned or controlled by the kind of entities of concern to OSHA. In addition, OSHA's review of information on business activities and subsidiaries of TUVAM's parent company has not revealed any apparent conflicts of interest that could adversely influence the applicant's testing and certification activities. TUVAM has policies to protect against conflicts of interest by its employees.

Section 1910.7(b)(4) provides that an NRTL must maintain effective procedures for producing credible findings and reports that are objective and without bias, as well as for handling complaints and disputes under a fair and reasonable system.

The applicant utilizes standardized formats for recording and reporting testing data and inspection data. It has procedures for evaluating and reporting the findings for testing and inspection activities to check conformance to all requirements of a test standard. The applicant provided examples of its test and inspection reporting forms.

Regarding the handling of complaints and disputes, the applicant's complaint and error management procedure provides the framework to handle complaints it receives from its clients or from the public or other interested parties. It maintains a detailed database that it uses as part of its quality assurance activities, which provides for recording and tracking complaint information. According to the review report, “there have not been any complaints received concerning any of the certifications that have issued” through the date of the review.

TUVAM seeks recognition for testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the 15 test standards listed below, and OSHA has determined the standards are “appropriate,” within the meaning of 29 CFR 1910.7(c).

OSHA recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials (i.e., products) for which OSHA standards require third party testing and certification before use in the workplace. Consequently, an NRTL's scope of recognition excludes any product(s) falling within the scope of the test standard for which OSHA has no testing and certification requirements.

The designations and titles of the above test standards were current at the time of the preparation of this notice.

Many of the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) test standards listed above are also approved as American National Standards by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). However, for convenience in compiling the list, we use the designation of the standards developing organization (e.g., UL 1004) for the standard, as opposed to the ANSI designation (e.g., ANSI/UL 1004). Under our procedures, an NRTL recognized for an ANSI-approved test standard may use either the latest proprietary version of the test standard or the latest ANSI version of that standard, regardless of whether it is currently recognized for the proprietary or ANSI version. Contact ANSI or the ANSI web site (http://www.ansi.org) and click “NSSN” to find out whether or not a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.

TUV America, Inc., also seeks to use the supplemental programs listed below, subject to the criteria detailed in the March 9, 1995 Federal Register notice (60 FR 12980, 3/9/95). That notice lists nine (9) programs and procedures (collectively, programs), eight of which (called supplemental programs) an NRTL may use to control and audit, but not actually to generate, the data relied upon for product certification. An NRTL's initial recognition always includes the first or basic program, which requires that all product testing and evaluation be performed in-house by the NRTL that will certify the product. The on-site review report indicates that TUVAM appears to meet the criteria for use of the following supplemental programs for which it has applied:

OSHA developed these programs to limit how an NRTL may perform certain aspects of its work and to permit the activities covered under a program only when the NRTL meets certain criteria. In this sense, they are special conditions that the Agency places on an NRTL's recognition. OSHA does not consider these programs in determining whether an NRTL meets the requirements for recognition under 29 CFR 1910.7. However, these programs help to define the scope of that recognition.

As already indicated, TUVAM and TUVPSG plan to utilize the same U.S. registered certification mark for purposes of their NRTL certifications. This is a new undertaking for the applicant and although it has procedures for controlling a certification mark, it still needs to further develop and refine the detailed procedures it will use to control this particular mark. As a result, OSHA would conditionally recognize TUVAM subject to an assessment of the detailed procedures and practices for controlling this mark once they are in place.

The US registered mark is the only one that OSHA would recognize for TUVAM. In addition, only the sites listed in this notice will be able to authorize use of this mark for the TUVAM product certifications under the NRTL Program. Conversely, no other TUVAM laboratories or locations may authorize the use of this mark for product certifications under the NRTL Program. To ensure the applicant and the public understand this fact, OSHA plans to impose a condition to this effect. A similar condition was proposed in the March 16 notice for TUVPSG, mentioned above.

As also noted, the applicant has just adopted procedures concerning the criteria for the frequency at which it will conduct factory follow-up inspections. Here, too, it needs to refine these procedures to effectively and properly implement the criteria. OSHA would have to review TUVAM's approach in implementing the criteria for the twice-per-year inspections before it begins to conduct inspections at this frequency. As a result, OSHA would conditionally recognize TUVAM subject to an assessment of the details of this approach once it is in place.

Imposing the proposed conditions is consistent with OSHA's past recognition of certain organizations as NRTLs that met the basic requirements but needed to further develop or refine their procedures (for example, see 63 FR 68306 12/10/1998; and 65 FR 26637, 05/08/2000). Given the applicant's current breadth of activities in testing and certification, OSHA is confident that TUVAM would develop and implement procedures and practices to appropriately perform the activities in the areas noted above.

Therefore, OSHA would impose the following conditions in the final notice to officially recognize TUVAM as an NRTL. These conditions apply solely to TUVAM's operations as an NRTL and solely to those products that it certifies for purposes of enabling employers to meet OSHA product approval requirements. These conditions would be in addition to all other conditions that OSHA normally imposes in its recognition of an organization as an NRTL.

1. Within 30 days of certifying its first products under the NRTL Program, TUVAM will notify the OSHA NRTL Program Director so that OSHA may review TUVAM's implementation of its procedures for controlling its US registered certification mark in conjunction with use of this mark by TUV Product Services GmbH of Germany.

2. Only TUV America, Inc., or TUV Product Services GmbH may authorize the US registered certification mark currently owned by TUVAM, provided each one is recognized as an NRTL by OSHA. TUVAM may authorize the use of this mark, for purposes of its product certifications under the NRTL Program, only at the TUVAM sites recognized by OSHA.

3. Prior to conducting inspections of manufacturing facilities based on a frequency of twice per year, OSHA must review and accept the detailed procedures that TUVAM will utilize to determine when to use this frequency for such inspections.

TUV America, Inc. (TUVAM) has addressed the requirements that must be met for recognition as an NRTL, as summarized above. In addition, the NRTL Program staff has performed on-site reviews (assessments) of TUVAM's facilities at Danvers, Massachusetts, San Diego, California, and New Brighton (Minneapolis), Minnesota and investigated the processes, procedures, practices, and general operations used by TUVAM. Discrepancies noted by the review staff were addressed by TUVAM following the on-site reviews, as detailed above, and are included as an integral part of the on-site review report (see Exhibit 3).

Following a review of the complete application file and the on-site review report, the NRTL Program staff has concluded that the applicant can be granted recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory for the 3 sites and the 15 test standards described above, subject to the conditions noted. The staff, therefore, recommended to the Assistant Secretary that the application be preliminarily approved.

Based upon the recommendation of the staff, the Agency has made a preliminary finding that TUV America, Inc., can meet the requirements, as prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7, for recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory for the 3 sites and 15 test standards described above, subject to the conditions noted. This preliminary finding, however, does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of the application.

OSHA welcomes public comments, in sufficient detail, as to whether TUV America, Inc., has met the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory. Your comment should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. To consider it, OSHA must receive the comment at the address provided above (see ADDRESSES ) no later than the last date for comments (see DATES above). Should you need more time to comment, OSHA must receive your written request for extension at the address provided above (also see ADDRESSES ) no later than the last date for comments (also see DATES above). You must include your reason(s) for any request for extension. OSHA will limit an extension to 30 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. We may deny a request for extension if it is frivolous or otherwise unwarranted. You may obtain or review copies of TUVAM's application, the additional submissions, the on-site review report, and all submitted comments, as received, by contacting the Docket Office, Room N2625, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. You should refer to Docket No. NRTL2-2001, the permanent record of public information on TUVAM's recognition application.

The NRTL Program staff will review all timely comments and, after resolution of issues raised by these comments, will recommend whether to grant TUVAM's application for recognition. The Agency will make the final decision on granting the recognition and, in making this decision, may undertake other proceedings that are prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the Federal Register .

Each year satellite carriers submit royalties to the Copyright Office for the retransmission of over-the-air broadcast signals to their subscribers. 17 U.S.C. 119. These royalties are, in turn, distributed in one of two ways to copyright owners whose works were included in a retransmission of an over-the-air broadcast signal and who timely filed a claim for royalties with the Copyright Office. The copyright owners may either negotiate the terms of a settlement as to the division of the royalty fees, or the Librarian of Congress may convene a Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (“CARP”) to determine the distribution of the royalty fees that remain in controversy. See 17 U.S.C. chapter 8.

On October 30, 2001, the Library of Congress published a Notice in the Federal Register requesting comments from interested parties as to the existence of controversies over the distribution of 2000 satellite royalty fees collected under 17 U.S.C. 119.66 FR 54789 (October 30, 2001). The Library requested that interested parties submit their comments, along with Notices of Intent to Participate in the 2000 distribution proceeding, by November 29, 2001. In addition, the Library sought comment on a petition for royalty distribution filed by the Public Broadcasting Service (“PBS”), seeking collection of 2000 and 2001 royalties submitted under 17 U.S.C. 119(b) for the PBS satellite feed.

On November 6, 2001, the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (“MPAA”) filed a motion seeking an extension of the November 29, 2001, deadline to January 15, 2002. MPAA's motion can be found at http://www.loc.gov/copyright/carp/mpaamotion.pdf . MPAA asserts that it cannot submit its Notice of Intent to Participate until the Copyright Office completes its examination of claims filed for the 2000 satellite funds. Once this examination is completed, MPAA will need time to secure representation agreements from its claimants before submitting its Notice of Intent to Participate. The extension of the filing period until January 15, 2002 will, in the opinion of MPAA, allow it sufficient time to prepare its Notice.

In order to consider MPAA's motion, it is necessary to suspend the current filing deadline of November 29, 2001. Consequently, interested parties need not file at this time their comments on the existence of controversies to the distribution of the 2000 satellite royalty funds, their comments on the PBS motion for distribution, or their Notices of Intent to Participate until further notice.

In the meantime, the Library seeks comment as to MPAA's motion and the advisability of extending the filing deadline until January 15, 2002, for comments on the existence of controversies and Notices of Intent to Participate.

The proposed meetings are for the purpose of panel review, discussion, evaluation and recommendation on applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including discussion of information given in confidence to the agency by the grant applicants. Because the proposed meetings will consider information that is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential and/or information of a personal nature the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, pursuant to authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee meetings, dated July 19, 1933, I have determined that these meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to subsections (c) (4), and (6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.

Type of meeting: This teleconference meeting is open to the public. The interested public is invited to participate by coming to the address listed above or calling into the teleconference. Public testimony will not be taken.

Purpose: In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Social Security Administration (SSA) announces this teleconference meeting of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act (TWWIIA) Advisory Panel (the Panel). Section 101(f) of Public Law 106-170 establishes the Panel to advise the Commissioner of SSA, the President, and the Congress on issues related to work incentives programs, planning and assistance for individuals with disabilities as provided under section 101(f)(2)(A) of the TWWIIA. The Panel is also to advise the Commissioner on matters specified in section 101(f)(2)(B) of that Act, including certain issues related to the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program established under section 101(a) of that Act.

Agenda: The Panel will deliberate on the implementation of TWWIIA, conduct committee activities and administrative business. The agenda for this meeting will be posted on the Internet at http://www.ssa.gov/work/panel/ one week prior to the teleconference or can be received in advance electronically or by fax upon request. Records are being kept of all Panel proceedings and will be available for public inspection by appointment at the Panel office.

Contact Information: Anyone requiring information regarding the Panel should contact the TWWIIA Panel staff by mail addressed to Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel Staff, Social Security Administration, 400 Virginia Avenue, SW., Suite 700, Washington, DC, 20024, telephone contact with Kristen Breland at (202) 358-6430, fax at (202) 358-6440 or e-mail to TWWIIAPanel@ssa.gov

The Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) is a Federal advisory committee under 5 U.S.C. App. 2. It advises the Secretary of Transportation on matters relating to shallow-draft inland and coastal waterway navigation and towing safety. This advice also assists the Coast Guard in formulating the position of the United States in advance of meetings of the International Maritime Organization.

TSAC meets at least once a year at Coast Guard Headquarters, Washington, DC, or another location selected by the Coast Guard. It may also meet for extraordinary purposes. Its working groups may meet to consider specific problems as required. We will consider applications for five positions that expire or become vacant in September 2002 as follows: two members from the barge and towing industry, reflecting a geographical balance; one member from port districts, authorities, or terminal operators; one member from maritime labor; and one member from the general public. To be eligible, applicants should have experience in towing operations, marine transportation, occupational safety and health, environmental protection, or business operations associated with the towing or maritime industry. Each member serves for a term of 3 years. A few members may serve consecutive terms. All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary, reimbursement of travel expenses, or other compensation from the Federal Government.

In support of the policy of the Department of Transportation on gender and ethnic diversity, we encourage qualified women and members of minority groups to apply.

If you are selected as a member who represents the general public, we will require you to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 450). We may not release the report or the information in it to the public, except under an order issued by a Federal court or as otherwise provided under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a).

On November 13, 2001, a Notice of Public Meeting was published in the Federal Register (66 FR 56897) announcing that this public meeting would be held in the Washington, DC area. The specific location of the public meeting was not published at that time. The meeting will be held at the Dulles Airport Marriott, 45020 Aviation Drive, Dulles, VA 20166, (703) 471-9500. For attendees who need to stay in a hotel, the following hotels, in addition to the Marriott listed above, are also near Washington Dulles International Airport: Hilton Washington Dulles Airport, (703) 478-2900; Hyatt Hotel-Dulles, (703) 713-1234; Fairfield Inn, 703-435-5300; Embassy Suites Dulles Airport, (703) 464-0200.

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the draft charter, tasking, and organization of the proposed Terminal Area Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee. An electronic copy of Federal Register notices, a draft of the charter, and other background information on the proposed Terminal Area Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee can be found at the following Web site: http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/index.htm under the “Committees” heading.

Requests from persons who wish to attend the public meeting should be received by the FAA no later than December 3, 2001. Please also let the FAA know if you plan to make a presentation at the meeting and if you need any audio-visual equipment for the presentation. Such requests should be submitted to Ms. Cindy Nordlie, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division, as listed in the section above titled For Further Information Contact.

Pursuant to the Administrator's authority under 49 U.S.C. 106(p)(5), the FAA is proposing to establish a Terminal Area Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee. Safety issues and recommendations identified by the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) relating to Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) accidents and incidents, and airport capacity constraints with associated delays, dictate a need for improvements in terminal area operations. The capabilities of modern aircraft, specifically the use of area navigation (including the global positioning system), are not fully utilized. Evolving technologies and potential equipment upgrades provide increased operational and safety benefits not realized unless a practical means is established to facilitate implementation. The international aspects of aviation operation and aircraft production require that terminal area operational procedures and associated equipage be consistent.

The general goal of the committee will be to develop a means to implement improvements in terminal area operations that address safety, capacity, and efficiency objectives and that are consistent with international implementation. It will provide a forum for the FAA, other government entities, and the aviation industry to discuss issues, develop resolutions, and develop processes to facilitate the evolution of safe and efficient terminal area operations. This committee will support the international harmonization process.

To achieve these objectives, the committee's proposed initial task is to resolve outstanding issues pertaining to draft Advisory Circular (AC) 120-29A and other draft required navigation performance (RNP) materials including, but not limited to AC 20-RNP, AC 90-RNP RNAV, advisory Circular 120-xxx (airport obstacle analysis), and Order 8260.RNP.

Persons who plan to attend the meeting should be aware of the following procedures established for this meeting:

1. There will be no admission fee or other charge to attend or to participate in the public meeting. The meeting will be open to all interested people who have confirmed attendance in advance or who register on the day of the meeting (between 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.), subject to availability of space in the meeting room.

2. Representatives from the FAA will conduct the public meeting.

3. The public meeting is intended as a forum to seek input to the draft charter, tasking, and organization of the proposed Terminal Area Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee. Participants must limit their discussions to this issue.

4. The FAA will try to accommodate input from all attendees; therefore, it may be necessary to limit the discussion time available for an individual or group. If practicable, the meeting may be accelerated to enable adjournment in less than the time scheduled.

5. Sign and oral interpretation can be made available at the meeting, as well as an assistive listening device, if requested 10 calendar days before the meeting.

6. Minutes of the meeting will be taken. The minutes and all material accepted by the FAA during the meeting will be included in TAOARC Web site at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/index.htm under the “Committees” heading.

7. The meeting is designed to seek public input on the draft charter, tasking, and organization of the proposed Terminal Area Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee. Therefore, the meeting will be conducted in an informal and nonadversarial manner.

The FHWA, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation, will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal to improve Interstate Route 5 (I-5) in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California. The proposed improvement is to widen the existing I-5 freeway, between State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate Route 605 (I-605), to add High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and/or general purpose lanes. This project is the initial phase of the I-5 Ultimate HOV project, which proposes to widen I-5 between SR-91 in Orange County and I-710 in Los Angeles County. A Major Investment Study (MIS) for the project was completed July 1998. It identified a ten-lane facility as the locally preferred option.

The purpose of the proposed project is to (1) provide an improved level of service during the weekday AM and PM peak periods and to reduce congestion and enhance safety and mobility in this segment of the I-5 freeway as compared to the no-build condition; (2) provide continuity of facilities and capacity on the I-5 freeway between the SR-91 in Orange County and I-605 in Los Angeles County; (3) maintain flexibility in the freeway corridor for additional capacity improvements; (4) improve interchange access/egress points and levels of service; (5) improve access to regional transit and HOV facilities; (6) improve local surface streets to reduce existing and future congestion; and (7) explore Transportation System Management (TSM) improvements for the I-5 and parallel arterials.

Alternatives under consideration include (1) a no build option; (2) implementing a Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management plan; (3) enhancing transit; (4) constructing a 10-lane facility with two HOV lanes; and (5) constructing a 12-lane facility (may be constructed in stages depending on availability of funding) with two or four HOV lanes.

These basic alternatives will have additional design variations, which provide optional lane use (general, HOV, or auxiliary use), optional on and off ramp modifications, and other engineering details. A final selection of alternatives and their subset variations will not be made until all public and agency comments are reviewed following the Scoping process. Note: As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), all other reasonable alternatives will be considered. These alternatives may be refined, combined various different alternative elements, or be removed from further consideration, as more analysis is conducted on the project alternatives.

Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments are being sent to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and to private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have interest in this proposal. Scoping meetings will be held on December 3 and 5, 2001 in La Mirada and Norwalk, respectively. Public notice will be given of the time and place of these meetings.

A series of public meetings will be held after the draft EIS is completed. Public notice will be given of the time and place of the meetings. The draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the formal public hearing.

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

Title: Request for Recovery of Overpayments Under Arbitrage Rebate Provisions.

OMB Number: 1545-1750.

Form Number: 8038-R.

Abstract: Under Treasury Regulations section 1.148-3(i), bond issuers may recover an overpayment of arbitrage rebate paid to the United States under Internal Revenue Code section 148. Form 8038-R is used to request recovery of any overpayment of arbitrage rebate made under the arbitrage rebate provisions.

Current Actions: There are no changes being made to the form at this time.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: State, local or tribal governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 200.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 12 hours, 20 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,466.

The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

Title: Tax Forms Inventory Report.

OMB Number: 1545-1739.

Form Numbers: 9460 and 9477.

Abstract: Forms 9460 and 9477 are designed to collect tax forms inventory information from banks, post offices, and libraries that distribute federal tax forms. Data is collected detailing the quantities and types of tax forms remaining at the end of the filing season. The data is combined with the shipment date for each account and used to establish forms distribution guidelines for the following year. Form 9460 is used for accounts who order forms in carton quantities, and Form 9477 is used for those who order forms in less than carton quantities.

Current Actions: There are no changes being made to the forms at this time.

Type of Review: Reinstatement.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations, not-for-profit institutions, and the Federal government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 14,000.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 14 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,417.

The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.