Title: FNS Computer System Access Request.

OMB Number: Not yet assigned.

Expiration: None.

Type of Request: New information collection.

Abstract: The FNS Computer System Access Request Form, FNS-674, is designed for use in all situations where access to an FNS computer system is required, where current access is required to be modified, or where access is no longer required and must be deleted. Users who access FNS systems are: State agencies, other Federal agencies, and FNS Regional, Field Office, and Compliance Office users.

In State agencies, the State Information Systems Security Officer (SISSO) acts as a liaison between the State agency and the Deputy Regional Information Systems Security Offices (DRISSOs) and the FNS Headquarters Information Systems Security Office. The SISSO is responsible for ensuring State users and entities comply with FNS Information Systems Security Policy and Procedures' Handbook 701 and 702 developed for State systems and that they maintain proper controls over FNS security features used by State clients. The SISSO will over see completion of the FNS-674 forms and forward completed forms to the DRISSO.

The DRISSOs act on behalf of FNS Headquarters Information Systems Security Office to ensure that Regional, Field Office, and Compliance Office users comply with FNS handbook security policies developed for the regional environment. DRISSOs will forward completed FNS-674 forms to the FNS Headquarters Information Systems Security Office.

The Office of Management and Budget Circular No A-130, Appendix III (A) (3) Revised, dated February 8, 1996, requires that the information be collected.

Respondents: State agencies, other Federal agencies, FNS Regional, Field Office and Compliance Office users, and Trust Territories.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,000 (includes the 50 State and Trust Territories).

Estimate of Burden:

Number of responses per respondent: One.

Estimated total annual responses: 5000.

Hours per response: .16666.

Number of record keepers: 5000.

Estimated annual hours per record keeper: .03333.

Total annual record keeping hours: 166.65.

Total annual reporting hours: 833.3.

Total annual reporting and record keeping hours: 999.95.

This is a revised Notice of Intent for the prior notice promulgated in the Federal Register , Vol. 64, No. 194, on October 7, 1999 page 54609. The Notice of Intent is being revised for the following reasons:

(1) The draft EIS has been delayed two years. The original expected release date was October 2000; the new expected date is December 2002. The final EIS is expected to be published December 2003.

(2) Two cooperating agencies have been added. The Bureau of Land Management in Wyoming (USDI-BLM) will cooperate on the preparation of the EIS and decisions regarding mineral leasing. Seven Wyoming Conservation Districts (Little Snake River, Saratoga-Encampment-Rawlins, Medicine Bow, Converse County, Laramie County, and Laramine Rivers Conservation Districts and the Platte County Resource District, hereinafter referred to as County Conservation Districts) will cooperate in water quality monitoring, planning for impaired watersheds, socio-economic analysis, and public involvement.

(3) The responsible official has changed. Rick D. Cables is the current Regional Forester for the Rocky Mountain Region and responsible official for the Medicine Bow Forest Plan Revision.

Pursuant to Part 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 219.10(g), the Regional Forester for the Rocky Mountain Region gives notice of the agency's intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for the revision effort described above. According to 36 CFR 219.10(g), land and resource management plans are ordinarily revised on a 10- to 15-year cycle. The existing Forest Plan was approved November 20, 1985.

The Forest Service is the lead agency in this revision effort. The State of Wyoming, by and through the Office of Federal Land Policy; USDI-BLM; and County Conservation Districts are cooperating agencies by virtue of special expertise and jurisdiction. The State of Wyoming was listed as a cooperating agency in the 1999 Notice of Intent.

Forest Plans describe the intended management of National Forests. Agency decisions in the Plan will do the following:

• Establish multiple-use goals and objectives (36 CFR 219.1 1);

• Establish forestwide management requirements (standards and guidelines) to fulfill the requirements of 16 USC 1604 applying to future activities (resource integration requirements, 36 CFR 219.13 to 219.27);

• Establish management areas and management area direction (management area prescriptions) applying to future activities in that management area (resource integration and minimum specific management requirements) 36 CFR 219.11 (c);

• Establish monitoring and evaluation requirements (36 CFR 219.11 (d));

• Determine suitability and potential capability of lands for producing forage for grazing animals and for providing habitat for management indicator species (36 CFR 219.20), designate lands not suited for timber production, and, where applicable, establish allowable timber sale quantity (36 CFR 219.14, 219.15, and 219.21);

• Where applicable to oil and gas resources, determine the planning area leasing decision (lands administratively available for leasing) and the leasing decision for specific lands [36 CFR 228.102(4)(d)&(e)]. Where applicable, BLM will issue a decision document on leasing for federal minerals, both under Forest Service administered surface and under private surface.

• Where applicable, recommend Wild and Scenic River designations, in cooperation with the National Park Service, in accordance with 16 USC 1274; and

• Where applicable, recommend non-Wilderness allocations or Wilderness recommendations for roadless areas (36 CFR 219.17)

The authorization of project level activities within the planning area occurs through project decision-making, the second stage of forest and grassland planning. Project-level decisions must comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures and must include a determination that the project is consistent with the Management Plan, or the Plan must be amended according to the National Forest Management Act (NFMA).

Release and Review of the EIS: The DEIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public comment by December 2002. At that time, the EPA will publish a notice of availability for the DEIS in the Federal Register. The comment period on the DEIS will be 90 days from the date the EPA publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

Reviewers of the DEIS must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Com. v. NRDC. 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the DEIS stage but are not raised until after completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) may be waived or dismissed by the courts; City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc., v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the three-month comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the FEIS.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed actions, comments on the DEIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the DEIS. Comments may also address the adequacy of the DEIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statements. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

After the comment period ends on the DEIS, comments will be analyzed, considered, and responded to by the Forest Service in preparing the Final EIS. The FEIS is scheduled to be completed in December 2003. The responsible officials will consider the comments, responses, environmental consequences discussed in the FEIS, and applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making decisions regarding these revisions. The responsible official will document his decision and reasons for the decisions in a Record of Decision for the revised Management Plan. The decision will be subject to appeal in accordance with 36 CFR 217.

Section 320 of the 2001 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 106-291) created the Forest Counties Payments Committee to make recommendations to Congress on a long term solution for making Federal payments to eligible States and counties in which Federal lands are situated. To formulate its recommendations to Congress, the committee will consider the impact on eligible States and counties of revenues from the historic multiple use of Federal lands; evaluate the economic, environmental, and social benefits which accrue to counties containing Federal lands; evaluate the expenditures by counties on activities occurring on Federal lands which are Federal responsibilities; and monitor payments and implementation of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393).

The Forest Counties Payments Committee asks that elected officials and others who wish to comment, either by mail or in person at the Rhinelander, WI, meeting, provide information in response to the following questions:

1. Do counties receive their fair share of Federal revenue sharing payments made to eligible States?

2. What difficulties exist in complying with and managing all of the Federal revenue sharing payments programs? Are some more difficult than others?

3. What economic, social, and environmental costs do counties incur as a result of the presence of public lands within their boundaries?

4. What economic, social, and environmental benefits do counties realize as a result of public lands within their boundaries?

5. What are the economic and social effects from changes in revenues generated from public lands over the past 15 years as a result of changes in management on public lands in your State or county?

6. What actions has your State or county taken to mitigate any impacts associated with declining economic conditions or revenue sharing payments?

7. What effects, both positive and negative, have taken place with education and highway programs that are attributable to the management of public lands within your State or county?

8. What relationship, if any, should exist between Federal revenue sharing programs, and management activities on public lands?

9. What alternatives exist to provide equitable revenue sharing to States and counties and to promote “sustainable forestry?”

10. What has been your experience regarding implementation of Public Law 106-393, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act?

11. What changes in law, policies and procedures, and the management of public land have contributed to changes in revenue derived from the multiple use management of these lands?

12. What changes in law, policies and procedures, and the management of public land are needed in order to restore the revenues derived from the multiple use management of these lands?

This proposed reporting measure would require all Virginia Chesapeake Bay pound net fishermen to report interactions with endangered and threatened sea turtles, found both live and dead, in their pound net operations. When a live or dead sea turtle is discovered during a pound net trip, the Virginia pound net fisherman would be required to report the incidental take to NMFS and, if necessary, the appropriate rehabilitation and stranding network. This information will be used to monitor the level of incidental take in the state-managed Virginia pound net fishery and ensure that the seasonal pound net leader restriction (50 CFR 223.206(d)(2)(v)) is adequately protecting listed sea turtles.

At any time during the year, if a sea turtle is taken live and uninjured in any portion of the pound net operation, in the pound, heart, or leader, the operator of the vessel would be required to report the incident to the NMFS Northeast Regional Office within 24 hours of returning from the trip in which the incidental take was discovered. At any time during the year, if a sea turtle is taken in a pound net operation, and is determined to be injured, or if a sea turtle is captured dead, the operator of the vessel would be required to immediately notify the NMFS Northeast Regional Office and the appropriate rehabilitation or stranding network, as determined by the NMFS Northeast Regional Office.

OMB Number: None.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations, individuals or households (specifically, Virginia pound net fishermen).

Estimated Number of Respondents: 80.

Estimated Time Per Response: 10 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 74.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $1,323.

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.

Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the “taking” of a species listed as endangered or threatened. The term “take” is defined under the ESA to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. NMFS may issue permits, under limited circumstances, to take listed species for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA. NMFS regulations governing permits for threatened and endangered species are promulgated at 50 CFR 222.307.

The following evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) are included in the Plan and Permit application:

Steelhead ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ): endangered, naturally produced and artificially propagated Upper Columbia River (UCR).

Chinook salmon ( O. tshawytscha ): endangered, naturally produced and artificially propagated, UCR spring-run.

On September 19, 2001, notice was published in the Federal Register (66 FR 48663) that an amendment of Permit No. 881-1443, issued March 27, 1998 (63 FR 14905), had been requested by the above-named organization. The requested amendment has been granted under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the provisions of § 216.39 of the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the provisions of § 222.25 of the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered fish and wildlife (50 CFR 222.23).

Issuance of this amendment, as required by the ESA was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the subject of this permit, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

The amendment authorizes modifications to existing research protocols as well as new research projects. Modifications to existing protocols include: (1) increasing frequency of blubber biopsies taken from Steller sea lions from 3 to 6 times per year for fatty acid and organochlorine testing; (2) increasing mass of blubber biopsies taken from harbor seals from 50 to 500 mg for organochlorine testing; (3) collecting saliva from Steller sea lions and harbor seals for deuterium, steroid, and hormone analyses; (4) analyzing vaginal and preputial swabs for cell cytology in Steller sea lions and harbor seals; and (5) administering stable isotopes to Steller sea lions for nutritional studies.

New projects include: (1) hormone stimulation studies and collection of feces for assessment of stress or well-being in relation to diet in Steller sea lions; (2) bioenergetic studies of Steller sea lions involving determination of metabolic rates using flow respirometry and metabolic chambers, and dietary marker administration and dry holding for collection of urine and feces; (3) collection of skin and mucosal swabs from harbor seals and Steller sea lions for development of cell lines and microbiological analyses; (4) administration of deuterium labeled vitamin E and a vitamin A analog and increased frequency of blood sampling to determine metabolic requirements of these vitamins; and (5)photographic studies to determine pelage pattern consistency of harbor seals.

Section 156 of Title 35, United States Code, generally provides that the term of a patent may be extended for a period of up to five years if the patent claims a product, or a method of making or using a product, that has been subject to certain defined regulatory review, and that the patent may be extended for interim periods of up to a year if the regulatory review is anticipated to extend beyond the expiration date of the patent.

On November 20, 2001, patent owner Pharmacia & Upjohn, S.p.A., timely filed an application under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for a third subsequent interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,229,449. The patent claims the active ingredient roboxetine mesylate (Vestra(TM)). The application indicates that a New Drug Application for the human drug product roboxetine mesylate (Vestra(TM)) has been filed and is currently undergoing regulatory review before the Food and Drug Administration for permission to market or use the product commercially.

Review of the application indicates that except for permission to market or use the product commercially, the subject patent would be eligible for an extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156, and that the patent should be extended for an additional year as required by 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5)(B). Since it is apparent that the regulatory review period has continued beyond the extended expiration date of the patent (January 9, 2002), the term of the patent is extended under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for an additional term of one year, i.e., until January 9, 2003.

The proposed action is to provide facilities and functions to support the homebasing and operation of 10 Super Hornet fleet squadrons (130 aircraft) and one Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) (32 aircraft) to replace the F-14 Tomcat (150 aircraft) and earlier model F/A-18 C/D Hornet (37 aircraft). The introduction of the Super Hornet would meet the need of Naval aviation for upgraded aircraft with increased range and endurance, the ability to carry heavier payloads, features that enhance survivability, and the flexibility to incorporate future systems and technologies to meet emerging threats. The Navy is lead agency for the proposed action with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Department of the Air Force (Air Force) serving as cooperating agencies.

The DEIS considers eight homebasing alternatives and identifies two of those as preferred alternatives. East coast installations that meet operational criteria and are considered as possible receiving homebase sites for the F/A-18 E/F aircraft include NAS Oceana, VA; MCAS Beaufort, SC; and MCAS Cherry Point, NC. One preferred alternative would homebase six Super Hornet fleet squadrons and the FRS at NAS Oceana and four Super Hornet fleet squadrons at MCAS Cherry Point, and also construct a new Outlying Landing Field (OLF) between the two sites. The other preferred alternative would homebase eight Super Hornet squadrons and the FRS at NAS Oceana and two fleet squadrons at MCAS Cherry Point, and also construct a new OLF between the two sites. Both alternatives would homebase the majority of fleet squadrons at NAS Oceana, optimizing readiness and efficiency of operations through economies of scale in support, training and personnel requirements. These alternatives provide opportunities for mitigating noise, population encroachment, and air quality issues at NAS Oceana. The construction of an OLF provides the opportunity to further mitigate projected impacts of Super Hornet homebasing. The DEIS identifies six sites as potential locations for an OLF in the following counties:

The DEIS has been distributed to various Federal, state and local agencies, as well as other interested individuals and organizations. In addition, copies of the DEIS have been distributed to the following libraries for public review:

An electronic copy of the DEIS is also available for public viewing at http://www.efaircraft.ene.com. A limited number of single copies of the DEIS, Executive Summary, and Draft CAA Conformity Determination are available upon request by contacting Mr. Fred Pierson at (757) 322-4935.

Federal, state, and local agencies, as well as interested parties are invited and urged to be present or represented at the hearing. Oral statements will be heard and transcribed by a stenographer; however, to ensure the accuracy of the record, all statements should be submitted in writing. All statements, both oral and written, will become part of the public record on the DEIS and Draft CAA Conformity Determination and will be responded to in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Equal weight will be given to both oral and written statements.

In the interest of available time and to ensure all who wish to give an oral statement have the opportunity to do so, each speaker's comments will be limited to three (3) minutes. If a longer statement is to be presented, it should be summarized at the public hearing and the full text submitted in writing either at the hearing or mailed or faxed to: Commander, Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Attn: Mr. Fred Pierson (Code BD32FP), 1510 Gilbert Street, Norfolk, VA 23511-2699, Fax (757) 322-4894. All written comments postmarked by October 2, 2002, will become a part of the official public record and will be responded to in the FEIS.

Section 402 of the CWA created the NPDES program under which EPA may issue permits for the point source discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States under conditions required by the Act. Section 402(b) requires EPA to authorize a State to administer an equivalent state program, upon the Governor's request, provided the State has appropriate legal authority and a program sufficient to meet the Act's requirements.

The regulatory requirements for state program approval are set forth in 40 CFR part 123. 40 CFR 123.21 lists the basic elements of an approvable application. EPA Region 9 considers the documents submitted by the State of Arizona administratively complete at the time of this document. EPA will not make a final decision on AZPDES program approval until after: (1) Considering all public comments provided during the public comment period or at the public hearing; (2) completion of the ongoing consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on effects program approval may have on endangered or threatened species and their designated critical habitat; and (3) completion of ongoing consultations with the State Historic Preservation Officer on effects program approval may have on historic properties or sites listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

By letter dated December 20, 2001, the Governor of Arizona requested NPDES program approval and submitted a program description (including funding, personnel requirements and organization, and enforcement procedures), an Attorney General's statement, copies of applicable State statutes and regulations, and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to be executed by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9 and the Director of ADEQ. EPA received this package of materials on January 14, 2002. EPA Region 9 determined that Arizona's approval request did not constitute a complete package under 40 CFR 123.21, and notified the Director of the Water Quality Division of ADEQ in writing on February 15, 2002. By letter of June 5, 2002, the Governor of Arizona requested NPDES partial program approval and submitted an amended program description, amended Attorney General's Statement, amended Arizona statute and rules, and an MOA. EPA received this package of materials on June 11, 2002. EPA Region 9 determined that the approval request received on June 11, 2002, along with supplements received on July 8 and July 10 constituted a complete package under 40 CFR 123.21, and a letter of completeness was sent to the Director of ADEQ on July 11, 2002.

EPA is required to approve the submitted program within 90 days of submission of the complete information unless it does not meet the requirements of section 402(b) of the Act and EPA regulations, or EPA and ADEQ jointly agree to extend this deadline. (See 40 CFR 123.21(d)). To obtain such approval, the State must show, among other things, that it has authority to issue permits which comply with the Act, authority to impose civil and criminal penalties for permit violations, and authority to ensure that the public is given notice and opportunity for a hearing on each proposed permit. After close of the comment period and completion of the required consultations with other federal agencies, the Regional Administrator for EPA Region 9 will make a decision to approve or disapprove the AZPDES program for implementation by the State.

EPA's final decision to approve or disapprove the AZPDES program will be based on the requirements of section 402 of the CWA and 40 CFR part 123. EPA is also required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Historic Preservation Act to consult with other federal agencies before making a final decision in this matter. For example, the ESA requires federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the effects of federal actions on endangered species. EPA has determined that its action on the AZPDES program application constitutes a federal action that is subject to section 7 of the ESA. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA places a statutory requirement (separate and distinct from CWA section 402(b)) for EPA to “* * * insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out [by EPA]* * * is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat * * * determined to be critical * * *. ” EPA Region 9 initiated formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA on June 21, 2002. EPA's responsibilities under ESA, as well as under the National Historic Preservation Act are discussed in more detail later in this notice. Under federal law, EPA may not make a final decision on AZPDES program approval until consultation under these acts are completed; therefore, it may be necessary to seek ADEQ's agreement on an extension of the 90 day approval deadline.

If EPA approves the Arizona partial program, the Regional Administrator will so notify the State and will sign the proposed MOA. Notice will be published in the Federal Register and, as of the date of program approval, EPA will transfer to the ADEQ NPDES permitting authority and primary enforcement responsibility for those discharges subject to the AZPDES program, with certain exceptions, which are discussed below under Scope, Transfer of NPDES Authority, and Summary of the AZPDES Permitting Program. If EPA's Regional Administrator disapproves the AZPDES program, the ADEQ will be notified of the reasons for disapproval and of any revisions or modifications to the program which are necessary to obtain approval.

The following procedures will be used at the public hearing:

1. The Presiding Officer shall conduct the hearing in a manner which will allow all interested persons wishing to make oral statements an opportunity to do so; however, the Presiding Officer may inform attendees of any time limits during the opening statement of the hearing.

2. Any person may submit written statements or documents for the record.

3. The Presiding Officer may, in his discretion, exclude oral testimony if such testimony is overly repetitious of previous testimony or is not relevant to the decision to approve or require revision of the submitted State program.

4. The transcript taken at the hearing, together with copies of all submitted statements and documents, shall become a part of the record submitted to the Regional Administrator.

5. The hearing record shall be left open until the deadline for receipt of comments specified at the beginning of this Notice to allow any person time to submit additional written statement or to present views or evidence tending to rebut testimony presented at the public hearing.

6. Hearing statements may be oral or written. Written copies of oral statements are urged for accuracy of the record and for use of the Hearing Panel and other interested persons. Persons wishing to make oral testimony supporting their written comments are encouraged to summarize their points rather than reading lengthy written comments verbatim into the record. All comments received by EPA Region 9 by the deadline for receipt of comments, or presented at the public hearing, will be considered by EPA before taking final action on the Arizona request for NPDES program approval.

The proposed AZPDES program is a partial program which conforms to the requirements of section 402(n)(3) of the CWA. ADEQ's application for program approval applies to all discharges covered by the authority of that agency. This includes most discharges of pollutants subject to the federal NPDES program (e.g., municipal wastewater and storm water point source discharges, pretreatment, industrial wastewater and storm water point source discharges, and point source discharges from federal facilities).

The ADEQ has authority to regulate discharges from industrial facilities covered by all Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes. The ADEQ has authority to regulate discharges of storm water associated with industrial activity and discharges of storm water from municipal separate storm sewer systems. The ADEQ has primary responsibility for implementing a Pretreatment Program. The ADEQ has authority to regulate discharges from publicly owned and privately owned treatment works and for discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) within the ADEQ's jurisdiction.

ADEQ is not seeking the authority to regulate the disposal of sewage sludge (in accordance with section 405 of the Act and 40 CFR part 503). EPA will retain NPDES permitting authority and primary enforcement responsibility over the sewage sludge program. ADEQ is planning to apply for this authority in the future.

ADEQ does not have, and is not seeking, the authority to regulate discharges in Indian Country (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151). EPA will retain NPDES permitting authority and primary enforcement responsibility in Indian Country in Arizona.

Upon approval of the AZPDES program, authority for all NPDES permitting activities, as well as primary responsibility for NPDES enforcement activities, within the scope of ADEQ's jurisdiction, would be transferred to the State, with some exceptions. These exceptions would be agreed to by EPA and the State under the MOA that would be signed upon program approval, and are explained below. In addition to the exceptions listed below, EPA would retain on a permanent basis its authority under section 402(d) of the CWA to object to AZPDES permits proposed by ADEQ, and if the objections are not resolved, to issue federal NPDES permits for those discharges. EPA would also retain on a permanent basis its authority under sections 309 and 504 of the CWA to file federal enforcement actions.

40 CFR 123.1(d)(1) provides that EPA retains jurisdiction over any permit that it has issued unless the State and EPA have reached agreement in the MOA for the State to assume responsibility for that permit. The proposed MOA between EPA and the ADEQ provides that the ADEQ would assume at the time of program approval permitting authority and primary enforcement responsibility over all NPDES permits issued by EPA prior to program approval, with the following exceptions:

a. Jurisdiction over those discharges covered by permits already issued by EPA, but for which evidentiary hearings have been requested or an appeal taken prior to AZPDES program approval. Jurisdiction over these discharges, including primary enforcement responsibility (except as provided by paragraph 3 below-Active Federal Enforcement Cases), would be transferred to the State once the evidentiary hearing request or appeal has been resolved.

If the permittee requests, EPA may continue to process a NPDES permit application that is pending with EPA at the time of the AZPDES program approval. ADEQ will be responsible for final issuance for all permits after the program approval date. For permits for which an evidentiary hearing has been requested or an appeal taken at the time of program authorization, EPA will retain full jurisdiction until the matter has been resolved. Upon resolution of the administrative challenge, ADEQ will convert the NPDES permit to an AZPDES permit as specified in State rule.

For active Federal enforcement cases (administrative orders or formal referrals to the Department of Justice) at the time of program authorization, EPA will complete the enforcement action unless otherwise agreed to by EPA and ADEQ. As each EPA enforcement action is resolved, EPA will notify ADEQ and transfer any additional permit file material at that time. Resolution of an enforcement action may be accomplished by the permittee complying with the requirements of a compliance order, consent agreement or court order resulting from EPA enforcement action, withdrawal of the action by EPA, a court decision dismissing the action (in whole or in part) or, if agreed to by EPA, the imposition of an equivalent enforceable compliance schedule by ADEQ.

The AZPDES program is fully described in documents the State has submitted in accordance with 40 CFR 123.21, which includes the following: a letter from the Governor requesting program approval; a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for execution by ADEQ and EPA; a Program Description, including an Enforcement Management System, outlining the procedures, personnel and protocols that would be relied on to run the State's permitting and enforcement programs; and a Statement signed by the Attorney General that describes the legal authority which the State has to administer a program equivalent to the federal NPDES program. The State's AZPDES application consists of a letter from the Governor of Arizona, enclosing four sections and associated appendices. The content of those documents is summarized below.

Arizona' application for program approval includes a letter dated June 5, 2002, from Governor Jane Dee Hull, officially requesting NPDES program approval.

The requirements for MOAs are found in 40 CFR 123.24. A Memorandum of Agreement is a document signed by each agency, committing them to specific responsibilities relevant to the administration and enforcement of the State's regulatory program. A MOA specifies these responsibilities and provides structure for the State's program management and EPA's program oversight.

The MOA submitted by the State of Arizona has been signed by Jacqueline E. Schafer, Director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. The Regional Administrator of U.S. EPA Region 9 would sign the document only if the program has been determined approvable after all comments received during the comment period (including comments received at the public hearing) have been considered. The MOA submitted by ADEQ includes the following items:

Section I—General: This section contains general statements describing the purpose of the MOA.

Section II—Scope of Authorization: This section contains the statement of the scope of the NPDES program ADEQ would be administering.

Section III—Program Responsibilities: Lists the responsibilities of ADEQ and EPA in maintaining an effective program. Also outlines the procedures for transfer of authority over discharges over which EPA would be temporarily retaining authority and gives timing for the transition.

Section IV—Permit Review and Issuance: describes all agreements on the review and issuance of AZPDES permits. It covers ADEQ's responsibilities to issue permits, the transfer of EPA files to the State, and the State's application review and permit development process. Included are such things as procedures for permit modification or reissuance, and EPA's review of AZPDES drafted individual and general permits. This section includes the State's commitment for responding to public concerns and providing public participation in connection with public hearings, evidentiary hearings, and administrative and judicial enforcement actions.

Section V—Compliance and Enforcement: Describes summary agreements between EPA and ADEQ regarding EPA oversight of the AZPDES enforcement program. These include those commitments on ADEQ's compliance monitoring, reviews, pretreatment audits, and inspections.

Section VI—Pretreatment: Describes summary agreements between EPA and ADEQ regarding EPA oversight of AZPDES's implementation of the industrial pretreatment program regulating industrial users of municipal wastewater treatment plants.

Section VII—Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Management Program: Describes summary agreements between EPA and ADEQ regarding EPA oversight of AZPDES's regulation of the disposal of biosolids (sewage sludge) generated by wastewater treatment systems. (In the July 8 addendum to the MOA, ADEQ clarifies that it is not seeking EPA review of the Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Management Program at this time.)

Section VIII—Reporting and Transmittal of Information on AZPDES Regulated Facilities: This section describes how reports and requests for information would be handled; and how information is transferred between the two agencies.

Section IX—Program Review: Explains how EPA would periodically review the AZPDES program for implementation and continued consistency with Clean Water Act requirements.

Section X—Computation of Time: This section describes procedures to compute any periods of time prescribed within the MOA.

Section XI—Approval and Effective Date: This section states that the MOA would become effective on the date of program approval.

A program description submitted by a State seeking program approval must meet the minimum requirements of 40 CFR 123.22. It must provide a narrative description of the scope, structure, coverage and processes of the State program; a description of the organization, staffing and position descriptions for the lead State agency; and itemized costs and funding sources for the program for the first two years after program approval. It must describe all applicable State procedures (including administrative procedures for the issuance of permits and administrative or judicial procedures for their review) and include copies of forms used in the program. It must further contain a complete description of the State's compliance and enforcement tracking program. The program description submitted by ADEQ includes the following:

An Attorney General's Statement is required and described in regulations found at 40 CFR 123.23. The State Attorney General must certify that the State has lawfully adopted statutes and regulations which provide the State agency with the legal authority to administer a permitting program in compliance with 40 CFR part 123. The Arizona Attorney General's Statement describes and cites State legal authority it believes adequate to administer the AZPDES program; and certifies that the State has the legal authority to administer the AZPDES program in accordance with the regulations in 40 CFR part 123. The “Statements of the Attorney General” which was submitted by Arizona Attorney General Janet Neapolitan on June 10, 2002, supplemented on July 10, and formally resubmitted on July 12, constitutes the Attorney General's Statement required by section 402(b) of the CWA and 40 CFR 123.23 for the Purposes of the State's AZPDES application.

This section contains a list of Arizona statutes and administrative regulations relevant to implementation and enforcement of the AZPDES program.

The program submitted by the State of Arizona has been determined by EPA to be complete in accordance with the regulations found at 40 CFR part 123. EPA and ADEQ want the citizens of Arizona to understand the proposed AZPDES program and encourage public participation in the decision making process. Therefore, EPA requests that the public review the program that ADEQ has submitted and provide any comments they feel are appropriate. EPA will consider all comments on the AZPDES program and/or its approval in its decision.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that all federal agencies consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation on all federal undertakings which may affect historic properties or sites listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Regulations outlining the requirements of a section 106 consultation on a federal undertaking are found at 36 CFR part 800. The EPA is currently in discussions with the SHPO regarding its determination that approval of the State permitting program itself would have no effect on the preservation of historic properties within the State of Arizona.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that all federal agencies, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, insure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are unlikely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Regulations controlling consultation under ESA section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402. The approval of the State permitting program under section 402 of the Clean Water Act is a federal action subject to this requirement, but the State's subsequent AZPDES permit actions are not. EPA Region 9 initiated formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on June 21, 2002.

Based on General Counsel Opinion 78-7 (April 18, 1978), EPA has long considered a determination to approve or deny a State NPDES program submission to constitute an adjudication because an “approval”, within the meaning of the APA, constitutes a “license,” which, in turn, is the product of an “adjudication”. For this reason, the statutes and Executive Orders that apply to rulemaking action are not applicable here. Among these are provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. Under the RFA, whenever a Federal agency proposes or promulgates a rule under section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, the Agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for the rule, unless the Agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the Agency does not certify the rule, the regulatory flexibility analysis must describe and assess the impact of a rule on small entities affected by the rule.

Even if the NPDES program approval were a rule subject to the RFA, the Agency would certify that approval of the State's proposed AZPDES program would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA's action to approve an NPDES program merely recognizes that the necessary elements of an NPDES program have already been enacted as a matter of State law; it would, therefore, impose no additional obligations upon those subject to the State's program. Accordingly, the Regional Administrator would certify that this program, even if a rule, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

I hereby provide public notice of the application by the State of Arizona for approval to administer, in accordance with 40 CFR part 123, the AZPDES program.

As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4), this document sets forth notice of the proposed new System of Records maintained by the FCC. This notice is a summary of more detailed information which may be viewed at the location given in the ADDRESSES section above. The purpose of the new FCC/WTB-7, “Remedy Action Request System” (“RARS”), is to enable the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) to record and process requests from individuals, groups, or other entities for technical help, i.e. , technical questions and password requests, using WTB's Internet-based computer applications—licensing and auction systems . Records in this system are available for public inspection after redaction of information, which could identify the correspondent, i.e. , name, telephone number, TIN, and e-mail address. Records in this system will be made available upon request for public inspection after redaction of information, which could identify the correspondent, i.e. , name, telephone number, TIN, and e-mail address. This notice meets the requirement documenting the proposed new System of Records that is to be added to the Systems of Records that the FCC maintains, and provides the public, Congress, and OMB an opportunity to comment.

This notice contains the revised fee schedules for processing certain types of requests for changes to NFIP maps, requests for FIS technical and administrative support data, and requests for particular NFIP map and insurance products.

Effective Dates. The revised fee schedule for map changes is effective for all requests dated September 1, 2002, or later. The revised fee schedule supersedes the current fee schedule, which was established on June 1, 2000.

The revised fee schedule for requests for FIS backup data also is effective for all requests dated September 1, 2002, or later. The revised fee schedule supersedes the current fee schedule, which was established on June 1, 2000.

The revised fee schedule for requests for particular NFIP map and insurance products, which are available through the FEMA Map Service Center (MSC), is effective for all written requests, on-line Internet requests made through the FEMA Flood Map Store, and all telephone requests received on or after September 1, 2002. The revised fee schedule supersedes the current fee schedule, which was established on May 1, 2002.

Evaluations Performed. To develop the revised fee schedule for conditional and final map change requests, FEMA evaluated the actual costs of reviewing and processing requests for Conditional Letters of Map Amendment (CLOMAs), Conditional Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill (CLOMR-Fs), Conditional Letters of Map Revision (CLOMRs), Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-Fs), Letters of Map Revision (LOMRs), and Physical Map Revisions (PMRs).

To develop the revised fee schedule requests for FIS technical and administrative support data, FEMA evaluated the actual costs of retrieving, reproducing, and distributing archived data in seven categories. These categories are discussed in more detail below.

To develop the revised fee schedule for requests for particular NFIP map and insurance products, FEMA (1) evaluated the actual costs incurred at the MSC for producing, retrieving, and distributing those products; (2) analyzed historical sales, cost data, and product unit cost for unusual trends or anomalies; and (3) analyzed the effect of program changes, new products, technology investments, and other factors on future sales and product costs. The products covered by this notice are discussed in detail below.

Periodic Evaluations of Fees. A primary component of the fees is the prevailing private-sector rates charged to FEMA for labor and materials. Because these rates and the actual review and processing costs may vary from year to year, FEMA will evaluate the fees periodically and publish revised fee schedules, when needed, as notices in the Federal Register .

Based on a review of actual cost data for Fiscal Year 2000 and Fiscal Year 2001, FEMA established the following review and processing fees, which are to be submitted with all requests that are not otherwise exempted under 44 CFR 72.5:

Based on a review of actual cost data for Fiscal Year 2000 and Fiscal Year 2001, FEMA established the following review and processing fees, which are to be submitted with all requests that are not otherwise exempted under 44 CFR 72.5:

Based on a review of actual cost data for Fiscal Year 2000 and Fiscal Year 2001, FEMA established the following review and processing fees, which are to be submitted with all requests. Unless the request is otherwise exempted under 44 CFR 72.5, requesters must submit the review and processing fees shown below with requests for LOMRs and PMRs dated September 1, 2002, or later, that are not based on structural measures on alluvial fans.

FEMA has maintained $5,000 as the initial fee for requests for LOMRs and CLOMRs based on structural measures on alluvial fans. FEMA also will continue to recover the remainder of the review and processing costs by invoicing the requester before issuing a determination letter, consistent with current practice. The prevailing private-sector labor rate charged to FEMA ($50 per hour) will continue to be used to calculate the total reimbursable fees.

Non-exempt requesters of FIS technical and administrative support data must submit fees shown below with requests dated September 1, 2002, or later. These fees are based on the complete recovery costs to FEMA for retrieving, reproducing, and distributing the data, as well as maintaining the library archives, and for collecting and depositing fees. FEMA maintains the current fee schedule, as indicated in the Federal Register notice published on May 3, 2000, at 65 FR 25726—25728.

All entities except the following will be charged for requests for FIS technical and administrative support data:

• Private architectural-engineering firms under contract to FEMA to perform or evaluate studies and restudies;

• Federal agencies involved in performing studies and restudies for FEMA (i.e., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Tennessee Valley Authority);

• Communities that have supplied the Digital Line Graph base to FEMA and request the Digital Line Graph data (Category 6 below);

• Communities that request data during the statutory 90-day appeal period for an initial or revised FIS for that community;

• Mapped participating communities that request data at any time other than during the statutory 90-day appeal period, provided the data are requested for use by the community and not a third-party user; and

• State NFIP Coordinators, provided the data requested are for use by the State NFIP Coordinators and not a third-party user.

FEMA has established seven categories into which requests for FIS backup data are separated. These categories are:

Category 1—Paper copies, microfiche, or diskettes of hydrologic and hydraulic backup data for current or historical FISs;

Category 2—Paper or mylar copies of topographic mapping developed during FIS process;

Category 3—Paper copies or microfiche of survey notes developed during FIS process;

Category 4—Paper copies of individual Letters of Map Change (LOMCs);

Category 5—Paper copies of Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels;

Category 6—Computer tapes or CD-ROMs of Digital Line Graph files; and

Category 7—Computer diskettes and user's manuals for FEMA computer programs.

Under the current fee schedule, a non-refundable fee of $120 is charged to initiate a request under Categories 1, 2, and 3 above. This fee covers the preliminary costs of research and retrieval. If the data requested are available and the request is not cancelled, the final fee is calculated as a sum of a standard per-product charge plus a per-case surcharge of $93, designed to recover the cost of library maintenance and archiving. The total costs of processing requests under Categories 1, 2, and 3 will vary, based on the complexity of the research involved in retrieving the data and the volume and medium of data to be reproduced and distributed. The initial fee will be applied against the total costs to process the request, and FEMA will invoice the requester for the balance before the data are provided. No data will be provided to a requester until all required fees have been paid.

No initial fee is required to initiate a request for data under Categories 4 through 7. Requesters will be notified by telephone about the availability of the data and the fees associated with requested data.

As with requests for data under Categories 1, 2, and 3, no data will be provided to requesters until all required fees are paid. A flat user fee for each of these categories of requests, shown below, will continue to be required.

The MSC distributes a variety of NFIP map and insurance products to a broad range of customers, including Federal, State, and local government officials; real estate professionals; insurance providers; appraisers; builders; land developers; design engineers; surveyors; lenders; homeowners; and other private citizens. As established in the current fee schedule, made effective on May 1, 2002, the MSC distributes the following products:

• Paper (printed) copies of Flood Hazard Boundary Maps (FHBMs);

• Paper (printed) copies of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs);

• Paper (printed) copies of Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs);

• Paper (printed) copies of Flood Insurance Studies (FISs), including the narrative report, tables, Flood Profiles, and other graphics;

• Paper (printed) copies of Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps (FBFMs), when they are included as an exhibit in the FIS;

• Digital Q3 Flood Data files on CD-ROM, which FEMA developed by scanning the published FIRM and vectorizing a thematic overlay of flood risks;

• Digital Q3 Flood Data files on CD-ROM for Coastal Barrier Resource Areas (CBRA Q3 Flood Data files);

• Community Status Book, which is a report generated by FEMA's Community Information System database that provides pertinent map status information for all identified communities;

• Flood Map Status Information Service (FMSIS), through which FEMA provides status information for effective NFIP maps on CD-ROM;

• Letter of Map Change (LOMC) Subscription Service, through which FEMA makes certain types of LOMCs available biweekly on CD-ROM;

• NFIP Insurance Manual (Full Manual), which provides vital NFIP information for insurance agents nationwide;

• NFIP Insurance Manual (Producer's Edition), which is used for reference and training purposes;

• Digital copies of Flood maps available on CD-ROM and downloadable from the web; which can be purchased by panel or in community, county or state kits;

• Digital copies of FISs, including the narrative report, tables, Flood Profiles, and other graphics, on CD-ROM and downloadable from the web;

• F-MIT Basic Version 1.0, which is a view tool for map images, on CD-ROM;

• F-MIT Basic Version 1.0, which is a view tool for map images, downloadable from the web; and

• FEMA's Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners on CD-ROM.

For more information on the map and insurance products available from the MSC, interested parties are invited to visit the MSC Web site at http://www.fema.gov/msc.

There are no changes in the processing fees or shipping costs for any of the other products that the MSC distributes. Federal, State, and local governments continue to be exempt from paying fees for the map products. The fee schedule for the current and new products are shown in the table below.

Fee payments for non-exempt requests must be made in advance of services being rendered. These payments shall be made in the form of a check or money order or by credit card payment. Checks and money orders must be made payable, in U.S. funds, to the National Flood Insurance Program.

FEMA will deposit all fees collected to the National Flood Insurance Fund, which is the source of funding for providing these services.

On June 20, 2002, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) published in the Federal Register Program Announcement 02155, (Vol. 67, No. 119, p. 42001) a request for proposals from states entitled, “Linking Chronic Disease and Environmental Data Sources.” ATSDR intends to fund two to three projects under this program. The purpose of these projects is to conduct research on the potential impact of environmental exposures on chronic disease outcomes. ATSDR's announcement is posted on CDC's Web site at <http://www.cdc.gov/funding.htm> listed under Grants and Cooperative Agreements and then ATSDR.

On July 18, 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published Program Announcement 02179, “National Environmental Public Health Tracking Program” in the Federal Register (Vol. 67, No. 138, p. 47371). CDC is making available funds for up to 15 state or local pilot projects to (1) build environmental public health capacity, (2) increase collaboration between governmental, environmental and health agencies, (3) identify and evaluate existing data systems, (4) build partnerships with non-governmental organizations and communities, (5) develop model systems that link data and can be generalized to other states/localities, and (6) demonstrate the utility of these model systems in planning public health actions. This Request For Proposal is posted on CDC's Web site at <http://www.cdc.gov/funding.htm> listed under Grants and Cooperative Agreements and then Environmental Health.

CDC and ATSDR have been collaborating on these announcements and will continue to coordinate these activities at the federal level. In future years, the intention is to combine CDC's Program Announcement 02179 (”National Environmental Public Health Tracking Program”) and ATSDR's Program Announcement 02155 (“Linking Chronic Disease and Environmental Data Sources”) under one announcement. Therefore, applicants should be aware of the criteria in both announcements.

This notice announces an administrative hearing to reconsider our decision to disapprove Connecticut SPA 01-011B.

Section 1116 of the Social Security Act (the Act) and 42 CFR part 430 establish Department procedures that provide an administrative hearing for reconsideration of a disapproval of a State plan or plan amendment. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) is required to publish a copy of the notice to a State Medicaid agency that informs the agency of the time and place of the hearing and the issues to be considered. If we subsequently notify the agency of additional issues that will be considered at the hearing, we will also publish that notice.

Any individual or group that wants to participate in the hearing as a party must petition the presiding officer within 15 days after publication of this notice, in accordance with the requirements contained at 42 CFR 430.76(b)(2). Any interested person or organization that wants to participate as amicus curiae must petition the presiding officer before the hearing begins in accordance with the requirements contained at 42 CFR 430.76(c). If the hearing is later rescheduled, the presiding officer will notify all participants.

The issue is whether SPA 01-011B complies with requirements for publication of public notice and the effective date. Connecticut submitted SPA 01-011B on September 21, 2001. The amendment would provide an update factor for inpatient hospital rates as of July 1, 2001. The State indicated in its response dated February 22, 2002, that it published a public notice on September 26, 2001. Under section 1902(a)(13)(A) of the Act, payment rates for hospital services must be established through a public process which includes notice and a reasonable opportunity for review and comment. Federal regulations at 42 CFR 447.205 state that the public notice must be published before the proposed effective date of any significant change in payment rates. The CMS interprets this advance public notice requirement to mean the notice must be published at least one calendar day prior to the proposed effective date.

Therefore, the earliest approvable effective date for this amendment is September 27, 2001. Because the State requested an effective date of July 1, 2001, CMS was unable to approve the requested amendment.

The notice to Connecticut announcing an administrative hearing to reconsider the disapproval of its SPA reads as follows:

To order copies of the Federal Register containing this document, send your request to: New Orders, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. Specify the date of the issue requested and enclose a check or money order payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or enclose your Visa or Master Card number and expiration date. Credit card orders can also be placed by calling the order desk at (202) 512-1800 (or toll-free at 1-888-293-6498) or by faxing to (202) 512-2250. The cost for each copy is $9. As an alternative, you can view and photocopy the Federal Register document at most libraries designated as Federal Depository Libraries and at many other public and academic libraries throughout the country that receive the Federal Register .

This Federal Register document is also available from the Federal Register online database through GPO Access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office. The web site address is http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html.

On August 7, 2001, we published a final rule entitled “Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System for Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (CMS-1069-F)” in the Federal Register (66 FR 41316), that established a prospective payment system (PPS) for inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) as authorized under section 1886(j) of the Social Security Act (the Act) and codified at subpart P of part 412 of the Medicare regulations. In the August 7, 2001 final rule, we set forth per discharge Federal rates for FY 2002 that provided payment for inpatient operating and capital costs of furnishing covered rehabilitation services (that is, routine, ancillary, and capital costs) but not costs of approved educational activities, bad debts, and other services or items that are outside the scope of the IRF PPS.

Covered rehabilitation services include services for which benefits are provided under the fee-for-service Part A (Hospital Insurance Program) of the Medicare program. Annual updates to the IRF PPS rates are required by section 1886(j)(3)(C) of the Act.

In this notice, we set forth the prospective payment rates applicable for IRFs for discharges occurring during FY 2003 as mandated by the Act. In establishing these payment rates, we update the IRF per discharge payment rates that were published in the August 7, 2001 final rule.

Section 1886(j)(5) of the Act requires the Secretary to publish in the Federal Register , on or before August 1 of the preceding fiscal year, the classifications and weighting factors for the IRF case-mix groups (CMGs) and a description of the methodology and data used in computing the prospective payment rates for the upcoming fiscal year. In this notice, we are using the same classifications and weighting factors for the IRF CMGs that were set forth in the August 7, 2001 final rule. Although the statute permits the Secretary to adjust the classification and weighting factors for IRF CMGs from time to time, we are not making any adjustments at this time because the data are not available as discussed in section I.C of this notice. Further, the case and facility level adjustments described in the August 7, 2001 final rule will apply to the FY 2003 IRF PPS payment rates described in this notice.

Accordingly, the CMGs, comorbidity tiers, and the corresponding relative weights presented in the August 7, 2001 final rule will be used as the basis for developing the FY 2003 IRF PPS rates set forth in this notice.

Specifically, we multiply an increase factor, described in section I.D of this notice, by the FY 2002 IRF standardized payment amount (also referred to as the budget neutral conversion factor in the August 7, 2001 final rule (66 FR 41364 through 41367) to develop the FY 2003 standardized payment amount. Then we multiply the FY 2003 budget neutral conversion factor by the relative weights presented in the August 7, 2001 final rule and in Table 1 of this notice to develop the FY 2003 Federal unadjusted IRF PPS payment rates.

Section 4421 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) (Pub. L. 105-33), as amended by section 125 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (BBRA) (Pub. L. 106-113), and by section 305 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA) (Pub. L. 106-554), provides for the implementation of a per discharge PPS, through new section 1886(j) of the Act, for IRFs—inpatient rehabilitation hospitals and rehabilitation units. Although a complete discussion of the IRF PPS provisions appears in the August 7, 2001 final rule (66 FR 41316), we provide below a general description of the IRF PPS.

The IRF PPS uses information from a patient assessment instrument, the Inpatient Rehabilitation—Patient Assessment Instrument (IRF-PAI), to classify patients into distinct case-mix groups (CMGs) based on clinical characteristics and expected resource needs. The CMGs were constructed using rehabilitation impairment categories, functional status (both motor and cognitive), age, comorbidities, and other factors that we deemed appropriate to improve the explanatory power of the groups.

Payment for services furnished to a Medicare patient consists of a predetermined, per-discharge amount for each CMG with applicable case and facility level adjustments. Payments under the IRF PPS encompass inpatient operating and capital costs of furnishing covered rehabilitation services, (that is, routine, ancillary and capital costs) but not costs of approved educational activities, bad debts, and other services or items outside the scope of the IRF PPS.

The IRF PPS uses Federal prospective payment rates across 100 distinct CMGs. In addition, the existence of a specific comorbidity may affect the calculation of the Federal prospective payment rate. In general, however, the FY 2002 Federal prospective payment rates were established using a standardized payment amount. A set of relative payment weights (which account for the relative difference in resource use across CMGs) are applied to the budget neutral conversion factor, and finally, a number of facility level and case level adjustments may apply. The facility level adjustments include those that account for geographic variations in wages (wage index), the percentage of low-income patients (LIPs), and location in a rural area. Case level adjustments include those that apply for transfers, short-stays, interrupted stays, outliers and cases in which the beneficiary expires.

For cost reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2002 and before October 1, 2002, section 1886(j)(1) of the Act and § 412.626 of the regulations provide that IRFs transition into the PPS receiving a “blended payment.” For cost reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2002 and before October 1, 2002, these blended payments consist of 66 2/3 percent of the Federal IRF PPS rate and 33 1/3 percent of the payment the IRF would have been paid had the IRF PPS not been implemented. However, during the transition period, an IRF with a cost reporting period beginning on or after January 1, 2002 and before October 1, 2002 may elect to bypass this blended payment and be paid 100 percent of the Federal IRF PPS rate. For cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 2002 (FY 2003), however, payments for all IRFs will consist of 100 percent of the Federal IRF PPS rate.

As previously stated, in this notice we are using the same case-mix classification system that was set forth in the August 7, 2001 final rule. It is our intention to pursue the development of refinements to the case-mix classification system that will improve the ability of the PPS to more accurately pay IRFs. We have awarded a contract to the Rand Corporation (RAND) to conduct additional research that will, in the initial(1), P. 9 of the signature package version, stages, provide us with the data necessary to address the feasibility of developing and implementing refinements. When the study has been completed, we plan to review various approaches so that we can propose an appropriate methodology to develop and apply refinements. Any specific refinement proposal resulting from this research will be published in the Federal Register for public review and comment.

Table 1, Relative Weights for Case-Mix Groups (CMGs), presents the CMGs, comorbidity tiers, and the corresponding Federal relative weights. We also present the average length of stay for each CMG. As we discussed in the August 7, 2001 final rule, the average length of stay for each CMG is used to determine when an IRF discharge meets the definition of a transfer, which results in a per diem case level adjustment. Because these data elements are not changing as a result of this notice, Table 1 shown below is identical to Table 1 that was published in the August 7, 2001 final rule (66 FR 41394 through 41396). The relative weights reflect the inclusion of cases with an interruption of stay (patient returns on day of discharge or either of the next 2 days). The methodology we used to construct the data elements in Table 1 are described in detail in the August 7, 2001 final rule (66 FR 41350 through 41353).

Section 1886(j)(3)(C) of the Act requires the Secretary to establish an increase factor that reflects changes over time in the prices of an appropriate mix of goods and services included in the covered IRF services, which is referred to as a market basket index. Accordingly, in updating the FY 2003 payment rates set forth in this notice, we apply an appropriate increase factor to the FY 2002 IRF PPS payment rates that is equal to the IRF market basket. In constructing the IRF market basket, we use the methodology set forth in Appendix D of the August 7, 2001 final rule. For this notice, the projected FY 2003 IRF market basket increase factor is 3 percent.

Once we calculate the increase factor, we can determine the updated Federal prospective payments for FY 2003. In accordance with § 412.624(c)(3)(ii), we apply the increase factor (3 percent) to the budget neutral conversion factor for FY 2002 ($11,838). This results in an updated standardized payment amount for FY 2003 of $12,193. The FY 2003 standardized payment amount is applied to each CMG weight shown in Table 1 to compute the unadjusted IRF prospective payment rates for FY 2003.

Table 2, Federal Prospective Payments for Case-Mix Groups (CMGs) for FY 2003, displays the CMGs, the comorbidity tiers, and the corresponding unadjusted IRF prospective payment rates for FY 2003.

Section 1886(j)(6) of the Act requires the Secretary to adjust the proportion (as estimated by the Secretary from time to time) of rehabilitation facilities' costs that are attributable to wages and wage-related costs for area differences in wage levels by a factor (established by the Secretary) reflecting the relative hospital wage level in the geographic area of the rehabilitation facility compared to the national average wage level for such facilities. Not later than October 1, 2001 and at least every 36 months thereafter, the Secretary is required to update the factor under the preceding sentence on the basis of information available to the Secretary (and updated as appropriate) of the wages and wage-related costs incurred in furnishing rehabilitation services. Any adjustments or updates made under section 1886(j)(6) of the Act shall be made in a budget neutral manner.

For the FY 2003 IRF PPS payment rates set forth in this notice, we are applying the same wage adjustment as used for the FY 2002 IRF PPS rates. This includes both the labor-related share and wage indices as specified in the August 7, 2001 final rule. In the August 7, 2001 final rule, we established a wage index based on FY 1997 acute care hospital wages to adjust the FY 2002 IRF payment rates. Although the statute permits the Secretary to adjust the labor-related share and wage index from time to time, we are not adjusting these figures at this time. It is our intention to update the annual wage index and the labor-related share as soon as feasible. However, we must first develop a methodology to incorporate a budget neutrality adjustment for calculating these figures in order to be consistent with the statute. Once we have developed a proposed methodology, we plan to discuss it in a future proposed rule allowing the public an opportunity to comment on its design and application. We believe that continuing to apply the wage index and labor-related share used in FY 2002, provides an appropriate adjustment to account for geographic variation in wage levels, consistent with the statute.

To calculate the wage-adjusted facility payments for the payment rates set forth in this notice, the Federal prospective payment is multiplied by the labor-related percentage (72.395) to determine the labor-related portion of the Federal prospective payments. This labor-related portion is then multiplied by the applicable IRF wage index shown in Table 3A for urban areas and Table 3B for rural areas. These tables shown below are identical to Table 3A and 3B that were published in the August 7, 2001 final rule (66 FR 41397 through 41404).