Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App.), the Secretary of Agriculture established the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee to examine the full spectrum of issues faced by the fruit and vegetable industry and to provide suggestions and ideas to the USDA on tailoring its programs to meet the fruit and vegetable industry's needs.

At the April 16-17, 2002, meeting announced in this document, the members of the Committee will elect the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the Committee who will serve for a 2-year term. The committee will seek input from parties particularly interested in fruit and vegetable programs regarding the full spectrum of issues faced by the fruit and vegetable industry including: improvement of service to the fruit and vegetable industry; improvement of fruit and vegetable programs delivery; and other input regarding the tailoring of USDA programs to meet industry needs. Therefore, AMS, is giving notice of the committee meeting to the public to attend.

Those parties that wish to attend the meeting should register on or before April 9, 2002, since space is limited. To register please e-mail Robert.Keeney@usda.gov or send a fax to 202-720-0016. Registrants should include their name, address, and daytime telephone number.

Upon entering the South Building, visitors should inform security personnel that they are attending the FVIAC Committee Meeting. Identification will be required to be admitted to the building. Security personnel will direct visitors to a registration log that will need to be signed on entrance into the building. All visitors must be registered with AMS in advance of the meeting.

If you require special accommodations, such as a sign language interpreter, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . The meeting will be recorded, and information about obtaining a transcript will be provided at the meeting.

In August 1990, USDA, through one of its field offices, received a letter from a food importer in New York alerting AMS to the disparity in the United States Standards for Grades of Canned Mushrooms. The company proposed that the RMDWA's in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Canned Mushrooms be lowered to 56 percent of the water capacity of the container, the FDA minimum fill requirement appearing in 21 CFR 155.201.

In consideration of this proposal, AMS gathered information from government and industry sources.

Drained weight, although not a factor of quality in canned mushrooms, is very important in connection with the marketing of processed fruit and vegetable products. Drained weight indicates the amount of fruit and vegetable ingredient in relation to packing media and to some extent the degree to which a product may have disintegrated during processing and handling. Most U.S. standards for canned fruits and vegetables contain a recommended drained weight. Drained weight, when applicable, is a requirement in federal specifications and other purchase specifications or contracts. The USDA reports the range of drained weights on their certificates when there is a mandatory FDA requirement, such as for canned mushrooms. Although drained weight is an FDA mandatory requirement in canned mushrooms, buyers and sellers can establish their own specification of minimum drained weights that exceed the FDA.

Presently, the U.S. standard for canned mushrooms includes a recommended minimum drained weight of 62 percent of the water capacity, or for example, 68.0 ounces for the No. 10 can, while the FDA minimum is 61.3 ounces (56 percent) for this can size. The water capacity is determined according to the FDA method outlined in 21 CFR 130.12. The FDA established its current 56 percent minimum in rulemaking based upon a petition from the National Food Processors Association (NFPA) requesting that the drained weight required for mushrooms packed in larger cans be reduced because of the high incidence of bacterial spoilage in such containers. The FDA initiated rulemaking in a proposed rule (47 FR 26843; June 22, 1982). The NFPA attributed the problem to overfilling to meet the drained weight requirement. Therefore, the NFPA proposed to reduce the drained weight requirement for larger cans so that the ratio of mushrooms to water capacity of the container was not less than 56 percent. A final rule was published in the Federal Register on March 15, 1983 (48 FR 10812) and a Federal Register Notice confirming the effective dates was published on September 14, 1983 (48 FR 41155.)

The USDA published a notice in the Federal Register , on December 4, 1998 (63 FR 67040), proposing to revise the U.S. Standards for Grades of Canned Mushrooms by lowering the recommended drained weight from 62 percent to 56 percent of the can capacity.

A 60 day comment period was provided for interested persons to send in comments on this recommended change to the Standards.

AMS received one comment that was opposed to the change in drained weight. The commenter stated that the change would result in a lack of uniformity in that there would be a larger number of pack sizes within the narrow range of 56 to 62 percent of the water capacity. They also stated that the change would require expensive changes in the manufacturing process, through new heat penetration studies, new labels, and new in-plant procedures resulting in a restructuring of the manufacturing process. And finally, the commenter felt that the marketing environment would become more confused as a result. AMS believes that the comments have merit and therefore has decided to withdrawal the proposal and terminate the action.

In another matter, the commenter wanted a review of the current color standards for canned mushrooms. They stated that due to the extreme difficulty in achieving Grade A color in glass, that the minimum color classifications be reviewed.

Because this response is beyond the scope of the intended notice, USDA will review this discussion in another forum when more data is available. Interested parties are however encouraged to submit data to justify reviewing the minimum color requirements for canned mushrooms.

After reviewing and considering the comments received, the Agency has decided not to proceed with the action. Therefore, the notice published December 4, 1998 (64 FR 67040) is withdrawn.

This action withdraws the Pacific Southwest Regional Guide. None of the direction in the Pacific Southwest Regional Guide will be transferred to a regional supplement of the Forest Service directive system or to forest plans. The direction in the Regional Guide is already in the forest plans, is obsolete, has been replaced by more recent direction, or is already present in other existing policies.

This action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this action.

In the December 4, 2001, Federal Register (66 FR 63015), GIPSA asked persons interested in providing official services in the geographic area assigned to Central Iowa Grain Inspection Service, Inc., to submit an application for designation. Applications were due by January 2, 2002.

There were two applicants for the Central Iowa area: Central Iowa Grain Inspection Service, Inc., and Kevin D. Bredthauer and Sandra M. Bredthauer, of Des Moines, Iowa, proposing to do business as Central Iowa Grain Inspection Corporation. Both applied for the entire geographic area currently assigned to Central Iowa Grain Inspection Service, Inc. Central Iowa Grain Inspection Service, Inc., is a designated official agency. GIPSA asked for comments on the applicants for providing service in the Central Iowa area in the January 28, 2002, Federal Register (67 FR 3875). Comments were due by February 28, 2002. GIPSA received no comments by the due date. Central Iowa Grain Inspection Service, Inc., subsequently withdrew their application and asked for voluntary cancellation of their designation, effective March 31, 2002.

GIPSA evaluated all available information regarding the designation criteria in Section 7(f)(1)(A) of the Act and, according to Section 7(f)(1)(B), determined that, effective April 1, 2002, and ending March 31, 2005, Central Iowa Grain Inspection Corporation is able to provide official services in the geographic areas specified in the December 4, 2001, Federal Register , for which they applied. Interested persons may obtain official services by calling Central Iowa Grain Inspection Corporation at 515-266-1101.

On October 15, 1998, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a proposed clarification of the Department's position on the automatic-liquidation procedures for a reseller and invited public comment on that clarification. See Notice and Request for Comment on Policy Concerning Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 63 FR 55361 ( Proposed Clarification ). On November 12, 1998, we published a notice of Rebuttal Period for Comments on Policy Concerning Assessment of Antidumping Duties (63 FR 63288) which extended the period for initial comments to November 13, 1998, established a rebuttal period until December 4, 1998, and provided for the submission of comments and rebuttal in an electronic format for posting to the Import Administration internet home page.

In the Proposed Clarification the Department explained the need for a clear articulation of its policy concerning the assessment of antidumping duties where intermediate companies are involved in exporting merchandise subject to antidumping duty orders to the United States. See 63 FR 55361. The Department also proposed in that notice that its clarified policy would apply to all entries for which the anniversary date for requesting an administrative review is on or after the date of publication of a final decision on this issue.

The Department received several written comments and rebuttals regarding the proposed assessment clarification and is preparing its final decision on the issue. Specifically, the Government of Canada, Micron, Volvo, the Steel Service Center Institute, the American Bearing Manufacturers Association, and The Timken Company provided comments. See the Import Administration Web site at www.ia.ita.doc.gov. The Department has reviewed these comments and is prepared to announce a final decision shortly.

Given the passage of time since the publication of the Proposed Clarification, however, the Department has decided to alert the public to the pending clarification and to provide one more opportunity for the public to submit comments on the proposed clarification. The Department will consider all comments it has already received: re-submisison of earlier comments is not necessary. Parties which have not yet commented on the proposal may submit comments within seven (7) calendar days of the publication of this notice for the Department's consideration.

To help simplify the processing and distribution of comments, the Department requests that a submission in electronic form accompany the required paper copies. Comments filed in electronic form should be on a DOS formatted 3.5″ diskette in either WordPerfect format or a format that the WordPerfect program can convert into WordPerfect. Please make each comment a separate file on the diskette and name each separate file using the name of the proposed document, e.g., “Reseller Liquidation.”

Comments received on diskette will be made available to the public on the Web at ia.ita.doc.gov. In addition, upon request, the Department will make comments filed in electronic form available to the public on 3.5″ diskettes (at cost) with specific instructions for accessing compressed data (if necessary). Any questions concerning file formatting, document conversion, access on the Web, or other electronic filing issues should be addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, IA Webmaster, at 202-482-0866 or via e-mail at Andrew Lee Beller@ita.doc.gov.

Address written comments to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Docket Center, Room 1870, Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th Street., NW, Washington, DC 20230, Attention: Laurie Parkhill, Comment on Automatic Liquidation.

This amends the notice of membership opportunities on the U.S.-Egypt Presidents' Council published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2001 (66 FR 57937-57938 ).

This survey will be used by the NOAA Coastal Services Center to obtain information from our customers about their natural resource management issues, their information needs, and their technological capabilities. The respondents will be from the coastal natural resource management community. The information will be used to make quality improvements to the Center’s products and services.

A paper survey will be used, but a password-protected Web version of the survey will also be available.

OMB Number : None.

Form Number : None.

Type of Review : Regular submission.

Affected Public : State, Local, or Tribal government (state natural resource management agencies); not-for-profit institutions (Sea Grant programs).

Estimated Number of Respondents : 700.

Estimated Time Per Response : 30 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours : 350 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public : $0.

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

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

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to collect information about vessel expenses and earnings in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish and coastal pelagics (mackerels) fisheries with which to conduct economic analyses that will improve fishery management in those fisheries; satisfy NMFS' legal mandates under Executive Order 12866, the Magnuson-Steven Fishery Conservation and Management Act (U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act; and quantify achievement of the performances measures in the NMFS Strategic Operating Plans. These data will be collected in conjunction with catch and effort data already being collected in this fishery as part of its logbook program, and will be used to assess how fishermen will be impacted by and respond to regulations likely to be considered by fishery managers.

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

OMB Number : 0648-0016.

Form Number : None.

Type of Review : Regular submission.

Affected Public : Business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents : 350.

Estimated Time Per Response : 10 minutes per trip report; 30 minutes for the annual fixed-cost survey.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours : 1,400.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public : $0.

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

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

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Coastal Ocean Program (COP) provides direct financial assistance through grants and cooperative agreements for research supporting the management of coastal ecosystems. In addition to standard government application requirements, applicants for financial assistance are required to submit a summary proposal budget form and a project summary form. Applicants are also requested to submit 20 copies of applications to expedite the review process. Recipients are required to file annual progress reports and a project final report using COP formats. All of these requirements are needed for better evaluation of proposals and monitoring of awards.

Paper forms and documents are submitted to the COP. The option of electronic submission is being explored.

OMB Number : 0648-0384.

Form Number : None.

Type of Review : Regular submission.

Affected Public : Not-for-profit institutions (universities, colleges, junior colleges, technical schools, laboratories); State, Local, or Tribal Government.

Estimated Number of Respondents : 300.

Estimated Time Per Response : 30 minutes for a budget form; 30 minutes for a project summary; 5 hours for an annual report; 10 hours for a final report; and 10 minutes to provide the extra copies required.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours : 1,100.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public : $0.

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

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

This solicitation, the application package, and supplementary documents are available on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources Home Page at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/ Health_and_Stranding_Response_ Program/Prescott.html .

Title IV of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program is available at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/laws/MMPA/MMPA.html .

Information on MMPA and ESA research and enhancement permits can be found at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR1/Permits/pr1permits_types.html .

In the Federal Register notice issue of January 14, 2002, (67 FR 1720) under DATES change the date from March 15, 2002 to April 8, 2002. Applications will be accepted until 5 p.m. E.S.T. Any proposals that were received in the period after the original closing date of March 15 and before March 25, 2002. will be considered by the program and do not need to re-apply.

The award of a set-aside from the TAL of selected species became possible with the approval of Framework Adjustment 1 (Framework 1) to the Council's Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish; Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass; and Bluefish Fishery Management Plans (FMPs); and the RSA provisions of the Tilefish FMP. Framework 1 was approved by the Secretary of Commerce on August 10, 2001. It established a procedure through which research set-aside amounts would be set annually as part of the Council's quota-setting process. The set-asides can range between 0 and 3 percent of each species' TAL. The set-aside allocated for a given species is to be utilized primarily for research involving that species. However, to promote research in those cases where it would otherwise be infeasible, individual research projects could involve allocations from the set-asides for several of the species listed in this notice. Therefore, in addition to applying for part of the set-aside involving a species directly involved in a research project, applicants may also apply for up to 25 percent of the research set-aside quota for species not directly involved in a particular research project.

To be eligible for consideration, a research proposal for work to be conducted using a research set-aside allocation for the 2003 fishing year must be received during the application period identified in the DATES section of this document. Applicants must submit one signed original and two signed copies of the completed application (including supporting information). Prior to selection, NOAA will convene a panel to review proposals submitted in response to this RFP.

The Council, in consultation with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission), will incorporate the level of research set-aside (percentages) for each of the set-aside species for the 2003 fishing year into the Council's annual quota specification packages. NMFS will consider the recommended level of set-aside as part of the specification rulemaking process. It is anticipated that most proposals will request that vessels conducting research be exempt from certain regulations for the relevant fishery. The impacts of such an exemption must be analyzed. To ease the burden on researchers, the Council will prepare, as appropriate, an analysis of the impacts associated with the anticipated exemptions during the annual quota specification process. This process is intended to satisfy the analytical and public notice provisions of the Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) regulations at 50 CFR 600.745. However, certain conditions may require the applicant to provide additional analysis associated with such an exemptions (see section N of this notice).

The actual level of research set-aside quota available to researchers for the 2003 fishing year will depend on the TAL level specified by the Council at its quota-setting meetings in June and August, 2002, and on the percentage (0 to 3 percent) of the TAL established by the Council as the level of research set-aide. To help researchers develop proposals for the 2003 fishing year, the table below provides some guidance on the general magnitude of research set-asides and estimated values that a researcher might expect to be available for fishing year 2003. The table is based on TAL levels for these fisheries for the 2002 fishing year and assumes that NMFS will approve the maximum set-aside level of 3 percent of the TAL. The table is intended only as a guide to be used when developing research proposals for the 2003 fishing year. It does not necessarily reflect the actual research set-aside quota that will be allocated for fishing year 2003. Based on Council recommendation, NMFS could choose to adopt less than 3 percent of TAL as a set-aside, or could decide not to adopt any set-aside for a given fishery. The estimated values of the set-aside allocations will vary depending on market considerations prevailing at the time the research trips are conducted.

Issuing grants is consistent with §§ 303(b)(11), 304(e), and 404(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

11.454, Unallied Management Projects

In consultation with NMFS, the NOAA Grants Office will award a grant to successful applicants through the NOAA grant award process. The project period for all research is January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. Proposals to fund research that was started prior to the project period, or that would be completed after the project period will not be considered.

No Federal funds are provided for research under this notification. The Federal Government's contribution to the project will be an EFP or Letter of Authorization, as applicable, which will provide special fishing privileges in response to research proposals selected under this program. The Federal Government shall not be liable for any costs incurred in the conduct of the project. Any funds generated from the landings authorized under a research set-aside grant shall be used to cover the cost of the research, including vessel costs, and to compensate vessel owners for expenses incurred. Therefore, the owner of each fishing vessel selected to land a species in excess of a trip limit or seasonal quota must use the proceeds of the sale of the excess catch to compensate the researcher for costs associated with the research activities and use of the vessel.

Any additional funds above the cost of the research activities (or excess program income) shall be retained by the vessel owner as compensation for the use of his/her vessel.

Projects funded under the research quota set-aside program should enhance understanding of the fishery resource or contribute to the body of information on which management decisions are made. Research, as well as additional voyages to obtain fish for compensation, may be conducted, as specified in the EFP or Letter of Authorization, as applicable, in or outside of a closed area, within the timeframe of a commercial quota closure, and onboard a fishing or other type of vessel, including recreational and/or commercial vessels.

Funds generated from the research quota set-aside landings shall be used to cover the cost of the research activities, including vessel costs, and to compensate boats for expenses incurred during the collection of the set-aside species. For example, the funds could be used to pay for gear modifications, monitoring equipment, additional provisions (e.g., fuel, ice, food for scientists), or the salaries of research personnel. The Federal Government is not liable for any costs incurred by the researcher or vessel owner, should the sale of the excess catch not fully reimburse the researcher or vessel owner for his/her expenses.

All commercial organizations; non-profit organizations; state, local or tribal governments; institutions of higher education; and individuals are eligible to apply, provided that all proposal requirements are satisfied and the proposal is received by the date specified in this document.

A person is not eligible to submit an application under this program if he/she is an employee of any Federal agency; a Regional Fishery Management Council; or an employee of a Council. However, Council members who are not Federal employees can submit an application.

NOAA employees (whether full-time, part-time, or intermittent) are not allowed to help in the preparation of an application, except that staff may provide you with information on program goals, funding priorities, application procedures, and completion of application forms. Since this is a competitive program, NMFS and NOAA employees will not provide assistance in conceptualizing, developing, or structuring proposals, or write letters of support for a proposal. However, the Council or NMFS contact person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) may provide assistance to researchers who are seeking vessels to participate in the collection of set-aside species or directly in research projects.

Proposals must identify the research to be conducted and the total amount of the set-aside species requested for the project, including its approximate cash value. If a waiver of Federal regulations is proposed, a list of the specific regulations to be waived and a brief justification for such a waiver must be included with the proposal.

In addition, each proposal must identify the requirements for the participating vessel(s) that would make a trip to collect the set-aside species. The vessel(s) selected by the applicant must be listed in the proposal, if possible, or specifically identified prior to final approval by NOAA. Proposals may request that the quota set-aside be collected separately from the research trip or other related research trip. The separate compensation trips do not necessarily have to be conducted by the same vessel.

The researcher's proposal must state the amount of funds required to support the research project, as well as the amount required to compensate the vessel owner either for the collection of set-aside species, or for participation in the research project, or both. The proposal must also include the agreement between the vessel owner and researcher that shows exactly how the research activity is to be paid for, if possible, or such agreement must be provided prior to final approval by NOAA.

The Council and NOAA will give priority to funding research proposals in the following areas identified as research priorities by the Council and Commission for the 2003 fishing year (not listed in order of priority):

1. Bycatch and discard reduction concerning: (a) Distinctions between regulatory discards and bycatch attributed to gear, including mesh selectivity and/or overall gear design in the summer flounder fishery; (b) gear modifications in the Loligo squid fishery to reduce scup and other species bycatch; (c) discard studies in the Loligo and scup fisheries; and (d) better estimates of recreational discards in the summer flounder, scup, black sea bass and bluefish fisheries;

2. Mesh and gear selectivity focusing on: (a) The examination of summer flounder catch composition in small-mesh net fisheries within the summer flounder small-mesh exemption area; (b) summer flounder mesh selectivity studies; (c) scup mesh selectivity; (d) squid mesh selectivity; (e) black sea bass mesh selectivity; (f) the development of threshold triggers based on gear and fishery characteristics; (g) evaluation of various pot vent sizes for black sea bass; (h) estimation of mortality of black sea bass left in pots during the closed season; (i) evaluation of fishery management actions, e.g., do closures have a net positive effect on fishing mortality by postponing such mortality, or do they simply allow for concentration of resources such that when the seasons open the consequent fishing effort offsets the mortality reductions that occurred during the closure; and (j) mesh retention studies of 2-1/2 (6.35 cm), 2-3/4 (6.985 cm), and 3-inch (7.63 cm) mesh for butterfish;

3. Fishing impacts on habitat pertaining to: (a) Mobile gear impacts on tilefish burrows; (b) scup spawning areas and scup larvae settlement areas in coastal/estuarine waters; (c) benthic habitat of juvenile and adult black sea bass, and scup offshore wintering areas; and (d) mapping of spawning areas and egg mop areas for Loligo ;

4. Cooperative stock assessment surveys focusing on: (a) The use of alternative industry assessment methods to determine abundance of Atlantic mackerel; (b) the summer flounder fishery; (c) surveys for summer flounder in areas not traditionally sampled by the North East Fisheries Science Center gear; (d) side-by-side comparisons for summer flounder and scup of commercial and NEFSC survey gear; (e) better survey information for bluefish; (f) tagging studies of bluefish movements; and (g) DNA analysis for stock descriptions of Atlantic bluefish and Atlantic mackerel;

5. Improved recreational fishery data focusing on: (a) Research to enhance the overall knowledge of the recreational fishery; (b) statistical models to evaluate the effectiveness of recreational management measures and/or data collection process; (c) studies of bluefish hooking mortality by size of fish; and (d) tagging studies with break-away hooks for movement of tilefish.

6. Other: (a) Evaluation of redirection of fishing effort with area closures for black sea bass; (b) evaluation of whether artificial reefs increase the productivity of black sea bass or simply concentrate the resource; and (c) evaluation of the mixing of Illex and Loligo in September and October.

The review panel convened by NOAA to evaluate proposals submitted in response to this RFP (see section L of this notice), will evaluate proposals by assigning scores up to the maximum indicated for each of the following criteria:

1. A clear definition of the problem, need, issue or hypothesis to be addressed. The proposal should describe its relevance to RSA program priorities. If not directly related to priorities listed in this solicitation, provide justification why the proposed project should be considered (25 points);

2. Cost-effectiveness of the project. The request and value of the anticipated revenue from RSA should be commensurate with estimated project costs. Economic and budget projections must be quantified, to the extent possible. Where appropriate, use of existing equipment versus acquisition of new equipment (fishing gear) is preferred (25 points);

3. A clear definition of the approach to be used, including description of field work, theoretical studies, and laboratory analysis to support that proposed research, and the ability of the researchers to physically complete work during the 2003 calendar year can be completed in the area and time proposed. Activities that take place over a wider versus narrower geographical range, where appropriate, are preferred (25 points);

4. Demonstration of support, cooperation and/or collaboration with the fishing industry, and qualifications/ experience of project participants. Where appropriate, unified versus separate stand-alone proposals on related projects involving multiple principal investigators are preferred (15 points);

5. Identification of anticipated benefits, potential users, likelihood of success, and methods of disseminating results. Where appropriate, data format generated from the research must be consistent with NMFS’ and Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistical Program’s (ACCSP) databases (10 points). A copy of this format is available from NMFS (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

NOAA will solicit written technical evaluations from the Council members who make up the Ecosystem Planning Committee (Committee) and from three or more appropriate private and public sector experts to score proposals using the criteria specified in section J of this notification to determine the technical merit of the proposal. Following completion of the technical evaluation, NOAA will convene a review panel, including the Committee and technical experts, to review and individually critique the scored proposals to enhance NOAA's understanding of the proposals. No consensus recommendations will be made. Based on the results of the technical review, rank order based on average scores, comments provided by the review panel, and the following program policy factors, NOAA will select the successful proposals and inform the Council of its recommendations. The program policy factors are: (1) The time of year the research activities are to be conducted; (2) the ability of the proposal to meet the experimental fishery requirements discussed under Section N of this notice; and (3) redundancy of research projects. Therefore, the highest scoring projects may not necessarily be selected for an award. The selecting official will provide final approval of the projects to allow NMFS to exempt selected vessel(s) from specific regulations implementing the respective FMPs through written notification to the applicant.

For proposals that request exemptions from existing regulations (e.g., possession limits, closed seasons, etc.), the impacts of the proposed exemptions must be analyzed. The Council will analyze these impacts as part of the impacts of the proposed specifications for the upcoming fishing year in the annual quota specification packages it submits to NMFS. However, those individuals with proposals that include vessel activities that extend beyond the scope of the analysis provided by the Council may be required to provide additional analysis before issuance of an EFP will be considered (see section N). Any researchers who request regulatory exemptions that are beyond the scope of the Council analysis may be required to adhere to the regulations that govern the issuance of an EFP by NMFS (see section N). If necessary, and as appropriate, NMFS will consult with the Council and successful applicants to secure the information required for granting an exemption if issuance of an EFP is necessary for the research to be conducted. The final decision on the applicant's proposal for research quota will not be made by NOAA until NMFS advises that the applicant's EFP request is approved.

Proposals should be limited to seven pages, excluding item 6 below. The format may vary but must include:

1. A project summary;

2. A narrative project description to include: (a) Project goals and objectives; (b) the relationship of the proposed project to management needs or priorities identified by the Council; (c) a statement of work (project design and management including who is responsible, expected products, and participants other than applicant); and (d) a summary of the existing state of knowledge related to the project and contribution and relevance of the proposed work;

3. A description of all funding sources (including revenues derived from the sale of the species harvested under the research quota set-aside) and funding needs. This element of the proposal must include the amount of research quota set-aside requested for each species and the expected funds to be generated by the sale of those species, as well as the expected percentage of funds to be allocated to the researcher and any involved fishing vessel;

4. A budget that includes a breakdown of costs, including permit costs, equipment, supplies, and overhead. Applicants must submit a Standard Form 424 (Application for Federal Assistance) including a detailed budget using Standard Form 424A, (Budget Information-- Non-Construction Programs), Standard Form 424B (Assurances - Non-Construction Programs), and Commerce Department Form CD-511, (Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters: Drug-Free Workplace Requirements and Lobbying). Copies of these Standard Forms may be found on the Internet in a PDF version at http://www.ofa.noaa.gov/grants/index.html (Grants Management Forms;

5. A list of any Federal or state regulations that the applicant needs to have waived and a brief justification for such a waiver. Note that requests for waivers of any state regulations will be forwarded to the appropriate state agency(s). NOAA cannot guarantee that state agencies will accede to any particular request; and

6. Supporting documents including resumes, cooperative research agreements, and contracts.

NOAA will require project researchers to submit to NOAA, with a copy for the Council, an interim and/or final report describing their research project results, or other acceptable deliverable(s), in a timeframe that is specific to the type of research conducted. The format of the report may vary, but must contain:

1. A brief summary of the report;

2. A description of the issue/problem that was addressed;

3. A detailed description of methods of data collection and analyses;

4. A discussion of results and any relevant conclusions presented in a format that is understandable to a non-technical audience; this should include benefits and/or contributions to management decision-making;

5. A list of entities, firms, or organizations that actually performed the work and a description of how the work was accomplished; and

6. A detailed final accounting of all funds used to conduct research, including generation of project income resulting from sale of research set-aside quota. The financial information must be submitted on Office of Management and Budget Standard Form-269. Copies of this Standard Form may be found on the Internet in a PDF version at http://www.ofa.noaa.gov/grants/index.html (Grants Management Forms). Projects designed to collect new data for inclusion in NMFS' or ACCSP's databases must submit the data in electronic format with appropriate documentation. Certain databases will have highly specific requirements as to required fields and content. Researchers must agree to provide newly collected data in a format acceptable to the administrators of the receiving databases.

The Council staff will bear the primary responsibility for the evaluations of impacts associated with the research, including analysis of any requested regulatory waivers. However, researchers proposing research and/or compensation fishing that goes beyond the scope of analysis provided by the Council staff in the Council's annual specification packages shall be required to submit a Supplemental Environmental Assessment to obtain an EFP from NMFS. Should a researcher be required to submit a request for an EFP to NMFS such submission should be received by NMFS at least 60 days before the requested start date of the proposed research to allow for additional review and analysis. A final decision on the applicant's grant request for research quota will not be made until NMFS has approved the applicant's EFP request.

The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the Federal Register notice of October 1, 2001 (66 FR 49917), are applicable to this solicitation. However, please note that the Department of Commerce will not implement the requirements of Executive Order 13202 (66 FR 49921), pursuant to guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget in light of a court opinion which found that the Executive Order was not legally authorized. See Building and Construction Trades Department v. Allbaugh , 172 F. Supp. 2d 138 (D.D.C. 2001). This decision is currently on appeal. When the case is resolved, the Department will provide further information on implementation of Executive Order 13202.

If an application is not selected, NOAA will return the proposal and related documents to the applicant.

Pursuant to Executive Orders 12876, 12900, and 13021, the Department of Commerce, NOAA (DOC/NOAA) is strongly committed to broadening the participation of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities in its educational and research programs. The DOC/NOAA vision, mission and goals are to achieve full participation by Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) in order to advance the development of human potential, to strengthen the Nation's capacity to provide high-quality education, and to increase opportunities for MSIs to participate in, and benefit from, Federal financial assistance programs. DOC/NOAA encourages all applicants to include meaningful participation of MSIs.

DOC/NOAA supports cultural and gender diversity in our programs and encourages women and minority individuals and groups to submit applications.

DOC/NOAA encourages applications from members of the fishing community, and applications that involve fishing community cooperation and participation.

Prior notice and opportunity for public comments are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for this notice concerning grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)).

Because a general notice of proposed rulemaking as specified in 5 U.S.C. 533, or any other law, was not required for this action, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable.

Applications under this program are not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

This notice contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The use of Standard Forms 269, 424, 424A, 424B, and SF-LLL have been approved by OMB under the respective control numbers 0348-0039, 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, and 0348-0046.

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

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

The Panel, which consists of a balanced representation from academia, industry, state government and citizens groups, was established in 1976 by Section 209 of the Sea Grant Improvement Act (Public Law 94-461, 33 U.S.C. 1128). The Panel advises the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the National Sea Grant College Program with respect to operations under the Act, and such other matters as the Secretary refers to them for review and advice. The agenda for the meeting is as follows:

This meeting will be open to the public.

Issuance of permits and permit modifications, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits/modifications: (1) are applied for in good faith; (2) would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Scientific research and/or enhancement permits are issued under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits and modifications are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NMFS regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226).

Those individuals requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES). The holding of such hearing is at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. All statements and opinions contained in the permit action summaries are those of the applicant and do not necessarily reflect the views of NMFS.

The following species are covered in this notice:

Threatened and endangered Green turtle ( Chelonia mydas )

Endangered Kemp's ridley turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii )

Threatened Loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta )

The purpose of this research is to describe relationships between the movements of sea turtles and the fall gillnet flounder fishery as well as habitat use of loggerhead, green and Kemp's ridley sea turtles. Turtles will be collected in collaboration with the NMFS Beaufort Laboratory Turtle Research Team as part of their “Coastal North Carolina Demographic and Life History Studies” program under endangered species permit #1260. The turtles will be monitored via satellite telemetry. The applicant will monitor up to 30 loggerhead, 10 green and 10 Kemp's ridley sea turtles.

The current limits for certain categories are being reduced for carryforward used.

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 66 FR 65178, published on December 18, 2001). Also see 66 FR 59578, published on November 29, 2001.

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

On February 26, 2002 the Chairman of CITA received a petition from the American Textile Manufacturers Institute (ATMI) requesting CITA to commence consultations with the governments of Canada and Mexico for the purpose of amending the rules of origin set forth in Annex 401 of the NAFTA for Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings 6205.20 - 6205.30. In particular, ATMI requests that paragraph (c) of the subheading rule applicable to HTS subheadings 6205.20 - 6205.30 be deleted.

ATMI claims that the fabrics described in paragraph (c) of the subheading note are currently being produced in commercial quantities in the United States and are available in a timely manner. Specifically, ATMI claims that Dan River, Inc., an ATMI member, currently has in its line a fabric that conforms to the following specifications:

CITA is soliciting public comments regarding this request, particularly with respect to whether the fabric described above can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be received no later than April 24, 2002. Interested persons are invited to submit six copies of such comments or information to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, room 3100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.

If a comment alleges that the fabric described above cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner, CITA will closely review any supporting documentation, such as a signed statement by a manufacturer of men’s shirts stating that it attempted to purchase U.S. made fabric of the kind described above, including quantities requested and the required time frame for delivery, and found no U.S. producers able to fill the order.

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

The Corporation is a federal government corporation that encourages Americans of all ages and backgrounds to engage in community-based service to meet the nation's educational, public safety, environmental and other human needs. In doing so, the Corporation fosters civic responsibility, strengthens the ties that bind us together as a people, and provides educational opportunity for those who make a substantial commitment to service. This year, the Corporation will help support more than 1.5 million Americans who perform substantial service in communities across the country.

In the State of the Union address, the President announced that the USA Freedom Corps will build on the great American ethic of service. The USA Freedom Corps will promote a culture of responsibility, service, and citizenship. It will work with key service agencies in government and the nonprofit sector to provide incentives and new opportunities to serve at home and abroad. The USA Freedom Corps will draw from Americans of all ages and of every background. The Corporation for National and Community Service and its programs—National Senior Service Corps, AmeriCorps, and Learn and Serve America—are part of the efforts under the USA Freedom Corps. The programs of the National Senior Service Corps include the Senior Companion and Foster Grandparent Programs as well as the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP).

The program period for all grants is twelve months. Future funding is contingent on performance and the availability of appropriations.

To be considered for funding, applications must meet all of the criteria and requirements contained in this Notice. The Grant Application, CNCS Form 424-NSSC, and supplemental guidelines and instructions, can be obtained by contacting the appropriate Corporation State Office. The Corporation State Office can also advise applicants concerning the service areas covered by existing projects. Information on how to contact state offices is located on our Web site: www.nationalservice.org . Click on “Contact Us” at the bottom of the page. Applicants are urged to pay close attention to these application materials. They contain a wide variety of relevant requirements, including non-federal contributions, the amounts of stipends volunteers may receive, and the requirements for organizations proposing to operate a project. Applicants must submit all forms and attachments specified in the Grant Application and supplemental guidelines and instructions.

The Corporation will initially determine: (1) Whether the organization is eligible; (2) whether the application contains all the required information, and (3) whether the geographic location of the proposed project is an approved geographic service area that does not currently have a project funded by the Corporation under the respective program (FGP or SCP) for which they are applying.

After this initial screening, the Corporation will select and evaluate applications based on the following criteria: Program Design (60%) Organizational Capacity (25%), and Budget/Cost-Effectiveness (15%). Details on the application criteria will be available in the application package available from Corporation state offices. The Corporation will take into consideration the following factors after the proposals are assessed:

• Geographic location: The Corporation will assure a mix of urban and rural sites.

• Diversity: The Corporation will select organizations whose local projects have the capacity to recruit ethnic and racial minorities, males, and persons with disabilities.

Corporation Authority to make these grants is codified in 42 U.S.C. 4950 et seq.

The Senior Companion Program (SCP) is authorized by the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended (Public Law 93-113, Title II, Part C, 42 U.S.C. 5013) and provides opportunities for income eligible individuals 60 years of age and over to serve adults with special needs. The SCP was launched in 1974 with its first 11 projects. Today there are over 17,000 Senior Companions serving 55,000 frail adults annually in 218 local SCP projects. These Senior Companions provide high quality and reliable personal support to adults, primarily the frail elderly, experiencing difficulties with activities of daily living, allowing them to live independently in their own homes for as long as possible. The SCP focuses on those with moderate physical, mental, or emotional impairments who are without adequate family support and who in the absence of non-medical support services would be at risk of institutionalization. Senior Companions also assist clients in patient discharge programs at acute care, mental health, and long-term care facilities to make the transition to living in less restrictive community settings. Some Senior Companions provide short-term respite for primary caregivers of frail adults in times of special need. Senior Companions have also helped their clients participate in emergency response drills, supplied information about crime prevention, and accompanied them to meetings where safety, health, and disaster response concerns are addressed.

The purpose of this funding is to start new Senior Companion projects in geographic locations currently unserved by this program.

In addition, the Corporation encourages applicants for these grants to include, where appropriate, activities for Senior Companions that help support homeland security. The Corporation defines homeland security to include activities that support public safety, public health, and disaster preparedness and relief. For example, applicants for a Senior Companion project may propose activities that engage Senior Companions in:

• Providing clients with information and education related to the community's public safety, public health, and disaster preparedness and disaster mitigation plans and activities.

• Assisting their clients to participate in emergency response drills.

• Supplying clients with information on crime avoidance.

• Identifying potential safety, health, or emergency preparedness problems in their clients' homes, institutional environments, or neighborhoods and bringing these to the attention of professional case workers or other appropriate agencies.

• Providing transportation and/or escorting clients for medical appointments, immunizations, errands, etc.

• Providing respite to families of caregivers by caring for an adult with special needs and permitting the primary caregiver to attend meetings, volunteer, or simply become informed about local homeland security measures.

• Participating as a link between clients and community activities to prevent bias-related disorder or violence.

• Assisting crime victims who are frail or suffer from physical, mental, or emotional disabilities, where Senior Companions give support and assistance, including special referrals, as victims recover from trauma of crime and related losses.

• Assisting adults who are discharged from residential health care facilities, especially acute care facilities, who can be helped to resume a greater degree of independent living.

The above are examples only. Local communities will determine the best strategies for integrating Senior Companions into homeland security efforts, consistent with the purpose of the program. Applicants are encouraged to be creative about how Senior Companions can be part of a community or statewide effort to support homeland security. For example, SCP projects can establish relationships with local Citizens Corps Councils being supported at the state level by Governors and coordinated at the federal level by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). For further information on these councils, visit www.citizenscorps.gov. Where Citizen Corps Councils have not yet been created, projects might be able to collaborate with local organizations that will make up the Citizen's Corps Council, such as Neighborhood Watches, emergency response programs, police volunteer programs, etc.

Public agencies (including state and local agencies and other units of government), non-profit organizations, institutions of higher education and Indian Tribes are eligible to apply. Sponsors of Senior Companion projects that receive no funds from the Corporation, other than funding for Programs of National Significance (PNS), are eligible to apply. Current sponsors of Senior Companion projects funded by the Corporation are not eligible to apply for funding of a new Senior Companion project.

An organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4)) that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible to apply, serve as a host site for volunteers, or act in any type of supervisory role in the program.

The Corporation intends to fund three Senior Companion projects in approved service areas that do not currently have a local project of the Senior Companion Program. The average amount of awards will be approximately $211,825.

Regulations governing the SCP are located in 45 CFR part 2551. These will be provided as part of the application materials.

The Foster Grandparent Program (FGP) is authorized by the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended (P.L. 93-113, Title II, Part B, 42 U.S.C. 5011 and provides opportunities for income eligible individuals 60 years of age and over to serve children and youth with special or exceptional needs on a person to person basis. The Foster Grandparent Program provides communities with valuable service by empowering older adults to contribute to their communities through volunteer service, enhance the lives of the volunteers and those whom they serve. The program began in 1965 as a national demonstration designed to show how low-income persons age 60 and over have the maturity and experience to establish a personal relationship with children having either special or exceptional needs. Today there are 34,000 Foster Grandparents providing care and attention every day to more than 220,000 qualified children and youth annually in 339 local FGP projects. Foster Grandparents volunteer in schools, hospitals, drug treatment centers, correctional institutions, and Head Start and day care centers. They offer emotional support to children who have been abused and neglected, mentor troubled teeagers and young mothers, care for premature infants and children with physical disabilities or servere illnesses, including AIDS. In the aftermath of the September 11 tragedy, many Foster Grandparents were important sources of reassurance to the children in their care. The special relationship and high level of personal care provided by Foster Grandparents helps young people grow, gain confidence, and become more productive members of society.

The purpose of this funding is to start new Foster Grandparent projects in geographic locations currently unserved by this program.

In addition, the Corporation encourages applicants for these grants to include, where appropriate, activities for Foster Grandparents that help support homeland security. The Corporation defines homeland security to include activities that support public safety, public health, and disaster preparedness and relief. For example, applicants for a Foster Grandparent project may propose activities that engage Foster Grandparents in:

• Providing children with age-appropriate information and education related to the community's public safety, public health, and disaster preparedness and disaster mitigation plans and activities.

• Assisting children to participate in emergency response drills.

• Supplying children with information on crime avoidance.

• Identifying potential safety, health, or emergency preparedness problems in institutional environments, or neighborhoods and bringing these to the attention of professional caseworkers or other appropriate agencies.

• Providing temporary respite to families of caregivers by caring for disabled or chronically ill children living at home, thereby permitting the primary caregiver to attend meetings, volunteer, or simply become informed about local homeland security measures.

• Participating as a link between children and community activities to prevent bias-related disorder or violence.

• Assisting children who are discharged from residential health care facilities, especially acute care facilities, who can be helped to resume a greater degree of independent living.

The above are examples only. Local communities will determine the best strategies for integrating Foster Grandparents into homeland security efforts, consistent with the purpose of the program. Applicants are encouraged to be creative about how Foster Grandparents can be part of a community or statewide effort to support homeland security. For example, FGP projects can establish relationships with local Citizens Corps Councils being supported at the state level by Governors and coordinated at the federal level by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). For further information on these councils, visit www.citizenscorps.gov. Where Citizen Corps Councils have not yet been created, projects might be able to collaborate with local organizations that will make up the Citizen's Corps Council, such as Neighborhood Watches, emergency response programs, police volunteer programs, etc.

Public agencies (including state and local agencies and other units of government), non-profit organizations, institutions of higher education and Indian Tribes are eligible to apply. Sponsors of Foster Grandparent projects that receive no funds from the Corporation, other than funding for Programs of National Significance (PNS), are eligible to apply. Current sponsors of Foster Grandparent projects funded by the Corporation are not eligible to apply for funding of a new Foster Grandparent project.

An organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4)) that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible to apply, serve as a host site for volunteers, or act in any type of supervisory role in the program.

The Corporation intends to fund three Foster Grandparent projects in approved service areas that do not currently have a local project of the Foster Grandparent Program. The average amount of awards will be approximately $192,265.

Regulations governing the FGP are located in 45 CFR part 2553. These will be provided as part of the application materials.

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: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Title: Report of Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility Program.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs (primary), Individuals or household, Federal Government.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 52.

 Burden Hours: 702.

Abstract: The information is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the program and to promote growth. The information is transmitted to State agencies to assist in the conduct and expansion of the program at the State level. Respondents are the designated voc. Rehab. Agencies.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting “Browse Pending Collections” and clicking on link number 1982. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivian.reese@ed.gov. 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. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

This package contains:

(1) OMB No.: New.

(2) Collection Title: Technology Partnerships Ombudsmen Reporting Requirements.

(3) Type of review: New collection.

(4) Purpose: This collection of information would implement a provision in the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-404) that requires Technology Transfer Ombudsmen appointed by DOE national laboratories to report quarterly on the number and nature of complaints and disputes received and the Ombudsman's assessment of their resolution.

(5) Estimated Number of Respondents: 24 Technology Transfer Ombudsmen.

(6) Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 100 (Quarterly times 24 respondents).

Request for Comments: Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), DOE invites comment on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary; (2) the accuracy of DOE's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who choose to respond. Additional information about DOE's proposed information collection may be obtained from the contact person named in this notice.

DOE is sponsoring the demonstration of an enzyme sugar platform. This demonstration project is a concentrated effort to use a conversion process based on the low-cost enzymes being developed under major DOE cost-shared projects by Genencor International and Novozymes Biotech Inc., to convert a large volume of biomass into cost-effective alternative transportation fuels and/or chemicals. The initial commercialization of the platform technologies may use biomass wastes and residues. The demonstration plant will provide engineering data to reduce risk, enable process guarantees and assure commercial development of the technology. Each firm, partnership, or consortia may, at its option, utilize, via a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA), the DOE laboratories active in the DOE Biofuels research program, i.e. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), etc. These laboratories could contribute specialized capabilities, facilities, or equipment to the project that would complement the partnership's capabilities. The winning team or teams will be expected to carry out multi-year technology development and demonstration efforts, including the construction and operation of the platform demonstration plant at a scale sufficient to prove the technical and economic feasibility of feedstock handling, biomass fractionation, enzymatic cellulose hydrolysis, and product fermentation(s) to products. Initial discussions suggest this scale may need to be 40-50 tons per day of input biomass feedstock (dry basis), with corn stover identified as the most plentiful agricultural residue feedstock. The scale of the plant, the feedstock, and the slate of end products will be open to the results of the initial conceptual design and technology research. However, the final products must be based on sugar fermentation and whatever feedstock is chosen should have the potential to lead to significant reductions of imported petroleum, e.g., several billion gallons per year.

DOE expects the industrial partners' cost-share contribution to the initial solicitation to be at least 50% of the initial costs; however, if lower, the rational should be fully explained. Higher cost-shares will be encouraged. DOE intends to share the cost of the FY 2004 and FY 2005 demonstration plant construction efforts, with the industrial partners' contribution being at least 50% of the construction and operating costs (statutory requirement). DOE intends that its partners will have demonstrated experience in the design, construction, and operation of transportation fuels, chemicals, and/or biomass processing facilities, in addition to demonstrated access to financial markets to facilitate eventual commercialization of these technologies. Interested parties should include the following in their expressions of interest:

(1) Experience;

(2) Types of partner organizations (private, public, non-profit) with which they contemplate teaming (including anticipated DOE laboratory involvement);

(3) Any plans to co-locate the demonstration plant with an existing facility;

(4) The types of financial resources they would use to fund their cost-share of the design, process research, construction, and operation phases of the project;

(5) How they will integrate the ongoing research being undertaken by Genencor International and/or Novozymes Biotech, Inc., to produce low-cost cellulases;

(6) The approach to be followed for the planned solicitations;

(7) The approximate budget required to design, construct, and initially operate the demonstration plant;

(8) The approximate size and cost of the demonstration plant to prove the commercial viability of the conversion processes; and

(9) Any additional information or comments to assist in drafting the solicitation.

DOE held a preview technology review in Golden, Colorado, on January 30-31, 2002, and is scheduling a second pre-solicitation meeting in Golden, Colorado in May 2002 (specific date to be determined), for all interested parties to discuss the planned solicitation(s), DOE contracting procedures, intellectual property, the use of government-owned facilities, cost-sharing principles, and other issues.

Information about the platform project, DOE's cost-shared enzyme cost reduction activities, current NREL enzymatic hydrolysis research efforts and technology assessment, the DOE Biofuels program, and the pre-solicitation meeting can be found at the following URL: http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/enzyme_sugar_platform.html.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE and its regulators in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

1. To be determined.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Committee either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Pat Halsey at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments at the end of the meeting.

Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Department of Energy's Information Resource Center at 105 Broadway, Oak Ridge, TN between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, or by writing to Pat Halsey, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-922, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, or by calling her at (865) 576-4025.

On May 22, 2000, EPA promulgated a rulemaking that extended the interim approval period of 86 operating permits programs until December 1, 2001 (65 FR 32035). The Sierra Club and the New York Public Interest Research Group challenged the action. In settling the litigation, EPA agreed to publish a notice in the Federal Register , so that the public would have the opportunity to identify and bring to EPA's attention alleged deficiencies in title V programs. EPA published that notice on December 11, 2000 (65 FR 77376).

As stated in the Federal Register notice, EPA agreed to respond by December 1, 2001, to timely public comments on programs that have obtained interim approval; and EPA agreed to respond by April 1, 2002, to timely comments on fully approved programs. EPA is publishing a NOD because the Agency has determined that deficiencies exist and is notifying all commenters in writing to explain the reasons for not making a finding of deficiency on other issues. EPA received two timely comment letters pertaining to Missouri's title V program, one from the Sierra Club and the other from the National Environmental Development Association/Clean Air Regulatory Project (NEDA/CARP). In reviewing the commenters' concerns, EPA agreed that some of the comments identify deficiencies in Missouri's program. EPA is addressing those deficiencies in this notice. In addition, the commenters raised other issues that EPA has determined are not deficiencies. EPA is responding to the commenters in writing, explaining the basis for EPA's decision.

Under EPA's permitting regulations, citizens may, at any time, petition EPA regarding alleged deficiencies in state title V operating permit programs. In addition, EPA may on its own identify deficiencies. If, in the future, EPA agrees with a new citizen petition or otherwise identifies deficiencies, EPA may issue a new NOD.

EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 70.7(e), which pertain to minor and significant modifications of operating permits, specify that permit modifications for purposes of the acid rain portion of the permit shall be governed by regulations promulgated under title IV of the Act. Although Missouri's regulations do include this requirement at 10 CSR 10-6.065(6)(E)4.B. for administrative amendments, the requirement is not included in the minor and significant permit modification procedures at 10 CSR 10-6.065(6)(E)5. Because of the omission of this requirement, the state's program does not comply with the requirements of the Act and 40 CFR part 70. The state has initiated procedures to add this requirement to its regulations.

EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(ii)(C) require that an application for a minor permit modification must include certification by a responsible official that the requested modification meets the criteria for use of the minor permit modification procedures and a request that such procedures be used. The state's regulations governing minor permit modifications at 10 CSR 10-6.065(6)(E)5.B. fail to include this requirement. Because of the omission of this requirement, the state's program does not comply with the requirements of the Act and 40 CFR part 70. The state has initiated procedures to add this requirement to its regulations.

EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 70.4(b)(14)(ii) mandate that if an approved program allows certain “off-permit” changes ( i.e., changes that are not addressed or prohibited by the permit) to be made without a permit revision, the state's regulations must require that the source provide “contemporaneous” written notice of each change to the permitting authority and to EPA, except for those that are determined to be insignificant. Missouri's regulations at 10 CSR 10-6.065(6)(C)9.A. do allow certain “off-permit” changes to be made without a permit revision, and written notice of each change is required at 10 CSR 10-6.065(6)(C)9.B. However, although this regulation is titled “Contemporaneous notice, except insignificant activities”, the wording of Missouri's regulation (“permittee must provide written notice of the change * * * no later than the next annual emissions report”) effectively results in allowing up to one year for notification of the change to be submitted. Therefore, EPA does not believe that the rule ensures “contemporaneous” submission of the written notice, and finds that the state's program does not comply with the requirements of the Act and 40 CFR part 70. The state has initiated procedures to revise this regulation accordingly.

As discussed above, EPA is responding in writing to all timely comments that citizens submitted pursuant to the settlement agreement. For all comments not resulting in a NOD, EPA will explain why it found that a NOD was not warranted. EPA Region 7 will also post its response letters on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/permits/response/ or you may obtain a copy by contacting Harriett Jones, EPA Region 7, by phone at (913) 551-7730 or by e-mail at jones.harriett@epa.gov.

Part 70 provides that EPA may withdraw a part 70 program approval, in whole or in part, whenever the approved program no longer complies with the requirements of part 70 and the permitting authority fails to take corrective action. 40 CFR 70.10(c)(1). This section lists a number of potential bases for program withdrawal, including the case where the permitting authority's legal authority no longer meets the requirements of part 70. 40 CFR 70.10(b) sets forth the procedures for program withdrawal, and requires as a prerequisite to withdrawal, that the permitting authority be notified of any finding of deficiency by the Administrator and that the document be published in the Federal Register. Today's document satisfies this requirement and constitutes a finding of program deficiency. If the permitting authority has not taken “significant action to assure adequate administration and enforcement of the program” within 90 days after publication of a NOD, EPA may withdraw the state program, apply any of the sanctions specified in section 179(b) of the Act, or promulgate, administer, and enforce a Federal title V program. 40 CFR 70.10(b)(2). Section 70.10(b)(3) provides that if a state has not corrected the deficiency within 18 months of the finding of deficiency, EPA will apply the sanctions under section 179(b) of the Act, in accordance with section 179(a) of the Act. In addition, section 70.10(b)(4) provides that, if the state has not corrected the deficiency within 18 months after the date of NOD, EPA must promulgate, administer, and enforce a whole or partial program within 2 years of the date of the finding.

This document is not a proposal to withdraw Missouri's title V program. Consistent with 40 CFR 70.10(b), EPA will wait at least 90 days, at which point it will determine whether Missouri has taken significant action to correct the deficiencies.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review of today's action may be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 24, 2002.

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

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

2. In person . Contact Cecelia R Watson at 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Mall #2, Rm. 604W38, Arlington VA, telephone number (703) 305-4329. Available from 6:30 am to 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday, except for federal holidays. Contact Jill Bloom at the same address, Room 604W53, telephone number (703) 308-8019.

You may submit comments or, if you are a registrant, request withdrawal, through the mail, in person, or electronically.

1. By mail . Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation of the product pronamide must submit such withdrawal in writing to Cecelia R Watson, at the above address, postmarked April 24, 2002. Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation of the tributyltin product must submit such withdrawal in writing to Jill Bloom, at the above address, postmarked April 24, 2002.

2. In person or by courier . Deliver your withdrawal request to: Document Processing Desk (DPD), Information Services Branch, Office of Pesticides Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 266A, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The DPD is open from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday, except for federal holidays. The DPD telephone number is (703) 305-5263.

3. Electronically . You may submit your comments electronically by e-mail to: watson.cecelia@epa.gov or bloom.jill@epa.gov. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format.

Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of pesticide products may at any time request that any of its pesticides registrations be cancelled. The Act further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register . Thereafter, the Administrator may approve such a request.

This notice announces receipt by the Agency of request from registrants to cancel certain product registrations. These registrations are listed in the following Table 1 by registration number, product name, and active ingredient.

Users of these products who desire continued use of the products being cancelled should contact the applicable registrant before [insert date 30 days from date of publication in Federal Register] unless indicated otherwise, to discuss withdrawal of the application for amendment. This 30-day period also permits interested members of the public to intercede with the registrant prior to the Agency's approval of the deletion.

The following Table 2 includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1, in sequence by EPA company number.

Earth Care and International Paints Inc. have informed the Agency that they do not need any time to sell or distribute their existing stock of products EPA Reg. No. 8660-85 and EPA Reg No. 23566-17. As a result, the Agency has not authorized further sale or distribution of these products by the registrants.

Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation must submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , postmarked before September 23, 2002. This written withdrawal of the request for cancellation will apply only to the applicable FIFRA section 6(f)(1) request listed in this notice. If the product(s) have been subject to a previous cancellation action, the effective date of cancellation and all other provisions of any earlier cancellation action are controlling. The withdrawal request must also include a commitment to pay any reregistration fees due, and to fulfill any applicable unsatisfied data requirements.

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

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

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

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number PF-1076. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-1076 in the subject line on the first page of your response.

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

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

3. Electronically . You may submit your comments electronically by e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov, or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number PF-1076. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

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

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

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

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

EPA has received an amended pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide microbial in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA. The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

EPA has received an amended pesticide petition PP 5E4575 from Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), proposing pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR 180.1206 to extend the temporary exemption from tolerance for residues of the non-aflatoxin-producing microbial pesticide Aspergillus flavus AF 36 in/on cotton. This amended petition is filed by IR-4, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Technology Center of New Jersey, Technology Centre of New Jersey, 681 U. S. Highway #1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390 on behalf of the USDA/ARS Southern Regional Center, 1100 Robert E. Lee Blvd., New Orleans, LA 70179-0687. The amendment seeks to extend the current temporary exemption from tolerance to include cotton treated with A. flavus AF36 in 9 counties in Texas. They propose to continue trials to collect research data, in accordance with Experimental Use Permit 69224-EUP-1, in both Arizona and Texas until December 31, 2005. (See 64 FR 8358, February 19, 1999) (FRL-6057-3)

The EUP currently allows for application of 200,000 pounds (90,179 kg) of the microbial pesticide to a total of 20,000 acres of commercial cotton fields in 5 counties in Arizona including Yuma, LaPaz, Maricopa, Mohave and Pinal counties. In addition to the 20,000 acres in AZ, they propose to apply a total of 20,000 pounds (9,018 kg) of the microbial pesticide on 2,000 acres of commercial cotton fields in 9 counties in Texas (Nueces, San Patricio, Bee, Calhoon, Jackson, Wharton, Hildalgo, Cameron, and Willacy counties).

Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA, as amended, IR-4 and USDA ARS Southern Regional Center have submitted summaries of information, data, and arguments in support of their pesticide petition, to comply with the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. The database was evaluated by EPA and a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 26, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 101) Page 28371. The temporary exemption from tolerance and the EUP were extended until December 30, 2003, as published in the Federal Register on May 23, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 100) Page 28383-28386. Aspergillus flavus AF36 is an atoxigenic strain which is proposed to displace the toxic aflatoxin-producing strains of A. flavus as discussed in the aforementioned final rule.

The GSA will be requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review and approve information collection, 3090-0250, Zero Burden Information Collection Reports.

This information requirement consists of reports that do not impose collection burdens upon the public. These collections require information which is already available to the public at large or that is routinely exchanged by firms during the normal course of business. A general control number for these collections decreases the amount of paperwork generated by the approval process. Since May 10, 1992, GSA has published two rules that fall under Information Collection 3090-0250: “Implementation of Public Law 99-506” published at 56 FR 29442, June 27, 1991, and “Industrial Funding Fee” published at 62 FR 38475, July 18, 1997.

None.

Requester may obtain a copy of the proposal from the General Services Administration, Acquisition Policy Division (MVP), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4744. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0250, Zero Burden Information Collection Reports.

The General Services Administration is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to renew information collection, 3090-0112, concerning GSA Form 3040, State Agency Monthly Donation Report of Surplus Personal Property. This report complies with Public Law 94-519, which requires annual reports of donations of personal property to public agencies for use in carrying out such purposes as conservation, economic development, education, parks and recreation, public health, and public safety.

Respondents: 55.

Annual responses: 220.

Burden hours: 330.

A copy of this proposal may be obtained from the General Services Administration, Acquisition Policy Division (MVP), Room 4035, 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, or by telephoning (202) 501-4744, or by faxing your request to (202) 501-4067. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0112, State Agency Monthly Donation Report of Surplus Property, in all correspondence.

The General Services Administration is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to extend a currently approved information collection, 3090-0023, concerning Surplus Personal Property Mailing List Application. This GSA Form 2170 is completed by persons who wish to have their names placed on the Surplus Personal Property Mailing List maintained by GSA Regional Sales Offices. Mailing labels are produced based on the type of property and geographical area indicated by the prospective bidder on the mailing list application.

Respondents: 12,000.

Annual responses: 12,000.

Burden hours: 996.

A copy of this proposal may be obtained from the General Services Administration, Acquisition Policy Division (MVP), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, or by telephoning (202) 501-4744, or by faxing your request to (202) 501-4067. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0023, Surplus Personal Property Mailing List Application, in all correspondence.

The General Services Administration has various mission responsibilities related to the acquisition and provision of service contracts. These mission responsibilities generate requirements that are realized through the solicitation and award of service contracts for guards, childcare, cleaning, and maintenance. Individual solicitations and resulting contracts may impose unique information collection/reporting requirements on contractors, not required by regulation, but necessary to evaluate particular program accomplishments and measure success in meeting program objectives.

Respondents: 15,496.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Total Responses: 15,496.

Hours Per Response: 1.

Total Burden Hours: 15, 496.

A copy of this proposal may be obtained from the General Services Administration, Acquisition Policy Division (MVP), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, or by telephoning (202) 501-4744, or by faxing your request to (202) 501-4067. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0006, Qualifications of Employees, in all correspondence.

Ensuring the appropriate use of genetic tests is an important challenge, requiring dedicated efforts on several fronts, including public education. A well-informed public will have a basic understanding about the benefits, risks, and implications of genetic tests and, should the situation arise, will know what questions to ask to make an informed decision about whether to have a genetic test. SACGT has developed the following draft information brochure, Genetic Testing: Some Basic Questions and Answers, to help inform the general public about genetic tests and to suggest the type of questions they should consider asking if they are faced with a decision about whether to have a genetic test.

Using a question and answer format, the brochure explains what genetic tests are, the different purposes for which they are used, how they are similar to and different from other medical tests, and some of their limitations and possible outcomes (potential benefits and risks); addresses insurance policy implications, privacy, confidentiality, and discrimination; provides informational and services resources; and outlines questions to ask oneself and one's healthcare provider when considering a genetic test. The brochure does not provide information about specific genetic tests nor is it intended for patients or consumers who have had experience with genetic testing.

SACGT is seeking comments on the content, readability, and utility of the brochure and strategies for dissemination. In particular, SACGT would appreciate responses to the following specific questions:

1. Is the document useful? How might you use such a brochure?

2. Is the content appropriate and complete? Is it understandable and written at the appropriate reading level? Are there other issues that should be addressed? Are there other questions that should be included?

3. Is the tone of the brochure appropriate? Is it culturally appropriate to a wide range of groups?

4. Should the brochure be produced in other languages and, if so, which languages?

5. To whom and how should this brochure be disseminated?

6. Should the brochure serve as a model for the development of more specific test information brochures? Who should be tasked with developing such brochures? Is this an appropriate role for SACGT? Should SACGT recommend that HHS support the development of test-specific information brochures?

Genetic tests have been available for a number of years, but more tests are becoming available and are being offered as part of medical care. At some point in the future, you may face a decision about whether to have a genetic test.

Genetic tests are like other medical tests in many ways, but they have some important differences and issues to consider. This brochure provides some basic information about genetic testing and highlights the kinds of questions you may want to ask.

(To include diagram of chromosomes, genes, gene products)

Our genetic information is contained in structures called chromosomes that are made up of a chemical called DNA. Chromosomes are made up of smaller units called genes. There are 23 pairs of chromosomes, one set from our father and one from our mother. Genes contain the information about how our bodies are put together and function. It may help to think of the chromosome as a necklace and genes as beads on the necklace.

Genetic tests usually involve having blood drawn to look for changes in DNA, genes, gene products, or chromosomes. Some changes, such as those that cause certain cancers, develop during one's lifetime, possibly through environmental factors like sun exposure. Other changes can be inherited from one or both parents and passed on to children.

Genetic tests are similar to other medical tests, but there are a couple of important differences to keep in mind. Medical tests generally provide information only about the person being tested. Genetic test results can provide information for the health or life decisions of other family members as well.

Medical tests usually look for a current health condition. Predictive genetic tests, on the other hand, are done when people are healthy to see whether they are at higher risk of developing a particular disease in the future.

Unlike most other medical tests, genetic education and counseling may be provided for some genetic tests to be sure that patients understand the test, the potential results, and issues to consider.

Like other medical tests, genetic tests have limitations, and they differ depending on the type of genetic test. For example, predictive genetic tests do not give “yes” or “no” answers about whether you will develop a specific disease. Instead, they tell you what your chances might be of developing a medical condition. They do not establish for sure that you will develop the condition or how the condition will affect you.

A genetic test does not test for all genetic conditions. Rather, a genetic test is done for a specific genetic condition or group of genetic conditions. In addition, for some diseases, a genetic test may not detect all changes that cause a specific condition. If the test does not find a change, you could still have or be at risk for that condition or be at risk for having children with that condition. For some tests, a family member with the condition may need to be tested to identify the genetic change before other family members who may be at risk can be tested.

Your healthcare provider, genetic specialist, or a testing laboratory can provide more information about test limitations. Over time, additional research may reduce some of the current uncertainties with genetic tests.

Each genetic test has different risks and benefits. In general, the risks of genetic tests are not physical, since they mostly involve routine procedures, such as drawing blood or swabbing a cheek. Instead, the benefits and risks have more to do with how prepared you and your family are to learn the results. Learning that you may be at higher risk for a disease, for example, may be difficult to handle emotionally. On the other hand, the knowledge may help you plan preventive measures or make better decisions about the future. Likewise, you may learn that you are healthy, but members of your family have a higher likelihood of disease. For these reasons, it is important to weigh carefully the possible positive and negative outcomes before deciding whether or not to have a genetic test.

Finding out whether you have, or are at risk for, a particular genetic condition may be important information for your life decisions. If you decide to have children, you may want to undergo prenatal testing or prepare for a child with special needs. The results of a genetic test may also have an impact on your financial planning, career choices, and lifestyle.

Finding out that you are not at risk for a particular medical condition can bring a sense of relief and peace of mind. Sometimes, even people who learn that they have, or may develop, a genetic condition feel less anxious after learning their test results. They may experience more anxiety from “not knowing” than “knowing” their risk. For others, the reverse may be true.

Coping with the knowledge from genetic tests may be difficult. It is particularly hard if there is no treatment or cure for the medical condition or if the condition may not develop until later in life. It is not unusual for people to feel sad, angry, confused, or anxious. Talking these feelings over with your healthcare provider or a genetics specialist may help. You may also find support from therapists, religious leaders, your friends and family, and patient/consumer advocacy or support groups (listed under “Informational Resources”).

Genetic conditions may affect family members in different ways. Sharing medical information in a family and addressing feelings can sometimes be difficult and may change how family members relate to each other. It is important to keep in mind that there are supportive resources (some of which are listed below) that can help.

There are limitations to today's testing technology. Sometimes a test may not produce a definite result. At other times, the meaning of a test result may not be known. Even after having a genetic test, you may not learn anything new or may be left with uncertainty about what a result means. Of course, the field of genetic testing is changing, so tests will become more refined over time.

People are often concerned that the results of genetic tests could be used by insurers to deny coverage or increase the cost of insurance. They also worry that employers might use the test results in hiring and promotion decisions. The way insurers use test results generally depends on the type of plan you have, such as whether it is individual or group coverage. There are some protections to help prevent such discrimination, and they are discussed in the next section.

Some states prohibit employers from using genetic information in hiring and promotion decisions. Some prohibit health insurers from increasing fees or denying coverage based on genetic information. There are also significant differences among states in the level of protection. In other words, the results of genetic tests could affect your coverage depending on the type of insurance you have, whether or not you have symptoms, and the state in which you live. You can find out about your state's laws by contacting the National Conference of State Legislatures at 303-830-2200 or www.ncsl.org. The National Human Genome Research Institute also posts information about current state laws, as well as information about federal efforts, at: http://www.nhgri.nih.gov/Policy_and_public_affairs/Legislation/

Your medical records, including genetic test results, are confidential. Test results can only be released with your permission or unless specifically required by law. The terms of most health insurance policies give the insurance company access to your medical information, especially if you request insurance coverage of genetic testing. However, many companies have policies stating that your health information will not be shared without your consent. You have the right to see the information in your medical records.

Insurance coverage for genetic testing will depend on the type of insurance you have and the indication for testing. Genetic tests can cost more than other tests because they can take longer to perform and the techniques are more complex. If your insurance does not cover the cost of genetic testing, you may have to pay out-of-pocket. Find out about the cost of the test and insurance coverage before having the test done.

Patient and consumer advocacy or support groups can help you obtain information about genetics and specific genetic conditions. They can also help you make connections with people facing similar issues. In addition, many government agencies have helpful resources.

Genetics clinics provide care, information and support for individuals who have, or are at risk for, a genetic condition.

To locate genetic services, you can:

Below are some questions you can ask yourself and your healthcare provider as you consider genetic testing. Many of these same questions could be asked about any medical test. There may not be answers to all of these questions and some of the answers may change as our knowledge about genetic testing grows.

This brochure has provided some basic information about genetic testing. We hope it will be helpful if you have to make decisions about genetic testing. Some people may decide to have a genetic test because they feel the information would be important for their healthcare and/or life decisions. Others may decide not to have a genetic test because they feel that the risks outweigh the benefits of having the information, they feel their decisions would be no different, or they prefer not to know. The decision to have a genetic test is yours to make. It's your genetic information, and it's your choice.

This invention describes a class of macrocyclic lactones (benzolactone enamides) derived from marine sponges, and which inhibit vacuolar-type (H + ) ATPases (V-ATPases). Selective inhibition of V-ATPases may represent an effective means of treating various disease states: Alzheimer's disease, glaucoma and osteoporosis and cancer (via affecting cellular proliferation, angiogenesis, tumor cell invasiveness, metastasis and drug resistance). The compounds have been shown to be active against a specific group of human tumors when tested in the NCI 60-cell line panel. The licensee of these inventions will be required to comport with all applicable federal and country-of-collection policies relating to biodiversity.

The field of use may be limited to the treatment of cancer, angiogenesis-dependent diseases and osteoporosis.

The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within 60 days from the date of this published Notice, NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Properly filed competing applications for a license filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the contemplated license. Comments and objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available for public inspection, and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

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

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

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECM): Consumer Protection Measures Against Excessive Fees.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-0534.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Events in the marketplace have given rise to vendors who prey on the elderly to use the HECM program as a vehicle for earning excessive fees for services which are of little or no value, or which can be obtained free of charge (or at minimal cost) from other sources—including HUD-approved Housing Counseling Agencies. The information is needed to assure that the homeowner is not obtaining a HECM mortgage under an obligation to pay excessive fees for services.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: None.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: An estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection is 6,800, the number of respondents is 8,000 generating 32,000 responses annually, the frequency of response is once per mortgagor, and the hours per response is .25 hours.

Status of the proposed information collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

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

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Statement of Taxes.

OMB Control Number: 2505-0418.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: When a lender with an insured multifamily mortgage assigns a mortgage or conveys a property to HUD, the lender is required to submit all records and accounts relative to the mortgage to HUD. These provisions are spelled out in Statute 12 U.S.C. 1713(g); Title II, section 207(g) of the National Housing Act; and 24 CFR 207.258(b)(4). Included in the records is the Statement of Taxes. From this Statement, HUD updates its records of the mortgagor's real estate taxes, the location (lot and block numbers) of the property, taxes due dates, and penalty dates. During the claim audit for insurance benefits, this form is used to verify the last taxes paid.

Agency form number: HUD-434.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The estimated number of respondents is 215, frequency of response is once per claim, the burden per response is estimated to be .50 hours, and the total estimated annual burden hours requested is 107.

Status of the proposed information collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

In 1998, HUD/OIG established a one-person post-of-duty station in Topeka, Kansas, to give direct support to the HUD/OIG's Operation Safe Home (OSH) initiative to combat violent and drug-related crime in public and assisted housing in Topeka and nearby communities. Although the Topeka post-of-duty station is only about 50 miles from HUD/OIG's Kansas City Regional Office, nationwide experience since the initiation of OSH in 1994 had proven that the best results/impact could be obtained when HUD/OIG Special Agents were physically located in the target city. However, in accordance with the requirements of the Fiscal Year 2002 HUD Appropriations Act (Pubic Law 107-73, approved November 26, 2001), HUD/OIG is terminating OSH and re-deploying staff to focus on investigations involving single-family fraud and property flipping. This change eliminates the need to maintain a separate post-of-duty station in Topeka, Kansas, and gives HUD/OIG the opportunity to generate cost savings associated with discontinuing an additional office.

Section 7(p) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(p)) provides that a plan for field reorganization, which may involve the closing of any field or regional office, of the Department of Housing and Urban Development may not take effect until 90 days after a cost-benefit analysis of the effect of the plan on the office in question is published in the Federal Register . The required cost-benefit analysis should include: (1) An estimate of cost savings anticipated; (2) an estimate of the additional cost which will result from the reorganization; (3) a discussion of the impact on the local economy; and (4) an estimate of the effect of the reorganization on the availability, accessibility, and quality of services provided for recipients of those services.

Legislative history pertaining to section 7(p) indicates that not all reorganizations are subject to the requirements of section 7(p). Congress stated that “[t]his amendment is not intended to [apply] to or restrict the internal operations or organization of the Department (such as the establishment of new or combination of existing organization units within a field office, the duty stationing of employees in various locations to provide on-site service, or the establishment or closing, based on workload, of small, informal offices such as valuation stations).” ( See House Conference Report No. 95-1792, October 14, 1978 at 105-106.)

The two-person duty station in Topeka, Kansas, is a single-purpose duty station, and the duty station is being closed based on workload rather than on a reorganization of HUD/OIG field offices. Although notice of the closing of a duty station is not subject to the requirement of section 7(p), as supported by legislative history, HUD/OIG nevertheless prepared a cost-benefit analysis for its own use in determining whether to proceed with the closing. Through this notice, HUD/OIG advises the public of the closing of the Topeka, Kansas duty station and provides the cost-benefit analysis of the impact of the closure.

HUD/OIG considered the costs and benefits of closing the Topeka, Kansas post-of-duty, and is publishing its cost-benefit analysis with this notice. In summary, HUD/OIG has determined that the closure will result in a cost savings, and, as a result of the size and limited function of the office, will cause no appreciable impact on the provision of authorized investigative services/activities in the area ( i.e. , OSH activities, of course, will be impacted, but HUD/OIG has been directed to terminate these activities).

A. Cost Savings: The Topeka, Kansas post-of-duty currently costs $21,415 per year in lease and other expenses. Thus, closing the post-of-duty will result in an annual savings of at least $21,415. In addition, by closing the office HUD/OIG will not be required to incur additional costs associated with current plans to install high-speed computer access lines to and on the premises, nor will HUD/OIG incur costs associated with the lease or purchase of duplicative office equipment.

B. Additional Costs: There are no offsetting expenses anticipated. The Special Agent assigned to the Topeka, Kansas post-of-duty will be reassigned to the Kansas City Regional Office, without need for relocation reimbursement. Further, there is adequate existing office space to accommodate the Special Agent within the Kansas City Regional Office.

C. Impact on Local Economy: The Topeka, Kansas post-of-duty office space comprises a mere 1,162 square feet of space, which can easily be re-leased to other tenants. Thus, no appreciable impact on the local economy is anticipated.

D. Effect on Availability, Accessibility and Quality of Services Provided to Recipients of Those Services: The establishment of the Topeka, Kansas post-of-duty was based entirely on the needs of the HUD/OIG to have a Special Agent in closer proximity to OSH activities conducted in the Topeka area. These activities are being terminated. Further, as was the case prior to 1998, fraud investigations in the Topeka area can be cost effectively addressed by agents assigned to the Kansas City Regional Office, which is about 50 miles away.

For the reasons stated in this notice, HUD/OIG intends to proceed to close its Topeka, Kansas post-of-duty station at the expiration of the 90-day period from the date of publication of this notice.

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

The Service has prepared the Environmental Assessment/Habitat Conservation Plan (EA/HCP) for the incidental take application. A determination of jeopardy to the species or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will not be made until at least 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act and National Environmental Policy Act regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

Applicants : Rockledge, Inc. plans to construct a low-density residential development of 35 to 40 homesites, within 30 years, on approximately 53.5 acres of the 193.0-acre Russell Park Estates, located approximately 0.25 miles south of the intersection of County Road 262 and Farm to Market 3405, Williamson County, Texas. This action will eliminate up to 53.5 acres of golden-cheeked warbler habitat. In addition, the vulnerability of another approximately 34.4 acres of warbler habitat may be reduced as a result of indirect effects associated with the development. The Applicant has made every effort to minimize and/or avoid impacts to the Bone Cave harvestman and believes the proposed action will not impact the harvestman. No take for this species is being requested or would be granted by issuance of this permit. The Applicant proposes to compensate for this incidental take of the golden-cheeked warbler by preserving approximately 139.4 acres of the highest quality warbler habitat onsite. This preserve land is adjacent to property owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

In 1983 an EIS on the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Program was prepared by the FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1983). The environmental document analyzed habitat restoration actions, watershed rehabilitation, and improvements to the Trinity River Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery (TRSSH). The EIS clarified that the hatchery's purpose was to mitigate for the loss of the 109 miles of habitat upstream of Lewiston Dam; whereas, the restoration and rehabilitation projects were explicitly designed to increase natural fish production below the dam.

In 1984, the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Act (Public Law 98-541) was enacted. It formalized the existence of the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Task Force (Task Force), and directed the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to implement measures to restore fish and wildlife habitat in the Trinity River. The Task Force was directed at implementation of a fish and wildlife management program “to restore natural fish and wildlife populations to levels approximating those which existed immediately prior to the construction of the Trinity Division.” In 1996 Congress re-authorized and amended the original Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Act (Public Law 104-143). The 1996 amendments clarified that “restoration is to be measured not only by returning adult anadromous fish spawners, but by the ability of dependent tribal, commercial, and sport fisheries to participate fully, through enhanced in-river and ocean harvest opportunities, in the benefits of restoration * * * ”.

In 1992 Congress passed the CVPIA (Public Law 102-575, Title XXXIV) in order to protect, restore, and enhance fish, wildlife, and associated habitats in the Central Valley, including the Trinity River Basin. Specifically, the CVPIA provides at section 3406(b)(23) that “[i]n order to meet Federal trust responsibilities to protect the fishery resources of the Hoopa Valley Tribe and meet the fishery restoration goals' of Public Law 98-541, the Secretary is directed to complete the Trinity River Flow Evaluation Study (TRFES) and to develop recommendations “based on the best available scientific data, regarding permanent instream fishery flow requirements and TRD operating criteria and procedures for the restoration and maintenance of the Trinity River fishery.” The CVPIA also specifically provided for the Secretary to consult with the Hoopa Valley Tribe on the TRFES and, upon the Tribe's concurrence, to implement the restoration recommendations accordingly.

A joint EIS/EIR, for the Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration Program (TRMFRP) was prepared by the FWS, Reclamation, Trinity County, and the Hoopa Valley Tribe, and was completed in October, 2000. A ROD selecting the alternative to be implemented for the TRMFRP, was signed by the Secretary, with the concurrence of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, pursuant to section 3406(b)(23) of the CVPIA, and issued in December 2000. However, the EIR was not certified by Trinity County and it is not a finalized document under CEQA.

Subsequent to execution of the ROD, water and power interests in the Central Valley of California amended a previously filed lawsuit against the federal agencies materially involved in either the decision making process for the ROD or the associated Endangered Species Act approvals for the TRMFRP (Reclamation, FWS, and NMFS), in federal district court. Plaintiffs sought, and were granted a preliminary injunction for implementation of the flow related aspects of the ROD. The terms of the injunction limit the increase in flows in the Trinity River which may be implemented in the ROD, but allow the Secretary to proceed with all other activities approved by the ROD. Westlands Water District v. United States Department of the Interior , CIV-F-00-7124-OWW/DLB (E.D. Calif., filed May 3, 2001). Subsequently, the plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenors and federal defendants, but not defendant-intervenors Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes, jointly agreed to stay the case, pending the development of a supplemental NEPA document that would address the issues identified by the Westlands court as requiring further analysis; including the effect that the change in operations of the TRD would have within the context of deregulation of electrical utilities in California and the effects that compliance with the biological opinions issued by the FWS and NMFS would have upon CVP operations.

Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from public disclosure, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public disclosure in their entirety.

Public input from previous public meetings and written comments in response to previous designations efforts will be used to define issues. Preliminary issues identified include: providing for off-highway vehicle use; providing adequate vehicle access for other casual uses; visitor safety; providing protection for Peninsular Bighorn Sheep and Flat-tailed Horned Lizards; and homeland defense ( i.e. , US-Mexican Border issues).

Planning criteria will include honoring valid existing rights. The CDCA amendment will be consistent with officially approved resource related plans, policies and programs of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian Tribes. The proposed route of travel designation changes to the CDCA Plan requires a formal plan amendment before the designation changes can be implemented. The amendment process and ORV trail designations shall be conducted in compliance with the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), planning regulations (43 CFR part 1600), ORV trail designation regulations (43 CFR part 8340), BLM manual guidance, and all applicable Federal laws affecting BLM land use decisions and ORV designations. The planning process shall include an EA with a biological evaluation prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the President's Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR part 1500), and Bureau guidance.

The Bureau intends to rely largely on existing route inventory data, information obtained from coordination with other federal, state, and local agencies, and consultation with Indian tribes, and public comments.

Three alternatives are anticipated to be: (1) A No Action Alternative that will maintain the existing designations. (2) The Updated Designation Alternative that will propose the designation changes identified in the previous update effort (1997). (3) A Protection Alternative that will propose additional seasonal closures and route closures in addition to changes in the Updated Designation Alternative.

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (1994), it is ordered as follows:

1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described National Forest System land is hereby withdrawn from location or entry under the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2 (1994)), to protect reclamation work on the White King/Lucky Lass Mine area:

2. The withdrawal made by this order does not alter the applicability of those public land laws governing the use of National Forest System land under lease, license, or permit, or governing the disposal of their mineral or vegetative resources other than under the mining laws.

3. This withdrawal will expire on August 8, 2013, unless, as a result of a review conducted before the expiration date pursuant to section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f) (1994), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be extended.

SCWA provides water to two separate retail service areas within the unincorporated areas of central Sacramento County, SCWA Zone 41, and Elk Grove Water Service on the east side of the City of Elk Grove. SCWA is responsible for providing water supplies and facilities throughout these areas including the Laguna, Vineyard, Elk Grove and Mather Field communities through a capital funding zone known as “Zone 40”. The long-term master plan for Zone 40 envisions meeting present and future water needs through a program of conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water. SCWA presently has a CVP entitlement of 22,000 acre-feet. Water for SCWA is currently delivered through the City of Sacramento's intake and treatment facilities, based on SCWA need and available City capacity. These and additional water supplies are expected to be conveyed through the FRWP.

EBMUD is a multipurpose regional agency that provides water to over 1.3 million municipal and industrial water users throughout portions of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties in the East Bay region. EBMUD currently obtains most of its supply from Pardee Reservoir on the Mokelumne River, with the remainder collected from local runoff in its East Bay terminal reservoirs. On July 26, 2001, EBMUD and Reclamation entered into an amendatory CVP contract which allows EBMUD to take delivery of its CVP supply at the location known as Freeport on the Sacramento River south of downtown Sacramento subject to all applicable environmental laws and regulations.

The FRWP is intended by the Joint Powers Authority to meet the identified water delivery needs of the SCWA and EBMUD. It would also enable Reclamation to meet its CVP water delivery obligations to these agencies under existing water supply contracts with EBMUD and SCWA.

The general purposes of the Freeport Regional Water Project are to:

• Provide surface water facilities through which SCWA can deliver water to Zone 40 to support growth approved under the County of Sacramento General Plan. Water would be delivered under SCWA's CVP water supply contract with Reclamation and other anticipated CVP contract assignments, appropriated water rights, and water rights transfers;

• Provide surface water facilities through which EBMUD can deliver water under its amendatory CVP water service contract to provide EBMUD with a supplemental water supply that would reduce existing and future customer deficiencies to manageable levels during drought conditions; and

• Capitalize on the opportunity to cooperate in an endeavor that would minimize costs to each agency and minimize environmental effects by constructing joint facilities to the extent feasible.

The FRWP would also enable Reclamation to deliver water under its CVP amendatory contract with EBMUD and its contract with SCWA.

The FRWP as currently envisioned would consist of:

• An approximately 185 million gallon per day (mgd) intake/pumping facility

• A raw water pipeline to a turnout at approximately Bradshaw Road in central Sacramento County,

• A new water treatment plant in central Sacramento County to serve SCWA needs,

• A raw water pipeline connecting to the Folsom South Canal,

• A new pumping plant near the end of the Folsom South Canal,

• A pipeline from the Folsom South Canal to the Mokelumne Aqueducts,

• A new pumping and treatment facility at the Mokelumne Aqueducts to deliver water to EBMUD.

The EIS/EIR will consider a range of alternatives including the no-action alternative.

Scoping is an early and open process designed to determine the issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIS/EIR. The following are issues that have been identified by Reclamation to date: Sacramento River fishery effects; water quality; agricultural and municipal water supply availability, and quality; construction-related effects on the Sacramento River, urban areas, and natural habitats; and, wetland, upland, and aquatic habitats.

The draft EIS/EIR will focus on the impacts and benefits of implementing the various alternatives. It will contain an analysis of the physical, biological, social, and economic impacts arising from the alternatives. In addition, it will address the cumulative impacts of implementation of the alternatives in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions.

If special assistance is required, contact Mr. Robert Schroeder at Reclamation (916) 989-7274. Please notify Mr. Schroeder as far in advance of the workshops as possible to enable Reclamation to secure the needed services. If a request cannot be honored, the requestor will be notified. A telephone device for the hearing impaired (TDD) is available at (916) 989-7285.

Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from public disclosure, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public disclosure in their entirety.

Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) established an Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation (AMLR) program. The purpose of the AMLR program is to reclaim and restore lands and waters that were adversely affected by past mining. The program is funded by a reclamation fee paid by active coal mining operations. Lands and waters eligible for reclamation under Title IV are primarily those that were mined, or affected by mining, and abandoned or inadequately reclaimed before August 3, 1977, and for which there is no continuing reclamation responsibility under State, Federal, or other laws.

Title IV of SMCRA allows States to submit AMLR plans to us. We, on behalf of the Secretary review those plans and consider any public comments we receive about them. If we determine that a State has the ability and necessary legislation to operate an AMLR program, the Secretary can approve it. The Secretary's approval gives a State exclusive authority to put its AMLR plan into effect.

Once the Secretary approves a State's AMLR plan, the State may apply to us for money to fund specific projects that will achieve the goals of its approved plan. We follow the requirements of the Federal regulations at 30 CFR parts 874, 875, and 886 when we review and approve such applications.

The Secretary of the Interior approved Wyoming's AMLR plan on February 14, 1983. You can find background information on the Wyoming AML program, including the Secretary's findings and our responses to comments, in the February 14, 1983 Federal Register (48 FR 6536). Wyoming changed its plan a number of times since the Secretary first approved it. In 1984, we accepted the State's certification that it had addressed all known coal-related impacts in Wyoming that were eligible for funding under its program. As a result, the State may now reclaim low priority non-coal reclamation projects. You can read about the certification and OSM's acceptance in the May 25, 1984, Federal Register (49 FR 22139). At the same time, we also accepted Wyoming's proposal that it will ask us for funds to reclaim any additional coal-related problems that occur during the life of the AML program as soon as it becomes aware of them. In the April 13, 1992, Federal Register (57 FR 12731), we announced our decision to accept other changes in Wyoming's plan that describe how it will rank eligible coal, non-coal, and public facility projects for funding. Those changes also authorized the Governor of Wyoming to elevate the priority of a project based upon the Governor's determination of need and urgency. They also expanded the State's ability to construct public facilities under section 411 of SMCRA. We approved additional changes in Wyoming's plan concerning non-coal lien authority and contractor eligibility that improved the efficiency of the State's AML program. That approval is described in the February 21, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 6537).

Once a State certifies that it has addressed all remaining abandoned coal mine problems and the Secretary concurs, then it may request funds to undertake abandoned non-coal mine reclamation, community impact assistance, and public facilities projects under sections 411(b), (e), and (f), of SMCRA.

State law regulations that apply to the proposed Abandoned Coal Mine Land Program Campbell County Force Road funding request include Wyoming Statue 35-11-1202 and Wyoming Abandoned Mine Land Regulations, Chapter VII, of the Wyoming Abandoned Mine Program.

The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality will submitted to us a grant application in the fall of 2003. In that application, Wyoming will ask for $255,000 to pay for a part of the cost of constructing the Campbell County Force Road. This is 8.2 percent of the estimated cost of the project. The Governor of Wyoming certified the need and urgency to fund this project prior to completing the State's remaining inventory of non-coal reclamation work, as allowed by section 411(f) of SMCRA. that certification says the project is in a community impacted by coal mining activities. Campbell County will provide the balance of funding from county reserves, and may seek additional grant funding for future phases of the project.

This project will allow the realignment of a hazardous secondary road to reduce dangerous 90 degree curves which are public safety hazards. The Governor's certification states that the safety hazards impacting the Campbell County Force Road warrant funding of this project before the remaining inventory of non-coal projects are completed.

We will review the grant application using regulations at 30 CFR 875.15; specifically subsections 875.15(e)(1) through (7). As stated in those regulations, the application must include the following information: (1) The need or urgency for the activity or the construction of the public facility; (2) the expected impact the project will have on Wyoming's coal or minerals industry; (3) the availability of funding from other sources and, if other funding is provided, its percentage of the total cost involved; (4) documentation from other local, State, Federal agencies with oversight for such utilities or facilities describing what funding they have available and why their agency is not fully funding this specific project; (5) the impact on the State, the public, and the minerals industry if the facility is not funded; (6) the reason why this project should be selected before the priority projects relating to the protection of public health and safety or the environment from the damages caused by past mining activities, and (7) an analysis and review of the procedures Wyoming used to notify and involve the public in this request, and a copy of all comments received and their resolution by the State. Wyoming's application for the Campbell County Force Road project contains the information described in these seven subsections.

Section 875.15(f) requires us to evaluate all comments we receive and determine whether the funding meets the requirements of sections 875.15(e)(1) through (7) described above. It also requires us to determine if the request is in the best interests of the State's AML program. We will approve Wyoming's request to fund this project if we conclude that it meets all the requirements of 30 CFR 875.15.

We are asking for public comments on Wyoming's request for funds to pay for part of the cost of reconstructing the Campbell County Force Road. You are welcome to comment on the project. If you do, please send us written comments. Make sure your comments are specific and pertain to Wyoming's funding request in the context of the regulations at 30 CFR 875.15 and the provisions of section 411 of SMCRA. You should explain any recommendations you make. If we receive your comments after the time shown under DATES or at locations other than the Casper Field Office, we will not necessarily consider them in our final decision or include them in the administrative record.

Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) established an Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation (AMLR) program. The purpose of the AMLR program is to reclaim and restore lands and waters that were adversely affected by past mining. The program is funded by a reclamation fee paid by active coal mining operations. Rands and waters eligible for reclamation under Title IV are primarily those that were mined, or affected by mining, and abandoned or inadequately reclaimed before August 3, 1977, and for which there is no continuing reclamation responsibility under State, Federal, or other laws.

Title IV of SMCRA allows States to submit AMLR plans to us. We, on behalf of the Secretary review those plans and consider any public comments we receive about them. If we determine that a State has the ability and necessary legislation to operate an AMLR program, the Secretary can approve it. The Secretary's approval gives a State exclusive authority to put its AMLR plan into effect.

Once the Secretary approves a State's AMLR plan, the State may apply to us for money to fund specific projects that will achieve the goals of its approved plan. We follow the requirements on the Federal regulations at 30 CFR parts 874, 875, and 886 when we review and approve such applications.

The Secretary of the Interior approved Wyoming's AMLR plan on February 14, 1983. You can find background information on the Wyoming AML program, including the Secretary's findings and our responses to comments, in the February 14, 1983 Federal Register (48 FR 6536). Wyoming changed its plan a number of times since the Secretary first approved it. In 1984, we accepted the State's certification that it had addressed all known coal-related impacts in Wyoming that were eligible for funding under its program. As a result, the State may now reclaim low priority non-coal reclamation projects. You can read about the certification and OSM's acceptance in the May 25, 1984, Federal Register (49 FR 22139). At the same time, we also accepted Wyoming's proposal that it will ask us for funds to reclaim any additional coal-related problems that occur during the life of the AML program as soon as it becomes aware of them. In the April 13, 1992, Federal Register (57 FR 12731), we announced our decision to accept other changes in Wyoming's plan that describe how it will rank eligible coal, non-coal, and public facility projects for funding. Those changes also authorized the Governor of Wyoming to elevate the priority of a project based upon the Governor's determination of need and urgency. They also expanded the State's ability to construct public facilities under section 411 of SMCRA. We approved additional changes in Wyoming's plan concerning non-coal lien authority and contractor eligibility that improved the efficiency of the State's AML program. That approval is described in the February 21, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 6537).

Once a State certifies that it has addressed all remaining abandoned coal mine problems and the Secretary concurs, then it may request funds to undertake abandoned non-coal mine reclamation, community impact assistance, and public projects under sections 411(b), (e), and (f), of SMCRA.

State law and regulations that apply to the proposed Abandoned Coal Mine Land Program City of Lander Water Treatment Plant funding request include Wyoming Statue 35-11-1202 and Wyoming Abandoned Mine Land Regulations, Chapter VII, of the Wyoming Abandoned Mine Program.

The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality will submit to us a grant application in the fall of 2003. In that application, Wyoming will ask for $1,000,000 to pay for a part of the cost of constructing the City of Lander Water Treatment Plant. The Governor of Wyoming certified the need and urgency to fund this project prior to completing the State's remaining inventory of non-coal reclamation work, as allowed by section 411(f) of SMCRA. That certification says the project is in a community impacted by mineral mining activities. This project is the second phase of AML Project 44 which was included in the 2001 AML grant. This grant provided $887,239 of funding for the initial design and construction of the City of Lander Water Treatment Plant.

This project addresses an Enforcement Order from the EPA. The Governor's certification states that the safety hazards impacting the City of Lander water users warrant funding of this project before the remaining inventory of non-coal projects are completed.

We will review the grant application using regulations at 30 CFR 875.15; specifically subsections 875.15(e)(1) through (7). As stated in those regulations, the application must include the following information: (1) The need or urgency for the activity or the construction of the public facility; (2) the expected impact the project will have on Wyoming's coal or minerals industry; (3) the availability of funding from other sources and, if other funding is provided, its percentage of the total cost involved; (4) documentation from other local, State, Federal agencies with oversight for such utilities or facilities describing what funding they have available and why their agency is not fully funding this specific project; (5) the impact on the State, the public, and the minerals industry if the facility is not funded; (6) the reason why this project should be selected before the priority projects relating to the protection of public health and safety or the environment from the damages caused by past mining activities, and (7) an analysis and review of the procedures Wyoming used to notify and involve the public in this request, and a copy of all comments received and their resolution by the State. Wyoming's application for the City of Lander Water Treatment Plant project contains the information described in these seven subsections.

Section 875.15(f) requires us to evaluate all comments we received and determine whether the funding meets the requirements of sections 875.15(e)(1) through (7) described above. It also requires us to determine if the request is in the best interests of the State's AML program. We will approve Wyoming's request to fund this project if we conclude that it meets all the requirements of 30 CFR 875.15.

We are asking for public comments on Wyoming's request for funds to pay for part of the cost of constructing the City of Lander Water Treatment Plant. You are welcome to comment on the project. If you do, please send us written comments. Make sure your comments are specific and pertain to Wyoming's funding request in the context of the regulations at 30 CFR 875.15 and the provisions of section 411 of SMCRA. You should explain any recommendations you make. If we receive your comments after the time shown under DATES or at locations other than the Casper Field Office, we will not necessarily consider them in our final decision or include them in the administrative record.

The Commission makes agency records available to the public in a number of ways: Electronic Document Information System. This system provides Internet access to public documents filed with the Office of the Secretary. Docketing information for USITC investigations instituted since 1996 is available electronically by accessing the USITC Internet site at “ http://www.usitc.gov ” or directly at “ http://dockets.usitc.gov/eol/public/. ”

FOIA. Commission records may also be requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552). These requests are filed with the Secretary at 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, and must clearly be identified in the request letter and on the envelope as a “Freedom of Information Act Request.” Commission rules for requesting information under FOIA are set out in 19 CFR 201.17-201.21.

Government Information Locator. The USITC has an entry in the Government Information Locator Service, at “ http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/gils/gils.html. ”

Libraries. The Commission maintains two libraries, its National Library of International Trade (the Commission's main reference library), located on the 3rd floor of the Commission building, and a law library, located on the 6th floor. Both are open to the public during normal business hours of 8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. The libraries contain, among other things, complete sets of Commission reports. To determine whether the respective libraries have the information sought, persons seeking information may call the main library at 202-205-2630, or the law library at 202-205-3287.

Public Reading Room. The Commission's docket files in the Office of the Secretary contain the submissions made in all Commission investigations. The files are available for inspection in the Public Reading Room in the Office of the Secretary. The Public Reading Room is located on the 1st floor of the Commission building. Persons having questions regarding availability of records may call the Dockets staff at 202-205-1802. Depending on the age of the records requested, the files are available electronically, in hard copy, and/or on microfiche.

Reports. Reports containing the findings and conclusions of Commission investigations and Commissioner opinions are available in hard copy, generally at no charge, from the Office of the Secretary (telephone 202-205-1809). Reports are also made available for download from the USITC Internet site.

Rules. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure set out the procedures used in Commission proceeding. The rules in 19 CFR parts 200-213 are located in the Code of Federal Regulations and the Commission's Internet site.

Tariff and Trade Data Web. The Commission's DataWeb “ http://dataweb.usitc.gov, ” provides public access to tariff and trade data. Data from 1989 are available and can be retrieved in a number of classification systems.

USITC Internet Site. Recent Commission notices, news releases, meeting agendas, monthly calendars, general information “fact sheets,” Commissioner biographies, schedules of pending investigations (including hearing dates and deadlines for written submissions), reports, information frequently requested under FOIA, and general information about the Commission are available electronically through the Internet at “ http://www.usitc.gov. ”

Copies of Commission public records can also be obtained from the Secretary through an on-site duplicating service for a minimum fee.

The BLS enters into Cooperative Agreements with State Employment Security Agencies (SESAs) annually to provide financial assistance to the SESAs for the production and operation of the following LMI statistical programs: Current Employment Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, Covered Employment and Wages Report, and Mass Layoff Statistics. The Cooperative Agreement provides the basis for managing the administrative and financial aspects of these programs.

The BLS is particularly interested in comments that:

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

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

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

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

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance is being sought for the LMI Cooperative Agreement. The existing collection of information allows Federal staff to negotiate the Cooperative Agreement with the SESAs and monitor their financial and programmatic performance and adherence to administrative requirements imposed by common regulations implementing OMB Circular A-102 and other grant-related regulations. The information collected also is used for planning and budgeting at the Federal level and in meeting Federal reporting requirements.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Agency: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Title: Labor Market Information (LMI) Cooperative Agreement.

OMB Number: 1220-0079.

Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Governments.

Frequency: Monthly, quarterly, annually.

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

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

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

This meeting is being held pursuant to requirements under the Oceans Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-256, Section 3(e)(1)(E)). The agenda will include presentations by invited speakers representing local and regional government agencies and non-governmental organizations, comments from the public and any required administrative discussions and executive sessions. Invited speakers and members of the public are requested to submit their statements for the record electronically by April 10, 2002 to the meeting Point of Contact. Public comment periods are scheduled for Thursday, April 18 and Friday, April 19. The agenda for the meeting, including specific times for the public comment periods, and guidelines for making public comments will be posted on the Commission's website at http://www.oceancommission.gov prior to the meeting.

Individual authorities established under Schedule C between February 1, 2002, and February 28, 2002, appear in the listing below. Future notices will be published on the fourth Tuesday of each month, or as soon as possible thereafter. A consolidated listing of all authorities as of June 30 will also be published.

The following Schedule C authorities were established during February 2002:

Senior Projects Officer to the Director, Voice of America. Effective February 21, 2002.

Senior Projects Officer to the Director, Voice of America. Effective February 21, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Commissioner. Effective February 8, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Administrator, Rural Utilities Service. Effective February 1, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Communications. Effective February 1, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. Effective February 8, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. Effective February 11, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Service. Effective February 25, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Effective February 28, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Secretary (Financial Management Comptroller). Effective February 8, 2002.

Secretary (Office Automation) to the Under Secretary of the Army. Effective February 6, 2002.

Secretary (Office Automation) to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). Effective February 8, 2002.

Secretary (Office Automation) to the General Counsel of the Army. Effective February 8, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Army. Effective February 15, 2002.

Personal And Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller). Effective February 22, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) for Congressional Affairs. Effective February 26, 2002.

Chief Information Officer to the Under Secretary of Technology. Effective February 4, 2002.

Deputy Director to the Director, Office of Public Affairs, International Trade Administration. Effective February 6, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. Effective February 6, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Domestic Operations. Effective February 19, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Secretary and Director General of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service. Effective February 22, 2002.

Deputy Director to the Director, Office of the White House Liaison. Effective February 28, 2002.

Electronic Commerce Specialist to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Deputy Chief Information Officer). Effective February 1, 2002.

Defense Fellow to the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for White House Liaison. Effective February 4, 2002.

Staff Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Near East/South Asia). Effective February 4, 2002.

Defense Fellow to the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (White House Liaison). Effective February 5, 2002.

Speech Writer to the Director, Directorate for Editorial Services. Effective February 5, 2002.

Public Affairs Specialist to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. Effective February 6, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs). Effective February 8, 2002.

Public Affairs Specialist to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) for Issues and Strategy Management. Effective February 8, 2002.

Defense Fellow to the Special Assistant to the Secretary (White House Liaison). Effective February 11, 2002.

Defense Fellow to the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (White House Liaison). Effective February 11, 2002.

Director, Communications Strategy to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs). Effective February 11, 2002.

Defense Fellow to the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (White House Liaison). Effective February 11, 2002.

Defense Fellow to the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (White House Liaison). Effective February 11, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs). Effective February 13, 2002.

Executive Assistant to the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for White House Liaison. Effective February 13, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Policy). Effective February 19, 2002.

Defense Fellow to the Director, Administration and Management. Effective February 21, 2002.

Defense Fellow to the Director, Administration and Management. Effective February 21, 2002.

Writer-Editor to the Director, Strategic Communications. Effective February 21, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense. Effective February 22, 2002.

Public Affairs Specialist to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. Effective February 24, 2002.

Defense Fellow to the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (White House Liaison). Effective February 25, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental, Constituent Relations and Corporate Liaison. Effective February 1, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. Effective February 1, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Director, White House Initiative on Hispanic Education. Effective February 5, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education. Effective February 5, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective February 6, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective February 6, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective February 6, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Public Affairs. Effective February 11, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. Effective February 14, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective February 14, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective February 14, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective February 14, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education. Effective February 14, 2002.

Secretary's Regional Representative to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional Services. Effective February 14, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective February 21, 2002.

Director, Office of Scheduling and Briefing to the Chief of Staff. Effective February 24, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Director, Office of Public Affairs. Effective February 25, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective February 27, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education. Effective February 28, 2002.

Secretary's Regional Representative, Region 7 to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional Services. Effective February 28, 2002.

Policy Advisor to the Secretary of Energy. Effective February 1, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs. Effective February 4, 2002.

Trip Coordinator to the Deputy Director for Advance. Effective February 5, 2002.

Senior Policy Advisor for Middle East Affairs to the Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs. Effective February 7, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy. Effective February 8, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Secretary of Energy. Effective February 13, 2002.

Deputy Director to the Director, Office of Economic Impact and Diversity. Effective February 15, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Energy. Effective February 25, 2002.

White House Liaison to the Secretary of Energy. Effective February 27, 2002.

Deputy Director for Operations to the Director of Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective February 5, 2002.

Deputy Director of the Director of Scheduling. Effective February 11, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Effective February 13, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Director of Scheduling. Effective February 25, 2002.

Director of Communications to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (Policy and Strategy). Effective February 27, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective February 27, 2002.

Staff Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. Effective February 1, 2002.

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs to the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. Effective February 19, 2002.

Staff Assistant to the Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy and Management. Effective February 20, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Effective February 28, 2002.

Speechwriter to the Director of Communications. Effective February 15, 2002.

Associate Director to the Director, Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs. Effective February 22, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Director, Minerals Management Service. Effective February 26, 2002.

Attorney Advisor to the Attorney General. Effective February 4, 2002.

Attorney Advisor/Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Domestic Preparedness, Office of Justice Programs. Effective February 5, 2002.

Attorney Advisor to the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division. Effective February 5, 2002.

Secretary (OA) to the United States Attorney, District of Maryland. Effective February 8, 2002. Deputy Assistant Attorney General to the Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division. Effective February 8, 2002.

Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division. Effective February 11, 2002.

Senior Advisor to the Director, Office of Public Affairs. Effective February 12, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Congressional and Public Relations. Effective February 14, 2002.

Secretary (OA) to the United States Attorney, Southern District of Alabama. Effective February 21, 2002.

Secretary (Office Automation) to the United States Attorney, District of New Mexico. Effective February 25, 2002.

Senior Intergovernmental Liaison to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective February 4, 2002.

Speech Writer to the Assistant Secretary, Office of Public Affairs. Effective February 4, 2002.

Staff Assistant to the Deputy Secretary. Effective February 4, 2002.