Wildlife Services (WS) of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) provides technical and operational assistance to entities who request assistance to reduce damage caused by wildlife, in this case to sunflower producers. WS loans damage abatement equipment (e.g., propane cannons, pyrotechnics), conducts training workshops, provides informational leaflets on damage management and sources of damage abatement tools, and, in the case of blackbird damage to sunflowers, conducts roost management programs to disperse blackbirds from sunflower production areas.

In 2000, approximately 81 percent of the sunflower production in the United States occurred in North Dakota and South Dakota. In North Dakota, the acreage of sunflower increased from 12,500 acres in 1962 to 1.3 million acres in 2000, with a commercial value of $125 million. In South Dakota, sunflower acreage increased from 132,000 acres in 1977 to 719,000 acres in 2000, with a commercial value of $63 million. However, increased production of sunflowers has been hampered by damage associated with blackbirds feeding on the ripening crop.

Damage surveys conducted in sunflower production areas in North Dakota and South Dakota indicate that overall loss is generally 1 to 2 percent of the crop. If all producers received less than 2 percent damage, there would be little concern for damage caused by blackbirds. However, damage is not equally distributed, can be severe for some producers, and is fairly consistent from year-to-year within a locality. Research has been conducted throughout the northern Great Plains to estimate the amount of damage birds have caused to ripening sunflower crops. Historically, sunflower damage surveys have estimated blackbird damage to range from $4-7 million annually in North Dakota and South Dakota.

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

The scoping document made available by this notice explains why WS is preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze the potential environmental effects of reducing blackbird damage to ripening sunflowers in North Dakota and South Dakota. This scoping document describes and defines the blackbird damage problem to sunflower crops grown in North Dakota and South Dakota. The goal of the WS blackbird damage management program—to reduce the level of blackbird damage to sunflower crops in North Dakota and South Dakota to no more than 5 percent in individual sunflower fields—is also explained.

Included in the scoping document is a summary of the WS role in managing blackbird damage. This includes past research efforts by WS' National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC), an overview of proposed future research, and a summary of WS operational programs. Information regarding State and academic programs, and the efforts of sunflower producers for reducing blackbird damage, is also provided. The scoping document details the Federal and State laws that are applicable to the reduction of blackbird damage.

Based on WS' experience and comments received in response to our previous notices on the subject, which were published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2001 (66 FR 16028-16031, Docket No. 01-013-1), and May 21, 2001 (66 FR 27933-27934, Docket No. 01-013-2), WS proposes to analyze three alternatives for detailed evaluation in the EIS:

(1) Continue the Current Operational Wildlife Services Program of Technical Assistance and Cattail Management in North Dakota and South Dakota, and Associated Research (No Action Alternative). Under this alternative, WS' professional wildlife biologists would continue to respond to requests for assistance with blackbird damage to sunflower crops, using all the lethal and non-lethal techniques currently available. WS would continue to provide technical assistance to sunflower producers. The cattail management program would continue at its current level (70 percent maximum treatment per wetland, up to 6,000 acres annually). Current and future NWRC research activities regarding blackbird damage management to sunflower crops and associated blackbird biology would continue.

(2) Integrated Adaptive Management Program. Under this alternative, WS' professional wildlife biologists would continue to use, as appropriate, all available damage management techniques for reducing blackbird damage to sunflower crops. This could include chemical repellents and frightening devices. WS would continue to provide technical assistance to sunflower producers.

Cattail management would continue under this alternative. However, treatment of cattail wetlands would increase to 8,000 acres annually from the current level of 6,000 acres.

The WS operational program could also include spring baiting using the avian toxicant DRC-1339. Spring baiting with DRC-1339-treated rice could be conducted for 5 years beginning at the end of March and continuing through the third week of April each year. Up to 25 bait plots of 2 acres each would be treated in east-central South Dakota (possible counties include Brookings, Clark, Codington, Deuel, Hamlin, Kingsbury, Lake, Miner, and Moody Counties). Bait plots would be established near blackbird staging areas in harvested grain fields. Spring baiting is intended to reduce the population of red-winged blackbirds by up to 2 million each year to reduce fall damage to sunflowers. North Dakota State University researchers determined likely blackbird baiting sites based on studies of habitat preferences of spring migratory blackbirds.

Under this alternative, extensive program monitoring would be conducted by WS personnel, in cooperation with the NWRC and North Dakota State University, to determine the effectiveness of DRC-1339 spring baiting and cattail management to reduce sunflower damage. WS biologists would also evaluate and monitor the effects on populations of blackbirds and non-target species. Monitoring would include blackbird population surveys, sunflower damage assessments, and the study of habitat variables, migration timing and patterns, and related climate variations within selected plots in sunflower production areas. If monitoring results indicate that spring baiting does not reduce sunflower damage, the spring baiting program would be terminated.

(3) Implement State, Private, and Sunflower Producer Damage Management Actions, with no Wildlife Services Programs. Under this alternative, WS would not participate in or implement any wildlife damage assessments or programs for reducing blackbird damage to sunflower crops in North Dakota and South Dakota. No technical assistance, research, lethal/non-lethal programs, cattail management, or any other related actions would be provided by WS. Certain functions of the present WS program would most likely be conducted by individual sunflower producers. All requests made to WS for sunflower crop protection would be referred to the North Dakota and South Dakota Departments of Agriculture, other Federal or State agencies, private businesses, or organizations, as appropriate.

The scoping document explains why five suggested alternatives will not be evaluated in detail in the EIS. These include: (1) Create and implement crop damage insurance against blackbird depredation; (2) financial compensation for economic losses to sunflower crops caused by blackbirds; (3) eradicate blackbirds; (4) reintroduce cougars, coyotes, wolves, bobcats, and other predator species to reduce populations of depredating blackbirds in North Dakota and South Dakota; and (5) physical exclusion of blackbirds from sunflower fields with netting or other material.

The scoping document identifies issues proposed for detailed analysis in the EIS. These include: (1) The cumulative impact on populations of target blackbird and non-target species of plants and wildlife, including Federally and State-protected species, from the use of DRC-1339 and glyphosate; (2) effects on biodiversity, including effects of glyphosate on terrestrial and wetland biodiversity, effects on terrestrial biodiversity from reducing populations of blackbirds, including impacts on insect populations, and effects on terrestrial biodiversity from reducing populations of terrestrial non-target plants and animals; (3) degree of humaneness of lethal methods for reducing blackbird populations; (4) cost-effectiveness of Federal actions for reducing economic impacts of blackbird depredation on sunflower crops; (5) potential for and impacts of exotic and nuisance plant species to invade wetlands after treatment with glyphosate; and (6) impacts of non-herbicidal components of glyphosate, such as surfactants, on insect populations.

The scoping document may be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We ask you to please read the scoping document and let us know, at a minimum:

• What are your concerns regarding the current program and the proposed changes (issues)?

• What are your concerns regarding environmental impacts that you want us to study in the EIS (issues)?

• How does this program affect you and how do you feel about protecting sunflowers from blackbird damage?

• What other ways of reducing damage to sunflower crops in North Dakota and South Dakota (alternatives) do you want us to consider?

• What ways of reducing environmental impacts (mitigation measures) do you want us to consider?

• What way would you prefer that we reduce blackbird damage to sunflower crops (preferred alternative)?

• What methods would you like us to use to evaluate environmental impacts?

Following completion of the scoping process, we will prepare a draft EIS for the program to protect sunflowers from blackbird damage. A notice announcing that the draft EIS is available for review will then be published in the Federal Register . The notice will also request comments concerning the draft EIS.

The Forest Service is proposing a value for value exchange of federal land and mineral rights for state lands. The federal lands are from three locations, the Choctawhatchee (357±acres), Apalachicola (4,053±acres), and the Ocala National Forests (237±acres). The federal mineral rights are from two locations, lands under the Blackwater (182,300±acres) and Withlacoochee State Forests (114,000±acres). The Lands that the State would exchange are in two locations, Pinhook Swamp (33,700±acres) and Seminole State Forest Lands (214±acres). Newsletters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State and local agencies, and to organizations and citizens who express interest in this proposal. Preliminary issues include the different levels of protection between state and federal ownership regarding cultural resources and Tribal consultation rights and protection provided for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive (PETS) species. Possible other alternatives under consideration include: Taking no action, purchasing the land to be acquired, an alternative that does not include the Tate's Hell Tract, and an alternative where only the mineral rights are exchanged for an equal value of land in the Pinhook Swamp. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register . The Forest Service believes, at this early state, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 US. 519, 553 (1978) . Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel , 803 F.2d 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 comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful it comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

The ARC was created by the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (Reform Act), as an independent commission, to evaluate Amtrak's performance and to make recommendations to Amtrak for achieving further cost containment, productivity improvements, and financial reforms. In addition, the Reform Act provides: that the Council is to monitor cost savings from work rules established under new agreements between Amtrak and its labor unions; that the Council submit an annual report to Congress that includes an assessment of Amtrak's progress on the resolution of productivity issues; and that, after a specified period, the Council has the authority to determine whether Amtrak can meet certain financial goals specified under the Reform Act and, if it finds that Amtrak cannot, to notify the President and the Congress.

The Reform Act prescribes that the Council is to consist of eleven members, including the Secretary of Transportation and ten others nominated by the President and the leadership of the Congress. Members serve a five-year term.

The Census Bureau is authorized to take surveys necessary to furnish current data on the subjects covered by the major censuses authorized by Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), sections 61, 81, 182, 224, and 225. These surveys will provide continuing and timely national statistical data on manufacturing for the period between economic censuses. The next economic censuses will be conducted for the year 2002. The data collected in these surveys will be within the general scope and nature of those inquiries covered in the economic censuses.

Most of the following commodity or product surveys provide data on shipments or production, data on stocks, unfilled orders, orders booked, consumption, and so forth. Reports will be required of all, or a sample of, establishments engaged in the production of the items covered by the following list of surveys.

Commerce/BXA, in coordination with the Department of the Navy, Carderock Division, and the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration is conducting a survey of the U.S. maritime industry in order to assess the health and competitiveness as well as the technology requirements of the forms that comprise this critical sector.

The information will be collected using a non-recurring, mandatory survey. It will be collected in written form.

The survey will collect information on the nature of the business performed by each firm; estimated sales and employment data; financial information; research and development expenditures and funding sources; capital expenditures and funding sources; competitiveness issues and technology requirements.

OMB Number: 0694-0113.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Regular Submission.

Affected Public: The vendor, supplier and manufacturer base of the U.S. Maritime industry.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,000.

Estimated Time Per Response: 4.0 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 8,000 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: No equipment or other materials will need to be purchased to comply with the requirement.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

The Department has received a timely request from Longkou TLC Machinery Co., Ltd. (“LKTLC”), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), which has an October semiannual anniversary month.

As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii)(A), the company identified above has certified that it did not export brake rotors to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”), and that it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer which did export brake rotors during the POI. The company has further certified that its export activities are not controlled by the central government of the PRC, satisfying the requirements of 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B). Pursuant to the Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A), LKTLC submitted documentation establishing the date on which it first shipped the subject merchandise to the United States, the date of entry of that first shipment, the volume of that shipment, and the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.214(b), and based on information on the record, we are initiating the new shipper review for LKTLC.

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we are initiating a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC. We intend to issue the preliminary results of this review not later than 180 days after the date on which the review is initiated.

We will instruct the Customs Service to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the merchandise exported by the above-listed company. This action is in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(e).

Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.

This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.214(d).

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2000). See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final rule, 62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997) ( “AD/CVD Final Rule” ).

On June 19, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of the antidumping duty order on structural steel beams from Japan. See Structural Steel Beams from Japan: Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 65 FR 37960 (June 19, 2000). On December 27, 2000, Yamato Kogyo, a producer and exporter of subject merchandise during the period of review (“POR”), requested that the Department conduct an antidumping duty new shipper review of the antidumping duty order. On January 24, 2001, the Department requested that Yamato Kogyo provide: (1) Certification that it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer who exported the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”); (2) a list of all of its affiliates during the POI; and (3) clarification on whether there were shipments of subject merchandise during the review period subsequent to the shipment reported. See Letter from James C. Doyle, Program Manager to Thomas Rogers, Capital Trade Incorporated (January 24, 2001). The Department also conducted an automated customs query on January 24, 2001, and found no shipments by Yamato Kogyo during the POI. See Memorandum to the File from Juanita H. Chen (January 25, 2001). On January 29, 2001, Yamato Kogyo submitted the requested certification, listing and clarification. See Letter from Thomas Rogers to Secretary Evans (January 29, 2001). On January 31, 2001, the Department initiated a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on structural steel beams from Japan. See Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review: Structural Steel Beams From Japan, 66 FR 10668 (February 16, 2001).

On February 16, 2001, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire. Subsequently, the Department corrected the period of review from the requested period of June 1, 2000 through November 30, 2000, to the current period of February 11, 2000 through November 30, 2000. See Memorandum to the File from Juanita H. Chen (February 22, 2001). On February 23, 2001, the Department granted Yamato Kogyo's request to limit its reporting period of home market sales to the three months preceding and two months following the months of the first and last U.S. sales in the POR, noting that such reporting is at Yamato Kogyo's own risk. See Memorandum to the file from Juanita H. Chen (February 23, 2001).

On March 21, 2001, the Department received Yamato Kogyo's Section A response to the questionnaire (“Section A response”). On April 13, 2001, the Department received Yamato Kogyo's Sections B and C responses to the questionnaire (“Sections B/C response”). On August 20, 2001, the Department issued a Sections A-C supplemental questionnaire. On September 18, 2001, the Department received Yamato Kogyo's Sections A-C supplemental response (“Supplemental Response”), along with revised data files.

Under section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department may extend the deadline for completion of a new shipper review if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated. On June 12, 2001, the Department fully extended the time limit for the preliminary results of this new shipper review by 120 days until November 27, 2001. See Notice of Extension of Time for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review: Structural Steel Beams from Japan, 66 FR 32790 (June 18, 2001).

The Department is conducting this new shipper review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

The POR is February 11, 2000 through November 30, 2000.

Pursuant to section 782(i)(3) of the Act, the Department verified the information provided by Yamato Kogyo for use in our preliminary results. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of Yamato Kogyo's facilities, as well as of relevant sales and financial records. From October 3, 2001 through October 5, 2001, we conducted verification of sales information submitted by Yamato Kogyo. Our verification results are outlined in the public version of the verification report and are on file in the central records unit located in room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce Building, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. See Report on the Sales Verification of Yamato Kogyo Co. Ltd. (November 14, 2001) (“Verification Report”).

For purposes of this investigation, the products covered are doubly-symmetric shapes, whether hot- or cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, formed or finished, having at least one dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches or more), whether of carbon or alloy (other than stainless) steel, and whether or not drilled, punched, notched, painted, coated, or clad. These products (“Structural Steel Beams”) include, but are not limited to, wide-flange beams (“W” shapes), bearing piles (“HP” shapes), standard beams (“S” or “I” shapes), and M-shapes.

All products that meet the physical and metallurgical descriptions provided above are within the scope of this investigation unless otherwise excluded. The following products, are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

• Structural steel beams greater than 400 pounds per linear foot or with a web or section height (also known as depth) over 40 inches.

The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheadings: 7216.32.0000, 7216.33.0030, 7216.33.0060, 7216.33.0090, 7216.50.0000, 7216.61.0000, 7216.69.0000, 7216.91.0000, 7216.99.0000, 7228.70.3040, 7228.70.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, if an interested party withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or provides information which cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Pursuant to section 782(e), the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties. We have applied facts available for the reported payment date pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act because Yamato Kogyo did not report payment date, as requested by the Department. When asked for an explanation, it stated that it “cannot readily {report} the specific payment date for each transaction” and instead reported the payment due date based on the payment terms. See Sections B/C response at B-14. At verification, we noted the actual payment date appears on the receipt of payment. See Verification Report at 12. These receipts of payments show that payment on the invoice is made well in advance of the actual due date. Accordingly, we have used facts available for payment date, in order to calculate a more accurate credit expense by taking the simple average of the number of days between the shipment date and actual payment date, from those home market sales reviewed at verification for which actual payment date information is available. Additionally, for those home market sales for which we have actual payment date information, we have used the actual payment date to calculate the credit expense.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all structural steel beam products covered by the “Scope of the Review” section of this notice, supra, which were produced and sold by Yamato Kogyo in the home market during the POR, to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales of structural steel beam products. We have relied on four characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product: hot/cold formed, shape/size, strength/grade, and coating (listed in order of preference).

In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, export price (“EP”) is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, constructed export price (“CEP”) is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter. For purposes of this review, Yamato Kogyo has classified its sale(s) as EP sales. See Sections B/C response, at C-11. Yamato Kogyo identified one channel of distribution (sales to distributors in the U.S. market) for its U.S. sale(s) during the POR. Id. at C-13. Based on Yamato Kogyo's description of its U.S. sales process, that it sells the merchandise directly to unaffiliated distributors in the U.S. market, and did not sell in the U.S. through an affiliated U.S. importer, we preliminarily determine that Yamato Kogyo's sale(s) were EP sales. See Section A response, at A-8. We calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We based EP on packed prices for export to distributors in the U.S. market. We made deductions for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, foreign inland and marine insurance, and credit expenses in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to determine whether there was sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than or equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared Yamato Kogyo's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Because Yamato Kogyo's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. We therefore based NV on home market sales to unaffiliated purchasers and to those affiliated customer sales which passed the arm's length test, as discussed, infra, made in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. We made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses ( i.e., inland freight, warehousing expense, and inland insurance) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We recalculated credit expenses, where appropriate, using actual payment dates or the average of actual payment dates reported. See Facts Available section of this notice, supra; Verification Report, at 12; Analysis Memorandum for Yamato Kogyo Co., Ltd. (November 27, 2001) at 3. Additionally, in accordance with section 773(a)(6), we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs.

Yamato Kogyo reported that it made home market sales of subject merchandise to affiliates, and also reported that it did not make sales of subject merchandise to affiliated parties for consumption. See Section A response, at A-3; see also Yamato Kogyo's Supplemental Response, at 11-12.

If any sales to affiliated customers in the home market are not made at arm's length prices, we exclude them from our analysis because we consider them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. To test whether sales were made at arm's length prices, we compare, on a model-specific basis, the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Where prices to the affiliated party were on average 99.5 percent or more of the price to the unaffiliated parties, we determine that sales made to the affiliated party were at arms's length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). In instances where no price ratio can be constructed for an affiliated customer because identical merchandise was not sold to unaffiliated customers, we are unable to determine that these sales were made at arm's length prices and, therefore, exclude them from our analysis. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina, 58 FR 37062, 37077 (July 9, 1993). In our home market NV calculation, we have included Yamato Kogyo's sales to its affiliated customers because those sales pass the Department's arm's length test.

Yamato Kogyo stated that it reported its home market sales based on the shipment date of such sales. See Verification Report at Exhibit 1. Yamato Kogyo explained that “the terms of the sale may change up to the date of shipment.” See Sections B/C response, at B-13. Yamato Kogyo stated that, for the U.S. market, it issues the invoice when it ships the merchandise, and for the home market, it issues the invoice either: (1) the day of shipment, when the merchandise is loaded onto the barge (for sales shipped by barge); or (2) the day following shipment, when the merchandise is received by the customer (for sales shipped by truck). See Section A response, at 13. Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that the Department will normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale, but may use a date other than the date of invoice if it better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale are established. The preamble to these regulations provides an explanation of this policy, as well as examples of when the Department may choose to base the date of sale on a date other than the date of invoice. See AD/CVD Final Rule, 62 FR at 27348-49. From Yamato Kogyo's response, it appears that the material terms of sale are established by the date of shipment. Accordingly, for these preliminary results, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), we based date of sale on the shipment date.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (“LOT”) as the EP transactions. As noted in the “Export Price/Constructed Export Price” section, supra, we preliminarily determine that Yamato Kogyo's U.S. sale(s) were EP sales. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For EP sales, the LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the unaffiliated U.S. customer.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

In the present review, Yamato Kogyo stated that it is not claiming a LOT adjustment. However, to determine whether an adjustment is nevertheless necessary, in accordance with the principles discussed above, we examined information regarding the distribution systems and selling functions in both the United States and Japanese markets.

For the LOT in the home market, Yamato Kogyo stated that all sales were shipped directly to the final customer, either to trading companies or general contractors, and for the LOT in the U.S. market, stated that all sales were made to distributors. Yamato Kogyo reported two channels of distribution in the home market: (1) sales to trading companies; and (2) direct sales to general contractors. Yamato Kogyo reported one channel of distribution in the U.S. market: sales to unaffiliated distributors.

For sales in the home market, Yamato Kogyo asserts the sales are “effectively” through a single sales channel, i.e. from Yamato Kogyo to the customer. For sales to trading companies in the home market, Yamato Kogyo reported that the trading company issues the purchase order and makes payment, however Yamato Kogyo makes shipments directly to the trading company's customer (either a distributor or a general contractor/construction company). For sales to general contractors in the home market, Yamato Kogyo deals directly with the general contractor. For sales shipped by barge, Yamato Kogyo issues the invoice when the merchandise is loaded, and for sales shipped by truck, Yamato Kogyo issues the invoice the day the merchandise is received by the customer (usually the day following shipment). In some cases, Yamato Shoji issues the invoice to the customer. Yamato Kogyo (and in some cases, Yamato Shoji) makes the freight and delivery arrangements, provides technical information, and performs sales promotion activities such as sales calls. Based on our review of the selling functions performed in the channels of distribution in the home market, there do not appear to be any substantial differences in selling activity when the customer is a trading company versus a general contractor. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the home market.

For sales to the U.S. market, Yamato Kogyo sold and shipped directly to an unaffiliated distributor. Yamato Kogyo issues the invoice when it ships the merchandise. For sales to the U.S. market, Yamato Kogyo makes the freight arrangements but stated that it performs little other selling activities or services. We preliminarily determine there is one LOT in the U.S. market.

Based on our analysis of the selling functions performed for sales in the home market and EP sales in the U.S. market, we preliminarily determine that Yamato Kogyo performs significantly more selling functions in the home market than for the U.S. market; thus, these sales are made at different LOTs. However, because there is only one LOT in the home market, we cannot determine if there is a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and the comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, and do not have the means to calculate a LOT adjustment. Accordingly, we have not made a LOT adjustment.

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period February 11, 2000 through November 30, 2000:

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments on these preliminary results. Case briefs must be submitted no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties submitting arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, an interested party may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs, or the first working day thereafter. The Department will issue the final results of this new shipper review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service (“Customs”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific assessment rates. We calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on a unit value per metric ton basis by summing the dumping margins on U.S. sales, and then dividing this sum by the total metric tons of all U.S. sales examined. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct Customs not to assess antidumping duties on the merchandise subject to review. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs.

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this new shipper review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of this new shipper review (except that no deposit will be required if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or the original LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the “all others” rate of 37.13 percent established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next review.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This new shipper review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

A notice was published in the Federal Register (Volume 66, Number 40, pp. 12762-3) on February 28, 2001, announcing the proposed FIPS for Advanced Encryption Standard for public review and comment. The Federal Register notice solicited comments from the public, academic and research communities, manufacturers, voluntary standards organizations, and Federal, state, and local government organizations. In addition to be published in the Federal Register , the notice was posted on the NIST Web pages; information was provided about the submission of electronic comments. Comments and responses were received from 21 private sector organizations, individuals, and groups of individuals, and from one federal government organization. None of the comments opposed the adoption of the AES as a Federal Information Processing Standard. Comments supported the selection of the algorithm and commended the clear, well-written presentation of the standard. Some comments offered editorial suggestions, pointed out perceived inconsistencies in the text, and requested clarifications. All of the editorial recommendations were carefully reviewed, and changes were made to the standard where appropriate.

Following is an analysis of the technical and related comments received.

Comment: The FIPS for AES should include support for additional block and key sizes. This would take advantage of the AES algorithm's built-in flexibility, making it better suited for use in a hashing mode and with communications applications that require minimal overhead (padding).

Response: NIST recognizes that one of the AES algorithm's strengths is its inherent support for additional block and key sizes. However, other block and key sizes have not been subjected to the same public analyses as those sizes that are provided for in the recommended FIPS. As a result, NIST believes that it would not be appropriate to include the additional sizes at this time. The block and key sizes are specified as parameters in the recommended FIPS, and could be modified to include other block and key sizes in the future if needed. The recommended standard explains that the use of parameters in the specification is intended to encourage AES implementers to build their applications and systems with future flexibility and adaptability in mind. NIST will monitor future developments, and will consider adding more parameters to the specification if needed in the future.

Comment: For added security, and to meet the needs for extremely long-term security, NIST should increase the number of rounds that are specified by the AES algorithm (i.e., the amount of processing used for encryption and decryption). Since new techniques to break the algorithm may evolve, the margin of security offered by the algorithm should be increased.

Response: Prior to its evaluation of the five finalist candidate algorithms, NIST's AES selection team discussed the issue of whether the number of rounds should be changed for one or more of the algorithms; the selection team decided to consider only the algorithms as initially submitted. Changing the number of prescribed rounds would change the way that the algorithm was defined (e.g., its key schedule), and the process of proposing, reviewing, and evaluating an algorithm would have to start over from the beginning. If the number of rounds were changed, many of the security and performance analyses that had already been performed on the candidate algorithms would no longer be useful.

Furthermore, throughout the development and review of the recommended FIPS, there was little agreement on which key sizes should have more rounds, and less agreement on how many rounds to add. Some who commented on the Draft FIPS proposed adding just two rounds, while another comment suggested adding 114 rounds.

NIST is not aware of advances in cryptographic techniques that would threaten the security provided by the recommended FIPS, but will continue to follow developments, to reevaluate the standard, and to consider changes or additions that might be needed. As with its other cryptographic standards, NIST will review the recommended FIPS every five years to consider whether the standard should be reaffirmed, amended, or withdrawn.

Comment: Since the AES algorithm allows three different key sizes, NIST should provide guidance to users regarding how and for what purpose(s) the different keys should be used.

Response: NIST is currently developing a guideline that will address numerous key management issues, including considerations for selecting from among multiple key sizes. Details on the content and development of that guideline are available on NIST's web pages http://csrc.nist.gov/encryption/kms/white-paper.pdf.

Comment: Statements in the FIPS are unclear and ambiguous regarding validation requirements for AES implementations. Additionally, many of these statements refer to FIPS 140-2, which has not been approved and which has a transition period when both FIPS 140-1 and FIPS 140-2 are in effect.

Response: FIPS 140-2 was approved in May 2001, and became effective on November 25, 2001. However, references to FIPS 140-2 have been removed in order to limit any misunderstandings.

Following approval of this recommended FIPS, vendors may request that their AES implementation be tested and validated either for conference to the AES specification or in conjunction with a cryptographic module validation test (i.e., validation testing for FIPS 140-2). The process is the same for all testing of implementations of FIPS-approved algorithms under the Cryptographic Module Validation Program.

Comment: Comments indicated concern about the padding to be used when the length of the data to be encrypted was not an even multiple of the block size. Other comments proposed more optimal specifications of the algorithm.

Response: NIST considers padding and optimization to be outside the scope of this standard. Padding will be addressed in a standard or recommendation to be developed on the modes of operation for the AES, and in the applications and protocols that use the AES.

It is expected that many optimization of the AES will be developed over time. NIST plans to post information that it receives on optimization issues on its web pages with the permission of the submitter.

Comment: One comment recommended the selections of a different algorithm, one that had not been submitted during the AES development process.

Response: NIST conducted an open process to solicit and evaluate algorithms for consideration for the AES. All candidate algorithms have been thoroughly reviewed and analyzed by the international cryptographic community.

Executive Order 12866: This notice has been determined not to be significant for the purposes of E. O. 12866.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to collect to conduct a one-time census to collect economic, sociocultural, and demographic data about commercial fishing for wreckfish ( Polyprion americanus ) along the U.S. south Atlantic coast. The wreckfish fishery has been managed with individual transferable quotas (ITQs) since 1992. Few shareholders currently fish for wreckfish, yet they have not sold or leased their shares. This project will address why shareholders chose not to participate in the wreckfish fishery, where and for what species they did fish, and why they did not sell or lease their unused quota to generate revenue even though they did not fish for wreckfish. Equally important is to determine if the process of developing an ITQ system contributed to the rapid increase in fishing effort in the early 1990s. The results of this inquiry could offer important lessons for economists, fishery managers and others researching the appropriateness of applying ITQ systems in other fisheries in the southeast.

Data will be collected through personal interviews with approximately 50 past and current shareholders in the ITQ management system for the wreckfish fishery. Interviews will include open-ended questions so that respondents can put into their own words their thoughts, interpretations and experiences with the fishery and the ITQ management program. All interviews will be tape-recorded and transcribed. Results of the study will be made available both through publications and on a National Marine Fisheries Community Impacts web page. Participation in the study will be voluntary.

OMB Number : None.

Form Number : None.

Type of Review : Regular submission.

Affected Public : Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents : 50.

Estimated Time Per Response : 2 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours : 100.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public : $0.

Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

U.S. vessels participating in Antarctic fisheries must display the vessel’s official identification number or international radio call sign in three locations on the vessel. The requirement aids in the enforcement of fishery regulations.

The information is displayed in three locations on the vessel.

OMB Number : 0648-0368.

Form Number : None.

Type of Review : Regular submission.

Affected Public : Business or other for-profit organizations, individuals.

Estimated Number of Respondents : 3.

Estimated Time Per Response : 45 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours : 2.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public : $90.

Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

All non-profit entities (including, but not limited to, faith-based organizations, national organizations and associations, non-profit community-based organizations, non-profit health care providers, schools, libraries, museums, colleges, universities, public safety providers) and state, local, and tribal governments are eligible to apply.

Although individuals and for-profit organizations are not eligible to apply, they are encouraged to participate as project partners.

Issuance of grants is subject to the availability of FY 2002 funds. Based on the status of relevant appropriations legislation, NTIA expects to have approximately $12.5 million available for new grants. Further notice will be made in the Federal Register and the TOP web site of the final status of funding for this program at the appropriate time.

Based on past experience, NTIA expects this year's grant round to be very competitive. In Fiscal Year 2001, NTIA received over 660 applications collectively requesting more than $367 million in federal funds. From these applications, the Department of Commerce announced 74 awards totaling $42.8 million in federal funds.

An applicant may request up to a total of $750,000 in funds from NTIA. TOP expects the federal amounts awarded to range from $200,000 to $750,000, with an average of approximately $500,000. The amount awarded covers the duration of the project.

Grant recipients under this program will be required to provide matching funds toward the total project cost. Applicants must document their capacity to provide matching funds. Matching funds may be in the form of cash or in-kind contributions. NTIA will provide up to 50 percent of the total project cost, unless the applicant can document extraordinary circumstances warranting a grant of up to 75 percent. Grant funds under this program are usually released in direct proportion to local matching funds utilized and documented as having been expended.

Generally, federal funds may not be used as matching funds, except as provided by federal statute. If you plan to use funds from a federal agency as matching funds, you should contact the federal agency that administers the funds in question and obtain documentation from that agency's Office of General Counsel to support the use of federal funds for matching purposes.

TOP will initially review all applications to determine whether all required elements are present and clearly identifiable. The required elements are listed and described in the Guidelines for Preparing Applications'Fiscal Year 2002. Details on how to access the Guidelines for Preparing Applications'Fiscal Year 2002, are available in the section “Other Information” in this Notice. Each of the required elements must be present and clearly identified. Failure to do so may result in rejection of the application. For details on how to obtain materials needed to complete an application, see “Addresses” in this Notice.

As noted above, complete applications for the Fiscal Year 2002 TOP grant program must be received by NTIA no later than 8 P.M. EST, March 21, 2002. A postmark date is not sufficient. Applications which have been provided to a delivery service on or before March 20, 2002, with “delivery guaranteed” before 8:00 P.M. on March 21, 2002, will be accepted for review if the applicant can document that the application was provided to the delivery service with delivery to the address listed above guaranteed prior to the closing date and time. Applications will not be accepted via facsimile machine transmission or electronic mail.

NTIA anticipates that it will take approximately six months to complete the review of applications and make final funding decisions.

Through TOP, NTIA provides underserved communities with opportunities to explore the possibilities that emerging digital network technologies offer to solve critical challenges in such areas as lifelong learning, community and economic development, government and public services, safety, health, culture, and the arts. 1

TOP projects demonstrate creative uses of digital network technologies to address pressing needs in the public and non-profit sectors. Therefore, TOP expects each applicant to present a clear vision and a workable plan to apply digital network technologies to address specific challenges in their communities. Rather than simply requesting funds to build capacity or upgrade existing equipment, each application should describe a project that pinpoints specific problems, proposes creative solutions, and postulates measurable outcomes.

As a national program, TOP emphasizes innovation, learning, and diffusion of new ideas and practical knowledge. Each TOP-supported project must be innovative in the sense that it represents a departure from how other communities and groups across the country are using digital network technologies to overcome obstacles. Each TOP project should yield new insights into how best to use these technologies and offer opportunities to learn what works well and what does not. Because these grants will serve as national models for other communities, NTIA expects each project to include provisions for thorough evaluations that will provide valid and reliable data as well as valuable lessons learned to be shared with others interested in the project.

All funded projects must be interactive in that they allow end users to share information with each other or gain access to information on an on-demand basis, as opposed to a one-way or broadcast basis. 2 TOP-supported projects must also involve communication and new partnerships among multiple unaffiliated organizations or enable direct, interactive communication between an organization and the public it serves.

For the FY 2002 grant competition, TOP is interested in projects that involve:

• Broadband technologies that bring very high-speed communications directly to end users;

• Mobile wireless communication technologies that offer end users greater flexibility in how, where, and when they access information;

• Empowering end users to move beyond passive information consumption to become valued contributors to the development, use, and expansion of shared information resources;  3 and

• Emerging data sharing techniques that facilitate the seamless and secure exchange of information across organizational boundaries.

In previous fiscal years, NTIA supported planning projects. The emphasis for Fiscal Year 2002 is on projects that deploy, use, and evaluate digital network technologies. NTIA will, however, support projects that incorporate some planning activities as part of the proposed project.

Each TOP project is expected to include a range of activities that support project development, implementation, and evaluation. However, TOP will not support projects whose primary purpose is to develop network infrastructure, to create hardware or software, to provide training on the use of the network technologies, or to build voice-based systems. Details on these restrictions are discussed below.

(1) Infrastructure Development Projects. Every TOP applicant is expected to create a project that describes and provides funding for specific applications of digital network technologies to address important community challenges. Therefore, TOP will not support projects whose primary purpose is to create telecommunications or network infrastructure without significant dedication of resources to specific applications of that infrastructure.

(2) Hardware or Software Development Projects. Some projects may require limited software development or the customization or modification of existing software or hardware in order to meet particular end-user requirements or to enable the exchange of information across networks. However, the creation of a software or hardware product cannot be a project's primary purpose.

(3) Training Projects. While TOP does consider training to be an essential aspect of most projects, TOP will not support projects whose primary purpose is to provide training in the use of software applications, Internet use, or other use of network technologies.

(4) Voice-based Systems. Two-way, interactive voice networks are an important element of the existing network systems. Voice as a means for conveying information and voice input tools play critical roles in ensuring people with disabilities have access to network technology. However, TOP will not support projects whose primary purpose is to either build or install voice-based communication networks such as call centers, two-way radio networks, enhanced-911 and 311 systems, or 800 MHZ radio systems.

Reviewers will analyze and rate each application using the following criteria. The relative weights of each criterion are identified in parentheses.

Each application should describe a clearly defined project that focuses on underserved communities. In this criterion, reviewers will judge each application on (1) the overall design of the project and (2) the degree to which it provides opportunities for underserved communities.

In assessing the project design, reviewers will examine the degree to which the applicant clearly: (1) Defines the problem(s) within the community to be served and describes its severity; (2) proposes creative and practical means of addressing the community's problem(s) through specific applications of digital network technologies; and (3) identifies anticipated outcomes and that are both realistic and measurable. Reviewers will also assess the degree to which an applicant convincingly links the three major elements—problem(s), solution(s), and outcome(s).

Reviewers will assess the degree to which the project targets underserved communities and populations, and the degree to which the proposed project will address the circumstances and challenges (such as poverty, low literacy, disabilities, high unemployment, low educational achievement, high crime rate, poor health status, etc.) they face.

Reviewers will assess innovation by examining both the technology to be used and the application of technology in a particular setting, to serve a particular population, or to solve a particular problem. TOP defines innovation broadly. For example, projects that involve imaginative partnerships, the introduction of new business processes designed to offer more effective services, untested strategies for overcoming access barriers, or new techniques that transform inter-organizational relationships can all be considered innovative. TOP encourages applicants to experiment with leading edge technologies. It is, however, the creativity behind the application of the technology to meet community needs that ultimately determines the level of innovation.

Using their experience in their respective fields, reviewers will examine each project in a national context and evaluate how an application compares with, complements, and improves on what is known about using digital network technology as a solution to problems in its particular field.

The innovations and approaches to be demonstrated in any proposed project should contain the potential to be diffused broadly throughout the country. NTIA expects that each awarded project will serve as a model for other communities to follow.

To assess this potential for diffusion, reviewers will consider five factors:

(1) The degree to which the problem identified by the applicant is common to many communities;

(2) The relative advantage of the project's innovations over established approaches to addressing the specified problems;

(3) The ease of replication and adaptation, based on considerations such as cost and complexity;

(4) The applicant's plans and budget resources dedicated to disseminate actively the knowledge gained from the project's successes and failures; and

(5) The capability and experience of an applicant or their partner organizations to reach communities across the country and disseminate their findings.

In assessing the feasibility of each application, reviewers will focus on six issues: the technical approach, the qualifications of the project staff, the proposed budget, the implementation schedule, plans for protecting privacy, and the applicant's plan for sustaining the project beyond the grant period.

(1) In assessing the technical approach, reviewers will examine the degree to which the proposed system would work and operate with other systems; technological alternatives that have been considered; designs for system maintenance and periodic upgrades; and plans for project expansion. Applicants are expected to make use of existing infrastructure and commercially available telecommunications services, unless extraordinary circumstances require the construction of new network facilities.

(2) In assessing the qualifications of the project team, reviewers will assess the applicant and its partners to determine if they have the resources, expertise, and experience necessary to undertake, evaluate, and complete the project and disseminate results within the proposed period.

(3) Reviewers will analyze the budget in terms of clarity and cost-effectiveness. The proposed budget should be appropriate to the tasks proposed and sufficiently detailed so that reviewers can easily understand the relationship of items in the budget to the project narrative.

(4) Reviewers also will assess the degree to which the implementation process is comprehensive, reasonable, and can be completed in the proposed time frame.

(5) Reviewers will evaluate the applicant's plans to safeguard the privacy of the project's end users and others affected by the project.

(6) Finally, reviewers will examine the applicant's strategies to sustain the project after the completion of the grant.

Each application will be rated on the overall level and breadth of community involvement in the development and implementation of the proposed project. Reviewers will:

(1) Analyze the applicant's partnerships to ensure that they include linkages among unaffiliated organizations (from the public, non-profit, or private sectors) as an ongoing and integral part of project planning and implementation. TOP considers partners to be organizations that supply cash or in-kind resources and/or play an active role in the planning and implementation of the project;

(2) Examine the steps the applicant has taken to include and sustain the involvement of a variety of community stakeholders. Reviewers will look for evidence of demand, from the community, the end users, and the potential beneficiaries, for the services proposed by the project; and

(3) Consider the degree of attention paid to the needs, skills, working conditions, and living environments of the targeted end users. Reviewers will consider the extent to which applicants involve representatives from a broad range of potential users in both the design and implementation of the project and consider the varying degrees of abilities of all end users, including individuals with disabilities. Reviewers will also assess the degree to which the project addresses barriers which limit a community's or a group's access to digital network technologies. Finally, reviewers will assess the applicant's plans for training end users and upgrading their skills.

Each application will be rated on its proposed plans for evaluating the project. Reviewers will assess the extent to which the applicant's research or evaluation design: (1) Provides for continuous feedback for project planning, implementation, review and revision; (2) addresses the problems, solutions, and anticipated outcomes described in the project purpose and yields valid and reliable findings; (3) captures lessons learned and sufficient descriptive data so that others may easily adapt and replicate the project; and (4) meets TOP's requirements for an independent evaluation as described in the “Reporting Requirements” section of Notice.

In assessing evaluation, reviewers will examine:

(1) The research design and methodology;

(2) Evaluation questions, data collection, and data analysis plans;

(3) The qualifications of any staff or external evaluators working on the evaluation; and

(4) The allocation of resources for implementing the evaluation and reporting project findings.

Eligible Costs. Allowable costs incurred under approved projects shall be determined in accordance with applicable federal cost principles, i.e., OMB Circular A-21, A-87, A-122, or Appendix E of 45 CFR part 74. If included in the approved project budget, TOP will allow costs for personnel; fringe benefits; computer hardware, software, and other end-user equipment; telecommunication services and related equipment; consultants, evaluators, and other contractual items; travel; rental of office equipment, furniture, and space; and supplies. All costs must be reasonable and directly related to the project.

Indirect Costs. The total dollar amount of the indirect costs proposed in an application under this program must not exceed the indirect cost rate negotiated and approved by a cognizant federal agency.

Costs associated with the construction or major renovation of buildings are not eligible. While costs for the construction of new network facilities are eligible, applicants are expected to make use of existing infrastructure and commercially available telecommunications services. Only under extraordinary circumstances will the construction of new network facilities be approved.

Costs for professional services are also ineligible. TOP defines professional services as activities delivered over a network that would otherwise be provided in a face-to-face setting such as teaching students, counseling clients, providing direct patient care, or interpreting services, etc. For example, if the project proposes to create a telemedicine network, the costs of setting up, maintaining, and evaluating the use of the network are eligible, but payment for the time or services of physicians or other health professionals providing care over the network is not an eligible cost.

Note that costs that are ineligible for TOP support may not be included as part of the applicant's matching fund contribution.

In addition, the restrictions on the use of grant funds defined in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Public Law 106-553 are still applicable. The act placed restrictions on eligible costs for applicants that are recipients of Universal Service Fund discounts and applicants receiving assistance from the Department of Justice's Regional Information Sharing Systems Program as part of the project costs. The statute provided:

Accordingly, recipients of the above-described preferential rates or assistance are prohibited from including any costs that would be covered by such preferential rates or assistance in their proposed TOP grant budget. More details on this restriction can be found in the Guidelines for Preparing Applications—Fiscal Year 2002.

NTIA will clarify this restriction through a Notice of Availability of Funds which will be released in the Federal Register and TOP's web site once a FY 2002 appropriations bill is signed into law.

Successful applicants will have up to 36 months to complete their projects. While the completion time will vary depending on the complexity of the project, NTIA has found that most grant recipients require at least two years to complete and evaluate fully their projects. Accordingly, NTIA encourages applicants to propose projects that last two to three years.

The selection process will last approximately six months and involves four stages outlined below:

(1) During the first stage, each eligible application will be reviewed by a panel of outside readers, who have demonstrated expertise in both the programmatic and technological aspects of the application. The review panel members will evaluate applications according to the review criteria provided in this Notice and provide the ratings to the program staff. As discussed below, these ratings constitute one of the selection factors to be used by the TOP Director when preparing the slate of recommended grant awards.

(2) Upon completion of the external review process, program staff will analyze applications considered for award that will be based on the degree to which a proposed project meets the program's funding scope as described in the section entitled “Limitations on Project Scope;” the eligibility of costs and matching funds included in an application's budget; and the extent to which an application complements or duplicates projects previously funded or under consideration by NTIA or other federal programs. 4

The TOP Director then prepares and presents a slate of recommended grant awards to the Office of Telecommunications and Information Applications' (OTIA) Associate Administrator for review and approval of the recommended slate. 5 The Director's recommendations and the Associate Administrator's review and approval will take into account the following selection factors:

1. The evaluations of the outside reviewers;

2. The analysis of program staff;

3. The degree to which the proposed grants meet the program's priorities as described in the section entitled “Program Funding Priorities;”

4. The geographic distribution of the proposed grant awards;

5. The variety of technologies and diversity of uses of the technologies employed by the proposed grant awards;

6. The provision of access to and use of digital network technologies by rural communities and other underserved groups;

7. Avoidance of redundancy and conflicts with the initiatives of other federal agencies; and,

8. The availability of funds.

(3) Upon approval by the OTIA Associate Administrator, the Director's recommendations will then be presented to the Selecting Official, the NTIA Administrator. The NTIA Administrator selects the applications to be negotiated for possible grant award taking into consideration the Director's recommendations and the degree to which the slate of applications, taken as a whole, satisfies the selection factors described above and the program's stated purposes as set forth in the section entitled “Program Funding Priorities.”

(4) After applications have been selected in this manner, negotiations will take place between TOP staff and the applicant. These negotiations are intended to resolve any differences that exist between the applicant's original request and what TOP proposes to fund, and if necessary, to clarify items in the application. Not all applicants who are contacted for negotiation will necessarily receive a TOP award. Final selections made by the Administrator will be based upon the recommendations by the Director and the OTIA Associate Administrator and the degree to which the slate of applications, taken as a whole, satisfies the program's stated purposes as set forth in the section entitled “Program Funding Priorities,” upon the conclusion of negotiations.

Applicants are advised that any program income generated by a proposed project is subject to special conditions. Anticipated program income must be documented appropriately in the project budget. In addition, should an application be funded, unanticipated program income must be reported to TOP, and the budget for the project must be renegotiated to reflect receipt of this program income. Program income means gross income earned by the recipient that is either directly generated by a supported activity, or earned as a result of the award. In addition, federal policy prohibits any recipient or subrecipient receiving federal funds from the use of equipment acquired with these funds to provide services to non-federal outside organizations for a fee that is less than private companies charge for equivalent services. This prohibition does not apply to services provided to outside organizations at no cost.

Applicants are advised that on December 22, 1995, NTIA issued a notice in the Federal Register on its policy with regard to sectarian activities. Under NTIA's policy, while religious activities cannot be the essential thrust of a grant, an application will not be ineligible where sectarian activities are only incidental or attenuated to the overall project purpose for which funding is requested. Applicants for whom this policy may be relevant should read the policy that was published in the Federal Register at 60 FR 66491, Dec. 22, 1995.

To ensure compliance with federal regulations and collect systemic evaluation data on each project, successful TOP applicants have a number of basic reporting requirements once they are awarded a grant. At project outset, TOP grantees provide detailed baseline information on the project objectives, goals, partners, and populations served. Each quarter, grantees provide financial reports and updates on project activities. At project completion, TOP grantees must also provide a closeout report.

Finally, because evaluation results play such a critical role in helping other organizations learn about what works well and what does not, each TOP-supported project will provide NTIA a final evaluation report. To ensure the validity of the findings, the final evaluation report must be completed by an independent evaluator or team of evaluators who are not in a direct reporting relationship with the applicant. 6 TOP will make copies of the final evaluation report available to the public.

It is the general intent of NTIA not to waive any of the provisions set forth in this Notice. However, under extraordinary circumstances and when it is in the best interest of the federal government, NTIA, upon its own initiative or when requested, may waive the provisions in this Notice. Waivers may only be granted for requirements that are discretionary and not mandated by statute. Any request for a waiver must set forth the extraordinary circumstances for the request and be included in the application or sent to the address provided in the Addresses section above. NTIA will not consider a request to waive the application deadline for an application until the application has been received.

Applications under this program are subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

Electronic Information. Information about NTIA and TOP, including this document and the Guidelines for Preparing Applications—Fiscal Year 2002, can be retrieved electronically via the Internet using the World Wide Web at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/top. This document can be provided in alternate formats, including braille. If you need assistance please contact TOP at 202-482-2048 or top@ntia.doc.gov.

In order to facilitate the diffusion of ideas generated by the grant round and opportunities for other potential funders to identify promising projects, TOP will provide a copy of each application's executive summary and contact information on its home page.

For FY 2002, applicants to the TOP will also be able to utilize the Internet to prepare their Standard Forms 424 and 424A and an executive summary. Through TOP's web site at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/top, applicants can access helpful guides and online tools with self calculating totals and pre-filled forms that will reduce the time it takes to prepare the application forms. These tools are optional and not required to prepare an application.

Please note that applicants must submit all application materials (even those forms prepared online) in hard copy with appropriate signatures as specified in the Application Deadline section of this Notice.

Submission Requirements. TOP requests one original and five copies of the application. Applicants for whom the submission of five copies presents financial hardship may submit one original and two copies of the application. In addition, all applicants are required to submit a copy of their application to their state Single Point of Contact (SPOC) offices, if they have one. For information on contacting state SPOC offices, refer to the Guidelines for Preparing Applications—Fiscal Year 2002.

Disposition of Unsuccessful Applications. Applications accepted for review for the Fiscal Year 2002 grant round will be stored at the Department of Commerce until the start of the next grant competition or one year, whichever period is longer. At the end of that period, the applications will be destroyed.

Sensitive Information. Because of the high level of public interest in projects supported by TOP, the program anticipates receiving requests for copies of successful applications. Applicants are hereby notified that the applications they submit are subject to the Freedom of Information Act. To assist NTIA in making disclosure determinations, applicants may identify sensitive information and label it “confidential.”

Human Subject Research Protections. The Department of Commerce, through Part 27 of Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, requires that all applications awarded under the TOP ensure protections for any human subjects involved in research.

For each application that involves human subject research, applicants should clearly indicate in the evaluation section of the application that:

(1) The project involves human subjects research, but the research will likely be eligible for an exemption from Institutional Review Board approval, or

(2) The project involves human subjects research, and you either have or will seek approval of the research from an Institutional Review Board.

If an application is considered for funding, the grant applicant will be asked to submit appropriate documentation of IRB approval or exemption status to the Federal Program Officer for approval by Department officials. More details on human subject research protections are available through the TOP's Web site at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/top and the Guidelines for Preparing Applications—Fiscal Year 2002.

Grant Requirements. The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the Federal Register notice of October 1, 2001 (66 FR 49917), are applicable to this solicitation.

Other Requirements. It has been determined that this Notice is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Because notice and comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, for notices relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)), a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and has not been prepared for this Notice, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

It has been determined that this Notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, and SF-LLL have been approved by OMB under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, and 0348-0046.

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

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is required by 35 U.S.C. 41(i)(1) to maintain a Public Search Facility to provide patent and trademark collections for the public to search and retrieve information. The Public Search Facilities are maintained for public use with paper and automated search files and trained staff to assist searchers. The Public Search Facilities are available to everyone.

In order to maintain and control the patent and trademark collections so that the information is available to the public, the USPTO issues Public User ID badges to users who wish to use the Public Search Facilities. For many years, the USPTO issued paper User IDs, but the USPTO now uses an electronic badging database for the issuance of plastic ID badges.

The plastic ID badge shows a color photograph of the user, a bar-coded user number, and an expiration date. The badging system allows the USPTO to electronically store the information, which can be updated periodically. The ID system is designed to enable the USPTO to (a) identify users of patent and trademark documents, (b) confine user access to public areas, (c) locate and control access to patent and trademark documents, and (d) identify users of USPTO services.

The Public User ID badge enables the USPTO to accurately track use of the documents and to identify anyone misusing the search facilities. The USPTO uses the ID badges to identify, counsel, and sanction users who destroy, misfile, or remove documents from its collections, or who mishandle its equipment. The Public User ID also grants the public limited access to the non-public parts of the USPTO, such as the Examiner areas. To access these areas, users are required to wear a visible USPTO employee ID, a contractor ID, or a Public User ID. (The Public User ID badges enable the USPTO to immediately confirm a user's identity via an on-the-spot comparison with the color photograph on the badge.)

For its ID system, the USPTO collects the following mandatory identifying information: name and mailing address (as verified on a picture ID such as a driver's license), signature, and a digital photograph of the user that is taken by USPTO staff. Optional information includes telephone number and USPTO Attorney Registration Number, if any.

The application for the Public User ID is completed on site and handed to a staff member to enter into the system and issue the badge.

OMB Number: 0651-0041.

Form Number(s): PTO-2030.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or households; businesses or other for-profits; not-for-profit institutions; farms; the Federal Government; and state, local or tribal governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 9,084 responses per year.

Estimated Time Per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately five minutes (.08 hours) to gather the necessary information, prepare the form, and submit the completed application for a Public User ID or to renew the Public User ID Badge, and approximately ten minutes (.17 hours) to supply any optional information to the staff, have the photograph taken, and be issued the Public User ID Badge.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 1,054 hours per year.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden: $109,616 per year. The USPTO estimates that of those users requesting Public User IDs, approximately 1/3 of the users will be attorneys and 2/3 will be paraprofessionals. Using the professional hourly rate of $252 per hour for associate attorneys in private firms and the paraprofessional hourly rate of $30 per hour, the average hourly rate for all respondents to this collection will be $104 per hour.

Estimated Total Annual Nonhour Respondent Cost Burden: $0. (There are no capital start-up or maintenance costs or filing fees associated with this information collection.)

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, e.g., the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

Pursuant to its statutory authority found at 15 U.S.C. 3704(c), the Technology Administration is authorized, among other things, to do the following:

• Conduct technology policy analyses to improve United States industrial productivity, technology, and innovation, and cooperate with United States industry in the improvement of its productivity, technology, and ability to compete successfully in world markets;

• Determine the relationships of technological developments and international technology transfers to the output, employment, productivity, and world trade performance of United States and foreign industrial sectors;

• Determine the influence of economic, labor and other conditions, industrial structure and management, and government policies on technological developments in particular industrial sectors worldwide;

• Identify technological needs, problems, and opportunities within and across industrial sectors that, if addressed, could make a significant contribution to the economy of the United States;

• Assess whether the capital, technical and other resources being allocated to domestic industrial sectors which are likely to generate new technologies are adequate to meet private and social demands for goods and services and to promote productivity and economic growth;

• Propose and support studies and policy experiments, in cooperation with other Federal agencies, to determine the effectiveness of measures with the potential of advancing United States technological innovation;

• Serve as a focal point for discussions among United States companies on topics of interest to industry and labor, including discussions regarding manufacturing and discussions regarding emerging technologies; and,

• Consider government measures with the potential of advancing United States technological innovation and exploiting innovations of foreign origin.

With these responsibilities in mind, the Technology Administration is planning on holding a full-day, moderated series of informal discussions with relevant stakeholders to gather information on the availability of digital entertainment and status of copyright protection and rights management tools. The discussions will help gather data on such issues as the strengths, weaknesses and availability of technological solutions, as well as network capability.

The text of the Agreement and Order appears below.

1. This Settlement Agreement and Order, entered into between MTS Products, Inc. (hereinafter, “MTS” or “Respondent”), a corporation, and the staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (hereinafter, “staff”), pursuant to the procedures set forth in 16 CFR 1118.20, is a compromise resolution of the matter described herein, without a hearing or a determination of issues of law and fact.

2. The “staff” is the staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (hereinafter, “Commission”), an independent federal regulatory commission of the United States government established pursuant to section 4 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), as amended, 15 U.S.C. 2053.

3. Respondent MTS Products, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. Its office is located at 190401 Business Center Drive, Northridge, CA 91324. Respondent is a manufacturer and wholesaler of general merchandise including juvenile products.

4. In March 1996, MTS manufactured and distributed in commerce 18,200 J. Mason Infant Carriers (hereinafter, “Infact Carrier”), Model Number 12502, “Squiggles,” Model Number 12505, “Aurora Dreams,” and Model No. 12506, “Aurora Dreams With Canopy” MTS is, therefore, a “manufacturer” of a “consumer product” “distributed in commerce” as those terms are defined in sections 3(a)(1), (4), and (11) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1), (4), and (11).

5. Between June 6, 1996 and February 24, 1997, MTS received seven reports of the Infant Carrier's carrying handle breaking during use, allowing babies to fall to the ground or the floor. Several babies sustained bruises, cuts, and abrasions to the face. MTS did not report this information to the Commission.

6. MTS had sufficient information to conclude that the Infant Carriers contained a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, but failed to report such information as required by section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b). A failure to report under section 15(b) is a prohibited act under section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). By knowingly failing to report, MTS subjected itself to civil penalties under section 20 of the COSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069.

7. Respondent denies the staff's allegations set forth in paragraphs 4 through 6 above.

8. Respondent denies that the Infant Carrier contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard under section 15(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(a).

9. Respondent denies that it knowingly violated the reporting requirement of section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b) pursuant to section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4).

10. Respondent contends that its contractor had used re-grind plastic material to complete a production run one day in March 1996. This material was not in accordance with Respondent's specifications for its Infant Carriers. It appears that a minimum of 100 Infant Carriers may have been affected. Because Respondent did not date code its Infant Carriers, Respondent recalled all Infant Carriers manufactured in March 1996. The total number of Infant Carriers recalled was 18,200.

11. The Commission has jurisdiction over Respondent and the subject matter of this Settlement Agreement and Order under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.

12. This Agreement is entered into for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by Respondent or a determination by the Commission that Respondent knowingly violated the CPSA's Reporting Requirement.

13. Upon provisional acceptance of this Settlement Agreement and Order by the Commission, this Settlement Agreement and Order shall be placed on the public record and shall be published in the Federal Register in accordance with the procedures set forth in 16 CFR 1118.20(f). If the Commission does not receive any written request not to accept the Settlement Agreement and Order within 15 days, the Settlement Agreement and Order will be deemed to be finally accepted on the 16th day after the date it is published in the Federal Register .

14. Upon final acceptance of this Settlement Agreement by the Commission and issuance of the Final Order, Respondent knowingly, voluntarily, and completely waives any rights it may have in this matter (1) to an administrative or judicial hearing, (2) to judicial review or other challenge or contest of the validity of the Commission's actions, (3) to a determination by the Commission as to whether Respondent failed to comply with the CPSA, as alleged, (4) to a statement of findings of facts or conclusions of law, and (5) to any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

15. In settlement of the staff's allegations, Respondent agrees to pay a $75,000.00 civil penalty as set forth in the incorporated Order.

16. The Commission may publicize the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Order.

17. Upon final acceptance by the Commission of this Settlement Agreement and Order, the Commission shall issue the attached Order incorporated herein by reference.

18. Agreements, understandings, representations, or interpretations made outside this Settlement Agreement and Order may not be used to vary or contradict its terms.

19. The provisions of this Settlement Agreement and Order shall apply to Respondent and each of its successors and assigns.

Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between Respondent MTS Products, Inc. (hereinafter, “Respondent”), a corporation, and the staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”); and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and Respondent; and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement and Order is in the public interest, IT IS

Ordered , that the Settlement Agreement be and hereby is accepted, and it is

Further Ordered , that upon final acceptance of the Settlement Agreement and Order, Respondent MTS Products, Inc. shall pay to the United States Treasury a civil penalty in the amount of seventy-five thousand and 00/100 dollars ($75,000.00) in two (2) installments each. The first payment of thirty-seven thousand five hundred and 00/100 dollars ($37,500.00) shall be paid within twenty (20) days after service of the Final Order of the Commission (hereinafter, “anniversary date”). The second payment of thirty-seven thousand five hundred and 00/100 dollars ($37,500.00) shall be paid within one (1) year of the anniversary date. Upon the failure of Respondent MTS Products, Inc. to make a payment or upon the making of a late payment by Respondent MTS Products, Inc. (a) the entire amount of the civil penalty shall be due and payable, and (b) interest on the outstanding balance shall accrue and be paid at the federal legal rate of interest under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and (b).

The DOE supports modern petroleum technologies on Native American and Alaskan Native Corporation lands which are both economically and environmentally viable. For a number of reasons, many areas on Native American and Alaskan Native Corporation lands are under explored and consequently have underdeveloped oil reserves. This program is directed toward creating cooperative efforts between the Tribes or Corporations and the oil industry.

The four areas of interest for the technical topics of this solicitation are:

The Development program is directed toward technologies to improve the development of a known oil field on Native American and Alaskan Native Corporation lands. Proposed efforts must be economically and environmentally viable as well as an improvement in the development of an oil field. The types of technologies to be considered are not limited to, but may include, reservoir characterization, completion or stimulation, secondary or tertiary oil recovery, artificial lift, well workovers, well drilling, field studies and production management;

The Exploration program is directed toward technologies to promote the exploration of undiscovered oil fields on Native American and Alaskan Native Corporation lands. In cooperation with the Tribal management, proposed efforts must be economically and environmentally viable as well as an improvement of oil field exploration techniques. The types of technologies to be considered are not limited to, but may include, non-invasive exploration techniques, computer-based modeling for exploration and well drilling and evaluation;

The Environmental program is directed toward technologies to reduce the cost of effective environmental oil and gas field compliance. The types of technologies to be considered are not limited to, but may include, soil remediation and remediation due to past operational practices or problems, air emissions, innovative waste and produced water management; and

The oil processing program is directed toward an increase in refining capacity by addressing issues that limit potential construction. The types of studies to be considered are those that evaluate the environmental impact and the economic feasibility of oil processing on Native American lands. Projects that focus on reducing the environmental impact of oil refining on these lands will also be considered.

Proposed efforts must incorporate innovative technologies to improve the development of a known oil field, to promote exploration of undiscovered oil reserves, to study viable solutions to evaluate and minimize the environmental impact of oil processing construction/operation or to reduce the cost of effective environmental oil and gas field compliance.

This solicitation fits into the overall mission of NETL by furthering to resolve the environmental, supply and reliability constraints of producing and using fossil energy resources to provide Americans with a stronger economy, healthier environment and more secure future. Reserves and production are expected to increase as well as potential for facilitating a cleaner environment and a strong potential to increase processing capacity. The benefits are far-reaching to U.S. citizens, Native American Tribes, Alaskan Native Corporations and the U.S. Government by promoting a stronger economy, healthier environment and more secure future.

This solicitation is a follow-on to a 1999 Native American Solicitation. DOE anticipates issuing approximately two to five financial assistance (grant) awards with a project performance period no less than one year in length and up to two years in length. Approximately $1.2 million of DOE funding is planned for this solicitation. DOE has determined the minimum cost share of twenty percent (20%) of the total estimated project cost is required; details of the cost sharing requirement and the specific funding levels will be contained in the program solicitation.

This solicitation will be targeted for unrestricted competition however, all potential offerors must provide a letter of commitment for the project from the Native American Tribe's governing body or from the governing body of an Alaskan Native Corporation (more information will be provided in the solicitation). Applications submitted by or on behalf of (1) another Federal agency; (2) a Federally Funded Research and Development Center sponsored by another Federal agency; or (3) a Department of Energy (DOE) Management Operating (M&O) contractor will not be eligible for award under this solicitation. However, an application that includes performance of a portion of the work by a DOE M&O contractor will be evaluated and may be considered for award subject to the provisions to be set forth in Program Solicitation DE-PS26-02NT15379 ( Note: The limit on participation by an M&O contractor for an individual project under this solicitation cannot exceed 20% of the total project cost).

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, no hard (paper) copies of the solicitation and related documents will 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 released to the public. 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.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those involved in agriculture and anyone involved with the distribution and application of pesticides for agricultural purposes. Others involved with pesticides in a non-agricultural setting may also be affected. In addition, this action may be of interest to others, such as, those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

To obtain copies of the amended Nebraska Certification Plan, other related documents, or additional information contact:

1. John Tice at the address listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

2. Tim Creger, Nebraska, Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 94756, Lincoln, NE 68509-4756; telephone number: (402) 471-2394; e-mail address: timc@agr.state.ne.us.

3. Jeanne Heying, Field and External Affairs Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.; telephone number: (703) 308-3240; e-mail address: heying.jeanne@epa.gov.

4. The Nebraska Certification plan and proposed changes may be viewed on the internet at the following URL: http://www.agr.state.ne.us/division/bpi/pes/p07.pdf.

EPA is approving the amended Nebraska Certification Plan. This approval is based upon the EPA review of the Nebraska Plan and finding it in compliance with FIFRA and 40 CFR part 171. Further, there were no public comments submitted to the earlier Federal Register Notice soliciting comments. The amended Nebraska Certification Plan is therefore approved.

You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting.

The MBD was established to provide CMS with a singular, authoritative database of comprehensive data on people with Medicare. The MBD is necessary to successfully support ongoing program administration including Medicare claims payment, entitlement; Medicaid coverage, Medicare+Choice elections and payments; coordination of benefits for the purpose of conducting Medicare business; payment demonstrations; and demographic research. As CMS's authoritative enterprise beneficiary database, it will provide new sets of data that is not currently available in the EDB, GHP or MSIS. The “Medicare Beneficiary Database (MBD),” System No. 09-70-0536 will also maintain beneficiary data elements extracted from existing CMS systems of records: EDB, GHP, and MSIS. The renamed “Enrollment Database,” was established in 1965 to maintain accurate and complete data on Medicare enrollment and entitlement. Notice of the modification to this system, “Health Insurance Master Record (HIMR),” HHS/CMS/BDMS, System No. 09-70-0502 was published in the Federal Register at 55 FR 37549 (September 12, 1990), 61 FR 6645 (Feb. 21, 1996) (added unnumbered social security use), 63 FR 38414 (July 16, 1998) (added three fraud and abuse uses), and 65 FR 50552 (Aug. 18, 2000) (deleted one and modified two fraud and abuse uses). The “Group Health Plan (GHP),” System No. 09-70-4001, published in the Federal Register at 57 FR 60819 (December 22,1992), was established to maintain a master file of group health plan members for accounting control, to expedite the exchange of data with the plans, and to control the posting of pro-rata amounts to the part B deductible of enrolled members. The “Medicaid Statistical Information System (MSIS),” System No. 09-70-6001, published in the Federal Register at 59 FR 41327 (August 11, 1994), was established to maintain an accurate, current, and comprehensive database containing standardized enrollment, eligibility, and paid claims of Medicaid beneficiaries to be used for the administration of the Medicaid program at the Federal level, produce statistical reports, support Medicaid research, and assist in the detection of fraud and abuse.

CMS has long realized that the Medicare program is in the middle of rapidly changing health insurance industry characterized by an expansion of service delivery models and payment options. The Medicare+Choice provisions of the Balance Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-217) has made the challenge of managing beneficiary health choices one of the most critical challenges facing CMS and the health industry at large. To be of maximum use, the data must be organized and categorized into a comprehensive system. CMS sought to identify key sources, including both organizations and systems that could provide valid and reliable information. Medicare will no longer exist within an environment characterized by limited health insurance options and standard delivery models. The MBD provides CMS with a timely model for data inventory of beneficiary information retained in a database environment that provides flexibility to react quickly to changing Medicare program needs.

Data relating to Medicare Managed Care beneficiaries will be the initial focus of the system implementation. The MBD provides a solution as a singular, reliable and authoritative source, in which all systems can retrieve current, standard, valid and timely data for processing beneficiary selections of capitated delivery options. It will provide a comprehensive “national view” of beneficiary information that is consistent throughout the Medicare program, which will primarily benefit CMS's operational and customer service business goals. In addition to providing a flexible system to accommodate changes, the MBD will support significant improvements in the accuracy of the beneficiary residence address used for capitation, determining payments and will serve as the first identifying record of dual Medicare/Medicaid eligible population which is essential to the capitation process.

An independent technical evaluation of CMS's managed care systems found that without major enhancements, Medicare+Choice provisions could not be supported by existing Medicare systems. Also the comprehensive review of existing systems was necessary in order to proceed with a development effort that would ensure that future customer service and program management objectives were met. The MBD alters an old architecture that could only support two beneficiary Medicare choice options: Fee-for service or traditional Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO). As these models merge and additional choices become available, (i.e., Medicare+Choice Organizations, Medicare Savings Accounts (MSA) and Private Fee for Service options), CMS determined the need for a beneficiary management structure, the MBD, designed to support these expanded program and coverage options.

The MBD design will accommodate the future growth in delivery service options; scalable to support the entire Medicare beneficiary population of approximately 42 million. This would include both the targeted sets of business requirements and processes for beneficiary choice between capitated delivery service options, now, and later to support all beneficiaries remaining in the traditional Medicare Fee For Service Program.

The MBD includes standard data for identification such as the Medicare HICN, SSN, sex, race/ethnicity, date of birth, and geographical location for Medicare beneficiaries. Further, the MBD will maintain data on the following types of beneficiary information: demographic information, Medicare entitlement information, Medicare Secondary Payer data, hospice election, Plan elections and enrollments, End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) entitlement, historic and current listing of residences, and Medicaid eligibility and Managed Care institutional status. The MBD will have a common interface layer that enables existing legacy systems and new applications to access MBD in a uniform fashion. The system shall support both online and batch transaction volumes up to 200,000-batch update transaction per-day; up to 2 million interactive inquiries per-day. An operational day is assumed to be 16 hours. It is envisioned to be capable of supporting access and interoperability across mainframe, mid-tier, and desktop systems. The MBD is currently scoped to encompass up to 15 logical database tables, containing about 250 logically grouped data elements. The logical database tables include: The Beneficiary Demographics and Communication Profiles, Medicare Entitlement Information, Hospice Election and Usage Information, Beneficiary Service and Delivery Elections, Other Beneficiary Explicit Elections, Fee-For-Service Periods, Managed Care Institutional Status Information, ESRD Medicare entitlement information, Medicaid Eligibility information, and Other Required Beneficiary Specific information. It also will accommodate new and modified beneficiary data that was determined to be necessary to support effective implementation of the BBA.

Authority for maintenance of the system is given under §§ 226, 226A, 1811, 1818, 1818A, 1831, 1833(a)(1)(A), 1836, 1837, 1838, 1843, 1866, 1876, 1881, and 1902(a)(6) of the Social Security Act and Title 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 426, 1395(a)(1)(A), 1395c, 1395cc, 1395i-2, 1395i-2a, 1395j, 1395l, 1395mm, 1395o, 1395p, 1395q, 1395rr, 1395v, and 1396(a).

Individuals age 65 or over who have been, or currently are, entitled to health insurance (Medicare) benefits under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act or under provisions of the Railroad Retirement Act; individuals under age 65 who have been, or currently are, entitled to such benefits on the basis of having been entitled for not less than 24 months to disability benefits under title II of the Act or under the Railroad Retirement Act; individuals who have been, or currently are, entitled to such benefits because they have end-stage renal disease; individuals age 64 and 8 months or over who are likely to become entitled to health insurance (Medicare) benefits upon attaining age 65, individuals under age 65 who have at least 21 months of disability benefits who are likely to become entitled to Medicare upon the 25th month of entitlement to such benefits, and the populations dually eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid (Title XIX of the Social Security Act).

The data elements include, but are not limited to, standard data for identification such as HICN, SSN, sex, race/ethnicity, date of birth, geographic location, Medicare enrollment and entitlement information, Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) data containing insurance information on payers primary to Medicare necessary for appropriate Medicare claim payment, hospice election, plan elections and enrollment, End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) entitlement, historic and current listing of residences, and Medicaid eligibility and institutional status.

The Privacy Act permits us to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such disclosure of data is known as a “routine use.” The government will only release MBD information that can be associated with an individual as provided for under “Section III. Proposed Routine Use Disclosures of Data in the System.” Both identifiable and non-identifiable data may be disclosed under a routine use. We will only disclose the minimum personal data necessary to achieve the purpose of the MBD. CMS has the following policies and procedures concerning disclosures of information that will be maintained in the system. Disclosure of information from the system of records will be approved only to the extent necessary to accomplish the purpose of the disclosure and only after CMS:

1. Determines that the use or disclosure is consistent with the reason that the data is being collected, e.g., ensuring proper enrollment, establishing the validity of individual's entitlement to benefits, verifying the accuracy of information presented by the individual, insuring proper reimbursement for services provided, and claims payment.

2. Determines that:

a. The purpose for which the disclosure is to be made can only be accomplished if the record is provided in individually identifiable form;

b. The purpose for which the disclosure is to be made is of sufficient importance to warrant the effect and/or risk on the privacy of the individual that additional exposure of the record might bring; and

c. There is a strong probability that the proposed use of the data would in fact accomplish the stated purpose(s).

3. Requires the information recipient to:

a. Establish administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized use of disclosure of the record;

b. Remove or destroy at the earliest time all patient-identifiable information; and

c. Agree to not use or disclose the information for any purpose other than the stated purpose under which the information was disclosed.

4. Determines that the data are valid and reliable.

These routine uses specify circumstances, in addition to those provided by statute in the Privacy Act of 1974, under which CMS may release information from the MBD without the consent of the individual to whom such information pertains. Each proposed disclosure of information under these routine uses will be evaluated to ensure that the disclosure is legally permissible, including but not limited to ensuring that the purpose of the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected. In addition, our policy will be to prohibit release even of non-identifiable data, except pursuant to one of the routine uses, if there is a possibility that an individual can be identified through implicit deduction based on small cell sizes (instances where the patient population is so small that individuals who are familiar with the enrollees could, because of the small size, use this information to deduce the identity of the beneficiary). We are proposing to establish the following routine use disclosures of information maintained in the system:

1. To agency contractors, or consultants who have been engaged by the agency to assist in accomplishment of a CMS function relating to the purposes for this system of records and who need to have access to the records in order to assist CMS.

We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which CMS may enter into a contractual or similar agreement with a third party to assist in accomplishing a CMS function relating to purposes for this system of records.

CMS occasionally contracts out certain of its functions when doing so would contribute to effective and efficient operations. CMS must be able to give a contractor or consultant whatever information is necessary for the contractor or consultant to fulfill its duties. In these situations, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor or consultant from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract and requires the contractor or consultant to return or destroy all information at the completion of the contract.

2. To another federal or state agency, agency of a state government, an agency established by state law, or its fiscal agent to:

a. Contribute to the accuracy of CMS's proper payment of Medicare benefits,

b. Enable such agency to administer a federal health benefits program, or as necessary to enable such agency to fulfill a requirement of a federal statute or regulation that implements a health benefits program funded in whole or in part with federal funds, and/or

c. Assist federal/state Medicaid programs within the state.

Other federal or state agencies in their administration of a federal health program may require MBD information in order to support evaluations and monitoring of Medicare claims information of beneficiaries, including proper reimbursement for services provided;

The Internal Revenue Service may require MBD data for the application of tax penalties against employers and employee organizations that contribute to Employer Group Health Plan or Large Group Health Plans that are not in compliance with 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b);

In addition, other state agencies in their administration of a federal health program may require MBD information for the purposes of determining, evaluating and/or assessing cost, effectiveness, and/or the quality of health care services provided in the state;

The Railroad Retirement Board requires MBD information to administer provisions of the Railroad Retirement and Social Security Acts relating to railroad employment and/or the administration of the Medicare program;

The Social Security Administration requires MBD data to enable them to assist in the implementation and maintenance of the Medicare program;

Disclosure under this routine use shall be used by state Medicaid agencies pursuant to agreements with the Department of Health and Human Services for determining Medicaid and Medicare eligibility, for quality control studies, for determining eligibility of recipients of assistance under Titles IV, XVIII, and XIX of the Social Security Act, and for the administration of the Medicaid program. Data will be released to the state only on those individuals who are patients under the services of a Medicaid program within the state or who are residents of that state;

3. To providers and suppliers of services directly or through fiscal intermediaries or carriers for the administration of Title XVIII of the Social Security Act.

Providers and suppliers of services require MBD information in order to establish the validity of evidence or to verify the accuracy of information presented by the individual, as it concerns the individual's entitlement to benefits under the Medicare program, including proper reimbursement for services provided.

4. To third party contacts in situations where the party to be contacted has, or is expected to have information relating to the individual's capacity to manage his or her affairs or to his or her eligibility for, or an entitlement to, benefits under the Medicare program and,

a. The individual is unable to provide the information being sought (an individual is considered to be unable to provide certain types of information when any of the following conditions exists: the individual is confined to a mental institution, a court of competent jurisdiction has appointed a guardian to manage the affairs of that individual, a court of competent jurisdiction has declared the individual to be mentally incompetent, or the individual's attending physician has certified that the individual is not sufficiently mentally competent to manage his or her own affairs or to provide the information being sought, the individual cannot read or write, cannot afford the cost of obtaining the information, a language barrier exists, or the custodian of the information will not, as a matter of policy, provide it to the individual), or

b. The data are needed to establish the validity of evidence or to verify the accuracy of information presented by the individual, and it concerns one or more of the following: the individual's entitlement to benefits under the Medicare program, the amount of reimbursement, and in cases in which the evidence is being reviewed as a result of suspected fraud and abuse, program integrity, quality appraisal, or evaluation and measurement of activities.

Third parties contacts require MBD information in order to provide support for the individual's entitlement to benefits under the Medicare program; to establish the validity of evidence or to verify the accuracy of information presented by the individual, and assist in the monitoring of Medicare claims information of beneficiaries, including proper reimbursement of services provided.

5. To Peer Review Organizations (PRO) in connection with review of claims, or in connection with studies or other review activities, conducted pursuant to Part B of Title XI of the Social Security Act and in performing affirmative outreach activities to individuals for the purpose of establishing and maintaining their entitlement to Medicare benefits or health insurance plans.

The PRO will work to implement quality improvement programs, provide consultation to CMS, its contractors, and to state agencies. The PRO will assist state agencies in related monitoring and enforcement efforts, assist CMS and intermediaries in program integrity assessment, and prepare summary information for release to CMS.

6. To insurance companies, third party administrators (TPA), employers, self-insurers, managed care organizations, other supplemental insurers, non-coordinating insurers, multiple employer trusts, group health plans (i.e., health maintenance organizations (HMO) or a Medicare-approved health care prepayment plan (HCPP), directly or through a contractor. Information to be disclosed shall be limited to Medicare enrollment data. In order to receive the information, they must agree to:

a. Certify that the individual about whom the information is being provided is one of its insured or employees;

b. Utilize the information solely for the purpose of processing the individual's insurance claims; and

c. Safeguard the confidentiality of the data and prevent unauthorized access.

Other insurers, HMO, and HCPP may require MBD information in order to support evaluations and monitoring of Medicare claims information of beneficiaries, including proper reimbursement for services provided.

7. To an individual or organization for a research project or in support of an evaluation project related to the prevention of disease or disability, the restoration or maintenance of health, or payment related projects.

The MBD data will provide for research or in support of evaluation projects, a broader, longitudinal, national perspective of the status of Medicare beneficiaries. CMS anticipates that many researchers will have legitimate requests to use these data in projects that could ultimately improve the care provided to Medicare beneficiaries and the policy that governs the care.

8. To a Member of Congress or to a congressional staff member in response to an inquiry of the congressional office made at the written request of the constituent about whom the record is maintained.

Beneficiaries sometimes request the help of a Member of Congress in resolving an issue relating to a matter before CMS. The Member of Congress then writes CMS, and CMS must be able to give sufficient information to be responsive to the inquiry.

9. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), court or adjudicatory body when:

a. The agency or any component thereof, or

b. Any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity, or

c. Any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ has agreed to represent the employee, or

d. The United States Government,

Whenever CMS is involved in litigation, or occasionally when another party is involved in litigation and CMS's policies or operations could be affected by the outcome of the litigation, CMS would be able to disclose information to the DOJ, court or adjudicatory body involved.

10. To a CMS contractor (including, but not limited to fiscal intermediaries and carriers) that assists in the administration of a CMS-administered health benefits program, or to a grantee of a CMS-administered grant program, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud or abuse in such programs.

We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which CMS may enter into a contract or grant with a third party to assist in accomplishing CMS functions relating to the purpose of combating fraud and abuse;

CMS occasionally contracts out certain of its functions when doing so would contribute to effective and efficient operations. CMS must be able to give a contractor or grantee whatever information is necessary for the contractor or grantee to fulfill its duties. In these situations, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor or grantee from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract and requiring the contractor or grantee to return or destroy all information.

11. To another federal agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States (including any state or local governmental agency), that administers, or that has the authority to investigate potential fraud or abuse in, a health benefits program funded in whole or in part by federal funds, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud or abuse in such programs.

Other agencies may require MBD information for the purpose of combating fraud and abuse in such federally funded programs.

In addition, our policy will be to prohibit release even of non-identifiable data, except pursuant to one of the routine uses, if there is a possibility that an individual can be identified through implicit deduction based on small cell sizes (instances where the patient population is so small that individuals who are familiar with the enrollees could, because of the small size, use this information to deduce the identity of the beneficiary).

This System of Records contains Protected Health Information as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services' regulation “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” (45 CFR parts 160 and 164, 65 FR 82462 as amended by 66 FR 12434). Disclosures of Protected Health Information authorized by these routine uses may only be made if, and as, permitted or required by the “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information.”

The MBD system will conform to applicable law and policy governing the privacy and security of federal automated information systems. These include but are not limited to: the Privacy Act of 1974, Computer Security Act of 1987, the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, and OMB Circular A-130, Appendix III, “Security of Federal Automated Information Resources.” CMS has prepared a comprehensive system security plan as required by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, Appendix III. This plan conforms fully to guidance issued by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) in NIST Special Publication 800-18, “Guide for Developing Security Plans for Information Technology Systems.” Paragraphs A-C of this section highlight some of the specific methods that CMS is using to ensure the security of this system and the information within it.

Personnel having access to the system have been trained in Privacy Act and systems security requirements. Employees and contractors who maintain records in the system are instructed not to release any data until the intended recipient agrees to implement appropriate administrative, technical, procedural, and physical safeguards sufficient to protect the confidentiality of the data and to prevent unauthorized access to the data. In addition, CMS is monitoring the authorized users to ensure against excessive or unauthorized use. Records are used in a designated work area or workstation and the system location is attended at all times during working hours.

To assure security of the data, the proper level of class user is assigned for each individual user as determined at the agency level. This prevents unauthorized users from accessing and modifying critical data. The system database configuration includes five classes of database users:

b Database Administrator class owns the database objects; e.g., tables, triggers, indexes, stored procedures, packages, and has database administration privileges to these objects;

b Quality Control Administrator class has read and write access to key fields in the database;

b Quality Indicator (QI) Report Generator class has read-only access to all fields and tables;

b Policy Research class has query access to tables, but are not allowed to access confidential patient identification information; and

b Submitter class has read and write access to database objects, but no database administration privileges.

All server sites have implemented the following minimum requirements to assist in reducing the exposure of computer equipment and thus achieve an optimum level of protection and security for the MBD system: Access to all servers is controlled, with access limited to only those support personnel with a demonstrated need for access. Servers are to be kept in a locked room accessible only by specified management and system support personnel. Each server requires a specific log-on process. All entrance doors are identified and marked. A log is kept of all personnel who were issued a security card, key and/or combination, which grants access to the room housing the server, and all visitors are escorted while in this room. All servers are housed in an area where appropriate environmental security controls are implemented, which include measures implemented to mitigate damage to Automated Information System (AIS) resources caused by fire, electricity, water and inadequate climate controls.

Protection applied to the workstations, servers and databases include:

b User Log-ons—Authentication is performed by the Primary Domain Controller/Backup Domain Controller of the log-on domain.

b Workstation Names—Workstation naming conventions may be defined and implemented at the agency level.

b Hours of Operation—May be restricted by Windows NT. When activated all applicable processes will automatically shut down at a specific time and not be permitted to resume until the predetermined time. The appropriate hours of operation are determined and implemented at the agency level.

b Inactivity Log-out—Access to the NT workstation is automatically logged out after a specified period of inactivity.

b Warnings—Legal notices and security warnings display on all servers and workstations.

b Remote Access Services (RAS)—Windows NT RAS security handles resource access control. Access to NT resources is controlled for remote users in the same manner as local users, by utilizing Windows NT file and sharing permissions. Dial-in access can be granted or restricted on a user-by-user basis through the Windows NT RAS administration tool.

All automated systems must comply with federal laws, guidance, and policies for information systems security as stated previously in this section. Each automated information system should ensure a level of security commensurate with the level of sensitivity of the data, risk, and magnitude of the harm that may result from the loss, misuse, disclosure, or modification of the information contained in the system.

CMS proposes to establish this system in accordance with the principles and requirements of the Privacy Act and will collect, use, and disseminate information only as prescribed therein. We will only disclose the minimum personal data necessary to achieve the purpose of MBD. Disclosure of information from the system of records will be approved only to the extent necessary to accomplish the purpose of the disclosure. CMS has assigned a higher level of security clearance for the information maintained in this system in an effort to provide added security and protection of data in this system.

CMS will take precautionary measures to minimize the risks of unauthorized access to the records and the potential harm to individual privacy or other personal or property rights. CMS will collect only that information necessary to perform the system's functions. In addition, CMS will make disclosure from the proposed system only with consent of the subject individual, or his/her legal representative, or in accordance with an applicable exception provision of the Privacy Act.

CMS, therefore, does not anticipate an unfavorable effect on individual privacy as a result of the disclosure of information relating to individuals.

The creation of the CMPA, including 169,465 acres of the newly created Steens Mountain Wilderness Area, along with the changing needs and interests of the public, necessitate formulation of the Andrews/Steens RMP. The new ARA RMP and the management plan for the CMPA will be combined into one planning effort. In addition, management plans for the Steens Wilderness and WSRs, as well as a transportation plan for the CMPA will be incorporated into the RMP.

Some preliminary issues and management concerns were identified when the Act was developed, through subsequent meetings with individuals and user groups, and by BLM personnel. Major issue themes that will be addressed in the plan effort include: upland and watershed management; riparian areas and wetlands; woodlands management; vegetation; wildlife habitat; special status species; energy and minerals; special management areas; fire/fuels management; recreation management; lands and realty issues; wild horses; cultural resources; noxious weeds; Off Highway Vehicle management; water quality/aquatic resources/fisheries; transportation; and socio-economics. After gathering public comments on issues that the plan should address and reviewing them in concert with the SMAC, the issues will be placed in one of three categories:

1. Issues to be resolved in the plan;

2. Issues resolved through policy or administrative action; or

3. Issues beyond the scope of the plan.

Rationale will be provided in the plan for each issue placed in category two or three. In addition to these major issues, a number of management questions and concerns will be addressed in the plan. The public is encouraged to help identify these questions and concerns during the scoping phase. An interdisciplinary approach will be used to develop the plan in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Disciplines involved in the planning process will include (but not be limited to) those with expertise in rangeland management, minerals and geology, botany, forestry, outdoor recreation, wilderness management, archaeology, paleontology, wildlife and fisheries, lands and realty, hydrology, soils, sociology and economics.

The CMPA was established through an Act of Congress (P.L. 106-399). Special Management Areas created within the CMPA include: the Wildland Juniper Management Area; the Steens Mountain Wilderness, which contains a No Livestock Grazing Area; new Wild and Scenic River (WSR) designations; and a Redband Trout Reserve. Congress recognized that the CMPA fosters exceptional cooperative management opportunities and offers outstanding natural, cultural, scenic, wilderness, and recreational resources. To ensure those resources are appropriately managed, the Act mandated that BLM prepare a management plan for the CMPA by October 30, 2004.

In 1995, preparation of the Southeastern Oregon Resource Management Plan (SEORMP) was initiated by the BLM, Vale and Burns District Offices. The SEORMP initially included the ARA. As a result of the Act, however, the Andrews Field Office determined it was necessary to create a separate RMP for the ARA and CMPA to address changes in management resulting from the Act.

Consequently, the ARA is no longer addressed in the SEORMP. The ARA has been managed under the Andrews Management Framework Plan since 1982 and the grazing decisions in the Andrews Rangeland Program Summary (RPS) since 1984. Part of a 900,000 acre Mineral Withdrawal Area designated by the Act is within Malheur County and Vale District's Jordan Resource Area, and the effects of the withdrawal on those lands have been addressed in the SEORMP.

The JMH CAP planning area contains 622,340 acres of Federal, State, and private lands. It includes Steamboat Mountain, the Greater Sand Dunes, White Mountain Petroglyphs, and Oregon Buttes Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC); seven wilderness study areas; and part of the South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC. BLM has deferred fluid mineral leasing and mineral location decisions in the Jack Morrow Hills core area and has placed a moratorium on fluid mineral leasing throughout the JMH CAP planning area pending completion of this CAP. This planning effort will address the leasing and development of energy resources; transportation planning, access, designation of roads; wildlife habitat and vegetation management; livestock grazing practices; and other issues.

In conformance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a supplemental draft EIS will be prepared in the course of developing the CAP. The existing GRRMP and interim management criteria will guide management actions in the JMH CAP area until the CAP is completed.

BLM invites public identification of the issues that should be addressed in the JMH CAP planning process. Comments may be sent to the address above. Preliminary issues that have been identified to date include:

Issue 1: Minerals Resource Management and Rights-of-Way.

Issue 2: Resource Uses Affecting Vegetation, Soils, Air, and Watershed Values.

Issue 3: Recreation and Cultural Resource Management.

Issue 4: Special Management Area Resource Management.

Public participation will be an essential component of the supplemental draft EIS and Coordinated Activity Plan preparation process. Several techniques for public involvement will be used including: Federal Register announcements, one-to-one discussion with key groups and individuals interested in the JMH CAP area, internet postings, news releases and articles in the local media, and individual mailings to all parties who have expressed an interest in the process. For those persons wishing to be placed on this mailing list, a BLM contact is provided elsewhere in this notice.

RMP level decisions to be made through the CAP will constitute amendment to the Green River RMP and will be subject to protest by parties who participate in the planning process and who have an interest which is, or may be, adversely affected by the adoption of RMP decision as provided by Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, § 1610.5-2 (43 CFR 1610.5-2).

Effective at the close of business on January 16, 2002, the Land Office of the BLM Oregon State Office will close for the purpose of moving to 333 S.W. 1st. Ave., Portland, Oregon 97204. The Land Office provides access to and inspection of the official Public Land Tenure Records and Cadastral Survey Records of the Federal Government, and the serialized case files of active land and mineral transactions for Oregon and Washington. The Land Office will reopen, at the new address, at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, January 28, 2002. The Land Office telephone number will be (503) 808-6001.

The BLM Oregon State Office mailing address for delivery by the U.S. Post Office will remain PO Box 2965, Portland, Oregon 97208-2965. For other commercial delivery services that require a street address, the BLM Oregon State Office Warehouse address is: 14015 N.E. Airport Way, Portland, Oregon 97230.

The RMP will determine management of approximately 1,217,500 acres of federally administered public lands including: the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails NCA (Approximately 800,100 acres), ten associated wilderness areas (approximately 757,100 acres), the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout ISA (approximately 13,400 acres) and a small area of BLM administered public lands located west of the ISA between the ISA and the Summit Lake Indian Reservation (approximately 2,300 acres), and the southern portion of the Black Rock Desert Playa (South Playa) (approximately 24,100 acres). Approximately 379,500 acres of wilderness are located within the boundaries of the NCA.

The public is asked to assist the BLM with the identification of issues related to management of the planning area, including the NCA and wilderness. Preliminary issues and management concerns have been identified by BLM personnel, other agencies, and in meetings with individuals and user groups. Anticipated issues include, but are not limited to the following: how will natural, cultural, and wilderness resources be protected?; how can visitor use, access and safety best be achieved?; how will NCA management be integrated with other agency and community plans and needs?; and what facilities and infrastructure are needed to provide visitor services and administration of the NCA? After gathering public comments on what issues the plan should address, the suggested issues will be placed in one of three categories: (1) Issues to be resolved in the plan; (2) issues resolved through policy or administrative action; and (3) issues beyond the scope of the plan. BLM will provide feedback to the public on the final issues to be addressed in the plan. An interdisciplinary approach will be used to develop the plan in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Disciplines involved in the planning process will include specialists with expertise in rangeland management, minerals and geology, forestry, outdoor recreation, archaeology, paleontology, wildlife and fisheries, land and realty, hydrology, soils, sociology, and economics.

Plan development will involve close cooperation with the State of Nevada, tribal, county and municipal governments, federal agencies, and interested groups, agencies, and individuals. The Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) for the planning area, the Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin RAC and the Northeast California RAC, will be used to provide additional public input. Consistent with the enabling legislation, the plan for the NCA and associated wilderness areas will emphasize the protection and enhancement of the NCA's and wilderness areas' resource values while providing the public with opportunities for compatible recreation activities. The plan for the specified contiguous areas will emphasize management consistent with applicable laws and regulations. The concerns and interest of area residents, including the activities of recreation, grazing, hunting, trapping, mining, energy development, and access will be addressed in the plan.

The Plan will incorporate appropriate decisions from existing BLM plans such as current management plans for the area. It also will use information developed and management alternatives proposed in previous studies of the lands within or adjacent to the NCA (including the Draft Sonoma-Gerlach/Paradise Denio Plan Amendment).

On April 12, 2001, the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, filed applications to withdraw the following described National Forest System lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws, subject to valid existing rights:

For a period of 90 days from the date of publication of this notice, all persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the proposed withdrawal may present their views in writing to the Cibola National Forest Supervisor at the above address.

Notice is hereby given that an opportunity for a public meeting is afforded in connection with the proposed withdrawal. All interested persons who desire a public meeting for the purpose of being heard on the proposed withdrawal must submit a written request to the Cibola National Forest Supervisor, at the above address, within 90 days from the date of publication of this notice. Upon determination by the authorized officer that a public meeting will be held, a notice of the time and place will be published in the Federal Register at least 30 days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

The applications will be processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR 2300.

For a period of 2 years from the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , the lands will be segregated as specified above unless the applications are denied or canceled or the withdrawals are approved prior to that date. The temporary uses which will be permitted during this segregative period are land uses permitted by the Forest Service under existing laws and regulations including, but not limited to, construction and operation of the electronic sites.

The complete Record of Decision is available on the NPS planning website at http://www.nps.gov/planning .

The Commission instituted this investigation on March 6, 2001. The complainants are United Microelectronics Corporation of Hsinchu City, Taiwan; UMC Group (USA) of Sunnyvale, California; and United Foundry Service, Inc. of Hopewell Junction, New York. The respondents are Silicon Integrated Systems Corp. of Hsinchu City, Taiwan; and Silicon Integrated Systems Corporation of Sunnyvale, California. 66 FR 13567 (2001).

On September 13, 2001, complainants filed a motion for summary determination on respondents' first affirmative defense of lack of importation. On September 25, 2001, respondents filed a cross-motion for summary determination on lack of importation. On the same day, the Commission investigative attorney (“IA”) filed his response in support of complainants” motion.

On October 5, 2001, complainants filed a memorandum in opposition to respondents' cross-motion for summary determination on lack of importation and a reply memorandum in support of complainants' motion for summary determination. On the same day, the IA filed his response in opposition to respondents' cross-motion for summary determination.

On October 23, 2001, complainants filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum in support of their motion, which was granted. On October 25, 2001, respondents filed a response to complainants' motion for supplemental memorandum.

On November 2, 2001, the ALJ granted complainants' motion for summary determination (Order No. 15) and denied respondents' motion for summary determination. On November 8, 2001, respondents filed petition for review of the ID. On November 16, 2001, complainants and the IA filed responses in opposition to respondents' petition.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42).

The Commission instituted this investigation on April 9, 2001, based on a complaint filed by Proxim against 14 entities. 66 FR 18507 (2001). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States, sale for importation, and/or sale within the United States after importation of certain wireless network interface cards and access points by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Letters Patents Nos. 5,077,753, 5,809,060, and 6,075,812 owned by Proxim.

On November 1, 2001, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 53) extending the target date for completion of the investigation to January 10, 2003. No petitions for review of the ID were filed.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42(h) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42(h)).

LSC is seeking proposals from non-profit organizations that have as a purpose the furnishing of legal assistance to eligible clients, and from private attorneys, groups of private attorneys or law firms, state or local governments, and substate regional planning and coordination agencies which are composed of substate areas and whose governing boards are controlled by locally elected officials.

The solicitation package, containing the grant application, guidelines, proposal content requirements and specific selection criteria, is available at www.ain.lsc.gov.

The National Labor Relations Board has determined that § 3345(a)(1) of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, 5 U.S.C. 3345 et seq., authorizes the Board's Deputy General Counsel to perform the functions and duties of the office of General Counsel, upon the vacancy of the General Counsel's office. In pertinent part, § 3345(a) provides:

Historically, the provisions of section 3(d) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 153(d)) have been the only mechanism for appointments to the position of Acting General Counsel. The Vancies Act is an alternative means of filing vacancies in positions appointed by the President subject to Senate confirmation, but, until 1988, that statute was applicable only to positions in cabinet departments. By amendment in 1988, Congress made the Vancies Act applicable to all “executive agencies,” with the intent of expanding the scope of the statute to independent agencies such as the Board. Thus, although NLRA section 3(d) remains a valid mechanism for appointment to the position of Acting General Counsel, it is now clear that the Vacancies Act provides an alternative procedure and that the President can appoint an Acting General Counsel under that Act, under section 3(d) of the NLRA, or can allow the provisions of section 3345(a) to take effect.

The Deputy General Counsel position is a “first assistant” position within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 3345(a)(1). Although “first assistant” is not expressly defined in the statute, it was referred to in debate as a term of art that generally refers to the office holder's top deputy. The National Labor Relations Board's Statement of Organization and Functions makes clear that the Deputy General Counsel acts as the alter ego of the General Counsel and readily satisfies the functions of a “first assistant:” “The Deputy General Counsel is vested with the authority to speak and act for the General Counsel in all phases of the responsibilities of the office to the full extent permitted by law * * *”

Accordingly, the National Labor Relations Board is revising its statement of Organization and Functions, part 201, subpart A, section 202, second paragraph (32 F.R. 9588, as amended by 37 F.R. 15956, 44 F.R. 32415) to read as follows:

On August 29, 2001, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of permit applications received. A permit was issued on November 26, 2001 to: Rennie S. Holt, Permit No. 2002-007.

This notice announces that the FAA has given its overall approval to the Noise Compatibility Program for the Hilo International Airport, effective October 24, 2001.

Under section 104(a) of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), an airport operator who has previously submitted a Noise Exposure Map may submit to the FAA a Noise Compatibility Program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed by the airport operator for the reduction of existing noncompatible land uses and prevention of additional noncompatible land uses within the area covered by the Noise Exposure Maps. The Act requires such program to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties including local communities, government agencies, airport users, and FAA personnel.

Each airport Noise Compatibility Program developed in accordance with FAR part 150 is a local program, not a Federal program. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for that of the airport proprietor with respect to which measures should be recommended for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of FAR part 150 program recommendations is measures according to the standards expressed in FAR part 150 and is limited to the following determinations:

a. The Noise Compatibility Program was developed in accordance with the provisions and procedures of FAR part 150;

b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the goals of reducing existing noncompatible land uses around the airport and preventing the introduction of additional noncompatible land uses;

c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or intrude into areas preempted by the Federal Government; and

d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator prescribed by law.

Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport Noise Compatibility Program are delineated in FAR Part 150, § 150.5. Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of land uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures may be required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an environmental assessment of the proposed action. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. Where Federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must be submitted to the FAA Airports District Office in Honolulu, Hawaii.

The State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation submitted to the FAA on December 29, 2000, the noise exposure maps, descriptions, and other documentation produced during the noise compatibility planning study conducted from April 1998 through December 2000. The Hilo International Airport noise exposure maps were determined by FAA to be in compliance with applicable requirements on November 28, 2000. Notice of this determination was published in the Federal Register on December 21, 2000.

This Hilo International Airport study contains a proposed Noise Compatibility Program comprised of actions designed for phased implementation by airport management and adjacent jurisdictions from the date of study completion to the year 2005. It was requested that the FAA evaluate and approve this material as a Noise Compatibility Program as described in section 104(b) of the Act. The FAA began its review of the program on April 27, 2001 and was required by a provision of the Act to approve or disapprove the program within 180 days (other than the use of new flight procedures for noise control). Failure to approve or disapprove such program within the 180-day period shall be deemed to be an approval of such program.

The submitted program contained eight proposed actions for noise mitigation on and off the airport. The FAA completed its review and determined that the procedural and substantive requirements of the Act and FAR Part 150 have been satisfied. The Acting Associate Administrator for Airports approved the overall program effective October 24, 2001.

All eight program measures were approved. The following two measures were approved as voluntary measures: Publish an Informal Preferential Runway Use Program and request use of certain flight procedures; and, Restrictions on Military Training Operations. The following six measures were approved outright: Continue to study the possible land exchange with Hawaiian Home Lands to locate suitable State or private lands which could be exchanged for Keaukaha Tract 1 and 2 lands within the 60 DNL contour; Sound attenuation barrier; Sound attenuation treatment of impacted structures; Continue to monitor development proposals in the Hilo International Airport environs and disclose Airport Noise Exposure Maps to the community; Disclose the Base Year and 5-Year Noise Exposure Maps to the local community by providing overlays of the noise contours on a Tax Map; and, Annually monitor Hilo International Airport aircraft noise levels and operations at Hilo International Airport and conduct public informational meetings on the progress of the Part 150 program.

These determinations are set forth in-detail in a Record of Approval endorsed by the Administrator on October 24, 2001. The Record of Approval, as well as other evaluation materials and the documents comprising the submittal, are available for review at the FAA office listed above and at the administrative offices of the State of Hawaii.

Title: Customer Satisfaction Surveys.

Abstract: Executive Order 12862, “Setting Customer Service Standards” requires that Federal agencies provide the highest quality service to our customers by identifying them and determining what they think about our services and products. The surveys covered in this request for a generic clearance will provide the FHWA a means to gather this data directly from our customers. The information obtained from the surveys will be used to assist in evaluating service delivery and processes. The responses to the surveys will be voluntary and will not involve information that is required by regulations. There will be no direct costs to the respondents other than their time. The FHWA plans to provide an electronic means for responding to the majority of the surveys via the World Wide Web.

Survey Frequency and Respondents: A total of 31 agency-wide customer satisfaction surveys are planned over the next 3 years. The survey frequency varies from one-time to annually. For all 31 surveys, there will be approximately 55,500 respondents, including State and local governments, highway industry organizations and the general public.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: The burden hours per response will vary with each survey. A few of the surveys will require approximately 30 minutes each to complete; however, the majority of them will take from 5 to 20 minutes each. We estimate a total of 12,000 annual burden hours for all of the surveys.

VA is renumbering the system of records from 77VA11 to 77VA10Q to reflect organizational changes in the Department. In addition, VA has decided, as a matter of policy, to automate and provide direct, on-line, remote access to data on the credentialing of health care practitioners appointed or otherwise utilized by the VHA. The automation and on-line access to credentialing data improves the quality, timeliness, and reliability of the credentialing process; promotes inter-facility sharing of health care resources; supports national readiness; facilitates the establishment of telemedicine initiatives; simplifies the process for covered health care practitioners; and reduces costs. An electronic credentials data file can cross facility and network boundaries and eliminate duplication.

VHA is responsible for the medical treatment of veterans and promotes the provision of quality health care through credentialing the education, training, and qualifications of the practitioners delivering this care. Historically, VHA has maintained these records in a paper format in each medical treatment facility or Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN). When a practitioner transfers between facilities or the practitioner's services are shared among facilities, either all or portions of the paper record are transferred to the receiving facility. Some medical treatment facilities keep credentialing data in non-validated electronic formats to meet local needs. However, the exchange of paper and/or non-validated electronic data means that some of the practitioner's credentials must be re-verified with the primary source to ensure the adequate and appropriate education, training, and qualifications of the practitioner. This results in unnecessary use of resources by VA and the sources providing information to VA.

VHA is supplementing the paper record through the development of a centralized electronic data warehouse for the storage of credentialing data and the images of the primary source verification. This effort is a joint project between the VHA and the Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration (HHS/HRSA). The electronic data warehouse will not only store the electronic data and images, but will cross-validate data provided by the practitioner with data received from the primary or secondary source. Primary source verification is that verification received from the source that provided the credential, i.e. , Federal Register , educational or training institution, certifying or licensing agency. A secondary information source is one that provides credentialing data that is derived from a primary source, i.e. , National Practitioners Data Bank (NPDB). Secondary information sources may require additional supporting documentation either from a primary source or additional secondary sources for corroboration. Providers shall enter data into the system through an Internet browser. Once data has been entered into the system, the credentialing staff initiate the primary source verification of the provider's education, training, and qualifications. To ensure provider identification, and appropriate matching of information entered into an electronic system, available unique identifiers which may include name, social security number, national provider identifier, unique physician identification number, etc. will be used for matching data, when available. In instances where electronic data is available from alternate sources and meets or exceeds VA credentialing requirements, it will be utilized.

Access to data in electronic files is controlled at the health care facility in accordance with nationally and locally established data security procedures. These standards include, but are not limited to, requiring a unique password for each user, restricting access to “need-to-know” data, and deactivating screen displays after short periods of time. All data transmitted across the Internet is supported by encryption, deactivation with the server after short periods of time without interaction, and insulation of the Internet server by a firewall.

VHA has determined that direct, real-time, remote access to the credentialing data of health care practitioners by authorized users should expedite the processing of health care practitioners for appointment, reappointment, rapid deployment and granting of privileges. VHA has also determined that the use of information technology and data warehousing of credentialing information should result in a more timely and accurate credentials file for ensuring practitioners' education, training, and qualifications while facilitating the accurate identification of providers to all interested parties. The availability will decrease the time it takes to address health care delivery needs met not only through the employment or appointment process, but also through contracting, sharing agreements, affiliations, etc. Valid electronic data will assist VA in meeting legislative mandates and executive orders such as Federal emergency responses. The availability of electronic data required for credentialing can also facilitate VA's requirements related to appointment, emergency response by the appropriate health care providers, telemedicine, or response to scarce medical needs.

VHA may collect biometric information (i.e., fingerprint) for the verification of identity. A verification transaction involves the one-to-one matching of sample data against a particular record of the person presenting the sample. This can be done automatically based completely on biometric minutiae. Since the credentialing process is for the purpose of data validation, personal validation and the unequivocal link of a record to the individual reinforces the credentialing process. The use of a biometric data adds an additional level of patient safety by verifying that providers are who they say they are throughout their professional career. Additionally, a biometric identifier can add an additional level of security to the system in the verification of individuals making transactions in the electronic file at log-on.

Validated credentialing information may be shared with other established data systems such as Veterans Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) and Decision Support System (DSS). The purpose of sharing credentialing data is to decrease the duplicative effort of both providers and staff in gathering the same information multiple times for various data bases used in VA. This data is required for such activities as emergency medical responses in the times of national disaster response, telemedicine, and medical cost care recovery and would be disclosed only to the extent it is reasonably necessary to assist in the accomplishment of legislative or executive order mandates.

Amendments to the System Location include that contractors may maintain the records of contractors who provide care in a VA health care facility in accordance with this notice and VHA policy. With the implementation of the electronic credentials data bank, the System Location is also amended so all the electronic records may be maintained by HHS, a component thereof, a contractor or subcontractor of HHS in accordance with the VA Interagency Agreement. The Categories of Individuals Covered by the System is amended to include those health care providers who are not employed by VA but providing care through contractual or other types of agreements to VA patients. The Category of Records in the System is amended to reflect the inclusion of those health care providers who are providing care through arrangements other than employment. The Category of Records in the System is also amended to more clearly specify the data elements collected, including items that will bring VA into compliance with the National Standard disseminated by HHS.

Routine use 1 was deleted. Former routine uses 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 18, and 20 are amended to clarify the inclusion of all individuals regardless of employment, utilization, or appointment to the professional staff. VA utilizes the services of numerous providers through various appointment processes beyond the employment process. Former routine use 2 (now 1) was amended to allow disclosure of information in response to scarce or emergency needs of the Department or other entities when specific skills are required. Former routine use 5 (now 4) was amended to delete the section numbers. Former routine use 7 (now 6) was amended to replace the word “private” with “non-Federal.” Former routine use 8 (now 7) was amended to delete “local Government” and “State.” Routine use 12 (now 11) was amended to specify that the relevant information is disclosed at VA's initiative and that names and addresses of veterans are to be excluded from the relevant information that could be disclosed. Former routine use 13 (now 16) is being modified to clarify the conditions under which data is disclosed to officials of labor organizations recognized under 5 U.S.C., chapter 71. The clarification ties such disclosures to the law authorizing such disclosures, i.e., 5 U.S.C. 7114(b)(4). The former version authorized disclosures to officials of labor organizations “ when relevant and necessary to their duties of exclusive representation concerning personnel policies, practices, and matters affecting working conditions.” An editorial change is being made to routine use 14 (now 13) to clarify the terminology used for fitness for duty examinations. Former routine use 16 (now 15) is being changed to delete the language concerning disclosures to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to ensure compliance with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, since VA has not chosen to adopt the Uniform Guidelines for use in its Title 38 employment procedures. Former routine use 17 (now 12) is amended to expand the purposes for which information may be disclosed to the Federal Labor Relations Authority to investigate representation petitions and conduct or supervise representation elections. Former routine use 17 (now 12) is also being clarified to indicate that disclosures to the Federal Labor Relations Authority and the Federal Service Impasses Panel may only be made after appropriate jurisdiction has been established. Matters arising out of (1) professional conduct or competence, (2) peer review, and (3) the establishment, determination or adjustment of compensation shall be decided by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and is not itself subject to collective bargaining and may not be reviewed by another agency. See 38 U.S.C. 7422. One routine use is added to this System (new 20) to allow for the sharing of information and data on a need-to-know basis for providers who move between sites and/or provide care at multiple sites. The routine use disclosure statements are being renumbered.

VA is revising and updating the systems of record notice 77VA10Q, “Health Care Provider Credentialing and Privileging Records—VA”.

The notice of intent to publish and an advance copy of the system notice have been sent to the appropriate Congressional committees and to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) (Privacy Act) and guidelines issued by OMB (65 FR 77677), December 12, 2000.