Title: (7 CFR 1965-A) Servicing of Real Estate Security for Farmer Program Loans and Certain Note-Only Cases.

OMB Control Number: 0560-0158.

Expiration Date: Jan. 31, 2002.

Type of Request: Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection.

Abstract: This regulation promulgates provisions of sections 331 and 335 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (Act) (7 U.S.C. Secs. 1981 and 1985). Section 331 of the Act, in part, authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to modify, subordinate and release terms of security instruments, leases, contracts, and agreements entered into by FSA. That section also authorizes transfers of security property as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the purpose of the loan or protect the Government's financial interest. Section 335 of the Act provides servicing authority for real estate security, operation or lease of realty, disposition of property, conveyance of real property interests of the United States, including dispositions for easements and rights of way. The information collection required by this subpart relates to a program benefit recipient or loan borrower requesting action on security which they own which has been mortgaged to the Agency to secure a Government loan. The information to be collected will primarily be financial data not already on file, such as borrower asset values.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .42 hours per response.

Respondents: Individuals or households, businesses or other for profit farming entities.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 15,246.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 6,436 hours.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments should be sent to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 and to Michael Cumpton, Senior Loan Officer, USDA, FSA, Farm Loan Programs, Loan Servicing Division, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0523, Washington, DC 20250-0523.

Comments will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission was established in 1962 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Codex is the major international organization for encouraging fair international trade in food and protecting the health and economic interests of consumers. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to ensure that the world's food supply is sound, wholesome, free from adulteration, and correctly labeled. In the United States, USDA, FDA, and EPA manage and carry out U.S. Codex activities.

The Codex Executive Committee (CEC), at its 47th Session in 2000, asked that the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene reconvene to redraft the existing codes on meat hygiene so that they reflect contemporary developments. The CEC also asked that the scope of the existing codes include poultry hygiene. These recommendations were confirmed by the 24th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in July 2001, and it was agreed that the name of the Committee would be amended to the Codex Committee on Meat and Poultry Hygiene (CCMPH).

The provisional agenda items to be discussed during the public meeting are:

At the December 10th public meeting, the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 8th Session of the Codex Committee on Meat and Poultry Hygiene.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to better ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it and provide copies of this Federal Register publication in the FSIS Constituent Update. FSIS provides a weekly Constituent Update, which is communicated via fax to over 300 organizations and individuals. In addition, the update is available on-line through the FSIS web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov. The update is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and any other types of information that could effect or would be of interest to our constituents/stakeholders. The constituent fax list consists of industry, trade, and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, scientific professionals, and other individuals that have requested to be included. Through these various channels, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience.

For more information and to be added to the constituent fax list, fax your request to the Congressional and Public Affairs Office, at (202) 720-5704.

The environmental assessment (EA) of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national effects on the human environment. As a result of these findings, Rosendo Trevin o III, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not needed for this project.

The project purpose is flood damage prevention. The action includes the rehabilitation of two floodwater retarding dams and one floodwater diversion. The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency; various Federal, state, and local agencies; and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FNSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the EA are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Rosendo Trevin o III. No administrative action on implementation of the proposed action will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the Federal Register .

No comments were received by RUS via e-mail or telephone during the 30-day comment period, which closed on November 5, 2001. However, mail service to the U.S. Department of Agriculture has been disrupted during the comment period due to screening of mail for potential anthrax contamination. Any person that sent written comments on the environmental assessment through the U.S. Postal Service to RUS during the comment period should contact RUS at the telephone number listed above within 5 working days of this notice to ensure their comments are considered prior to project construction. Should RUS conclude that any written comments that may have been submitted during the official comment period warrant further review and would cause reconsideration of RUS' decision, the public would be so notified. Otherwise, this FONSI notice will serve as the final public notice of this project.

The project is to be named the Raccoon Creek Transmission Line. Georgia Transmission Corporation proposes to construct the 230 kV electric transmission line south of Albany, Georgia, in Mitchell County. The approximate length of the transmission line is 6 miles. It will traverse between Plant Mitchell located west of Route 19 near the Dougherty/Mitchell County line to the 500/230 kV Raccoon Creek Substation which is currently under development near the intersection of Jackson Darry Road and Stagecoach Road.

Copies of the FONSI are available for review at, or can be obtained from, RUS at the address provided herein or from Mr. John Lasseter, Georgia Transmission Corporation, 2100 East Exchange Place, Tucker, Georgia 30085-2088, telephone (770) 270-7710. Mr. Lasseter's e-mail address is john.lasseter@gatrans.com.

No comments were received by RUS via e-mail or telephone during the 30-day comment period, which closed on November 23, 2001. However, mail service to the U.S. Department of Agriculture has been disrupted during the comment period due to screening of mail for potential anthrax contamination. Any person that sent written comments on the environmental assessment through the U.S. Postal Service to RUS during the comment period should contact RUS at the telephone number listed above within 5 working days of this notice to ensure their comments are considered prior to project construction. Should RUS conclude that any written comments that may have been submitted during the official comment period warrant further review and would cause reconsideration of RUS’ decision, the public would be so notified. Otherwise, this FONSI notice will serve as the final public notice of this project.

The transmission line will tap off of the existing 230 kV Gainesville #2—Winder transmission line at a point approximately 1/2 mile southeast of the junction of Lee Land Road and Webb Girth Road. The transmission line will traverse approximately 8.25 miles in a southwesterly direction paralleling Georgia Power Company's 500 kV Norcross-Oconee transmission line to the proposed 230/25 kV Spout Spring Substation which is to be located approximately 2000 feet east of the intersection of Williams Road and Spout Springs Road. The transmission line and substation would require virtually no clearing or major earth movement activities. The transmission line support structures will be between 60 and 80 feet tall. The substation will require 2.25 acres.

Copies of the FONSI are available for review at, or can be obtained from, RUS at the address provided herein or from Ms. Wende Martin, Georgia Transmission Corporation, 2100 East Exchange Place, Tucker, Georgia 30085-2088, telephone (770) 270-7591. Ms. Martin's e-mail address is wende.martin@gatrans.com.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce (the Department) regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

The merchandise subject to this investigation is natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honeys by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honeys by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, combs, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form.

The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90, and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs Service (Customs) purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, on October 4, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register its final affirmative determination in the countervailing duty investigation of Honey from Argentina (66 FR 50613). On November 19, 2001, the International Trade Commission (ITC) notified the Department of its final determination, pursuant to section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of honey from Argentina.

Therefore, countervailing duties will be assessed on all unliquidated entries of honey from Argentina entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 13, 2001, the date on which the Department published its preliminary countervailing duty determination in the Federal Register , and before July 11, 2001, the date that the Department instructed the U.S. Customs Service to terminate the suspension of liquidation in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, and on all entries and withdrawals on or after the date of publication of this countervailing duty order in the Federal Register . Section 703(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to a preliminary determination may not remain in effect for longer than four months. Entries of honey made on or after July 11, 2001, and prior to the date of publication of this order in the Federal Register are not liable for the assessment of countervailing duties due to the Department's termination, effective July 11, 2001, of suspension of liquidation.

In accordance with section 706 of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs officers to reinstate the suspension of liquidation effective the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register and to assess, upon further advice by the Department pursuant to section 706(a)(1) of the Act, countervailing duties for each entry of the subject merchandise in an amount based on the countervailable subsidy rate for the subject merchandise.

On or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , U.S. Customs officers must require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the countervailable subsidy rate noted below. In accordance with section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act, we have calculated an aggregate or industry-wide rate for all of the producers/exporters of honey under investigation. We have determined that the total estimated countervailable subsidy rate is 4.53 percent ad valorem . However, due to a program-wide change, we have established a cash deposit rate of 5.85 percent ad valorem in accordance with section 351.526(a) of the Department's regulations.

This notice constitutes the countervailing duty order with respect to honey from Argentina pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties may contact the Central Records Unit, for an updated list of countervailing duty orders currently in effect.

This countervailing duty order is published in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211.

Under Executive Order 11625, MBDA provides business development services to persons who are members of groups determined by the U. S. Department of Commerce to be socially or economically disadvantaged, and to business concerns owned and controlled by such individuals.

MBDA has determined that site visits to qualified applicants would support MBDA's selection and would confirm the applicant's stated ability to best fulfill MBDA's Funding Priorities, particularly identifying and working to meet the needs of minority businesses seeking to obtain large-scale contracts with institutional customers, as set out in the prior Federal Register Notices (65 FR 52069 and 66 FR 58990).

Therefore, MBDA's prior Federal Register notices (65 FR 52069 and 66 FR 41202 and 66 FR 58990) are hereby amended to provide that the National Director or his designee reserves the right to conduct a site visit to applicant organizations receiving an average of at least 70% of the total points available for all four evaluation criterion in order to assist with the application of the selection procedures provided at 65 FR 52083 and 52095 and 66 FR 59000.

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 notice.

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

Administrative Procedure Act: The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this notice is a matter relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2),

Regulatory Flexibility Act: Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunities for public comment are not required to be given for this notice by 5 U.S.C. 553 or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 are inapplicable.

Executive Order 13132: This notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

The Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 6401 et seq. ) was enacted on December 14, 2000, for the following purposes:

(1) To preserve, sustain and restore the condition of coral reef ecosystems;

(2) To promote the wise management and sustainable use of coral reef ecosystems to benefit local communities and the Nation;

(3) To develop sound scientific information on the condition of coral reef ecosystems and the threats to such ecosystems;

(4) To assist in the preservation of coral reefs by supporting conservation programs, including projects that involve affected local communities and non-governmental organizations;

(5) To provide financial resources for those programs and projects; and

(6) To establish a formal mechanism for the collecting and allocating of monetary donations from the private sector to be used for coral reef conservation projects.

Under section 6403 of the Act, the Secretary, through the NOAA Administrator (Administrator) and subject to the availability of funds, is authorized to provide matching grants of financial assistance for coral reef conservation projects. Section 6408(c)of the Act authorizes up to $8,000,000 in each of FY 2001 through FY 2004 for projects under the Program.

As required under section 6403(j) of the Act, NOAA has developed this set of proposed Implementation Guidelines for the Program and through this document, is making them available for public review and comment.

NOAA proposes to use several existing grant programs and mechanisms to implement the Program. Each fiscal year the Program will publish a Federal Register notice to describe the availability of funds and solicit project proposals. These annual solicitations, beginning in FY 2002, will provide greater detail on the year’s program priorities, application process, and proposal evaluation criteria. This document is not a solicitation for project proposals.

The Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 can be found on the Internet at: http://thomas.loc.gov/ (Select Bill Text, then select 106th Congress, search on Bill Number HR 1653, select H.R. 1653.EH). Information on the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, established June 11, 1998 under Executive Order 13089, can be found at: http://coralreef.gov.

The objective of the Program is to provide financial assistance for coral reef conservation projects consistent with the Act and National Coral Reef Action Strategy currently under development. NOAA’s role in administering the Program is to strengthen and support the development and implementation of sound coral reef conservation projects, as well as ensure that the most beneficial projects are recommended for funding.

As per section 6403(c) of the Act, eligible applicants include: any natural r esource management authority of a state or other government authority with jurisdiction over coral reefs or whose activities directly or indirectly affect coral reefs or coral reef ecosystems, or educational or non-governmental institutions with demonstrated expertise in the conservation of coral reefs. Each subcategory of funding under this Program, as described in section VII of this document, encompasses a specific subgroup of eligible applicants, per this section.

As a matter of policy, funding Federal agency activities under this Program will be a low priority unless such activities are an essential part of a cooperative project with other eligible governmental or non-governmental entities.

NOAA agencies are not eligible for funding under this Program, as funding for such activities is provided for under section 6406 of the Act (National Program).

As described in section 6403(g) of the Act, projects considered for funding under this Program must be consistent with the National Coral Reef Action Strategy, scheduled to be published concurrently in the Federal Register with the FY 2002 solicitation for proposals, in the first quarter calendar year 2002. In addition, per the same section, the Administrator may not approve a project proposal unless it will enhance the conservation of coral reefs by addressing at least one of the following:

(1) Implementing coral conservation programs which promote sustainable development and ensure effective, long-term conservation of coral reefs;

(2) Addressing the conflicts arising from the use of environments near coral reefs or from the use of corals, species associated with coral reefs, and coral products;

(3) Enhancing compliance with laws that prohibit or regulate the taking of coral products or species associated with coral reefs or regulate the use and management of coral reef ecosystems;

(4) Developing sound scientific information on the condition of coral reef ecosystems or the threats to such ecosystems, including factors that cause coral disease;

(5) Promoting and assisting to implement cooperative coral reef conservation projects that involve affected local communities, non-governmental organizations, or others in the private sector;

(6) Increasing public knowledge and awareness of coral reef ecosystems and issues regarding their long term conservation;

(7) Mapping the location and distribution of coral reefs;

(8) Developing and implementing techniques to monitor and assess the status and condition of coral reefs;

(9) Developing and implementing cost-effective methods to restore degraded coral reef ecosystems; or

(10) Promoting ecologically sound navigation and anchorages near coral reefs.

Section 6408(c) of the Act authorizes up to $8,000,000 for use by the Secretary for each of FY 2001 through FY 2004 for the Coral Reef Conservation Program. The number of individual awards to be made each year will depend on the total amount of funds appropriated for coral reef activities within NOAA and the portion of those funds that are allocated to this Program. The total annual Program funding amount, suggested ranges for funding requests, and specific funding categories under which an applicant may choose to be considered will be published in the Program’s annual Federal Register solicitation.

Program funding awarded during any given fiscal year will be distributed, per section 6403(d) of the Act, in the following manner:

(1) No less than 40 percent of funds available shall be awarded for coral reef conservation projects in the Pacific Ocean within the maritime areas and zones subject to the jurisdiction or control of the United States;

(2) No less than 40 percent of funds available shall be awarded for coral reef conservation projects in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea within the maritime areas and zones subject to the jurisdiction or control of the United States; and

(3) Remaining funds shall be awarded for projects that address emerging priorities or threats, including international priorities or threats, identified by the Administrator. When identifying emerging threats or priorities, the Administrator may consult with the Coral Reef Task Force.

In order to ensure adequate funding for each of the purposes envisioned under the Act and provide for a balanced overall Program, existing NOAA programs will be used to award funds in the five funding categories described below. Each of the five categories references the general activity and applicant eligibility requirements associated with proposals submitted therein. Specific activity and applicant eligibility information and proposal evaluation criteria for each category, consistent with Guideline sections IV. Applicant Eligibility Requirements, VI. Funding and Funding Distribution, VIII. Matching Funds, IX. Application Process, and X. Project Review, will be published in each year’s solicitation for proposals.

(1) U.S. state and territorial government coral reef conservation activities , as described in section V(1-10) of the Guidelines (section 6403(g) of the Act) for the purposes of comprehensively managing coral reef ecosystems and associated fisheries within their jurisdictions. Eligibility to receive an award is limited to one agency in each state or territory with jurisdiction over coral reefs, as designated by the respective governors. These proposals will be reviewed and awarded by the National Ocean Service (NOS) Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) per guidelines published June 28, 2001 in the Federal Register (66 FR 34425), and pursuant to Section 310 of the Coastal Zone Management Act, under title, Coastal Zone Management Administration Awards, CFDA 11.419.

(2) U.S. state and territorial government coral reef ecosystem monitoring and/or assessment activities , as described in section V(8) of the Guidelines (section 6403(g)(8) of the Act). Such activities include the collection, analysis, and reporting of long-term coral reef monitoring data pursuant to scientifically valid methodologies and protocols. Eligible applicants are limited to one natural resource management authority in each U.S. state or territory with jurisdiction over coral reefs, as designated by the respective governors. Cooperative agreements between these agencies and the NOS National Centers for Coastal and Ocean Science (NCCOS) will be developed without competition under title, Financial Assistance for National Centers of Coastal Ocean Science, CFDA 11.426.

(3) U.S. state, territorial, or other governmental and non-governmental entities, not eligible under other categories , for the purpose of implementing cooperative coral reef conservation, protection, restoration, research, or education projects, as described in section V(1-10) of the Guidelines (section 6403(g) of the Act). These proposals will be reviewed and awarded by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Office of Habitat Conservation under title, Habitat Conservation, CFDA 11.463.

(4) Projects to develop, improve, or amend Fishery Management Plans to conserve, protect and restore coral reef habitats and associated fishery populations within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone ; with the overall goal of improving the management of coral reefs and associated organisms through the avoidance of fishing impacts, ecosystem management or similar approaches and practices; as described in section V(3) of the Guidelines (section 6403(g)(3) of the Act). Eligible applicants include Regional Fishery Management Councils with jurisdiction over coral reefs, as established under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 USC 1801 et seq.). These proposals will be reviewed and awarded by the NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation under title, Habitat Conservation, CFDA 11.463.

(5) International coral reef conservation projects for the purpose of implementing cooperative coral reef conservation activities as described in section V(1-10) of the Guidelines (section 6403(g) of the Act). Eligible applicants include all international governmental and non-governmental entities, including those in the Freely Associated States of the Pacific. These proposals will be reviewed and awarded by the NOS International Programs Office or the NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation, as appropriate, under title, Habitat Conservation, CFDA 11.463.

The annual solicitation will establish the range of funds available and specific evaluation criteria for each of these five categories. NOAA may add additional funding categories in the annual solicitation based on available funding and/or coral reef conservation priorities under the Strategy. Applicants will be required to specify in their application the category(s) under which they are applying for funding. Selected applications may be funded and awards administered by NOAA, through either NMFS or NOS. Generally, one award will be made for each proposal accepted for funding.

NOAA will determine the most appropriate funding mechanisms (grant, cooperative agreement, or interagency agreement) for selected individual projects, in consultation with the applicant, based on the degree of direct NOAA involvement with the project beyond the provision of financial assistance.

Proposals from non-Federal applicants that are selected for funding will be funded either through a project grant or cooperative agreement. Selected Federal proposals will be funded through interagency agreements; however, under the Program, such agreements must include a local sponsor of the coral reef conservation project.

As per section 6403(b)(1) of the Act, Federal funds for any coral conservation project funded under this Program may not exceed 50 percent of the total costs of such project. The match may comprise a variety of public and private sources and can include in-kind contributions and other non-cash support. NOAA strongly encourages applicants to leverage as much investment as possible. Federal funds may not be considered as matching funds.

For applicants who cannot meet the match requirement, as per section 6403(b)(2) of the Act, the Secretary may waive all or part of the matching requirement if the Administrator determines that the project meets the following two requirements:

(1) No reasonable means are available through which an applicant can meet the matching requirement, and

(2) The probable benefit of such project outweighs the public interest in such matching requirement.

Applicants must specify in their proposal the source and amount of the proposed match and may be asked to provide letters of commitment to confirm stated contributions. In the case of a waiver request, the applicant must provide a detailed justification explaining the need for the waiver, as described in section IX(6) of these Guidelines.

Notwithstanding any other provision herein, and in accordance with 48 U.S.C. 1469a(d), this Program shall waive any requirement for local matching funds for any project under $200,000 (including in kind contributions) to the governments of Insular Areas, defined as the jurisdictions of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

NOAA will publish in the Federal Register one annual notification soliciting project proposals, pursuant to these Guidelines. Applications submitted in response to solicitation notices will be screened for eligibility and conformance with the Program Guidelines.

To submit a proposal, a complete NOAA standard grants application package must be filed in accordance with the guidelines in this document and instructions in the Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained the Federal Register notice of October 1, 2001 (66 FR 49917).

A more detailed description of specific application requirements will be published in the annual solicitation; however, pursuant to section 6403(e)of the Act and NOAA, each application must include the following elements:

(1) A cover sheet with the name of the individual or entity responsible for conducting the project;

(2) A description of the qualifications of the individual(s) who will conduct the project;

(3) A succinct statement of the purposes of the project, including the specific geographic location where the project will be carried out;

(4) An estimate of the funds and time required to complete the project including: a detailed breakdown by category of cost estimates as they relate to specific aspects of the project, with appropriate justification for both the Federal and non-Federal shares;

(5) Evidence of support for the project by appropriate representatives of states or other government jurisdictions in which the project will be conducted, including obtaining or proceeding to obtain all applicable State and/or Federal permits, consultations, and consistencies. U.S. state or territorial applicants must also provide evidence of coordination with all relevant state or territorial agencies, including a list of agencies consulted in developing the proposal;

(6) Information regarding the amount of matching funding available to the applicant. In the case of a waiver request, the applicant must provide a detailed justification explaining the need for the waiver including attempts to obtain sources of matching funds, how the benefit of the project outweighs the public interest in providing match, and any other extenuating circumstances preventing the availability of match;

(7) A description of how the project meets one or more the goals and objectives stated in section V of the Guidelines (section 6403(g) of the Act); and

(8) Any other information the Administrator considers to be necessary for evaluating the eligibility of the project for funding under this title.

In order to streamline the application and award process, and to allow NOAA to fully evaluate all coral reef conservation applications in the context of the overall Program, applicants must indicate under which category(s) (as described in section VII of these Guidelines) they are seeking funds, and are encouraged to submit only one comprehensive application per solicitation. The Program will give preference to projects where requested funding will be used to complete proposed coral reef conservation activities within a period of 12 months from the time the awards are distributed.

As per section 6203(f) of the Act, NOAA will review eligible coral reef conservation proposals using an external governmental review and merit-based peer review. After such reviews, NOAA will implement an internal ranking and selection process. The overall project review and selection process will include the following five steps:

(1) NOAA will request and consider written comments on the proposal from each Federal agency, state government, or other government jurisdiction, including the relevant regional Fishery Management Councils established under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), or any National Marine Sanctuary, with jurisdiction or management authority over coral reef ecosystems in the area where the project is to be conducted. Pursuant to this requirement of the Act, NOAA will apply the following standard in requesting comments:

(A) Proposals for projects in state or territorial waters, including Federal marine protected areas in such waters (e.g. National Marine Sanctuaries), will be submitted to that state or territorial government’s designated U.S. Coral Reef Task Force point of contact for comment;

(B) Proposals for projects in Federal waters will be submitted to the relevant Fishery Management Council for comment;

(C) Proposals for projects which require Federal permits will be submitted to the Federal agency which issued the permit for comment;

(D) Proposals for projects in Federal marine protected areas managed by Federal agencies (e.g. National Wildlife Refuges, National Parks, National Marine Sanctuaries, etc.) will be submitted to the respective Federal management authority for comment; and

(E) NOAA will seek comments from other government entities, authorities, and/or jurisdictions, including international entities for projects proposed outside of U.S. waters, as necessary based on the nature and scope of the proposed project.

Specifically, agencies will be requested to comment on: the extent to which the project is consistent with locally established coral reef conservation priorities and projects; whether the project has been coordinated with existing or planned projects; suggestions for improving project coordination and/or technical approach; and appropriate staff points of contact. Each entity will be provided 21 days to review and comment on subject proposals. Comments submitted will be part of the public record.

(2) Each NOAA program office will provide for a merit-based peer review and standardized documentation of that review for proposals considered appropriate for funding under their respective category(s). Each proposal will be reviewed by a minimum of three individuals with knowledge of the subject of the proposal. Each reviewer will submit a separate and individual review and reviewers will not provide a consensus opinion. The identities of the peer reviewers will be kept anonymous to the degree permitted by law. Specific evaluation criteria for projects submitted under each funding category will be published in each annual Federal Register solicitation.

(3) Each NOAA Program Office will subsequently implement an internal review process to rank each proposal that is appropriate for funding under their program based upon consideration of: comments and recommendations from the reviews under paragraphs (1) and (2), and their evaluation of each proposal consistent with the five following criteria:

(A) Direct Benefit to Coral Reef Resources and Ecosystems . NOAA will evaluate proposals based on the potential of the project to meet goals and objectives stated in section 6403(g) of the Act.

(B) Technical Merit and Adequacy of Implementation Plan . Proposals will be evaluated on the technical feasibility of the project and the qualifications of project leaders and/or partners based on demonstrated abilities to:

(i) Deliver the conservation objective stated in the proposal;

(ii) Provide educational benefits, where appropriate;

(iii) Incorporate assessment of project success in terms of meeting the proposed objectives;

(iv) Demonstrate that the conservation activity will be sustainable and long-lasting;

(v) Provide assurance that implementation of the project will meet all state environmental laws and Federal consistency requirements by obtaining or proceeding to obtain applicable permits and consultations; and

(C) Past Performance . Proposals will be evaluated on the previous accomplishments of the applicants in achieving coral reef conservation objectives similar to those outlined in section V. Eligible Coral Reef Conservation Activities of these Guidelines. Applicants submitting their first coral reef conservation project should document past experience in related activities;

(D) Consistency with the National Coral Reef Action Strategy and the National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs . Proposals will be evaluated on how well they meet the respective programmatic goals and objectives (e.g. goals and objectives for restoration) outlined in the National Coral Reef Action Strategy, currently under development pursuant to Section 6402 of the Act, and the National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs (U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, 2000, http://coralreef.gov). Applicants are strongly encouraged to review both documents and identify in their application the specific conservation objectives that their project proposal will address; and

(E) Cost-effectiveness and Budget Justification . Proposals will be evaluated on their ability to demonstrate that significant benefit will be generated for the most reasonable cost. Projects will also be reviewed in terms of their need for funding and the ability of NOAA funds to act as a catalyst to implement projects and precipitate partnerships and other sources of funding to achieve conservation objectives. Preference will be given to projects that will be completed within a period of 12 months from the time the awards are distributed;

(4) A NOAA review panel made up of representatives from each NOAA program office will review the project rankings from each program office and make consensus-based, final project selections and funding recommendations to be presented to the NOAA Administrator, or his designee, for final approval. The review panel and Administrator, or designee, will ensure that the Act requirements for geographic funding distribution and consistency with the overall Program goals outlined in the Strategy have been met. NOAA reserves the right to consult with applicants, prior to making an award, to determine the exact amount of funds to be awarded, as well as the most appropriate funding category and mechanism under which to consider the project for funding; and

(5) NOAA will provide written notification of a proposal’s approval or disapproval to each applicant within 6 months of submitting a coral reef conservation proposal. Similarly, NOAA will also provide written notification of a project’s approval to each State or other government jurisdiction that provided comments and/or reviews.

In this Program:

(1) Administrator means the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

(2) Conservation means the use of methods and procedures necessary to preserve or sustain corals and associated species as diverse, viable, and self-perpetuating coral reef ecosystems, including all activities associated with resource management, such as assessment, conservation, protection, restoration, sustainable use, and management of habitat; mapping; habitat monitoring; assistance in the development of management strategies for marine protected areas and marine resources consistent with the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. ) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ); law enforcement; conflict resolution initiatives; community outreach and education; and that promote safe and ecologically sound navigation.

(3) Cooperative Agreement means a legal instrument reflecting a relationship between the Department of Commerce (DoC) and a recipient whenever: (1) the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer money, property, services or anything of value to accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by Federal statute, and (2) substantial involvement (e.g. collaboration, participation, or intervention by DoC in the management of the project) is anticipated between DoC and the recipient during performance of the contemplated activity.

(4) Coral means species of the phylum Cnidaria, including--

(A) all species of the orders Antipatharia (black corals), Scleractinia (stony corals), Gorgonacea (horny corals), Stolonifera (organpipe corals and others), Alcyanacea (soft corals), and Coenothecalia (blue coral), of the class Anthozoa; and

(B) all species of the order Hydrocorallina (fire corals and hydrocorals) of the class Hydrozoa.

(5) Coral Reef means any reefs or shoals composed primarily of corals.

(6) Coral Reef Ecosystem means coral and other species of reef organisms (including reef plants) associated with coral reefs, and the non-living environmental factors that directly affect coral reefs, that together function as an ecological unit in nature.

(7) Coral Products means any living or dead specimens, parts, or derivatives, or any product containing specimens, parts, or derivatives, of any species referred to in paragraph (3).

(8) Grant means a legal instrument reflecting a relationship between DoC and a recipient whenever: (1) the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer money, property, services, or anything of value in order to accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by Federal statute, and (2) no substantial involvement is anticipated between DoC and the recipient during the performance of the contemplated activity.

(9) Interagency Agreement, for the purposes of these Guidelines, means a written document containing specific provisions of governing authorities, responsibilities, and funding, entered into between NOAA and another Federal agency where NOAA is funding the other Federal agency, pursuant to the Act.

(10) Secretary means the Secretary of Commerce.

(11) State means any State of the United States that contains a coral reef ecosystem within its seaward boundaries, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United States, or separate sovereign in free association with the United States, that contains a coral reef ecosystem within its seaward boundaries. Classification: This is a new Program and will be added to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under the Coastal Zone Management Act (11.419), Financial Assistance for National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (11.426), and Habitat Conservation (11.463). The Program uses only the existing NOAA Federal assistance application package requirements per 15 CFR parts 14 and 24.

The program will determine NEPA compliance on a project by project basis.

This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The use of the standard grants application package referred to in this notice involves collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. 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.

The proposed guidelines also contain new collection-of- information requirements subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. These requirements will be submitted to OMB for approval. Public reporting burden for these collections of information is estimated to average one hour per request for a matching funds waiver (section IX(6) of these Guidelines) and one hour per comment on proposals (section X(1) of these Guidelines), including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NOAA Office of Response and Restoration at the ADDRESSES above, and to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 (Attention: NOAA Desk Officer).

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.

Sections 101 (a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq .) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

Authorization may be granted if NMFS finds, based on the best available scientific evidence, that the taking will have a negligible impact on the marine mammal species or stock(s). Negligible impact is defined in regulation (50 CFR 216.103) as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival”.

On June 17, 2001, NMFS received an application from Venoco, Inc., the owner and operator of the Carpinteria Oil and Gas Processing Facility in Carpinteria, CA, requesting an IHA for the take of small numbers of Pacific harbor seals incidental to repair of gas pipeline supports and pier pilings at Casitas Pier.

On October 24, 2001, Venoco notified NMFS that the project had been modified such that only repairs to the gas pipeline supports and not the pier were to be made. In addition, Venoco revised its original Project Execution Plan and Wildlife Protection Plan to better address the issue of acoustic harassment. A detailed description of the work proposed for 2001 is contained in the revised Project Execution Plan, which are available upon request (see ADDRESSES ).

Venoco plans to complete all repair activities in a three-week period. However, to account for potential weather and logistical delays and reduce further paperwork, the IHA will be issued for a full 1-year period (November 2001-November 2002).

On September 12, 2001 (66 FR 47453), NMFS published a notice of receipt and a 30-day public comment period was provided on the application and proposed authorization. Comments were received from the Santa Barbara County Energy Division, the California Coastal Commission, the City of Carpinteria, and a private citizen.

Comment 1: The California Coastal Commission recommended that the authorization address the potential for cumulative impacts from chronic disturbances to the Pacific harbor seal rookery located near the gas pipeline and the possibility that additional disturbances such as the proposed activity could cause the seal rookery to permanently abandon this location.

Response : Based on previous observations conducted in the vicinity of the gas pipeline and pier, as well as daily observations made by the Carpinteria Seal Watch, there is no evidence that chronic disturbances, such as people walking along the beach, are negatively impacting the Pacific harbor seals hauling out on the beach over the long-term (Seagars, 1986; Howorth,1995). From information provided by Howorth (1995), the most negative disturbance to date, resulting in haul-out abandonment, has been not from direct disturbance by humans but rather from disturbance and pup injury and predation by a coyote. Based on these previous documented observations at Carpinteria and nearby haul-out sites, there is very low probability that the harbor seals will completely abandon the Carpinteria haul-out site as a result of Venoco's repair activities. While there is evidence from other haul-out sites in San Francisco Bay that seals will abandon haul-out sites during chronic daytime disturbance, the San Francisco Bay seals did not completely abandon the site and continued to use the site during nighttime hours when there was no disturbance (Paulbitsky, 1975; Risebrough et al ., 1980).

Biologically, the primary concerns of harbor seal haul-out site abandonment are physiological stress resulting from the inability to find alternate haul-out sites and the inability to find alternate haul-out sites for pupping and molting. In the Carpinteria case, there are two alternate haul-out sites in the vicinity; offshore rocks west of the beach and off Carpinteria Beach State Park. Harbor seals have been observed hauling out in these locations after having been disturbed on the beach (Sadler, 1976; Rambo, 1978; Bowland, 1978; Carpinteria Seal Watch records; Howorth, 1995). In order to minimize disturbance to the Carpinteria site as much as possible all activities undertaken by Venoco will be subject to the mitigation conditions in the IHA, which are designed to reduce the sights and sounds associated with human presence. Further, there will be no access to the beach from December 1-May 31, pursuant to the City of Carpineria's Municipal Code, eliminating potential disturbance from Venoco's activities during the pupping season.

Comment 2 : The County of Santa Barbara, Energy Division and the California Coastal Commission both recommended that NMFS require safety zones and ramp-up procedures for the pile driving operations occurring near the harbor seal haul-out area to address the potential for acoustic harassment and injury. Specifically, the County of Santa Barbara recommended that NMFS' mitigation requirements follow previous conditions imposed by the California Coastal Commission for work necessary to stabilize two leaking oil wells located in the surf zone, including designating a 500-foot (152-meter) safety zone around pile driving activity, an initial ramp up period at the commencement of pile driving activities, and scheduling of pile driving activities during periods of low tides to the maximum extent feasible.

Response : Under the IHA, Venoco must establish a 500-foot (152-meter) buffer zone around each of the pile driving sites. If any marine mammal is sighted within this 500-foot (152-meter) zone immediately prior to planned commencement of driving, pile driving must not occur until marine mammals have left the area. In addition, pile driving must not commence unless the buffer zone can be monitored for a minimum of 15 minutes immediately prior to the start-up of the pile driving episode. Due to the characteristics of the sounds produced by these pile-driving operations, NMFS does not support an initial ramp-up period during Venoco's repairs. Pile driving in a different sediment type (i.e., clay) than at Carpinteria has shown that instituting an initial ramp-up period at the commencement of pile-driving activities may lengthen the period of time and necessitate higher energy levels to adequately drive the piles, thus increasing the amount of time marine mammals are exposed to increased sound levels (California Department of Transportation, 2001). Until there is better data on the operational requirements of ramping-up pile driving activities in varying sediment types, NMFS will not require ramp-up for any pile-driving activity. In contrast, NMFS does support an initial ramp-up period at the commencement of seismic and shallow-hazard surveys.

NMFS found no scientific or anecdotal evidence that scheduling pile driving activities only during periods of low tides would reduce the disturbance to seals while they are hauled out. On the contrary, the greatest number of harbor seals observed hauled out at the Carpinteria site was in the month of September during an early morning low tide (Horworth, 1995). Clearly the tide cycles, as well as still undetermined environmental variables, play a significant role in harbor seal haul out behavior; however, Howorth (1995) noted that the most prevalent cause of natural disturbance to the Carpinteria haul out site was from waves striking the beach and washing over seals on the rising tides. If pile driving activities occurred during this rising tide phase, it may be very difficult for monitors to determine a causal relationship between seals entering the water, environmental variables, and repair activities. In order to gather more information on the relationship between harbor seal behavior, environmental factors, and the repair activities, the IHA requires the collection and reporting of the following information: tide height, sea state, weather conditions, type of repair activity being conducted, and harbor seal observations (including number and age ranges present and behavior).

Comment 3 : The California Coastal Commission recommended that the authorization require the presence of one or more onsite biological monitors with the authority to suspend project operations if marine mammals are observed within or enter into established safety zones or if it is determined that impacts to marine mammals are greater than those authorized in the IHA.

Response : All IHA's require the presence of one or more onsite biological monitors, with relevant marine mammal experience and approved by NMFS, to document marine mammal presence and any disturbances. These monitors have the authority to suspend activities that are in violation of the conditions set out in the IHA.

Comment 4 : The City of Carpinteria requested that the City's Municipal Code governing access to the city beach from December 1-May 31 each year be made part of the conditions of the proposed authorization. The City supports NMFS' proposals to condition the authorization so that all noise, sudden movement, and unnecessary personnel be minimized in or adjacent to the project site.

Response : NMFS has made the Municipal Code part of the IHA conditions by restricting work on the pipeline and other activities occurring on the beach or surf zone within 750 ft (230 m) of the harbor seal haul-out from December 1-May 31.

Comment 5 : The private citizen who commented volunteers with the Carpinteria Seal Watch. This commentor protested the application for takings and requested that NMFS condition the authorization so that: (1) work would not occur between November 30 and May 31, (2) work would not occur during the molting season, (3) work would be ceased if the seals are not returning in “usual” numbers during the evening hours after the workday, and (4) monitoring biologist(s) would consult with Carpinteria Seal Watch representatives to discuss daily observations and data collection.

Response : The IHA issued by NMFS restricts work on the pipeline and other activities occurring on the beach or surf zone from December 1-May 31. However, based on previous harbor seal observations there is no scientific or anecdotal evidence to support restricting work during the molting season (SRS Technologies, 2001). Scientific research and monitoring studies carried out on haul-out sites on Vandenberg Air Force Base in California from 1997 through 2001 have shown that molting Pacific harbor seals entering the water because of disturbance from rocket launches are not adversely affected in their ability to molt and do not become subject to thermo-regulatory stress. Until similar site-specific research is carried out on the Carpinteria haul-out, NMFS accepts the Vandenberg evidence as the best scientific information available on the behavior of the California stock of Pacific harbor seals during molting. While on average the greatest number of harbor seals haul out during the molting season (starting in May and continuing through the summer), this is confounded at the Carpinteria site by a September estimate of 364 seals during an early morning low tide (Horworth, 1995). Clearly, not only molting and pupping, but tide cycle, as well as still undetermined environmental variables, play a significant role in harbor seal haul-out behavior.

Given this difficulty in determining the underlying natural factors involved in harbor seal haul-out behavior, NMFS cannot assume that in all cases a failure of seals to return to the beach during the evening hours after work has finished is a direct result of the daytime work activities. However, in order to mitigate for disturbances that could result from Venoco's activities, the IHA is conditioned such that if the biological monitor(s) have direct evidence that work activities during the day resulted in 100 percent haul-out abandonment with no return to the haul-out site after work has ceased for a full 48-hour period, then the monitor must notify Venoco, and Venoco must contact NMFS to discuss appropriate changes to the mitigation plan.

NMFS agrees that the Carpinteria Seal Watch data will be an important contribution to the overall monitoring of the marine mammal impacts of Venoco's activities. In addition, the Seal Watchers provide an invaluable service in educating the public about the potential for human activities to negatively impact the harbor seals and their haul-out habitat. The biological monitor(s) will consult with Seal Watch representatives at the beginning and end of Venoco's repair activities to share observational data.

Harbor seals generally are non-migratory, with local movements associated with such factors as tides, weather, season, food availability, and reproduction (Scheffer and Slipp, 1944; Fisher, 1952; Bigg, 1969, 1981). They haul out on rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting glacial ice, and feed in marine, estuarine, and occasionally fresh waters. Harbor seals have also displayed strong fidelity for haulout sites (Pitcher and Calkins, 1979; Pitcher and McAllister, 1981). The eastern Pacific harbor seal has an estimated population of 285,000 individuals distributed along the entire west coast of North America from the Pribilof and Aleutian Islands in Alaska to Baja, CA.

In Carpinteria, Pacific harbor seals haul out year round. This area is one of two along the mainland coast of southern California that is readily accessible to the public. The other haul out is in La Jolla, CA. There are four other sizable haul outs along the mainland coast of Santa Barbara County, one at Naples, one at Point Conception, and two at Vandenberg Air Force Base. However, unlike the Carpinteria haul out, these sites are on private land and not readily accessible to the public.

In Carpinteria, peak numbers are reached during the pupping season (late February through March) and molting season (summer months). The pups born at these sites are weaned in 4 to 6 weeks, so nearly all pups are independent by the end of May. Twenty to 30 pups are usually born there each year (Howorth, 1995, 1998). A peak abundance count made during the 1998 pupping season was 345 seals (Howorth, 1998).

The project site is adjacent to a small beach used by harbor seals as a haul-out and rookery area. Harbor seals continue to use this area despite pier activity and human presence (Howorth, 1995, 1998). Two-hundred and sixty-five feet (ft) (81 meters (m)) east of Casitas Pier, a small sandy beach and offshore rock area marks the western limits of the local harbor seal haul outs.

California sea lions ( Zalophus californianus ) do occasionally haul out on the beach or rocks adjacent to the project site. However, such individuals are usually not healthy and are taken to the Santa Barbara Marine Mammal Center (Howorth, 1995, 1998).

Bottlenose dolphins ( Tursiops truncatus ) and the eastern North Pacific gray whale ( Eschrichtius robustus ) have been reported near the project site (Howorth, 1995, 1998). Both species, when sighted near the project site, have consistently avoided the pier. Years of data from previous projects and from the Carpinteria Seal Watch have not observed any instances of cetaceans within the project area.

Potential harassment may result from noise generated by repair activities to the pipeline as well as from the physical presence of people and machinery on the beaches.

Seals may be disturbed and leave the beach when pile driving activities are underway; however, previous monitoring has shown that all seals returned once activities had ceased (Venoco, 2001).

During repair work carried out by Venoco an estimated 364 Pacific harbor seals have the potential to be incidentally harassed. This number is the maximum count documented by Howorth (1995, 1998) during the summer molting season.

Mitigation measures described in this section have been designed to reduce the potential for harassment and eliminate the potential for incidental injury and mortality due to repair activities.

If operationally feasible, all repairs will take place during daylight hours in a three-week period before the annual harbor seal pupping period and while the beach is open to the public. During this period few, if any, seals are present on shore because beachwalkers, dogs, joggers, kayakers, and others frequent the beach during daylight hours. During November, early storms and currents erode the sand covering the rocks and reefs, which will also reduce the amount of excavation necessary to expose the base of the pier pilings.

Work on pilings closest to the haul-out site will be conducted at the beginning of the project and only during low tides (American Marine Corp., 2000). Therefore, any potential for disturbing harbor seals would be limited to times of low tide or approximately 4 hours each 24-hour period.

To reduce the potential for acoustically and visually disturbing the seals, mitigation measures include: establishment of a 500-foot (152-meter) buffer zone around each of the pile driving sites; equipping the diving air compressor, trucks, and equipment motors with quiet mufflers; disconnecting backup alarms on trucks; securing all lines, floats, cables, etc. used in handling materials to the pier or removing them from the site; instruction of all personnel on avoidance of rapid or sudden movements, shouting, throwing objects or other actions that could startle the seals; allowing only the minimum number of people needed to perform the work on the beach; insuring divers stay submerged while performing their tasks; and using hand-held radio for verbal communications from the pier or other project site to divers or workers.

Successful implementation by Venoco and their contractors of additional mitigation measures specified by NMFS in the IHA are designed to further reduce the potential for adverse impacts on Pacific harbor seals in the area.

Issuance of the IHA requires Venoco to monitor the impact of pile driving and other repair activities on harbor seals. Monitoring will be conducted by one or more NMFS-approved biologists. As part of the IHA monitoring requirements, Venoco will notify the designated on-site biological monitor(s) at least 30 minutes before a pile driving session begins and if there are unexpected changes to the work plan. In addition, monitoring information should be collected a minimum of 1 hour before the work day begins, a minimum of 15 minutes prior to planned pile driving sessions, during pile driving sessions, and for a minimum of 1 hour after pile driving or other work is completed.

On-site biological monitor(s) are required to collect the following information related to harbor seals: (1) date; (2) time of arrival/departure of monitor(s) and work crew; (3) number of harbor seals on the beach; (4) number of harbor seals in the water; (5) number of adults, subadults, and pups; (6) number of molting seals; (7) disturbance reactions observed; and (8) Concurrently, the monitor(s) will record type of repair activity (including specific equipment used), location of activity, and duration of activity. The monitor(s) will also collect the following information related to environmental conditions: (1) date; (2) time; (3) cloud cover; (4) visibility; (5) wind direction; (6) wind velocity; (7) swell direction; (8) swell height; and (9) tidal stage. The presence of other marine mammal species on the beach and in the water is also a requirement.

The NMFS-approved biological monitor has the authority under the IHA to prevent pile driving operations from commencing if a harbor seal pup is sighted on the beach. If a harbor seal pup is sighted after pile driving has begun, then the monitor is required to notify Venoco, who must stop pile driving as soon as operationally practicable and consult immediately with NMFS' Southwest Regional Office.

During periods of operation, Venoco will provide weekly reports to NMFS' Southwest Regional Administrator, including a summary of the previous week's monitoring activities and an estimate of the number of seals that may have been disturbed as a result of repair activities. A description of the repair activities at the time of observation will also be provided.

An interim report must be submitted to the Southwest Regional Administrator on or about July 30, 2001. This report will contain a description of the methods, results, and interpretation of all monitoring tasks. A draft final report is due 90 days after expiration of the IHA. If comments are received from the Regional Administrator on the draft final report, then the final report must be submitted to the Southwest Regional Administrator within 30 days after receiving comments. If no comments are received from the Southwest Regional Administrator, the draft final report will be considered the final report.

This proposed authorization would not allow the take of any species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA; therefore, no ESA Section 7 consultation was necessary for issuance of the IHA.

On November 19, 2001, the California Coastal Commission issued a conditioned emergency permit to Venoco, Inc. to begin repair activities on the Carpinteria pipeline. The determination to issue an emergency permit was based on the conclusion of the Commission that an imminent threat to the nearby seal haul-out and the marine environment will exist if repairs to the pipeline are not made due to inadequate support of the pipeline during the winter storm season. The Commission's emergency permit contains conditions similar to NMFS′ IHA designed to prevent the “take” of marine mammals during the course of Venoco's activities. All of the marine mammal conditions were added to the Coastal Commission's permit in close consultation with NMFS.

NMFS has determined that the impact of conducting repair activities at the Carpinteria Oil and Gas Processing Facility in Carpinteria, CA, will have a negligible impact on Pacific harbor seal stocks in California. While behavioral modifications may be made by individuals to avoid the resultant noise and activities, the avoidance of the area is not reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the annual rates of recruitment or survival of the stock.

The number of potential harassment takings is estimated to be small. In addition, no take by injury or death is anticipated, and the potential for such taking will be avoided through the incorporation of the mitigation measures mentioned in this document and in the IHA. Haul-out sites, rookeries, mating grounds, areas of concentrated feeding, and other areas of special significance for harbor seals within or near the planned area of operations will be avoided in order to minimize any potential impacts.

NMFS has issued an IHA for repair activities at the Carpinteria Oil and Gas Processing Facility in Carpinteria, CA from November 28, 2001, until November 28, 2002, provided the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements defined by NMFS in the IHA are implemented successfully. NMFS has determined that the proposed activity would result in the harassment of only small numbers of Pacific harbor seals and would have a negligible impact on stocks of harbor seals in California waters.

The import restraint limits for textile products, produced or manufactured in Pakistan and exported during the period January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002 are based on limits notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body pursuant to the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC).

Pursuant to the provisions of the ATC, the third stage of the integration of textile and apparel products into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 will take place on January 1, 2002 (see 60 FR 21075, published on May 1, 1995). Accordingly, certain previously restrained categories have been modified and their limit has been revised, and other limits have been eliminated. Integrated products will no longer be subject to quota.

In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner of Customs to establish the 2002 limits.

Carryforward that has been applied to the 2001 limits is being deducted from the 2002 limits.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 65 FR 82328, published on December 28, 2000). Information regarding the availability of the 2002 CORRELATION will be published in the Federal Register at a later date.

None.

This notice of meeting is provided per the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The executive session of the meeting will consist of discussions of information, which pertain to the conduct of various midshipmen at the Naval Academy and internal Board of Visitors matters. Discussion of such information cannot be adequately segregated from other topics, which precludes opening the executive session of this meeting to the public. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(d), the Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing that the special committee meeting shall be partially closed to the public because they will be concerned with matters as outlined in section 552(b)(2), (5), (6), and (7) of title 5 U.S.C. Due to an unavoidable delay in administrative processing, the 15 days advance notice could not be provided.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: New.

Title: Field Test of Agency Capacity to Implement Reporting Requirements Associated with Draft Evaluation Standard 3 and section 101 (a)(10)(c) of the Rehabilitation Act, as Amended.

Frequency: One time.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 81.

Burden Hours: 9,801.

Abstract: This field test will assess Designated State Unit (VR agency) capacity to obtain and use unemployment insurance wage record data maintained by the State Employment Security Agencies (SESAs) needed to implement a proposed evaluation standard and associated performance indicators mandated by the 1992 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act, as amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO.RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at (202) 708-6287 or via her internet address Sheila.Carey@ed.gov . Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

The subject solicitation will focus on specific sub-topics under the following six Core Technology topic areas:

Each topic area contains one or more sub-topics that describe needs for specific science, engineering and technologies to support the SECA Industrial Teams. The Core Technology Program will focus on generating new scientific and engineering knowledge and on creating technology breakthroughs to address technical risks and barriers that limit achievement of the SECA performance and cost goals for solid-state fuel cell systems. Universities and small business research entities are considered well suited for this role of generating new knowledge and creating breakthroughs. The solicitation is however open to any nonprofit or for-profit organization, university or other institution of higher education, or non-federal agency, unless otherwise restricted by the Simpson-Craig Amendment.

The DOE anticipates award of multiple cooperative agreements in the various topic/subtopic areas; but the DOE reserves the right to award the agreement type and number deemed in its best interest. Each award will consist of two phases, and the selection for each phase will be based on a competitive process. Phase I will investigate the feasibility of the proposed concept/approach and will be limited to approximately $150,000 (DOE Funding) and twelve (12) months. Only Phase I recipients will have the opportunity to submit a renewal application to receive funds for Phase II research. If the Phase I work demonstrates feasibility, the selected Industrial Team members see sufficient commercialization merit, and adequate program funds are available, the recipient will be awarded a Phase II renewal agreement. Phase II work includes advancing the science and technology to a sufficient maturity level that it will be adopted by the Industrial Team(s). The Phase II effort will be limited to approximately $500,000 (DOE Funding) and twenty-four (24) months. Phase II renewal awards may be partially funded to pick only the aspects of the Phase II work that have sufficient merit to the SECA Industrial Team(s).

Applicants are advised that a minimum of 20% cost sharing will be required in Phase I and Phase II for technologies proposed under Topic Areas 1 through 5. Cost sharing is not mandatory for Phase I or Phase II under Topic Area 6, but is highly encouraged.

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.

Proposals for Research Grants and Centers of Excellence are invited from universities or other academic institutions in the following specific areas of physical science: (1) Properties of materials under extreme conditions and hydrodynamics, (2) high-energy-density physics and fluid dynamics, and (3) low-energy nuclear science. The Stewardship Science Academic Alliances Program is an expansion of the currently funded “Inertial Fusion Science in Support of Stockpile Stewardship” Grant Program. The Office of Research, Development and Simulation anticipates supporting multiple awards in physical sciences totaling approximately $12.5M annually, subject to the availability of funds, as a result of this solicitation. Awards will be for one to three-year projects of work at a funding level appropriate for the proposed scopes. Funding of awards will range up to approximately $2,000,000 per year for Centers of Excellence and will range up to a few hundred thousand dollars per year for Research Grants. The solicitation document contains all the information relative to this action for prospective applicants. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) number for this program is 541.

This section contains the following information about the energy information collection submitted to OMB for review: (1) The collection number and title; (2) the sponsor (i.e., the Department of Energy component); (3) the current OMB docket number (if applicable); (4) the type of request (i.e, new, revision, extension, or reinstatement); (5) response obligation (i.e., mandatory, voluntary, or required to obtain or retain benefits); (6) a description of the need for and proposed use of the information; (7) a categorical description of the likely respondents; and (8) an estimate of the total annual reporting burden (i.e., the estimated number of likely respondents times the proposed frequency of response per year times the average hours per response).

1. Form EIA-417R, “Electric Power System Emergency Report”.

2. Office of Emergency Management, Office of Security and Emergency Operations.

3. OMB Number 1901-0288.

4. Reinstatement (emergency clearance request).

5. Mandatory.

6. The Form EIA-417R serves the purpose of alerting the Federal government about actual or projected incidents that will impact the operational and/or reliability of the Nation's domestic electric power systems. Respondents are the owners and/or operators of the Nation's electric power systems. Data are used to examine the incidents and track recovery process, along with alerting the senior policy makers of the Executive branch.

7. Businesses or other for-profit; Federal Government; Not-for-profit institutions; and State, Local or Tribal Governments.

8. 139 total burden hours; (48 respondents × 1 report × 2.89 hours/report).

Many industries, including most industrial bakeries, use ozone depleting substances [ODS], such as CFCs and hydrochlorofluorocarbons [HCFCs], to cool their products. Like other industrial sources, most industrial bakeries have industrial process refrigeration appliances that are subject to 40 CFR part 82, subpart F. The equipment that produces the product contains CFCs or other ozone depleting substances in jackets around the product. The equipment may sometimes leak these coolants in sizeable quantities into the air, not into the product. If certain leak rates are exceeded, the company may be required to retrofit or retire the equipment.

EPA has concluded two large industrial process refrigeration enforcement cases, one of which involved a baking company with bakeries in several states. In both cases, the companies voluntarily chose to replace their industrial process refrigeration appliances with equipment designed to prevent pollution. The ozone depleting coolant was replaced by a cooling system which uses a secondary loop containing a cooling solution, glycol, that is not an ozone depleting substance. Although the primary loop of the refrigeration system may still contain some ozone depleting substances, the quantity is greatly reduced, and the ODS refrigerant is located where vibration and the potential for leaks is greatly reduced. The EPA wants to encourage all companies with industrial process refrigeration appliances that may be leaking to consider a similar pollution prevention approach to ensuring their compliance with the refrigerant recycling and emissions reduction regulations found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F.

EPA is inviting the baking industry to participate in a voluntary program to address these potential violations. It offers an expedited way for companies to correct past violations and prevent future ones, in return for a release from past liabilities and reduced penalties. The largest trade association representing bakeries accepted this invitation on behalf of its members. The total number of industrial bakeries is not exactly known yet, but it is believed that there may be over 1000 bakeries in the United States. Each bakery will likely have one or more industrial process refrigeration appliances that are subject to the regulations, such as mixers or chillers, at each bakery. Many of these industrial process refrigeration appliances, have already been converted to non-ODS, pollution prevention equipment.

In the interests of promoting fast, efficient and widespread emission reductions, and better compliance with the regulatory structure, EPA intends to offer and enter into agreements with baking companies providing for the following:

• Audit their facilities;

• Identify problem areas;

• Pay a greatly reduced penalty, and propose solutions that will protect the environment; and,

• Ensure greater compliance with the refrigerant recycling and emissions reduction regulations found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F.

EPA's proposal offers clear and consistent terms to reduce uncertainty and eliminate the need for extended, individualized negotiations. Presented here are the basic elements, illustrations and a chronology of key steps that EPA and participants will be expected to take. The basic elements of the program are as follows:

• Notice to EPA. Bakeries not already the subject of a national enforcement investigation or action, and which have industrial process refrigeration appliances containing 50 pounds or more of ODS refrigerants, are eligible to participate. Companies intending to participate should notify EPA by March 15, 2002 and as soon thereafter as possible, but no later than March 30, 2002, identify the number of appliances to be audited. If some of the industrial process refrigeration appliances have been converted to non-ODS systems prior to March 15, 2002, a count of these appliances should also be provided. If, during the audit, a more accurate tally is obtained, an updated notice may be submitted at that time. Appendix A contains a sample notice of participation. It can be sent by electronic mail or hard copy mail, but electronic mail or e-mail is preferred.

• Annualized leak rate. For the purposes of this Partnership Agreement, the annualized leak rate shall be calculated for every instance in which refrigerant was added to the appliance. The leak rate shall be calculated by the formula agreed upon by EPA in the Compliance Guidance for Industrial Process Refrigeration Leak Repair Regulations under Section 608 of the Clean Air Act.

• Audit. Participating companies must audit up to June 15, 2003, i.e., assess the compliance status of all their industrial process refrigeration appliances and facilities. They must then report to EPA a summary of their findings, by July 15, 2003. If a company complies with the program, EPA intends to grant a release from civil liability for the matters identified and corrected, so long as reduced penalties are paid as described below. However, if violative conduct is not identified and corrected, EPA is not granting any release for such problems. Good faith participants in this Partnership Program will receive a release for the period of time prior to September 30, 2000, even though this period may not be audited. If a facility has installed non-ODS technology on any of their appliances prior to the March 15, 2002 start date for this partnership program, such an appliance need not be audited, and a complete release from civil liabilities and penalties will be granted for such appliances. By non-ODS systems, EPA means systems that contain no ODS at all [e.g. HFC systems or ammonia systems] or no ODS in the secondary loop, but may contain an ODS in the primary loop. Typically, the ODS in the primary loop [compressor] is a much smaller volume, and is not subjected to the vibration in the process areas that may cause greater leaks. If the primary loop contains less than 50 pounds of ODS, as is frequently the case, then the appliance is exempt from the leak repair regulations. It is still subject to other requirements such as the “no venting” requirement of 40 CFR 82.154(a).

• Class I appliances. All Class I appliances must be audited and converted either to a non-ODS system or to a system using an ODS with an ozone depleting potential [ODP] of less than 0.1. Class I appliances are those containing Class I controlled substances, listed in appendix A to subpart A of 40 CFR part 82, and include CFC refrigerants (e.g., R-12). Leaks from these Class I appliances are more damaging to the Earth's ozone layer than an equivalent amount of leakage from Class II appliances. The phaseout of the production of CFCs was completed as of December 31, 1995. Since the availability of CFCs will continue to decrease over time, EPA believes that this is a good time to switch to a less ozone-depleting technology. EPA estimates that the vast majority of appliances in this industry have already switched from using Class I ODS to either Class II or non-ODS systems. Participating companies must identify their Class I appliances and submit a plan for change/conversion to either the Class II ODS with an ODP of 0.1 or less, such as R-22, or to a non-ODS system. The audits must be completed and plans must be submitted to EPA by July 15, 2002. An Administrative Order on Consent [AOC] will incorporate a pledge to complete the audits of Class II appliances and to submit plans if needed, for those appliances by July 15, 2003 and pay penalties as specified in the agreement. EPA expects the plans for Class I appliances to be fully implemented by July 15, 2003, but may grant additional time in exceptional circumstances pursuant to 40 CFR 82.156(i)(7).

• Class II appliances. All Class II appliances must be audited by June 15, 2003. Class II appliances are those containing Class II controlled substances, listed in appendix B to subpart A of 40 CFR part 82 (including all HCFC refrigerants, such as R-22). If any of these appliances are being changed/converted to non-ODS systems, then plans to accomplish this must be submitted by July 15, 2003 as agreed to in the July 2002 AOC.

• CAFO. EPA will issue Compliance Agreement Final Orders [CAFOs] to participating companies that reflect the audit findings, implementation plans and schedule of corrections, any reduced penalties that must be paid and a release from civil liability conditioned on completion of the implementation plans and corrections. EPA will issue CAFOs at the completion of all audits in July of 2003. If a company has only Class I appliances, EPA will issue the CAFO in July of 2002. Companies must also commit to compliance with all regulations.

• Plan Implementation. By July 15, 2003 for Class I appliances and by July 15, 2004 for Class II appliances, all plans for equipment changes/conversions should be completely implemented, unless extensions are granted pursuant to 40 CFR 82.156(i)(7). EPA is still considering whether the proposal outlined above satisfies the Clean Air Act requirement that Section 113(a) administrative orders must require compliance within twelve months of their issuance.

• Program Completion. By July 15, 2004 or such later date that all conversions are completed, the participating company will notify EPA and EPA will respond with a confirmation letter acknowledging the completion of the Bakery Partnership Program.

• Per appliance penalty. A penalty of $10,000 shall be paid for all ODS containing appliances, regardless of whether violations are identified or not, except that no penalties are due for any appliance converted to a non-ODS system before March 15, 2002. No bakery facility must pay more than $50,000 in these penalties. This penalty will be paid with other penalties no later than 30 days after receipt of the CAFO.

• Per pound penalties. Additional “per pound” penalties for all appliance leaks discovered during the audit, occurring after a 35% annualized leak rate, must be calculated on a 12 month basis, beginning when the auditing period starts, i.e., September 30, 2000. At the end of the 12 month period following a 35% annualized leak rate, per pound calculations cease, unless a subsequent 35% annualized leak is discovered, in which case another 12 month period of calculation begins. Per pound penalty calculations end June 15, 2003.

• No per pound penalties for replacement with non-ODS system. Switching to a non-ODS system is encouraged. If a participating company agrees to replace an ODS system with a non-ODS system in an appliance, no “per pound” penalties need be paid for that appliance. If a company is facing high per pound penalties for a particular appliance but has decided that it does not make technical or economic sense for the company to convert that particular appliance to a non-ODS system, it may instead substitute another appliance[s] and still avoid the per pound penalties for the first appliance. The first appliance must still be brought into full compliance. This “bubbled compliance” concept would allow a company to substitute another appliance or appliances that have 120% of the full charge of the appliance that will not be changed/converted. For example, if a 1000 pound appliance has very high per pound penalties that the company wishes to avoid, it may avoid those penalties either by converting this appliance to a non-ODS system, or by converting one or more other ODS containing appliances [that were not already required to convert to non-ODS systems] which have a total charge of at least 1200 pounds. This could be one other appliance with a full charge of 1200 pounds or two appliances of 600 pounds each or some other combination of appliances that total at least 1200 pounds of refrigerant. If the two 600 pound appliances in this example had per pound penalties of their own, those penalties would still be due, unless some other appliance or appliances in turn were converted to non-ODS systems in their stead, at the 1.2 to 1 ratio, as above.

• Start-up period. No leaks will be counted as part of the per pound calculation for the period 60 days after a new installation or after an appliance is changed/converted to a non-ODS or lower than 0.1 ODP system, as a “start up” period.

• Per pound amounts. Per pound penalties will be calculated per appliance as follows: $20 per pound for up to 500 pounds, $30 per pound for 501-1000 pounds and $40 per pound for the pounds over 1000 for each 12 month period after a 35% annualized leak rate is identified.

In summary, all sources must achieve and maintain full compliance with the refrigerant recycling and emissions reduction regulations found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart F. In addition, appliances using class I substances must be audited and changed/converted. Appliances using class II substances must be audited. Owners of Class I and II appliances may elect to convert to non-ODS to avoid paying fees for higher leaks. Each company will sign an Administrative Order on Consent [AOC] on or before July 15, 2002 and sign a Consent Agreement Final Order [CAFO] on or before July 15, 2003, which will specify a conditional waiver of liability. These are the main points of interest in this partnership agreement. There are some other minor details that are mentioned in the Partnership Agreement and the other Appendices, which should be self explanatory. Other approaches to achieving the objectives of this program were considered by EPA and the industry representatives, but this approach was chosen as being the best from the point of view of administrative ease of implementation and environmental improvement.

Here is an example of what a participating company may encounter during participation in this partnership agreement:

If a participating company, is eligible and wants to participate, it should send a notice to EPA by March 15, 2002, identifying the company and its facilities and appliances. If this company has five bakeries and five appliances in each bakery, for a total of 25 appliances, seven of which have been converted to a non-ODS system prior to March 15, 2002, then there will be a $10,000 penalty per appliance for the 18 ODS containing appliances. This company will, however, get a release from civil liability for all 25 appliances for problems identified and corrected. The company is best advised to pay particular attention to their Class I appliances, if any, as audits must be conducted and a decision on these appliances must be made by July 15, 2002. If there are four Class I appliances, they should be audited first to determine what “per pound” penalties may be due for these appliances. If the per pound penalties determined from this audit indicate that a large per pound penalty may be due for several of these appliances, then this may be persuasive in deciding to convert these appliances to a non-ODS system in order to avoid the per pound penalties. If, instead, the company chooses to convert some or all of the Class I appliances to a Class II ODS refrigerant with an ODP of less than 0.1, rather than a non-ODS system, then the per pound penalties will still be due and payable by 30 days after receipt of the CAFO, which should be shortly after July 2003. Auditing and calculation of per pound penalties should continue through June 15, 2003 to ensure continuing compliance and lowered emissions.

By July 15, 2002, this company must prepare a plan and submit this plan to EPA, indicating which of the appliances are the Class I appliances, and what changes or conversions the company pledges to make to them, with a schedule for the work anticipated. The company should submit, along with the plans, the auditing summaries for the Class I appliances [see the sample below]. EPA will incorporate the plans for these four Class I appliances, along with the pledge to continue auditing the other appliances and to prepare and submit plans for them within a year in an Administrative Order on Consent [AOC] which should be signed by both the company, and then by EPA. EPA will return a copy of the signed AOC to the company.

For the other Class II appliances, a similar audit of compliance should begin covering the period from September 30, 2000 until June 15, 2003. Per pound penalties, if any, should be calculated for these appliances. As with the Class I appliances, if the company wishes to avoid paying these per pound penalties, it may do so by agreeing to convert the Class II systems to non-ODS systems. The company should make that decision and submit plans, if any, for such conversions to EPA by July 15, 2003. These plans will be incorporated in the CAFO. EPA expects that these plans will be implemented by July 15, 2004 with the possibility of extensions if additional time is needed.

In calculating per pound penalties, this company should look at each appliance and calculate its per pound penalties, if any. If, for example, the first Class I appliance had a 50% annualized leak rate in October 2000 and thereafter in the next 12 months had small and large leaks totaling 1500 pounds, then the per pound penalty for these 1500 pounds would be calculated as follows: $20 per pound for the first 500 pounds or $10,000, $30 per pound for pounds 501-1000 or $15,000 and $40 per pound for pounds 1001-1500 or $20,000. Thus, the total for this 12 month block period would be $45,000 [$10,000 + $15,000 + $20,000]. If a large leak rate was discovered in December 2000, that does not start another 12 month block period up to December 2001, as this is a leak inside the October 2000-2001 12 month period. If after October 2001 this same appliance had another annualized leak greater than 35%, for example, a 90% annualized leak rate, then leaks after that point would be calculated as above and added to the $45,000 total. This process should continue through June 15, 2003 and a total per pound penalty should be calculated for this appliance, and for all other appliances. The company then has the option of paying this per pound penalty or avoiding it by submitting a plan for converting to a non-ODS system. EPA hopes that this financial incentive will cause more companies to choose conversion to non-ODS systems while still giving the company the flexibility to decide which option is best for it.

On July 15, 2003, the company should submit audit summaries and plans for any equipment changes/conversions that it intends to make to the Class II appliances. It should also be prepared to pay any penalties that may be due shortly after the CAFO is received by the company. EPA will also prepare a CAFO with the release from civil liability for all matters that the company has identified as being a potential problem and corrected. This listing of audit discovered problems can be included in the plan for equipment changes/conversions or can be listed separately. It can include matters such as technician certification, better recordkeeping systems, equipment certifications, etc. Problem areas, or violations, not so identified and corrected will not receive a release from liability, so it is very important to identify all these problem areas and correct all these problems.

By July 15, 2004, the company will have completed the equipment changes/conversions, unless more time is needed and corrected other problems identified in the audit. The company will send a letter certifying that all these matters have been attended to and EPA will reply accepting this certification and thanking the company for participating. This is the end of the program for this company.

Notice of intent to participate in partnership program

EPA issues administrative order/information request on consent to participating companies reflecting commitment to complete audit by June 15, 2003 and submit implementation plans for Class II appliances by July 15, 2003.

Companies that have switched all appliances to non-ODS by March 15, 2002 may receive compliance agreement/final order (CAFO) discharging all liabilities for past violations without payment of penalty.

Audits are completed.

Bakeries submit audit results and final implementation plans.

Bakeries pay stipulated penalties for 12 months following any single month in which annualized leak rate exceeds 35%, but:

All Class I ODS appliances must convert to at least Class II ODS appliances by July 15, 2003, unless program grants extension.

EPA issues compliance agreement/final order reflecting conversion to Class II or non-ODS systems, and payment of stipulated penalties.

Bakeries must complete conversion to non-ODS systems reflected in implementation plans, unless program has granted an extension.

Annualized leak rate—(pounds of refrigerant added/pounds of full charge) × (365 days/# days since refrigerant last added) × 100%.

Appliance—industrial process refrigeration device containing 50 pounds or more of ODS refrigerants.

Class I—an ODS listed in appendix A to 40 CFR part 82, subpart A.

Class II—an ODS listed in appendix B to 40 CFR part 82, subpart A.

ODS—ozone depleting substance.

Facility—a discrete parcel of real property or such a parcel improved by Participating Company's building, structure, factory, plant, premises, or other thing, related to Participating Company's wholesale baking/bakery business, and containing at least one appliance as defined in this agreement.

Non-ODS system—systems that contain no ODS at all [e.g. HFC systems or ammonia systems] or no ODS in the secondary loop, but may contain an ODS in the primary loop.

To find out more about compliance with Title VI of the Clean Air Act, access the EPA's web site at www.epa.gov/ozone. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Chemical Manufacturer's Association (CMA) have developed a guidance document entitled Compliance Guidance For Industrial Process Refrigeration Leak Repair Regulations Under Section 608 of the Clean Air Act [see http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/compguid/compguid.html ] that provides greater detail than the discussion on the EPA web site. The guidance document is intended for those persons who are responsible for complying with the requirements. The guidance should not be used to replace the actual regulations published in the Federal Register on August 8, 1995 (60 FR 40420) [see http://www.epa.gov/spdpublc/title6/608/leakfrm.txt] ; however, it can act as a supplement to explain the requirements. Reliance on this fact sheet alone will likely not result in compliance. Another useful web site is one pertaining to general leak repair: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/leak.html. EPA has also made available a sample inspector's checklist to the trade association, which is available online at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/compguid/compguid.html or http://www.epa.gov/oeca/ore/aed/bakery/index.html or by contacting the Ozone Hotline at 800-296-1996.

EPA believes that the above-described program is the best, most cost-effective way to achieve immediate environmental improvement and achieve significant progress in resolving the myriad compliance concerns that may be present in this industry. Its terms, conditions and protections will be available only to those companies that are eligible and elect to participate. As appropriate, non-participants may be subject to enforcement actions in which significant penalties would be sought for violations of the part 82 regulations at issue here.

Comments on the approach outlined above, as well as on the specific items and terms reflected in the following Appendices, are solicited. To be fully considered, comments must be received by January 9, 2002.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and ______ (“Participating Company”), the parties to this agreement, desire to enter into and be bound by the terms of this Ozone-Depleting Substance (ODS) Emission Reduction Bakery Partnership Agreement (“Agreement”).

The Agreement specifies an audit, self-disclosure and corrective action program, which shall result in a release from liability for the conditions that are identified and corrected. This Agreement incorporates the features of the Bakery Partnership Program as detailed in the Federal Register on this topic, published January __, 2002.

1. This Partnership Agreement shall apply to and be binding upon both EPA and Participating Company, including but not limited to its officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, successors, and assigns. Participating Company shall give notice of this Agreement to any successor in interest prior to the transfer of any ownership interest in any machinery subject to Title VI, Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7671 et. seq.) (the “Act”) and its incorporating regulations, 40 CFR Part 82 (“Regulations”). The Notice for this Program (“Program Notice”) was given to the baking industry by the EPA in cooperation with baking industry trade officials and trade journals.

2. In order for a Participating Company to be eligible to participate in this Agreement, the Participating Company must be a wholesale bakery not currently under corporate-wide investigation by EPA for a violation of Title VI of the Clean Air Act.

3. “Participating company” means any eligible company and its wholly-or partially-owned subsidiaries, including all their bakeries, which agree to abide by the conditions of this Agreement.

4. “Corporate-wide investigation” means an investigation that requires information disclosure from either (1) five or more facilities owned by a company that seeks to be a Participating Company or (2) all facilities that are subject to Title VI and owned by a company that seeks to be a Participating Company.

5. “Non-ODS system” means pollution prevention technology recommended to and agreed upon by EPA that supplants standard ODS technology, including but not limited to glycol, chilled water, or other non-ODS coolant in a secondary-loop system or totally non-ODS systems, such as HFCs or ammonia.

6. “Facility” means a discrete parcel of real property or such a parcel improved by Participating Company's building, structure, factory, plant, premises, or other thing, related to Participating Company's baking/bakery business, containing at least one appliance.

7. “Retrofit” means to install new or modified parts in an appliance which were not provided as a part of the originally manufactured equipment. The retrofitted appliance must use a refrigerant with an ozone depleting potential that is lower than that which was used before the retrofit.

8. “Retire” means to withdraw an appliance from service and replace it with an appliance containing a refrigerant with an ozone depleting potential that is lower than that which was used in the retired appliance.

9. “Appliance” means an industrial process refrigeration appliance containing 50 pounds of more of ODS refrigerant that is housed within the facility.

10. “ODS” means Ozone Depleting Substance used as a refrigerant.

11. Participating Company represents that:

a. It notified EPA of Participating Company's intent to participate in the Ozone Depleting Substance Emission Reduction Bakery Partnership Program by 5 p.m. Eastern Time, March 15, 2002 by submitting this executed Partnership Agreement.

b. Annex A, submitted with this Agreement, or updated shortly thereafter, is a true, accurate, and complete identification of:

i. Name of the Participating Company; and

ii. Name, street address, ZIP code, and city of each facility at which the Participating Company believes any subject appliance is presently located; and

iii. State in which the facility is located; and

iv. EPA region in which the facility is located; and

v. The number or best estimate of the number of appliances with more than 50 pounds of refrigerant when fully charged, as determined by calculation, weight, manufacturer supplied information, or an established range as described in 40 CFR 82.152.

vi. The number or best estimate of the number of non-ODS industrial process refrigeration appliances.

c. Participating Company certifies that it is eligible to be a participating company, that is, it meets the qualifications specified in paragraphs 2 and 3.

d. Participating Company agrees to audit all its facilities as specified below and disclose the summary results of such audits to EPA and correct any and all violations in accordance with this Agreement.

e. Participating Company agrees to toll the applicable statute of limitations during the life of the Agreement that may apply to the violations that may have occurred within the time period five years prior to the signing of this Agreement.

f. In the event that ownership of a facility subject to this agreement is (or was) transferred during the period covered by the agreement, the agreement shall apply to the former owner for the period during which the facility was owned by the former owner, provided all applicable terms and conditions are otherwise satisfied. The agreement shall also apply prospectively, according to its terms, to the party to whom the facility is transferred, if the new owner provides EPA with written confirmation of intent to comply with the agreement.

12. Participating Company agrees to assist EPA with EPA's review of audit results. Such assistance may take the form of responding to telephone calls for clarification and other reasonable informal inquiries, without the need for formal information demands.

13. Participating Company agrees to identify all facilities with applicable industrial process refrigeration appliances.

14. Participating Company agrees to undertake a reasonable investigation and to the extent it can reasonably assemble such information, report to EPA for each applicable appliance, dates of service, beginning September 30, 2000 and continuing until June 15, 2003; pounds of refrigerant added; days since the last addition of refrigerant; percent annualized leak rate; and any associated comments by using a spreadsheet such as the one contained in Annex C. To the extent that a change in system components, such as a new compressor, may have altered the full charge, or where other special conditions arise, these conditions should be noted in the comments section.

15. Participating Company agrees to complete audits of all industrial process refrigeration appliances at each facility, except for those appliances converted to a non-ODS system prior to March 15, 2002, and notify EPA with a summary of the audit results as specified in the preceding paragraph and corrective actions planned, as necessary, by July 15, 2002 for Class I appliances and by July 15, 2003 for Class II appliances. Participating Company may, at its sole discretion, include commercial and comfort cooling appliances subject to 40 CFR 82.156(i) in the audit for compliance and receive a release from liability for problems identified and corrected.

16. Participating Company agrees to calculate the total per appliance and per pound penalties, if any, due and owing by July 15, 2003 in accordance with the method outlined in the Federal Register final announcement of the Bakery Partnership Program, and to submit this calculation to EPA.

17. Participating Company agrees to provide, in writing, by July 15, 2003, the steps that Participating Company will take to achieve continuous compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 82. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, such things as training, record keeping, replacement, repair, installation of non-ODS systems. See Annex E for additional required Compliance Plan elements. Participating Company agrees to implement this Plan.

18. For all Class I appliances Participating Company will complete an audit and submit plans for the retrofit of these appliances with an ODS having an ozone depleting potential of 0.1 or less or retirement/replacement with a non-ODS system. Plans for these Class I appliances must be submitted by July 15, 2002, with a schedule for the completion of these activities within one year, unless additional time is allowed pursuant to 40 CFR 82.156(i)(7). These plans will be incorporated in an Administrative Order on Consent [AOC]. See Annex B.

19. For Class II appliances, Participating Company will sign an Administrative Order on Consent agreeing to develop, within the next twelve months, plans, where needed, for the replacement of these Class II appliances with non-ODS systems.

20. If any appliance within a facility owned by Participating Company contains a refrigerant that is not an EPA-approved refrigerant for that particular end-use (such as R-409A use in an industrial process refrigeration appliance) or is not in compliance with use restrictions of an approved refrigerant, Participating Company must take immediate steps to properly recover said refrigerant from the appliance (in accordance with the Regulations) and replace it with an approved refrigerant, in accordance with any use restrictions. Recovered refrigerant must be sent to an EPA-certified refrigerant reclaimer for ultimate reclamation or disposal.

21. Participating Company shall sign and submit to EPA a Certification of Complete Compliance (Annex D) when all plans, retrofits and other steps necessary to ensure continuous compliance have been finalized.

22. Participating Company shall provide a procedure for its employees to report violations or potential problems to the auditing team. Participating Company agrees to ensure that employees who disclose violations or potential violations to the auditing team under the Act and the Regulations are not subject to adverse job actions (including without limitation disciplinary action, denial of promotion, bonuses or pay) on the basis of such employee disclosing such violations or potential violations in accordance with company policies.

23. Participating Company agrees to keep and retain on site or readily available any and all records from March 15, 1999 until two years after the conclusion of all obligations under this Agreement. Records for appliances that have been converted to non-ODS systems need not retain records for more than three years prior to the completion of the conversion to the non-ODS system. Such records shall be from both Participating Company and its employees, agents and any contractors working for Participating Company. All records are required to be retained for this period of time to facilitate review by EPA, should EPA choose to conduct such a review. Participating Company agrees to notify all employees, agents and contractors that any such record is not to be destroyed.

24. A “per appliance” penalty of $10,000, with a cap of $50,000 per facility, shall be due and owing for each industrial process refrigeration appliance that contains greater than 50 pounds of ODS after March 15, 2002. A “per pound” penalty, as specified in the above-referenced Federal Register notice, shall be calculated for each appliance, unless equipment conversions to non-ODS systems eliminate this penalty.

25. The total penalty shall be paid within 30 days of receipt of the CAFO which should be shortly after July 2003.

26. EPA agrees to forbear on Part 82 enforcement activity against Participating Company during the course of this Agreement. EPA may however, inspect and request information to ensure that the audits are being conducted fully and properly.

27. Participating Company understands that any violations discovered by EPA subsequent to the completion of the audit or compliance efforts and/or the expiration of this Agreement are subject to standard regulatory enforcement. That is, nothing in this Agreement, other than the release from civil liability for problems/violations disclosed and corrected, is to the derogation of EPA's full enforcement and compliance authority at the conclusion of the Partnership.

28. EPA does not forbear or relinquish any right to access and inspection under this agreement.

29. If EPA believes that the Participating Company has miscategorized or mischaracterized any problem/violation under this Agreement, the Dispute Resolution section of this Agreement shall be utilized.

30. Participating Company understands and acknowledges that participation in the Program will not absolve Participating Company or its employees from any criminal liability. Good faith compliance efforts with this program, as always, will be considered in the context of any alleged criminal liability.

31. EPA agrees to execute an administrative Consent Agreement Final Order conditionally releasing Participating Company from civil liability for any and all violations or potential violations that have been self-disclosed and corrected, on condition that Participating Company pays penalties that may be due and completes the plans with compliance schedules that have been submitted and agreed upon by the Participating Company and the EPA. A complete release from civil liability will be granted for any appliance that is converted to a non-ODS system. Good faith participants in this Partnership Program will receive a release for the period of time prior to September 30, 2000, even though this period may not be audited.

32. EPA and Participating Company will execute an Administrative Compliance Order on Consent and CAFO confirming that understanding.

33. Participating Company may publicize that it is partnering with the EPA in an effort to reduce ODS emissions.

34. Upon request by the Participating Company, EPA will recognize and acknowledge Participating Company's participation and assistance under the Program.

35. Without prior notice, any authorized representative of EPA (including a designated contractor), upon presentation of credentials at any of Participating Company's facilities, may enter such location(s) at reasonable times to determine compliance with this Agreement. Access under this clause is subject to the normal health and safety and confidentiality requirements in effect at such facilities.

36. Should the need arise, Participating Company agrees to first engage in informal dispute resolution with EPA's Air Enforcement Division staff concerning any determination made by EPA in its review of the program. Such informal dispute resolution will consist of negotiations between Participating Company and the designated attorney(s) and/or Division Director of the Air Enforcement Division at the address in paragraph 41. To exercise informal dispute resolution, Participating Company shall send a written notice to EPA outlining the nature of the dispute or disagreement and request informal negotiations to resolve the dispute. Such period of informal negotiations shall not extend beyond thirty (30) days from the date when the notice was received, unless the parties agree otherwise in writing.

37. Should the Participating Company be dissatisfied with the results of the informal dispute resolution, the Participating Company may request that the dispute be elevated to the Director of the Office of Regulatory Enforcement or the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Headquarters US EPA, to determine the outcome of the dispute or disagreement. As part of any such dispute elevation, the Office of Air and Radiation staff and managers will be consulted. Participating Company agrees that elevation within EPA is the sole and final dispute resolution mechanism. [EPA is exploring additional ways to resolve disputes such as Alternative Dispute Resolution with a third party].

38. This Agreement shall become effective upon the date signed by the parties to this agreement (below).

39. Nothing in this Agreement will relieve the Participating Company of its obligation to comply with any other Clean Air Act provision, other environmental law, or applicable environmental regulations, either state or Federal.

40. Participating Company agrees to accept service from EPA by mail with respect to all matters relating to this Agreement at the address listed below (if different from the one listed in Annex A).

41. EPA agrees to accept service from Participating Company by mail with respect to all matters relating to this Agreement at the address listed below

42. This Agreement and the Annexes and Federal Register notice incorporated by reference in this Agreement, represents the final form of the contract between EPA and Participating Company. No oral modifications to the Agreement will be binding upon either party.

43. EPA and the Participating Company represent that they have examined this agreement and the attached and incorporated annexes and Federal Register notice and agree to the terms by signing and dating below.

44. Each person signing this Agreement represents that he or she is authorized to legally bind the party on whose behalf he or she is signing.

45. Agreed To:

Pursuant to Sections 113(a)(3) and 114 of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), consistent with the Bakery Partnership Program identified above and entered into between the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and Respondent, and based upon available information, EPA hereby makes and issues the following Findings and Order, with the expressed consent of Respondent:

1. Respondent is a Participating Company under the above-identified Bakery Partnership Program.

2. EPA promulgated regulations for the control of Ozone Depleting Substances, appearing in 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart F.

3. Respondent owns or operates certain affected equipment under Part 82 that contains or contained Ozone Depleting Substances, at facilities identified in Attachment A attached hereto.

4. Respondent shall retrofit or replace the referenced equipment as specified in Attachment A by the date(s) there indicated. Where additional time may be required to complete these actions, application to EPA shall be timely made pursuant to 40 CFR 82.156(i)(7).

5. Within 12 months of this Order, Respondent shall prepare and submit to EPA plans for the conversion of Class II appliances to non-ODS systems, for the appliances identified in Attachment B, attached hereto.

6. Consistent with the Bakery Partnership Agreement entered into between EPA and [the Participating Company], per appliance and per pound penalties shall be calculated and submitted to EPA by July 15, 2003.

7. Pursuant to Section 113(a) of the CAA, failure to comply with this Order may lead to a civil action to obtain compliance or an action for penalties.

In January 1992, the Office of Health and Environmental Assessment (OHEA), in the Office of Research and Development (ORD) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an interim report, Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications (DEA). The DEA provided guidance for conducting dermal exposure assessments and was peer-reviewed by EPA's Science Advisory Board. A Workgroup was subsequently formed to develop guidance for Superfund based on the DEA. In August 1992, a draft Superfund Interim Dermal Risk Assessment Guidance was circulated for comment but was never issued. This current guidance supersedes the 1992 Superfund document.

This 2001 Superfund RAGS Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment (RAGS Part E) is the result of Superfund RAGS Part E Workgroup meetings from FY 95 through FY 01 on issues associated with the characterization of risk resulting from the dermal exposure pathway. RAGS Part E updates recommendations presented in the DEA, and incorporates additional information from the Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1997a) and scientific literature, as cited. Users of this guidance are strongly encouraged to review and understand the material presented in the DEA. This guidance is considered interim, pending release of any update to the DEA from ORD. As more data become available, RAGS Part E may be updated.

This Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment (RAGS Part E) has undergone external peer review in January 1998 and in February 2000. Also, EPA's Risk Assessment Forum conducted a Peer Consultation Workshop on this document in December 1998.

Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I-Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) (RAGS Part E) is structured to be consistent with the four steps of the Superfund risk assessment process: hazard identification, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization. RAGS Part E is organized into six chapters and four appendices. To provide an indication of the scope of the document, we have included the Table of Contents below:

The General Services Administration is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review and approve information collection, 3090-0043, concerning Appraisal of Fair Annual Parking Rate Per Space for Standard Level User Charge (GSA Form 3357). Form 3357 is needed by GSA contract and staff appraisers who use the form for estimating parking rates assessed on Federal agencies occupying space in GSA owned or controlled buildings.

Respondents: 260.

Annual Responses: 1,300.

Average Hours Per Response: 1.6.

Burden Hours: 2,080.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: A copy of this proposal may be obtained from the General Services Administration, Acquisition Policy Division (MVP), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, or by telephoning (202) 501-4744, or by faxing your request to (202) 501-4067. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0043, Appraisal of Fair Annual Parking Rate Per Space for Standard Level User Charge (GSA Form 3357), in all correspondence.

Under current FDA regulations (21 CFR 314.50), applicants must provide CRTs with NDAs. Since November 1997, under 21 CFR part 11, we have accepted CRTs in electronic format instead of paper.

We have published several guidance documents that provide recommendations concerning electronic submissions. In the Federal Register of January 28, 1999 (64 FR 4432), CDER published the guidance entitled “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format—NDAs.” This guidance describes how applicants can provide CRTs as electronic datasets. This guidance also offers recommendations on how to organize the datasets and how to provide descriptive information on the datasets and the data variables (metadata). In the Federal Register of November 12, 1999 (64 FR 61647), the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) provides similar recommendations for biologic license applications (BLAs) in their guidance entitled “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format—BLAs.” A joint CBER and CDER guidance for industry entitled “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format—General Considerations,” provides recommendations for the file formats for clinical datasets (64 FR 4433, January 28, 1999).

The datasets described in these guidance documents are organized by domain (e.g., labs, adverse events). For NDAs, however, we also recommend the submission of CRTs organized by individual patients—a format we call patient profiles. Patient profiles are provided in portable document format (PDF) and not as electronic datasets. Patient profiles are not recommended for submissions to CBER. CDER is working with CBER to update the guidance documents with more detailed standards for the submission of CRT datasets and metadata.

Recently, we have received recommendations for a standard presentation of the most common CRT datasets and metadata from the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium, Inc. (CDISC). CDISC is a nonprofit organization and its members are from pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, contract research organizations, and software vendors.

CDER has also entered into a CRADA with PPD Informatics (PPD) to develop a module for PPD's commercially available CrossGraphs software that will generate patient profiles directly from CRT datasets provided with NDA submissions. The use of standardized datasets and metadata reduces the amount of preparation required by the reviewer to generate patient profiles and would eliminate the need for applicants to provide patient profiles in PDF. The purpose of the pilot project is to test the PPV module with standardized datasets and metadata and to obtain feedback from reviewers and pharmaceutical companies on the creation and use of standardized clinical data and metadata.

The pilot project is part of an effort to improve the standards for submission of clinical data. Eventually, we expect to recommend detailed clinical data and metadata standards for the submission of CRTs. Participants in this PPV pilot project will not only assist us in testing the use of the PPV and standard clinical data and metadata but will also familiarize themselves with the process at an early stage of development. Only a few participants are needed for this pilot.

Because a limited number of voluntary participants are needed, the agency will use its discretion in choosing volunteers, based on their experience with providing CRTs and their familiarity with the standards recommended by CDISC. During the pilot project, the agency will make available to the public specific technical instructions for providing the clinical data and metadata for testing. See the Electronic Access section for instructions. Participants in the pilot project will be asked to provide clinical trial datasets and metadata as described in the technical instructions and to provide technical feedback.

The pilot project will test the PPV module and the preparation and use of the submitted data and metadata. Existing requirements for the submission of CRT datasets will not be waived, suspended, or modified for purposes of this pilot project.

Written requests to volunteer for the pilot project should be submitted to the Dockets Management Branch (address above). Requests are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (mail and electronic addresses above) written comments regarding this pilot project. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. FDA will consider comments in making a determination on electronic filing and in drafting a guidance document for submitting clinical trial data and metadata electronically. Received comments may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

These instructions will be available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cder/regulatory/ersr/default.htm.

FDA provides assistance to Federal, State, local, and tribal governmental bodies with jurisdiction over food safety to help ensure that food provided to consumers by retail food establishments is not a vehicle of communicable diseases. A primary mechanism for providing that assistance is the regular publication of a model code that sets out FDA's best advice for a uniform system of regulation that is designed to help ensure that food sold or offered for human consumption by retail food establishments is safe, unadulterated, and honestly presented.

In 1971, the CFP was established to provide a dialogue on food safety issues. The CFP is a voluntary organization comprised of Federal, State, and local regulatory officials, food industry representatives, consumer groups, and academia. The public also may participate in the CFP process. The Conference meets biennially for discussion among all parties regarding ways to improve food safety in the retail segment of the food industry. FDA recognizes the CFP as a voluntary national organization that is qualified to provide technical guidance and information toward the development and implementation of codes and standards pertaining to retail food service, retail food stores, and retail vending operations. At the 1986 meeting of the CFP, it was recommended that the three distinct model codes in existence at that time (retail food stores, food service facilities, and vending) be combined into a Food Protection Unicode. The CFP endorsed this approach, FDA concurred, and issued the first Food Code in 1993. FDA has issued subsequent versions of the Food Code every 2 years. Revisions to the Food Code are based in part on recommendations that are cooperatively developed by CFP members in response to issues submitted to the CFP by interested parties.

The 2001 Food Code responds to recommendations made by the CFP and addresses needed clarifications, updates, and corrections. Significant changes between the 2001 Food Code and the 1999 Food Code include the following:

• A revised definition of juice, information on juice treated to control pathogens, and information that addresses issues relating to juice provided to populations that are particularly vulnerable to foodborne illness;

• A revised definition of “highly susceptible populations” and new definitions relating to employee health including “exclusion” and “restriction”;

• New provisions for the refrigeration and labeling of eggs consistent with new requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR);

• An updated roast beef cooking chart consistent with new U.S. Department of Agriculture/Food Safety and Inspection Service criteria;

• A revised preface to recognize Federal performance standards relating to food products and processes. (Federal performance standards are acceptable, equivalent alternatives to the command-and-control provisions that now provide specific times and temperatures for cooking);

• A new definition for “shiga toxin-producing E . coli ” and a replacement of references to “ E . coli 0157:H7 “with Ashiga toxin-producing E . coli”;

• Clarification of hand washing procedures with respect to time and water temperature; application of hand washing procedures to persons with prosthetic devices; and hand washing procedures before donning gloves;

• Clarification of the provisions relating to marking refrigerated, ready-to-eat food to indicate its shelf life;

• A new provision that allows the use of a thermometer embedded in a nonfood substance as a means of monitoring the temperature of food products in a refrigerator, as well as encouraging the use of small diameter probes for measuring the internal temperature of thin masses of food;

• New provisions that address backflow prevention devices for beverage carbonators;

• Additional references relating to time as a public health control and cooling; and

• Provisions updated to reflect consistency with the current CFR and guidances issued by Federal agencies.

The 2001 Food Code is a level 1 guidance being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation in § 10.115 (21 CFR 10.115). With certain exceptions, this regulation requires that the public be afforded an opportunity to comment on level 1 guidance documents before their implementation. FDA is not seeking public comment before implementing this edition of the Food Code because we have determined that it is not feasible or appropriate in accordance with § 10.115(g)(2). The Food Code is revised biennially to keep it up-to-date. Each revision is based on comments received on a previous Food Code, as well as issues presented to the CFP for further development and discussion. Each revision also reflects current public comment. The Conference engages in outreach in a number of ways. First and foremost, its members communicate within their respective constituencies (industry—retail food store, food service, vending, processing; government—Federal, State, and local; consumer and academia). In addition, the Conference has a Web site at http://www.foodprotect.org; press releases go out to various organizations; and members receive a Conference newsletter. Thus, each revision of the Food Code is part of an ongoing dialogue and serves effectively as a “draft” for the next revision.

The 2001 Food Code does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such an approach satisfies the requirements of applicable statutes and regulations.

The public may comment on this document at any time. The public may comment in one of two ways: (1) By participating in the CFP meeting held biennially for the purpose of, among other things, considering recommended changes to the Food Code; or (2) by commenting in writing or electronically to FDA. Comments submitted to the agency may be offered for consideration and vote at a subsequent CFP meeting.

Interested persons, at any time, may submit written or electronic comments to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) on the 2001 Food Code. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. The 2001 Food Code and received comments may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/ dms/guidance.html, http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/list.html, or http://www.fedworld.com. In addition, the 2001 Food Code may be ordered from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161, 1-800-553-6847, in several formats: Docutek copy, spiral bound, Microsoft Word 97 files on diskette, enhanced electronic version on cassette or CD-ROM,

Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing were developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and section 503 of Pub. L. 100- 71. Subpart C of the Guidelines, “Certification of Laboratories Engaged in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies,” sets strict standards which laboratories must meet in order to conduct urine drug testing for Federal agencies. To become certified an applicant laboratory must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection.

To maintain that certification a laboratory must participate in a quarterly performance testing program plus periodic, on-site inspections.

Laboratories which claim to be in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements expressed in the HHS Guidelines. A laboratory must have its letter of certification from SAMHSA, HHS (formerly: HHS/NIDA) which attests that it has met minimum standards.

In accordance with Subpart C of the Guidelines, the following laboratories meet the minimum standards set forth in the Guidelines:

The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Notice lists the following information: (1) The title of the information collection proposal; (2) the office of the agency to collect the information; (3) the OMB approval number, if applicable; (4) the description of the need for the information and its proposed use; (5) the agency form number, if applicable; (6) what members of the public will be affected by the proposal; (7) how frequently information submissions will be required; (8) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information submission including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response; (9) whether the proposal is new, an extension, reinstatement, or revision of an information collection requirement; and (10) the name and telephone number of an agency official familiar with the proposal and of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: HUD Mobility-Impaired Tenant Survey.

OMB Approval Number: 2528-XXXX.

Form Numbers: None.

Description of the Need for the Information and its Proposed Use: The proposed survey to HUD Mobility-Impaired Tenants will attempt to obtain information regarding the reasonable accommodation process. The results of the survey will help HUD verify compliance with requirements for discrimination-free housing, including housing for the mobility impaired. The survey will be administered via the telephone and should take no more than 15 to 20 minutes per respondent. We anticipate 480 respondents to the survey, which is a one-time survey. The anticipated timeframe from survey start to survey completion is approximately 8 weeks.

Respondents: Individuals or Households, Federal Government, State, Local or Tribal Government.

Frequency of Submission: One-Time.

The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Notice lists the following information: (1) The title of the information collection proposal; (2) the office of the agency to collect the information; (3) the OMB approval number, if applicable; (4) the description of the need for the information and its proposed use; (5) the agency form number, if applicable; (6) what members of the public will be affected by the proposal; (7) how frequently information submissions will be required; (8) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information submission including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response; (9) whether the proposal is new, an extension, reinstatement, or revision of an information collection requirement; and (10) the name and telephone number of an agency official familiar with the proposal and of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Information Collection to Identify Users and Uses of Electronic Permitting Applications.

OMB Approval Number: 2528-XXXX.

Form Numbers: None.

Description of the Need for the Information and its Proposed Use: A survey of the uses and users of electronic permitting systems will assist communities and software developers to understand their requirements. This information will be published by HUD to aid in the development and selection of systems for use by community building code officers.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, State, Local, or Tribal Government.

Frequency of Submission: One-Time.

Reporting Burden:

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 400.

Status: New Collection.

Section 202(c)(5) of the National Housing Act (added by section 142 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, Public Law 101-235, approved December 15, 1989), requires that HUD “publish a description of and the cause for administrative action against a HUD-approved mortgagee” by the Department's Mortgagee Review Board. In compliance with the requirements of Section 202(c)(5), notice is hereby given of administrative actions that have been taken by the Mortgagee Review Board from April 14, 2001 through September 30, 2001.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed May 21, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, 1st American Home Loan (“FAHL”) agreed to a civil money penalty of $7,000. FAHL also agreed to indemnify HUD for any losses incurred on one loan.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: FAHL failed to ensure that loan officers worked exclusively for FAHL; FAHL paid referral fees to other lenders; FAHL failed to establish, maintain and implement a Quality Control Plan; and FAHL failed to maintain complete loan origination files for review.

Action: In a letter dated May 18, 2001, the Board withdrew Altiva Financial Corporation's (“Altiva”) HUD/FHA approval for three years. The Board also voted to impose a civil money penalty of $104,500.

Cause: HUD's Office of Inspector General made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: Altiva failed to ensure that the loan amount did not exceed the cost of repairs described in the borrowers' Title I loan application in seventeen loans; Altiva failed to properly evaluate the borrowers' income and/or liabilities; Altiva failed to document the borrowers' source of funds for the initial payment; and Altiva failed to ensure that loan proceeds were only used for the eligible purposes cited in the loan application.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed May 3, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, America's Mortgage, Inc. (“AMI”) agreed to a civil money penalty of $3,000.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: AMI failed to file annual loan origination reports for 1996-1998, which supplements the requirements of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act; AMI failed to establish, maintain and implement a Quality Control Plan in compliance with HUD/FHA requirements; and AMI failed to report to HUD a violation of law or regulation, false statement, or program abuse.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed August 28, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, BancGroup Mortgage Corporation (“BMC”) agreed to a civil money penalty of $12,000. In addition, BMC agreed to refund all impermissible fees charged to borrowers on FHA/HUD loans it closed between September 1, 1998 and August 31, 1999.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: BMC failed to file annual loan origination reports for 1998, which supplements the requirements of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act; BMC failed to establish, maintain and implement a Quality Control Plan in compliance with HUD/FHA requirements; BMC failed to retain documents originating mortgagees are required to maintain; BMC charged unallowable fees and allowed unexplained and/or pre-paid credits; and BMC failed to itemize on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement the items paid on behalf of the borrowers.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed June 1, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, California Empire Financial Group, Inc. (“CEFG”) agreed to a civil money penalty of $11,000. [For the prior Federal Register notice on the proposed settlement agreement, see 65 FR at 53731, September 5, 2000.]

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: CEFG allowed non-employees to originate HUD/FHA loans; and CEFG allowed employees to act as real estate agents and loan officers.

Action: In a letter dated May 8, 2001, the Board withdrew Casey Duncan Group, Inc.'s (“CDGI”) HUD/FHA approval for five years.

Cause: In conjunction with a related MRB action, American SkyCorp, Inc., HUD's Departmental Enforcement Center observed the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements: CDGI failed to exclude participants that were suspended from participating in federal government programs; CDGI failed to meet basic lender approval requirements by its surrender of its license to originate mortgages in the State of Maryland; and CDGI failed to maintain the requirements for a main office.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed September 25, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, Cendant Mortgage Corporation (“CMC”) agreed to a payment of $10,000. In addition, Cendant agreed to indemnify HUD for any losses incurred on 36 loans.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following finding of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: CMC allowed a non FHA approved lender, Select Financial Services, to originate 63 HUD/FHA insured loans.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed July 25, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, Colonial Atlantic Mortgage (“CAM”) agreed to a civil money penalty of $4,000.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: CAM failed to file annual loan origination reports for 1997-1998, which supplements the requirements of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act; CAM accepted faxed copies of required documents in 2 loans; and CAM failed to have, implement and maintain an adequate Quality Control Plan that meets HUD guidelines.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed May 21, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, Columbia National, Inc. (“CN”) agreed to an administrative payment of $24,000. CN also agreed to indemnify HUD for any losses incurred on 24 loans.

Cause: CN self reported two loans to HUD after discovering fraud during the course of its own quality assurance audit of a branch office it later shut down. Thereafter, HUD's Quality Assurance Division initiated a review and made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: CN used falsified documentation or conflicting information to originate loans and obtain HUD/FHA mortgage insurance; CN failed to document the borrower's source of funds used for down payment or closing costs; CN approved mortgage loans where loan origination documents passed through the hands of an interested third party; CN approved mortgage loans where the ratios exceeded HUD/FHA guidelines; CN approved mortgage loans where the borrower's stability of income was not adequately documented; CN failed to properly verify the borrower's previous rental history; CN approved mortgage loans where borrowers were charged fees which were not specifically permitted by HUD/FHA; CN failed to obtain insured ten year warranty plans from a HUD/FHA approved entity for high loan to value, new construction loans; CN failed to obtain letters of credit reference where the borrower had not established traditional credit; CN failed to properly document the borrower's income; CN failed to ensure that the property's valuation conditions were met in accordance with HUD/FHA requirements; CN approved a mortgage loan with a reduced up-front mortgage insurance premium where the borrower did not meet the criteria for the reduced MIP as outlined by HUD/FHA requirements; and CN failed to ensure that the borrower met the minimum required cash investment.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed June 1, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, Corona Hills Financial, Inc. d/b/a/American Capitol Mortgage (“ACM”) agreed to pay a civil money penalty of $5,500. ACM also agreed to surrender to HUD any assets that it accrued for the next 5 years up to $60,000.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: ACM failed to file an annual loan origination report for 1998 which supplements the requirements of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act; ACM used independent contractors to originate HUD/FHA insured loans; ACM used false documentation to originate HUD/FHA insured loans; ACM failed to provide complete loan origination files for review; ACM used income/employment documents that do not support the borrower's income; ACM failed to include all known liabilities in calculating the ratios; ACM failed to properly document the source of funds for a gift; and ACM used an expired conditional commitment.

Action: In a letter dated May 18, 2001, the Board withdrew Cypress Financial Mortgage Corporation, Inc.'s (“Cypress”) HUD/FHA approval for three years. The Board also voted to impose a civil money penalty of $22,000.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: Cypress failed to maintain and implement a Quality Control Plan; and Cypress used false information to originate loans to obtain HUD/FHA insurance and misrepresented the Title I program to borrowers.

Action: In a letter dated August 16, 2001, the Board withdrew DLM Financial Services Corporation's (“DLM”) [d/b/a First Financial Mortgage, a/k/a The Home Store] HUD/FHA approval for three years. The Board also voted to impose a civil money penalty of $65,000.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: DLM failed to maintain and implement a Quality control Plan in compliance with HUD requirements; DLM knowingly did business with a debarred, suspended, ineligible or voluntarily excluded individual; DLM used false information in originating an FHA insured loan; DLM allowed non-employees to originate HUD/FHA mortgage loans; DLM allowed employees to have dual employment; and DLM failed to retain complete origination files.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed May 21, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, Eagle Home Loans and Realty, Inc. (“EHLR”) agreed to a civil money penalty of $1000. [For the prior Federal Register notice on the proposed settlement agreement, see 65 FR at 53732, September 5, 2000.]

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: EHLR failed to file annual loan origination reports for 1995 through 1999 which supplements the requirements of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act; EHLR failed to maintain and implement a Quality Control Plan; EHLR shared office space with its parent company; and EHLR did not clearly identify the office space to the public.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed June 1, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, First Funding Mortgage Bankers Corporation (“FFMBC”) agreed to a civil money penalty of $60,000. FFMBC also agreed to indemnify HUD for any losses incurred on 11 loans.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: FFMBC failed to maintain a Quality Control Plan in compliance with HUD requirements; FFMBC failed to submit One Time Mortgage Insurance Premiums Payments within 15 days of loan closing; FFMBC failed to determine that borrowers met minimum cash investment requirements; FFMBC failed to verify the source and adequacy of funds for the down payment and/or closing costs; FFMBC failed to verify income used to qualify the borrower; and FFMBC failed to resolve conflicts in information contained within the loan file prior to loan closing.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed September 18, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, First Union Mortgage Corporation (“FUMC”) agreed to indemnify HUD for any losses incurred on 4 loans.

Cause: HUD's Departmental Enforcement Center made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements resulting from a Quality Assurance Division review of Fidelity Home Mortgage Corporation, a loan correspondent that FUMC sponsored: FUMC failed to properly verify the source and adequacy of funds for the down payment and failed to properly verify income requirements.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed August 28, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, Golden Home Mortgage Corporation (“GHMC”) agreed to a civil money penalty of $20,000. In settlement, GHMC agreed to withdraw its appeal of the withdrawal of HUD/FHA approval for five years that the Board had imposed on GHMC in a letter dated January 29, 2001. It further agreed to forever forfeit its FHA approval.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: GHMC originated 19 HUD/FHA insured mortgages in which false statements were submitted to HUD and GHMC was aware of these false statements; GHMC failed to ensure that non-profit mortgagors did not exceed 10% profit on properties purchased from HUD with a 30 % discount; GHMC processed a loan that resulted in the Department over-insuring an FHA loan; GHMC failed to accurately prepare the closing instructions causing the sponsor to submit false and/or inaccurate HUD-1 Settlement Statements to the Department in 38 loans; GHMC used falsified documentation in originating an FHA loan; GHMC falsely certified that a repair condition, the repair of a swimming pool, had been satisfied in one loan; GHMC processed loans containing false and/or inaccurate owner occupancy information in two loans; GHMC failed to properly document the transfer of gift funds in two loans; GHMC provided false statements and/or certifications concerning housing counseling in 16 loans; GHMC provided false information concerning face-to-face interviews, used non-employees to perform loan origination functions, and failed to meet face-to-face with first-time homebuyers in five loans; GHMC failed to process loan applications within HUD/FHA guidelines in four loans; GHMC charged unallowable fees on FHA loans in two loans; GHMC allowed a mortgagor to sign a blank document; and GHMC failed to file annual loan origination reports for 1996-1998, which supplements the requirements of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed August 28, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, Herring National Bank (“Herring”) agreed to a civil money penalty of $30,000. Herring also agreed to indemnify HUD for any losses incurred on 6 loans.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: Herring operated branch offices under prohibited branch arrangements; Herring failed to meet the requirements for late endorsements in three loans; Herring failed to adequately document the sufficiency and/or source of funds to close three transactions; Herring failed to support income used to qualify the mortgagor in one loan; and Herring failed to obtain the required field reviews on properties previously sold by HUD's Real Estate Owned Division in three loans.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed May 3, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“HLMC”) agreed to a civil money penalty of $144,000. HLMC also agreed to indemnify HUD for any losses incurred on 7 loans.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: HLMC failed to maintain and implement a quality control plan in compliance with HUD requirements; HLMC failed to remit timely Up Front Mortgage Insurance Premiums; HLMC failed to segregate escrow funds; HLMC failed to submit loans for endorsement in a timely manner; HLMC submitted ineligible loans for endorsement; HLMC used other entities to originate loans through branch office arrangements; HLMC used independent contractors as loan originators; and HLMC failed to properly verify the source and adequacy of funds for the down payment and/or closing.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed July 25, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, InterAmerican Mortgage Corporation (“IAMC”) agreed to pay HUD $524,256.79, representing losses HUD incurred on 5 loans that were part of a prior August 27, 1997 Settlement Agreement with HUD.

Cause: The Board followed up on IAMC's failure to indemnify HUD on five loans which were the subject of an August 27, 1997 Settlement Agreement. This failure to indemnify violated HUD regulations and breached the 1997 Settlement Agreement.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed May 3, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, Intercoastal Funding Corporation agreed to a civil money payment of $11,000.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following finding of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: Intercoastal Funding Corporation failed to maintain and implement a Quality Control Plan in compliance with HUD requirements.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed May 3, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, J & R Mortgage, Inc. (“JRM”) agreed to a civil money penalty of $25,000. JRM also agreed to indemnify HUD for any losses incurred on 6 loans.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: JRM used false information to originate 9 loans; JRM allowed non-employees to take loan applications in 9 loans; JRM permitted “straw buyers” to qualify for HUD/FHA insured mortgages in 3 loans; JRM failed to verify the source of funds used for borrowers' down payment and/or closing costs and thereby, did not ensure that borrowers met their minimum required investment in 4 loans; and JRM allowed real estate agents to accept second deeds of trust and/or promissory notes from mortgagors in exchange for making the mortgagors' minimum required investment in 3 loans.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed July 25, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, Johnson Mortgage Corporation (“JMC”) agreed to a payment of $16,500.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following finding of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: JMC failed to maintain and implement a Quality Control Plan in compliance with HUD/FHA requirements, despite previous findings on this requirement and JMC's assurance of corrective action.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed May 21, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, Malone Mortgage Company America, Ltd. “(MMC”) agreed to a civil money penalty of $100,000. MMC also agreed to indemnify HUD for any losses incurred on 4 loans. [For the prior Federal Register notice on the proposed settlement agreement, see 65 FR at 53735, September 5, 2000.]

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: MMC employed, as a loan officer, an individual who was concurrently working for the mortgagor entity and had an ownership interest in another lending institution; MMC's files were found to contain false completion inspections and 203(k) escrow draws; MMC charged consulting fees and inspection fees that were unearned; MMC originated single-family 203(k) mortgages for the purpose of financing the acquisition of multifamily housing complexes with the knowledge that title to the properties would be subsequently transferred to limited partnerships; MMC processed, approved and closed mortgages where the mortgagor failed to meet the minimum capital investment requirements due to the receipt of Low Income Housing Tax Credits; MMC failed to verify adequate funds from an acceptable source to be used to close the mortgages and to meet the reserve requirements after closing the FHA insured mortgages; MMC provided FHA insured financing to a nonprofit where there was less than an arms-length transaction between the nonprofit's officers and entities providing goods and services; MMC permitted the nonprofit mortgagor to close on FHA insured mortgages and subsequently sell the properties via Contract for Deed; MMC originated FHA insured mortgages using Uniform Residential Appraisal Reports (URAR) that were found to be deficient, which resulted in overstated values; MMC escrowed and released excess amounts for mortgage payments; MMC did not properly value commercial space that was acquired by an affiliate of the mortgagor entity; MMC failed to properly account for a credit that was to have been given to the mortgagor from the seller, thereby reducing the acquisition cost; MMC used an incorrect sales price when determining acquisition cost for the purpose of calculating maximum mortgage amounts; MMC submitted to HUD for endorsement loans that were closed incorrectly; MMC closed and submitted for endorsement mortgages on properties that exceeded the 4 unit limit in effect for single-family programs; MMC failed to obtain as-is appraisals on properties that were acquired as part of bulk purchases; MMC originated inaccurate correspondence that was used by the mortgagor when applying for Low Income Housing Tax Credits; MMC permitted the mortgagor to receive payment for sweat equity for repair items completed by the mortgagor; MMC processed, approved, and closed loans where the properties were not eligible for 203(k) mortgage insurance; MMC failed to ensure that rehabilitation work was completed in a timely manner; MMC approved and closed a loan with a high loan to value ratio on a property that was less than one year old; and MMC failed to resolve discrepancies in documents used to originate FHA insured mortgages.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed June 1, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, Marathon Financial Corporation (“MFC”) agreed to a civil money penalty of $15,000. MFC also agreed to indemnify HUD for any losses incurred in one loan.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: MFC failed to make timely payments of Upfront Mortgage Insurance Premiums; MFC shared office space and commingled employees with Miracle Financial, a non-HUD approved lender; MFC failed to obtain and analyze the terms and conditions of the real estate transaction to consider the acquisition cost of recently acquired properties in the underwriting of loans; MFC failed to properly verify the source and adequacy of funds for the down payment and/or closing cost; MFC charged borrowers fees which are not in compliance with HUD/FHA guidelines; and MFC failed to maintain and implement a quality control plan in compliance with HUD requirements.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed July 25, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, Marketplace Home Mortgage, LLC (“MHM”) agreed to a civil money penalty of $20,000. In addition, MHM agreed to indemnify HUD for any losses incurred on 4 loans.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: MHM allowed a non-FHA approved entity to originate 6 HUD/FHA loans that were registered with the Department as loans originated by MHM; and MHM failed to file annual loan origination reports for 1996-1997, which supplements the requirements of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed May 3, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, Megamerica Mortgage Group, Inc. (“Megamerica”) agreed to indemnify HUD for any losses incurred on 5 loans.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: Megamerica recruited non-HUD approved entities and allowed non-Megamerica employees to originate loans which Megamerica processed and submitted to be approved for FHA insurance; Megamerica allowed prohibited branch arrangements; Megamerica signed false Lender Certifications contained in addenda to the Uniform Residential Loan Applications; Megamerica made prohibited payments to entities that both prepared loan applications and received real estate commissions on the same FHA loan transactions; Megamerica failed to disclose payments to brokers on the HUD-1 Settlement Statements; and Megamerica failed to maintain complete loan files for a minimum period of two years from the date of insurance endorsement.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed July 25, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, Mission Hills Mortgage Corporation (“MHMC”) agreed to a civil money penalty of $60,000. In addition, MHMC agreed to indemnify HUD for any losses incurred on 15 loans. Further, MHMC agreed to audit its FHA/HUD loan files for a specific time period and refund any unallowable fees to mortgagors.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: MHMC failed to maintain and implement a quality control plan in compliance with HUD requirements; MHMC provided false information in originating and obtaining HUD/FHA mortgage insurance in one loan; MHMC failed to properly verify the source and adequacy of funds for the down-payment and/or closing; MHMC failed to properly verify credit history; MHMC failed to provide acceptable compensating factors for high ratios; MHMC failed to evaluate properly effective income; MHMC charged unallowable fees; MHMC failed to resolve discrepancies; MHMC failed to include liabilities in one loan; and MHMC failed to maintain complete origination files.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed September 18, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, Molton, Allen & Williams Corporation (“MAWC”) agreed to indemnify HUD for any losses incurred on 2 loans.

Cause: HUD's Departmental Enforcement Center made the following finding of violations of HUD/FHA requirements resulting from a Quality Assurance Division review of Colonial Atlantic Mortgage, a loan correspondent that MAWC sponsored: MAWC failed to properly verify the source and adequacy of funds for the down payment or income requirements in two loans.

Action: In a letter dated July 26, 2001, the Board voted to impose a civil money penalty on Money Line Classic Corporation (“MLCC”) of $45,000.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: MLCC failed to maintain and implement a Quality Control Plan in compliance with HUD requirements; MLCC failed to notify the Department of program abuses; MLCC failed to designate a senior corporate officer to conduct exclusively the affairs of MLCC during normal business hours; MLCC failed to provide office space that is clearly identified to the public; and MLCC failed to retain complete origination files.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed July 18, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, Mortgage Loan Specialists, Inc. (“MLS”) agreed to a civil money penalty of $192,500.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: MLS allowed prohibited branch arrangements or net branches; MLS failed to file annual loan origination reports for 1997-1999, which supplements the requirements of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act; and MLS failed to maintain and implement a Quality Control Plan.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed May 21, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, MortgageOne Financial Services (“MOFS”) agreed to a civil money penalty of $10,000.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: MOFS failed to implement a Quality Control Plan in compliance with HUD/FHA requirements; MOFS failed to assure that interested third parties did not participate in the origination and/or processing of loans to be insured by the Department; and MOFS falsely certified loan documents to obtain HUD/FHA insurance.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed July 25, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, Mortgage One, Inc. (“MOI”) agreed to a civil money penalty of $15,000.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: MOI failed to maintain and implement a Quality Control Plan; MOI failed to file annual loan origination reports for 1996-1998, which supplements the requirements of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act; MOI failed to conduct face-to-face interviews with four first time home buyers; MOI allowed non-MOI employees in six cases to take loan applications and process paperwork on HUD/FHA insured mortgages; and MOI used false information in originating seven loans and obtaining HUD/FHA mortgage insurance.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed May 3, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, Norwest Mortgage, Inc., now known as Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., (“Norwest”) agreed to a civil money penalty of $75,000. Norwest also agreed to indemnify HUD for any losses incurred, including interest, from Norwest's submission of insurance claims on 39 loans that were subject to a 1996 settlement agreement. [For the prior Federal Register notice on the proposed settlement agreement, see 65 FR at 53736, September 5, 2000.]

Cause: Contrary to the terms of a March 22, 1996 Settlement Agreement, Norwest submitted claims for FHA insurance on 39 loans on which Norwest had agreed to not submit such claims.

Action: In a letter dated August 14, 2001, the Board withdrew PMA Mortgage, Inc.”s (“PMA”) HUD/FHA approval for three years.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: PMA failed to maintain and implement a quality control plan in compliance with HUD requirements; PMA used falsified documentation and/or conflicting information in originating loans and obtaining HUD/FHA mortgage insurance; PMA failed to properly verify the source and adequacy of funds for the down payment and/or closing costs; PMA failed to identify sales within the last 12 months on appraisals; and PMA requested a seller to backdate loan documents.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed September 25, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, RBMG agreed to indemnify HUD for any losses incurred on six loans.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following finding of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: RBMG failed to properly verify the source and adequacy of funds for the down payment or income requirements in six loans.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed May 21, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, Twins, Inc. (“TI”) agreed to a civil money penalty of $8,000. In addition, the Department reinstated TI as an FHA approved mortgagee. The Board had previously withdrawn TI's HUD/FHA approval for three years in a letter dated September 29, 2000. [For the prior Federal Register notice on the proposed settlement agreement, see 65 FR at 53737, September 5, 2000.]

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: TI shared office space with its parent company and maintained an office not clearly identified to the public; TI commingled employees with its parent company; TI used more than one entity to conduct its loan origination function; TI failed to maintain an adequate Quality Control Plan for the origination of HUD/FHA insured mortgages; TI failed to properly implement its Quality Control Plan; and TI charged mortgagors unallowable fees.

Action: In a letter dated July 26, 2001, the Board withdrew U.S. Lending Corporation's (“USLC”) HUD/FHA approval for five years. In addition, the Board voted to impose a civil money penalty of $35,000.

Cause: While preparing for an administrative hearing against Milestone Mortgage Corporation, HUD's Mortgagee Review Board staff learned that Milestone, despite its immediate withdrawal from FHA programs was operating under the name of U.S. Lending Corporation and was still originating FHA insured loans. The Board voted to immediately withdraw USLC's approval based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements: USLC circumvented the Mortgagee Review Board's withdrawal action against Milestone Mortgage Corporation; USLC failed to exclude participants that are suspended from participating in federal government programs; USLC used non FHA approved offices to originate FHA insured mortgages; USLC failed to maintain complete origination files; USLC failed to maintain an office space that was separate and apart from that of another entity; USLC failed to meet the staffing requirement of at least two full-time employees at a main office; USLC failed to follow proper quality control procedures; and USLC failed to establish and maintain an adequate Quality Control Plan for the origination of HUD/FHA insured mortgages. [For the prior Federal Register notice relating to Milestone Mortgage Corporation, see 66 FR at page 38307, July 23, 2001.]

Action: Settlement Agreement signed August 28, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, Valley Mortgage Company, Inc., (“VMCI”) agreed to a civil money penalty of $25,000. VMCI also agreed to indemnify HUD for any losses incurred on 11 loans. At the time of settlement, VMCI paid HUD an additional $77,604.22 for losses incurred on three loans upon which HUD had paid claims and had sold the property.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: VMCI failed to verify the source of funds for closing and/or to pay off debts; VMCI used inaccurate and/or unstable income to qualify mortgagors; VMCI omitted mortgagor liabilities and/or the liabilities of the non-purchasing spouse in one loan qualification; VMCI failed to adequately document mortgagors' credit histories in one loan; VMCI failed to update credit documents in excess of 120 days at the time of closing; VMCI failed to clarify or document important file discrepancies in one loan; VMCI closed a loan in excess of the maximum allowable resulting in an over-insured mortgage; and VMCI failed to perform sufficient investigation and analysis to certify that a condominium project satisfied the eligibility criteria for a “spot loan'.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed August 28, 2001. Without admitting fault or liability, West Coast Mortgage Securities, Inc., (“WCMS”) agreed to a civil money penalty of $1,000.

Cause: HUD's Quality Assurance Division made the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: WCMS failed to file annual loan origination reports for 1995-1999, which supplements the requirements of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act; and WCMS failed to properly document liabilities.

On September 28, 2001 (66 FR 49668), and October 5, 2001 (66 FR 51274), notices were published in the Federal Register announcing the availability of our DEIS on light goose management. On October 12, 2001 (66 FR 52147) we published a notice in the Federal Register to announce the schedule of public hearings to invite further public participation in the DEIS review process.

The DEIS evaluates four management alternatives to address habitat destruction and agricultural depredations caused by light geese on various breeding, migration, and wintering areas: (1) No Action or a continuation to manage light goose populations through existing wildlife management policies and practices (Alternative A); (2) modify harvest regulation options and refuge management (Alternative B) (PREFERRED); (3) implement direct agency control of light goose populations on migration and wintering areas in the U.S. (Alternative C); (4) seek direct light goose population control on breeding grounds in Canada (Alternative D). Our preferred alternative (Alternative B) modifies existing light goose hunting regulations to expand methods of take during normal hunting season frameworks. In addition, we propose to create a conservation order to allow take of light geese outside of normal hunting season frameworks. We would also modify management practices on certain National Wildlife Refuges to alter the availability of food and sanctuary to light geese. On October 12, 2001 (66 FR 52077) we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that would implement our preferred alternative.

We have received a request to extend the comment period on the DEIS. The Service invites careful consideration by all parties, and welcomes serious scrutiny from those committed to the long-term conservation of migratory birds. Therefore, to facilitate substantive public review, we are extending the comment period from December 14, 2001, to January 25, 2002. Extension of the comment period on the proposed rule is made through a separate notice in the Federal Register .

In order to be considered, electronic submission of comments must include your name and postal mailing address; we will not consider anonymous comments. All comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the public record. The public may inspect comments during normal business hours in Room 634—Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. Requests for such comments will be handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and the Council on Environmental Quality's National Environmental Policy Act regulations [40 CFR 1506.6(f)]. Our practice is to make comments available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. If a respondent wishes us to withhold his/her name and/or address, this must be stated prominently at the beginning of the comment.

This action is authorized under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, sections 201-03, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 3721-23 (1994).

SCAAP provides Federal assistance to states and units of general government for costs incurred for the imprisonment of undocumented criminal aliens, who are charged or convicted of one felony or two misdemeanor offenses. Potential applicants may no longer submit hard copy application forms and diskettes. For FY 2002, state and local governments apply for payment via a paperless, electronic, end-to-end distributive, Internet-based web-site application. BJA anticipates providing over 490 payments of varying amounts from a FY2002 funding total of approximately $550 million.

Potential applicants with questions should call the Office of Justice Programs Grants Management System Hotline at 1-888-549-9901, Option #4. For access to program guidance and the online application, connect to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA and select “SCAAP”

Each year Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval, using the Standard Form (SF) 115, Request for Records Disposition Authority. These schedules provide for the timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.

No Federal records are authorized for destruction without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. This approval is granted only after a thorough consideration of their administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private persons directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not they have historical or other value.

Besides identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this public notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or indicates agency-wide applicability in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency. This notice provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction). It also includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it too includes information about the records. Further information about the disposition process is available on request.

1. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (N1-AU-00-16, 7 items, 7 temporary items). Records relating to readiness training of senior intelligence officers. Included are such records as correspondence, planning committee invitations and minutes, on-going training files, budget and financial status reports, and inspection files. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word-processing. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.

2. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (N1-AU-01-10, 25 items, 25 temporary items). Short-term records documenting security measures undertaken to protect classified information and the activities and resources allocated to support military operations. Included are records relating to such matters as investigations of security breaches, the protection of automated systems, signal security operations, the allocation and distribution of communications security material, and strategic and tactical planning for military operations. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. This schedule allows the agency to expedite disposal of these records, which previously were approved for disposal. It also authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.

3. Department of Defense, Defense Contract Audit Agency (N1-372-01-2, 4 items, 2 temporary items). Records pertaining to legal matters not related to the mission of the agency, including files pertaining to standards of conduct and conflict of interest that do not relate to actual cases in the agency. Included are legal opinions and related background materials. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of legal opinions relating to the mission of the agency and standards of conduct records relating to actual cases in the agency. The related electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing were previously approved for disposal.

4. Department of Defense, Defense Contract Audit Agency, Agency-wide (N1-372-02-1, 6 items, 6 temporary items). Records relating to the use of Government charge cards for obtaining small purchase items. Included are such records as receipts, statements of charges and amounts due, certifications of payments to be made, and electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing.

5. Department of Defense, National Imagery and Mapping Agency (N1-537-01-4, 65 items, 65 temporary items). Paper and electronic records relating to safety, health, and environmental matters, including electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. Records relate to general medical and health matters, industrial hygiene, safety programs, fire prevention, and environmental protection.

6. Department of the Navy, Agency-wide. (N1-NU-02-1, 13 items, 9 temporary items). Records relating to investigations or inquiries conducted by the Navy Inspector General. Included are such records as case files, final investigative reports, working papers, correspondence, and final reports. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing and a database used for tracking the progress of each investigation. Recordkeeping copies of historically significant case files are proposed for permanent retention.

7. Department of the Navy, Agency-wide, (N1-NU-02-2, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Records relating to non-combat counterintelligence investigations and inquiries conducted in order to determine the suitability of U.S. citizens and foreign nationals for base access and employment purposes. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing.

8. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Agency-wide (N1-311-01-1, 5 items, 4 temporary items). Records relating to pending legislation of interest to the agency, including electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of files, accumulated in the Office of General Counsel and the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, that pertain to legislation that directly affects the agency's enabling legislation.

9. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mitigation Directorate (N1-311-01-7, 5 items, 5 temporary items). Records relating to disaster response, including grant administration records relating to disaster response. Also included are records relating to FEMA activities to reduce and mitigate losses in future disasters including hazard mitigation, technical assistance, grants and agreements securing the development rights of disaster-prone parcels of land. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing.

10. Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, Office of Automated Systems (N1-474-01-1, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Web site feedback records and statistical reports on web site utilization. This schedule reduces the retention period for the recordkeeping copies of these files, which were previously approved for disposal. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing.

11. National Archives and Records Administration, Agency-wide (N1-64-02-2, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Security backups for agency desktop computer applications created and maintained to restore the system in the event of a system failure or other unintentional loss of data.

12. National Archives and Records Administration, Access Programs (N1-64-02-3, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Electronic systems containing researcher application information and data recording the movement of researchers within the agency's research complex in College Park, Maryland.

13. National Credit Union Administration, Agency-wide (N1-413-02-1, 10 items, 8 temporary items). Subject files, chronological files, and regional files, accumulated by offices other than the Office of the Board, and individual working files. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. Recordkeeping copies of agency directives and operating manual case files created in central and regional offices are proposed for permanent retention.

14. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary of the Commission (N1-431-01-2, 51 items, 39 temporary items). Electronic records in the Commission's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) accumulated by the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, including electronic copies of records created using office automation tools and of records used to create ADAMS portable document format files. Records proposed for disposal include electronic recordkeeping copies of records related to committees and conferences for which the agency is not the sponsor, routine correspondence files, and rulemaking docket files. Paper copies of these records were previously approved for disposal. Series proposed for permanent retention include recordkeeping copies of such files as decisional dockets, records relating to committees and conferences sponsored by the agency, program correspondence at the Commission level, rulemaking records, and transcripts of Commission meetings.

15. Office of Personnel Management, Office of the Chief Information Officer (N1-478-02-1, 8 items, 8 temporary items). Year 2000 (Y2K) project records, including such records as plans, test documentation, correspondence, reports, and electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing.

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

1. First Variable is a stock life insurance company that was organized under Arkansas law in 1968. It engages principally in the business of variable life insurance, variable annuities and fixed annuities. First Variable holds licenses to sell insurance in 49 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands. On October 1, 2001, Protective Life Insurance Company, a subsidiary of Protective Life Corporation of Birmingham, Alabama, acquired the stock of First Variable from ILona Financial Group, Inc., formerly known as Irish Life of North America, Inc., which had owned all of the outstanding stock of First Variable until that date.

2. Account E is a segregated asset account of First Variable. Account E was established by First Variable on December 4, 1979, under Arkansas insurance laws. Account E is used to fund certain Contracts issued by First Variable. Account E is divided into several subaccounts, each of which invests in and reflects the investment performance of a specific underlying registered investment company or portfolio thereof. Account E is registered as a unit investment trust under the 1940 Act.

3. Account A is a segregated asset account of First Variable. Account A was established by First Variable on July 1, 1968 under Arkansas insurance laws. Account A is used to fund certain Contracts issued by First Variable. Account A is divided into several subaccounts, each of which invests in and reflects the investment performance of a specific underlying registered investment company or portfolio thereof. Account A is registered as a unit investment trust under the 1940 Act.

4. Account VL is a segregated asset account of First Variable. Account VL was established by First Variable on March 6, 1987, under Arkansas insurance laws. Account VL is used to fund certain Contracts issued by First Variable. Account VL is divided into several subaccounts, each of which invests in and reflects the investment performance of a specific underlying registered investment company or portfolio thereof. Account VL is registered as a unit investment trust under the 1940 Act.

5. The segregated asset accounts support certain variable annuity contracts and variable life insurance policies (collectively, the “Contracts”) issued by the Insurance Company Applicant. Under the Contracts, First Variable reserves the right to substitute one or more of the variable investment options with another variable investment option. These contractual provisions have been disclosed in the prospectus or the statements of additional information relating to the contracts.

6. The Trust was organized as a Massachusetts business trust on December 23, 1986. The Trust is comprised of eight separate series (“Portfolios” or “Replaced Portfolios”). The Trust is registered as an open-end management investment company under the 1940 Act and its shares are registered as securities under the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”). The shares of the Trust are sold exclusively to the Separate Account Applicants to fund benefits under the Contracts. First Variable Advisory Services Corporation (“FVAS”) is the investment adviser for the Trust. FVAS is a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Variable, the ultimate parent of which is Protective Life Corporation. FVAS has engaged sub-advisers for each of the Portfolios of the Trust to make investment decisions and place orders.

7. Applicants request the Commission's approval to effect the substitutions of the shares of portfolios of other variable insurance products funds (“Substituting Portfolios”) for the shares of the Replaced Portfolios (the “Substitution”). The Substituting Portfolios are series of open-end management investment companies registered under the 1940 Act, the shares of which are registered as securities under the 1933 Act. Applicants represent that the Substituting Portfolios, in general, have similar investment objectives to, and more assets, better performance and lower expense ratios than, the Replaced Portfolios. The Replaced Portfolios and the corresponding Substituting Portfolios are as follows:

8. The investment objectives of the Replaced Portfolios and Substituted Portfolios are as follows:

(a) The stated objective for the High Income Bond Portfolio and the Federated Income Bond Fund II is to seek a high level of current income while secondarily seeking capital appreciation by investing primarily in fixed-income securities, including corporate bonds and notes, discount bonds, zero-coupon bonds, convertible securities and preferred stocks and bonds issued with warrants, which are rated Baa or below by Moody's or BBB or below by Standard & Poor's or in unrated securities determined to be of comparable quality. The same individual, Mark E. Durbiano, manages both of these Portfolios.

(b) The World Equity Portfolio's stated objective is to seek maximum long-term total return by investing primarily in common stocks, and securities convertible into common stocks, traded in securities markets located around the world, including the United States. This objective is to be obtained via international blue chips and domestic U.S. small cap stocks. The American Century VP International Growth Portfolio's stated objective is to seek capital growth by investing primarily in large cap equities in developed countries around the world. The Portfolio also invests in preferred stock and convertible debt and it can invest in the United States.

Morningstar Inc. (“Morningstar”), a provider of mutual fund, stock and variable insurance investment information, assigns both of these Portfolios to a Large-Growth investment style box focusing on international equities.

(c) The objective of the Small Cap Growth Portfolio and the PBHG Small Cap Growth Portfolio is to seek capital appreciation by investing primarily in common stocks of emerging companies with the potential for significant capital appreciation and strong earnings growth with attendant risk. The Portfolios normally invest at least 65% of assets in common stocks and convertible securities issued by companies with market capitalization or annual revenues not exceeding $1 billion at the time of purchase. Both Portfolios are managed by the same entity—Pilgrim Baxter & Associates, Ltd.

(d) The Matrix Equity Portfolio's investment objective is to seek capital appreciation and current income by investing in a diversified portfolio of equity securities. The American Century VP Income and Growth Portfolio's investment objective is to seek capital growth by investing in common stocks, with income as a secondary objective.

Over the last ten years, both Portfolios have had substantially similar investment styles and Morningstar has categorized each fund as either being Large/Value or Large/Blend during that time period.

(e) The U.S. Government Bond Portfolio's investment objective is to seek current income and preservation of capital. Under normal circumstances, at least 80% of the Portfolios assets will be invested in U.S. Government Securities; the remainder may be invested in investment grade corporate securities and in cash and money market instruments. The Federated U.S. Government Securities Fund II's investment objective is to provide current income by investing at least 65% of its assets in U.S. government securities, including mortgage backed securities issued by U.S. government agencies. In addition, the Fund may invest up to 35% of its assets in investment grade non-government mortgage-backed securities.

Morningstar classifies both portfolios as Intermediate Government Bond Funds.

(f) The Growth Portfolio's investment objective is to seek capital growth; it also seeks current income when consistent with its primary objective. It pursues its objective by investing primarily in common stocks and securities convertible into common stock. Securities are selected on the basis of their issuers long-term potential for expanding their earnings, profitability, and size and on the basis of potential increases in market recognition of their securities. The American Century VP Ultra Fund's investment objective is to seek long-term capital growth. The Portfolio pursues this objective by investing in large company stocks that the manager believes will increase in value over time, using a growth investment strategy. The strategy looks for companies with earnings and revenues that are not only growing, but also growing at a successfully faster or accelerating pace.

Both portfolios are classified by Morningstar as large cap growth funds.

(g) The Multiple Strategies Portfolio's investment objective is to seek as high a level of total return as the manager considers consistent with prudent investment risk. The Portfolio invests in equity securities, fixed income securities and money market instruments. Equity securities are selected on the basis of their issuers long-term potential for expanding their earnings, profitability, and size and on the basis of potential increases in market recognition of their securities. The Fidelity VIP Growth & Income Portfolio's investment objective is to seek high total return through a combination of current income and capital appreciation. The Portfolio invests a majority of its assets in common stocks with a focus on those that pay current dividends and show potential for capital appreciation. The Portfolio also invests in bonds, including lower-quality debt securities, as well as stocks that are not currently paying dividends, but offer prospects for future income or capital appreciation.

(h) The Growth & Income Portfolio's investment objective is to seek growth of capital and income. The Portfolio pursues this objective by investing primarily in dividend-paying common stocks, as well as fixed income securities. The Fidelity VIP Growth & Income Portfolio's investment objective is to seek high total return through a combination of current income and capital appreciation. The Portfolio invests a majority of its assets in common stocks with a focus on those that pay current dividends and show potential for capital appreciation. The Portfolio also invests in bonds, including lower-quality debt securities, as well as stocks that are not currently paying dividends, but offer prospects for future income or capital appreciation.

Both of the Portfolios have been characterized by Morningstar as Large/Value and Large/Blend over the last 10 years.

9. For the shares of each Replaced Portfolio held on behalf of their respective Separate Accounts at the close of business on the date selected for the Substitution, First Variable will redeem those shares for cash or in-kind. Simultaneously, First Variable, on behalf of each of its Separate Account Applicants, will place a purchase order for shares of each Substituting Portfolio so that each purchase will be for the exact amount of the redemption proceeds, which may be partly or wholly in-kind. Accordingly, at all times monies attributable to Owners then invested in the Replaced Portfolio will remain fully invested and will result in no change in the amount of any Owner's contract value, death benefit or investment in the applicable Separate Account Applicant.

10. In connection with the redemption of all shares of each Replaced Portfolio, it is anticipated that the Replaced Portfolio will incur brokerage fees and expenses in connection with such redemption. To alleviate the potential impact, the redemptions for certain Replaced Portfolios will be effected partly for cash and partly for portfolio securities redeemed in-kind. In addition, Applicants will use the in-kind and cash redemption proceeds to purchase shares of the Substituting Portfolio. In effecting the in-kind redemptions and transfers, the Trust has informed the Applicants that it will comply with the requirements of Rule 17a-7 under the 1940 Act and the procedures established thereunder by the Board of Trustees of the Trust.

11. As noted above, the portfolio securities received from the in-kind redemptions will be used together with the cash proceeds to purchase the shares of the Substituting Portfolios. The Applicants have determined that partially effecting the redemption of shares of the Replaced Portfolios in-kind is appropriate, based on the similarity of certain types of portfolio securities that may be held by the Replaced Portfolio and its corresponding Substituting Portfolio. The Trust has advised the Applicants that the valuation of any in-kind redemptions will be made on a basis consistent with the normal valuation procedures of the Replaced Portfolio and that of the Substituting Portfolio.

12. The full net asset value of the redeemed shares held by the Separate Account Applicants will be reflected in the Owners' contract values following the Substitution. The Applicants represent that the Owners will not bear, directly or indirectly any expenses, including brokerage expenses, for the Substitution so that the full net asset value of redeemed shares of the Replaced Portfolio held by the Separate Account Applicants will be reflected in the Owners' contract values following the Substitution.

13. The Trust is fully advised of the terms of the Substitution. Applicants anticipate that until the Substitution occurs, the Trust will conduct the trading of portfolio securities in accordance with the investment objectives and strategies stated in the Trust's prospectus and in a manner that provides for the anticipated redemptions of shares held by the Separate Account Applicants.

14. Applicants have determined that the Contracts allow the Substitution as described in the application, and that the transactions can be consummated as described therein under applicable insurance laws and under the Contracts. In addition, prior to effecting the Substitution, Applicants will have complied with any regulatory requirements they believe are necessary to complete the transactions in each jurisdiction where the Contracts are qualified for sale.

15. Affected Owners will not incur any fees or charges, directly or indirectly, as a result of the Substitution, nor will the rights or obligations of First Variable under the Contracts be altered in any way. The proposed Substitution will not have any adverse tax consequences to Owners. The proposed Substitution will not cause Contract fees and charges currently being paid by existing Owners to be greater after the proposed Substitution than before the proposed Substitution. The proposed Substitution will not be treated as a transfer for the purpose of assessing transfer charges. Moreover, First Variable will allow the Owners, with respect to shares substituted, to transfer the Contract values held in the subaccount invested in the Substituting Portfolio for a period of thirty-one days without collecting transfer fees or imposing any additional restrictions on transfers. Moreover, such a transfer will not be counted as a transfer request under any contractual provisions of the Contracts that limit the number of transfers that may be made without charge.

16. In anticipation of the filing of this Application, the respective Applicants have supplemented the prospectuses for the Contracts to reflect the proposed Substitution. Within five days after the Substitution, First Variable will send to Owners written notice of the Substitution (the “Notice”), identifying the shares of the Replaced Portfolios that have been eliminated and the shares of the Substituting Portfolios that have been substituted. First Variable will include in such mailing the applicable prospectus supplement for the Contracts of the Separate Account Applicants describing the Substitution. For those Contracts that already include as a variable investment option the Substituting Portfolio, First Variable does not intend to mail a copy of the prospectus for the Substituting Portfolio to the Owners, because they already will have received a copy of a prospectus that includes the Substituting Portfolio in the ordinary course. For those Contracts that do not include as a variable investment option the Substituting Portfolio, First Variable will have amended the applicable registration statement and will provide a copy of the prospectus supplement for the Contract and the prospectus for the Substituting Portfolio with the Notice. Owners will be advised in the Notice that for a period of thirty-one days from the mailing of the Notice, Owners may transfer all assets, as substituted, to any other available subaccount without limitation or charge (the “Free Transfer Period”).

1. Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any depositor or trustee of a registered unit investment trust holding the security of a single issuer to substitute another security for such security unless the [SEC] shall have approved such substitution.” Section 26(b) of the 1940 Act (now Section 26(c)) was enacted as part of the Investment Company Act Amendments of 1970. Prior to the enactment of these amendments, a depositor of a unit investment trust could substitute new securities for those held by the trust by notifying the trust's security holders of the substitution within five (5) days after the substitution. In 1966, Commission, concerned with the high sales charges then common to most unit investment trusts and the disadvantageous position in which such charges placed investors who did not want to remain invested in the substituted security, recommended that Section 26 be amended to require that a proposed substitution of the underlying investments of a trust receive prior Commission approval.

2. Applicants submit that the Substitution does not present the type of costly forced redemption or other harms that Section 26(c) was intended to guard against and is consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the 1940 Act for the following reasons:

(a) The Substitution will continue to fulfill Owners' objectives and risk expectations, because the investment objectives of each Substituting Portfolio are substantially similar to those of each Replaced Portfolio.

(b) After receipt of the Notice informing an Owner of the Substitution, an Owner may request that his or her assets be reallocated to another subaccount at any time during the Free Transfer Period. The Free Transfer Period provides sufficient time for Owners to consider their reinvestment options;

(c) The Substitution will be at net asset value of the respective shares, without the imposition of any transfer or similar charge;

(d) Neither the Owners, the Replaced Portfolio nor the Substituting Portfolio will bear any costs of the Substitution, including brokerage fees, and accordingly, the Substitution will have no impact on the Owners' Contract values;

(e) The Substitution will in no way alter the contractual obligations of First Variable or the rights and privileges of Owners under the Contracts;

(f) The Substitution will in no way alter the tax benefits to Owners; and

(g) The Substitution is expected to confer certain economic benefits on Owners by virtue of enhanced asset size and lower expenses.

3. The Applicants have determined that each Substituting Portfolio is an appropriate replacement for each Replaced Portfolio and an appropriate investment vehicle for the Owners because they share similar investment objectives. Accordingly, the Insurance Company Applicant has specifically determined that the Substituting Portfolios are appropriate investment vehicles for owners who have allocated values to the Replaced Portfolios and that the Substitution will be consistent with Owners' investment objectives.

4. As of December 31, 2000, each Substituting Portfolio had lower expense ratios than its corresponding Replaced Portfolio, and with the exception of American Century VP International Growth Fund, American Century VP Income and Growth Fund and American Century VP Ultra Fund, each Substituting Portfolio pays management fees that are equal to or less than the corresponding Replaced Portfolio. Applicants believe that the addition of assets resulting from the Substitution will likely result in lower expense ratios for the Owners that have allocated their Contract values to the Substituting Portfolios.

The expense structure of the American Century Fund is substantially different from that of the Trust. The Trust pays, in addition to a management fee, all of its own expenses, which may vary from year to year. In contrast, services provided by American Century under the American Century Management Agreement are offered under a unified fee arrangement. For the services it provides to the American Century Fund, American Century receives a unified management fee based on a percentage of the average net assets of the series of the Fund, including each of the American Century Substituting Portfolios. Out of that fee American Century pays all expenses of managing and operating the American Century Fund except brokerage expenses, taxes, interest, fees and expenses of the Fund's independent directors (including legal counsel fees), and extraordinary expenses. In each substution into the American Century Fund, the overall expense ratios of the Substituting Portfolios are lower and, in some cases, significantly so.

5. With respect to the First Variable separate accounts investing in the American Century Substituting Portfolios, Applicants represent that there will be no increase in the contract charges from their current levels for a period of at least two years from the date of the Commission order requested herein.

6. Applicants represent that First Variable does not currently receive (and will not receive for three years from the date of the Commission order requested herein) any direct or indirect benefit from the Substituting Portfolios (other than the American Century Substituting Portfolios), their advisers and/or their affiliates, that would exceed the amounts that First Variable or FVAS, the Trust's adviser, had received from the Replaced Portfolios, including without limitations, 12b-1, shareholder service, administrative or other service fees, revenue sharing or other arrangements, either with respect to specific reference to the Substituting Portfolios or as part of an overall business arrangement.

7. Applicants represent that the returns for most of the Substituting Portfolios have generally been higher than the returns of the corresponding Replaced Portfolios, and that while there is no guarantee that past performance will continue, the return data supports Applicants' view that the Substitution is not expected to give rise to diminution in performance or other adverse effects on Contract values.

8. Section 17(a)(1) of the 1940 Act prohibits any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or an affiliated person of an affiliated person, from selling any security or other property to such registered investment company. Section 17(a)(2) of the 1940 Act prohibits any of the persons described above from purchasing any security or other property from such registered investment company. The proposed Substitution will be effected in part through in-kind redemptions and purchases and may be deemed to entail the indirect purchase of shares of a related Substituting Portfolio with portfolio securities of the Replaced Portfolio and the indirect sale of securities of the Replaced Portfolio for shares of the Substituting Portfolio.

9. Section 17(b) of the 1940 Act provides that the Commission may grant an Order exempting transactions prohibited by Section 17(a) of the 1940 Act upon application if evidence establishes that:

(a) The terms of the proposed transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve over-reaching on the part of any person concerned;

(b) The proposed transaction is consistent with the investment policy of each registered investment company concerned, as recited in its registration statement and reports filed under the 1940 Act; and

(c) The proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the 1940 Act.

The Applicants represent that the terms of the proposed transactions, as described in this Application are: reasonable and fair, including the consideration to be paid and received; do not involve over-reaching; are consistent with the policies of the Replaced Portfolios of the Trust; and are consistent with the general purposes of the 1940 Act.

10. Applicants represent that for all the reasons stated above, with regard to Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act, the Substitution is reasonable and fair. It is expected that existing and future Owners will benefit from the consolidation of assets in the Substituting Portfolios. The transactions effecting the Substitution will be effected in conformity with Section 22(c) of the 1940 Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder. Moreover, the partial in-kind redemptions of portfolios' securities of the Replaced Portfolios will be effected in conformity with Rule 17a-7 under the 1940 Act and the procedures of the Trust established pursuant to Rule 17a-7. The Owners' interests after the Substitution, in practical economic terms, will not differ in any measurable way from such interests immediately prior to the Substitution. In each case, the consideration to be received and paid is, therefore, reasonable and fair.

Applicants submit, for all of the reasons stated herein, that their requests meet the standards set out in Sections 6(c), 17(b) and 26(c) of the 1940 Act and that an Order should, therefore, be granted. Accordingly, Applicants request an Order pursuant to Sections 6(c), 17(b) and 26(c) of the 1940 Act approving the Substitution.

As we approach year end, we believe it is appropriate to sound a warning to public companies and other registrants who present to the public their earnings and results of operations on the basis of methodologies other than Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). This presentation in an earnings release is often referred to as “pro forma” financial information. In this context, that term has no defined meaning and no uniform characteristics. We wish to caution public companies on their use of this “pro forma” financial information and to alert investors to the potential dangers of such information.

“Pro forma” financial information can serve useful purposes. Public companies may quite appropriately wish to focus investors' attention on critical components of quarterly or annual financial results in order to provide a meaningful comparison to results for the same period of prior years or to emphasize the results of core operations. To a large extent, this has been the intended function of disclosures in a company's Management's Discussion and Analysis section of its reports. There is no prohibition preventing public companies from publishing interpretations of their results, or publishing summaries of GAAP financial statements.

Moreover, as part of our commitment to improve the quality, timeliness, and accessibility of publicly available financial information, we believe that—with appropriate disclosures about their limitations—accurate interpretations of results and summaries of GAAP financial statements taken as a whole can be quite useful to investors.

Nonetheless, we are concerned that “pro forma” financial information, under certain circumstances, can mislead investors if it obscures GAAP results. Because this “pro forma” financial information by its very nature departs from traditional accounting conventions, its use can make it hard for investors to compare an issuer's financial information with other reporting periods and with other companies.

For these reasons, we believe it is appropriate to alert public companies and their advisors of the following propositions:

First, the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws apply to a company issuing “pro forma” financial information. Because “pro forma” information is information derived by selective editing of financial information compiled in accordance with GAAP, companies should be particularly mindful of their obligation not to mislead investors when using this information.

Second, a presentation of financial results that is addressed to a limited feature of a company's overall financial results (for example, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization), or that sets forth calculations of financial results on a basis other than GAAP, raises particular concerns. Such a statement misleads investors when the company does not clearly disclose the basis of its presentation. Investors cannot understand, much less compare, this “pro forma” financial information without any indication of the principles that underlie its presentation. To inform investors fully, companies need to describe accurately the controlling principles. For example, when a company purports to announce earnings before “unusual or nonrecurring transactions,” it should describe the particular transactions and the kind of transactions that are omitted and apply the methodology described when presenting purportedly comparable information about other periods.

Third, companies must pay attention to the materiality of the information that is omitted from a “pro forma” presentation. Statements about a company's financial results that are literally true nonetheless may be misleading if they omit material information. For example, investors are likely to be deceived if a company uses a “pro forma” presentation to recast a loss as if it were a profit, or to obscure a material result of GAAP financial statements, without clear and comprehensible explanations of the nature and size of the omissions.

Fourth, we commend the earnings press release guidelines jointly developed by the Financial Executives International and the National Investors Relations Institute and we encourage public companies to consider and follow those recommendations before determining whether to issue “pro forma” results, and before deciding how to structure a proposed “pro forma” statement. A presentation of financial results that is addressed to a limited feature of financial results or that sets forth calculations of financial results on a basis other than GAAP generally will not be deemed to be misleading merely due to its deviation from GAAP if the company in the same public statement discloses in plain English how it has deviated from GAAP and the amounts of each of those deviations.

Fifth, as always, and especially in light of the disclosure that we expect to see accompanying these presentations, we encourage investors to compare any summary or “pro forma” financial presentation with the results reported on GAAP-based financials by the same company. Read before you invest; understand before you commit.

Companies with questions about the use of “pro forma” financial presentations in earnings releases are encouraged to call John M. Morrissey, Deputy Chief Accountant, at 202-942-4400, or Paula Dubberly, Chief Counsel of the Division of Corporation Finance, at 202-942-2900. Investors are encouraged to read our investor alert on “pro forma” financial statements (available at http://www.sec.gov/investor.shtml).

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

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

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority vested in the USTR by Proclamation 7350, U.S. note 7(a) to subchapter II of chapter 98 of the HTS and U.S. note 1 to subchapter XIX of chapter 98 of the HTS are each modified by inserting “Namibia” in alphabetical sequence in the list of countries. The foregoing modifications to the HTS are effective with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the effective date of this notice. Importers claiming preferential tariff treatment under the AGOA for entries of textile and apparel articles should ensure that those entries meet the applicable visa requirements. See Visa Requirements Under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, 66 FR 7837 (2001).

A copy of the proposed AC may be obtained by contacting the person named under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , or Internet users may obtain a copy at the following address: “http://www.airweb.faa.gov/rgl” . Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed AC, and to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they desire. Commenters must identify the subject of the AC, and submit comments to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, before issuance of the final AC.

This draft advisory circular (AC) would provide guidance and acceptable methods, but no the only methods that may be used to demonstrate compliance with the fire prevention requirements under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), part 33. Section 33.17 is the primary section addressed in this proposed AC, although other sections of part 33 that address fire prevention may also be applicable. Other related parts and sections are listed in AC 20-135, Powerplant Installation and Propulsion System Component Fire Protection Methods, Standards and Criteria, Appendix 1. This proposed AC is intended to provide guidance relating to these requirements, and is considered a supplement to AC 20-135.

This advisory circular would be published under the authority granted to the Administrator by 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704, and would provide guidance for the requirements in 14 CFR part 33.

Following is a legal description of the property located in Lucas County, Ohio, and described as follows:

A parcel of land being part of Lots 3 and 4 in Ellwood Farms and Lots 13 and 14 in Hamlin's Subdivision, all in the Northeast quarter of Section 12, Town 7 North, Range 9 East, Monclova Township, Lucas County, Ohio, and being more particularly described as follows:

The notice announces that the FAA finds that the noise exposure maps for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements of Part 150, effective December 3, 2001. Further, FAA is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program for that airport which will be approved or disapproved on or before June 3, 2002. This notice also announces the availability of this program for public review and comment.

Under 49 U.S.C. 47503(a), and airport operator may submit to the FAA a noise exposure map which meets applicable regulations and which depicts noncompatible land uses as of the date of submission of such map, a description of projected aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect such map. 49 U.S.C. 47503 (a)(1) requires such maps to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties in the local community, government agencies and persons using the airport.

An airport operator who has submitted a noise exposure map that has been found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150, promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 47503 (A) may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes for the reduction of existing noncompatible uses and for the prevention of the introduction of additional noncompatible uses.

The Manager of the Airfield Line of Business of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport submitted to the FAA noise exposure maps, descriptions and other documentation which were produced during an airport Noise Compatibility Study. It was requested that the FAA review the noise mitigation measures be approved as a noise compatibility program under 49 U.S.C. 47504.

The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure maps and related descriptions submitted by Seattle-Tacoma Internation Airport. The specific maps under consideration are Figures C40 and F1 in the submission. The FAA has determined that these maps for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is effective on December 3, 2001. FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is limited to the determination that the mans were developed in accordance with the procedures contained in Appendix A of FAR Part 150. Such determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data, information or plans, or a commitment to a noise compatibility program or to fund implementation of that program.

If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on noise exposure maps submitted under 49 U.S.C. 47503, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47507. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land control and planning responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way under Part 150 or through FAA's review of noise exposure maps. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the maps depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with the airport operator which submitted those maps, or with those public agencies and planning agencies with which consultation is required under 49 U.S.C. 47503(a)(1). The FAA has relied on the certification by the airport operator, under section 150.21 of the FAR part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has been accomplished.

The FAA has formally received the noise compatibility program for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, also effective on December 3, 2001. Preliminary review of the submitted material indicates that it conforms to the requirements for the submittal of noise compatibility programs, but that further review will be necessary prior to approval or disapproval of the program. The formal review period, limited by law to a maximum of 180 days, will be completed on or before June 3, 2002.

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

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

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

The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application (02-05-C-00-CPR) to impose and use a PFC at Natrona County International Airport, under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 40117 and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).

On December 3, 2001, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use a PFC submitted by the County of Natrona, Wyoming, was substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or part, no later than February 26, 2002.

The following is a brief overview of the application.

Level of the proposed PFC: $4.50.

Proposed charge effective date: January 1, 2002.

Proposed charge expiration date: October 1, 2010.

Total requested for use approval: $2,660,000.

Brief description of proposed projects: Rehabilitate aircraft parking apron, Terminal renovation, Rehabilitative taxiway C, Acquire snow removal equipment.

Class or classes of air carriers which the public agency has requested not be required to collect PFC's: None.

Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA Regional Airports Office located at: Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Airports Division, ANM-600, 1601 Lind Avenue S.W., Suit4e 315, Renton, WA 98055-4056. In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Natrona County International Airport.

Title: Consumer Complaint/Recall Audit Information.

OMB Number: 2127—0008.

Type of Request: Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

Abstract: Vehicle owners provide the agency with information on problems they are experiencing with their vehicles/equipment by an initial call to the agency's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline and by written letters. A Vehicle Owner's Questionnaire (VOQ), HS Form 350, or HS Form 350C is forwarded to the owner. A cover letter of explanation is also sent with the VOQs. The letter is to facilitate and simplify the collection process on the complaint. Frequently, written letters do not provide complete data of the specific problem(s) on the vehicle or equipment. If incomplete information is received, the HS-350 is sent to the owner for additional information. If the problem concerns a child safety seat, the HS-350C, is sent. The information received on these forms is essential to NHTSA's defects investigation program. The thousands of individual reports received each year are used to help identify safety problems for investigation and possible recalls. This information identifies defect trends in vehicles and vehicle equipment and alerts the agency of these problems.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 45,045.

Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Departments estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.

Title: 49 CFR part 541, Consolidated Labeling Requirements for 49 CFR 571.115, parts 565, 541, and 567.

OMB Number: 2127-0510.

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

Abstract: The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act was amended by the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-519). The enacted Theft Act state that passenger vehicles, and light-duty trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or less be covered under the Theft Prevention Standard. Each major component part must be either labeled or affixed with the VIN and its replacement component part must be marked with the DOT symbol, the letter (R) and the manufacturers' logo.

Affected Public: Individuals or households, business or other for-profit.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 456,212.

Title: Voluntary Child Safety Registration Form.

OMB Number: 2127—0576.

Type of Request: Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

Abstract: Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code provides that if either NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment contain a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety or fail to comply with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, the manufacturer must notify owners and purchasers of the defect or noncompliance and must provide a remedy without charge. Pursuant to 49 CFR Part 577 Defects and noncompliance notification for equipment items, including child safety seats, must be sent “by first class mail to the most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer.” In the absence of a registration system, many owners of child safety seats are not notified of safety defects and noncompliance, since the manufacturer is not aware of their identities.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 120.

By notice served and published June 13, 2000, 65 FR 37205, in response to a petition filed by Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP), a declaratory order proceeding was instituted by the Board under 5 U.S.C. 554(e) to address questions concerning the right of a rail carrier to impose penalty charges unilaterally against other rail carriers for delays in accepting cars in interchange. Comments were requested from interested parties.

As indicated in our notice, the controversy centers on “tariff” provisions issued by respondents Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company (Indiana Harbor Belt), Iowa Interstate Railroad, Ltd., and City of Tacoma, Tacoma Public Utilities, d/b/a Tacoma Rail and Tacoma Beltline Railroad, pursuant to which penalty charges would be imposed when cars are not pulled from interchange within specified time limits. UP asserts that such interchange issues are subject to the CS/CH Agreement and CS/CH Rules, unless the rail carriers enter into alternative agreements. UP seeks a declaration from the Board that, under 49 U.S.C. 11121, a rail carrier may not unilaterally impose such charges on another carrier for delayed interchange of cars, either by “tariff” or otherwise, and that interchange-related charges imposed by one rail carrier on another must be either permitted by agreement of the carriers involved or specifically authorized by the Board.

Comments were received from Class I railroads, short line railroads, shippers, and labor interests. 1 A substantial number of these comments focused on the effect that a declaratory order might have on switching services in the vicinity of Chicago, IL. We have considered all of the comments carefully, and we find that there are significant issues to be resolved, which could have an impact on the important matter of fluidity throughout the rail system. Because we believe that resolution of these issues can best be achieved through the cooperation of all segments of the railroad industry, rather than a decision by the Board on a particular controversy, we are deferring final Board action to provide an opportunity for such private-sector discussions.

Interchange of traffic among railroads is a fundamental operational component of the national railroad network. It is important that interchange be accomplished in an economical and efficient manner. The interchange of traffic is typically a straightforward and reasonably uniform process in which all carriers participate for the benefit of themselves and the shipping public.

Sometimes parties differ as to how such interchange can be accomplished to best meet the needs of all concerned. We can resolve these sorts of disputes, if the parties cannot do so themselves, and we will resolve the issues raised here if it is necessary for us to do so. However, the national railroad system functions best on the basis of good faith cooperation among all railroads, both large and small. If we were to rule against UP and find that carriers are not prohibited from unilaterally imposing interchange charges, the result could be a variety of charges, imposed pursuant to the actions of one carrier and the responses of another, that would not be conducive to the cooperation necessary for a seamless, efficient national rail network. The U.S. Department of Transportation filed comments suggesting that we urge the rail industry to meet and attempt to negotiate an effective and equitable resolution of these issues. We agree that broader industry discussion of those issues would be preferable. Therefore, in the spirit of cooperation, before we undertake to resolve this matter, we will first give those directly affected by the issues UP has raised, both in the Chicago area and elsewhere, an opportunity to establish workable solutions.

The Board has successfully encouraged private-sector negotiation to resolve other difficult issues. For example, during implementation of the merger between UP and Southern Pacific Transportation Company and its affiliates, 2 UP was directed to convene meetings with shippers, involved railroads, and other interested parties to address concerns pertaining to the Houston Terminal, leading to a coordinated plan for improving the utilization of Houston area infrastructure. 3 Then, during our review of the division of Conrail's assets, we directed CSX and Norfolk Southern to convene meetings with shippers, involved railroads, and other interested parties to discuss opportunities to improve the Buffalo, NY area rail infrastructure, which resulted in service improvements and better communication. 4 Also, in an effort to address congestion in the Chicago, IL area, the individual railroads and AAR, at the urging of the Board and other interested parties, have been working together to improve rail operations in Chicago through the development of the Chicago Service Plan and the establishment of the Chicago Planning Group and the Chicago Transportation Coordination Office. Most recently, we directed railroads to negotiate, in accordance with a 1986 agreement, concerning disputes with private tank car owners about certain charges being levied by The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company and UP. 5

As signatories to the CS/CH Agreement, operating railroads, including Class I, short line, regional and terminal railroads, have agreed to use the CS/CH Rules as a means both to coordinate their operations and to resolve areas of dispute that arise. Accordingly, we are requesting AAR to convene a meeting with shippers, railroads, and other involved parties to discuss more fully the available means of improving coordination of interchange of traffic in Chicago and elsewhere, and file a report with the Board. The report should describe the results of the meeting and should present suggestions for the best ways to address issues concerning delays in interchange, including the appropriate use of the CS/CH Rules. 6 AAR should explain if changes are needed to the terms and application of the CS/CH Rules, why they may be needed, how these changes may most effectively be implemented, and the possible timetable for implementing such changes. Once the report is filed, we will determine what further action is appropriate.

We encourage AAR to reach out to all involved parties  7 and to work with them to achieve the common goal of improving interchange of cars in general and reducing the opportunity for delay of rail traffic in interchange, not only in the Chicago area, but across the Nation as well.

This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.

It is ordered:

1. Indiana Harbor Belt's motion to strike is denied. The surreplies of Indiana Harbor Belt and UP are accepted.

2. AAR is requested to convene a meeting with railroads, shippers, and other involved parties to discuss issues concerning delays in the interchange of railroad cars, consistent with this decision, by February 8, 2002.

3. AAR should provide a report to the Board by March 11, 2001. AAR should also make a copy of its initial report available to all meeting participants, and any other involved parties upon request.

4. This decision is effective on December 10, 2001.

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center has a mission of providing high quality, cost-effective training of federal law enforcement personnel. The FLETC proposes with this action to provide requalification-training services in the Washington, DC area by renovating the former Naval Communications Detachment Cheltenham, MD facility, which has been inactive since 1998. Providing these requalification services in the Washington, DC area will eliminate the need for Washington, DC area law enforcement agencies to travel to the FLETC's Glynco, GA facility, reducing associated costs and time demands.

The FLETC Cheltenham facility is located approximately 15 miles southeast of Washington, DC, in Prince George's County, MD. The project site is situated east of Maryland Route 5 and west of Maryland Route 301, approximately 3 miles south of Andrews Air Force Base.

Title: Extension of Relief for Late S Elections.

OMB Number: 1545-1548.

Revenue Procedure Number: Revenue Procedure 98-55.

Abstract: Revenue Procedure 98-55 updates the Service's instructions for requesting relief for a late S corporation election and other late elections that must be filed by or for an S corporation. Revenue Procedure 98-55 provides that a corporation will have 12 months from the original due date for the S election (but not later than the due date for the tax return for the first year it intended to be an S corporation) to request relief for a late S election by filing Form 2553, Election by a Small Business Corporation, and attaching a statement explaining the reason for the failure to file a timely S corporation election.

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

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 25,000.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 1 hour.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 25,000.

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

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

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

Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C., 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.

With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.

Title and Form Number: Phase IV of Study of Individuals at Risk for Stress Related Illnesses, VA Form 10-21036(NR).

OMB Control Number: 2900-0614.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: Phases I and II of this study are completed. The collection of information associated with Phase III is also completed. Phase IV is intended to complete VA's study of the “psychological and biomedical measurements for early identification of individuals at risk for stress-related illness.” The information collected will be used to produce a reliable inventory of psychosocial risk and resilience factors for contemporary military personnel and then demonstrate its validity visa vis Gulf War veterans' self-reported somatic and psychological symptoms and judgments of health-related quality of life.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Annual Burden: 313 hours.

Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent: 45 minutes.

Frequency of Response: One time.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 417.

Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C., 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.

With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.

a. Offer to Purchase and Contract of Sale, VA Form 26-6705.

b. Credit Statement of Prospective Purchaser, VA Form 26-6705b.

c. Addendum to VA Form 26-6705 Offer to Purchase and Contract of Sale, VA Form 26-6705d

OMB Control Number: 2900-0029.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

a. VA Form 26-6705 is used by the private sector sales broker to submit an offer to the VA on behalf of a prospective purchaser of a VA-acquired property. The form will be prepared for each proposed contract submitted to the VA. If the VA accepts the offer to purchase, it then becomes a contract of sale. The form defines the terms of sale, provides the prospective purchaser with a receipt for his/her earnest money deposit, eliminates the need for separate transmittal of a purchase offer and develops the contract without such intermediate processing steps and furnishes evidence of the station decision with respect to the acceptance of the contract as tendered. Without this information, a determination of the best offer for a property cannot be made.

b. VA Form 26-6705b is used as a credit application to determine the creditworthiness of a prospective purchaser in those instances when the prospective purchaser seeks VA vendee financing, along with VA Form 26-6705. In such sales, the offer to purchase will not be accepted until the purchaser's income and credit history have been verified and a loan analysis has been completed, indicating loan approval. Without this information, the creditworthiness of a prospective purchaser cannot be determined and the offer to purchase cannot be accepted.

c. VA Form 26-6705d is an addendum to VA Form 26-6705 for use in Virginia. It includes requirements of State law, which must be acknowledged by the purchaser at or prior to closing.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Annual Burden: 57,917 hours.

a. VA Form 26-7605—35,000 hours.

b. VA Form 26-6705b—22,500 hours.

c. VA Form 26-6705d—417 hours.

Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent: 20 minutes (average).

a. VA Form 26-7605—21 minutes.

b. VA Form 26-6705b—20 minutes.

c. VA Form 26-6705d—5 minutes.

Frequency of Response: Generally one-time.

Estimated Number of Total Respondents: 172,500.

a. VA Form 26-7605—100,000.

b. VA Form 26-6705b—67,500.

c. VA Form 26-6705d—5,000.

Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C., 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.

With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.

Title: Generic Clearance for the Veterans Health Administration Customer Satisfaction Surveys.

OMB Control Number: 2900-0570.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: Executive Order 12862, Setting Customer Service Standards, requires Federal agencies and departments to identify and survey its customers to determine the kind and quality of services they want and their level of satisfaction with existing services. VHA uses customer satisfaction surveys to gauge customer perceptions of VA services as well as customer expectations and desires. The results of these information collections lead to improvements in the quality of VHA service delivery by helping to shape the direction and focus of specific programs and services.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

The following list of activities is a compendium of customer satisfaction survey plans by VHA. Different special emphasis programs will be surveyed annually; however, program selections have not been made for FYs 2002-2004. Burden hours for the out-years are based on FY 2001 estimates (Burden hours per respondent: 15 minutes).