Section 1408 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3123) is amended in the 2002 Farm Bill by adding one additional member to the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board which totals 31 members. Since the Advisory Board's inception by congressional legislation in 1996, each member has represented a specific category related to farming or ranching, food production and processing, forestry research, crop and animal science, land-grant institutions, food retailing and marketing, rural economic development, and natural resource and consumer interest groups, among many others. The additional Advisory Board member is designated as category “(R) one member representing a non-land grant college or university with a historic commitment to research in the food and agricultural sciences.” This amendment redesignates former member categories (R) through (DD) to (S) through (EE) respectively. Nominations for the new category “R” representing Non Land-Grant Colleges or Universities” are being sought. As a result of this new slot, all members currently identified by categories from letter “R” to letter “DD” will be shifted to the next letter (but will retain their same category title), as follows:

The following describes the information collection to be extended:

Title: FS-2200-1, Refund, Credit, or Transfer Application.

OMB Number: 0596-0003.

Expiration Date of Approval: December 31, 2002.

Type of Request: Extension with no revision.

Abstract: Information collected on this form enables the Forest Service to evaluate a grazing permittee's request for a refund, credit, or transfer of the unused portion of the preceding season's grazing fees paid to the Forest Service for the use of National Forest System lands by permitted livestock. In addition to name and mailing address information, the applicant also indicates on this form the amount of permitted grazing use that was not exercised, the reason it was not exercised, the amount of the grazing fees paid for use that was not exercised, and whether this amount should be refunded, credited, or transferred to another account.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 20 minutes.

Type of Respondents: Grazing permittees.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 600.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 200 hours.

Title: FS-2200-2, Application for Temporary Grazing or Livestock Use Permit.

OMB Number: 0596-0003.

Expiration Date of Approval: December 31, 2002.

Type of Request: Extension with revision.

Abstract: Information collected on this form enables the Forest Service to determine whether individuals qualify for a temporary grazing or livestock use permit authorizing grazing on certain National Forest System lands for a period not to exceed one year. The Forest Service uses the information on this form to determine whether the applicant is likely to comply with grazing permit terms and conditions; the type, amount, and location where grazing use is being sought; and the applicant's name and mailing address so that the agency knows where and to whom correspondence, including the bill for grazing fees, should be sent. This form has been revised to incorporate material previously contained in Form FS-2200-15, Application and Permit for Livestock Use, which is now obsolete. The revisions do not change the scope or extent of information collection requests that were in the previous form.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 20 minutes.

Type of Respondents: Grazing permittees or applicants seeking short term grazing privileges.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 1,750.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 583 hours.

Title: FS-2200-12, Waiver of Term Grazing Permit.

OMB Number: 0596-0003.

Expiration Date of Approval: December 31, 2002.

Type of Request: Extension with revision.

Abstract: Information collected on this form enables the Forest Service to terminate an individual's grazing privileges on certain National Forest System lands based upon that individual's sale or transfer of base ranch property, permitted livestock, or both to another individual who desires to acquire a new grazing permit. The information on this form enables the Forest Service to cancel the grazing permit issued to the individual who sold or transferred the base ranch property, permitted livestock, or both; to identify the individual who acquired the base ranch property, permitted livestock, or both as the preferred applicant for a new grazing permit to replace the cancelled one. This form has been revised but the revisions do not change the scope and extent of the information collection requests that were in the previous form.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 20 minutes.

Type of Respondents: Grazing permittees seeking to relinquish their grazing privileges in favor of individuals who have acquired their base property, permitted livestock, or both.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 750.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 250 hours.

Title: FS-2200-13, Escrow Waiver of Term Grazing Permit Privileges.

OMB Number: 0596-0003.

Expiration Date of Approval: December 31, 2002.

Type of Request: Extension with revision.

Abstract: The information on this form enables the Forest Service to identify the name and address of the lender to a permittee, the amount of the loan from the lender to the permittee, and the due date for repayment of the loan by the permittee. This information is used by the Forest Service to determine whether it should hold in escrow on behalf of the lender all of the privileges associated with the grazing permit except the privilege to graze. It allows the Forest Service to notify the lender of important issues associated with the administration of the grazing permit, and facilitates the transfer of a grazing permit to a lender if the permittee defaults on the loan. This form has been revised but the revisions do not change the scope and extent of the information collection requests that were in the previous form.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 20 minutes.

Type of Respondents: Individuals holding a grazing permit who mortgage their base property or permitted livestock.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 150.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 50 hours.

Title: FS-2200-16, Application for Term Grazing Permit.

OMB Number: 0596-0003.

Expiration Date of Approval: December 31, 2002.

Type of Request: Extension with revision.

Abstract: The information collected on this form enables the Forest Service to evaluate an applicant's eligibility and qualification to hold a term grazing permit authorizing the use of National Forest System lands for livestock grazing purposes, to determine the applicant's ability to comply with grazing permit terms and conditions, and to notify the applicant in writing of matters associated with the administration of permitted grazing including, but not limited to, bills for the fees associated with the permitted grazing activity. This form has been revised but the revisions do not change the scope and extent of the information collection requests that were in the previous form.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 30 minutes.

Type of Respondents: Individuals applying for a term grazing permit.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 1,800.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 900 hours.

Title: FS-2200-17, Application for Term Private Land Grazing Permit.

OMB Number: 0596-0003.

Expiration Date of Approval: December 31, 2002.

Type of Request: Extension with revision.

Abstract: The information collected on this form enables the Forest Service to evaluate the applicant's eligibility and qualification to hold a term private-land grazing permit, which authorizes the use of National Forest System lands and private lands owned by the applicant for livestock grazing purposes. The information also enables the Forest Service to determine the applicant's ability to comply with grazing permit terms and conditions, and to notify the applicant regarding grazing permit administration issues including, but not limited to, bills for the grazing fees associated with the permitted grazing activity. This form has been revised but the revisions do not change the scope and extent of the information collection requests that were in the previous form.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 20 minutes.

Type of Respondents: Individuals applying for a term private-land grazing permit.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 150.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 50 hours.

The following describes the new information collection.

Title: FS-2200-_, Ownership Statement by Corporation or Partnership.

OMB Number: 0596-0003.

Type of Request: New.

Abstract: The information collected on this form enables the Forest Service to evaluate whether a corporation or partnership is eligible and qualified to hold a term grazing permit authorizing grazing on certain National Forest System lands, whether the corporation is authorized to conduct business in the state in which the National Forest System lands to be grazed are located, and which shareholders or partners are authorized to sign official documents on behalf of the corporation or partnership. This is a new Service-wide form based on two similar forms that have been used on a regional basis for many years. These two similar forms, R1-FS-2200-5 and R2-FS-2200-6, are covered under the current information collection authorization but will be discontinued when this new Service-wide form becomes effective.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 20 minutes.

Type of Respondents: Corporations or partnerships applying for a grazing permit.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 800.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 267 hours.

Comment is invited on the following: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. In submitting this proposal to the Office of Management and Budget for approval, the Forest Service will summarize and respond to comments received.

Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Welcome and announcements; (2) Review of projects approved for 2001 and implementation status; (3) Review and confirmation of project criteria; (4) Review and confirmation of voting and discussion process for new proposals; (5) Presentation of projects and vote; (6) Public comment. The meeting is open to the public. Public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (“the Department”) regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2001).

On June 3, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the sixth new shipper review of brake rotors from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) ( See Preliminary Results at 67 FR 38251). We verified Longkou TLC Machinery Co., Ltd.'s (“LKTLC”) information from June 10, 2002, through June 13, 2002, and issued the verification report on July 2, 2002. We provided parties the opportunity to comment on the preliminary results of the review. However, no interested party submitted comments. The Department has conducted this review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

The products covered by this order are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, ranging in diameter from 8 to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and in weight from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters (weight and dimension) of the brake rotors limit their use to the following types of motor vehicles: automobiles, all-terrain vehicles, vans and recreational vehicles under “one ton and a half,” and light trucks designated as “one ton and a half.”

Finished brake rotors are those that are ready for sale and installation without any further operations. Semi-finished rotors are those on which the surface is not entirely smooth, and have undergone some drilling. Unfinished rotors are those which have undergone some grinding or turning. These brake rotors are for motor vehicles, and do not contain in the casting a logo of an original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) which produces vehicles sold in the United States ( e.g. , General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Volvo). Brake rotors covered in the order are not certified by OEM producers of vehicles sold in the United States. The scope also includes composite brake rotors that are made of gray cast iron, which contain a steel plate, but otherwise meet the above criteria. Excluded from the scope of the order are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, with a diameter less than 8 inches or greater than 16 inches (less than 20.32 centimeters or greater than 40.64 centimeters) and a weight less than 8 pounds or greater than 45 pounds (less than 3.63 kilograms or greater than 20.41 kilograms).

Brake rotors are currently classifiable under subheading 8708.39.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

As provided in section 782(i)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.307, we verified LKTLC's information from June 10, 2002, through June 13, 2002, and issued the verification report on July 2, 2002.

The weighted-average dumping margin for the period April 1, 2001, through September 30, 2001, is as follows:

The Department will determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate for merchandise subject to this review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to the Customs Service within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. We will direct the Customs Service to assess the resulting assessment rates against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the importer's/customer's entries during the review period.

The following deposit rates shall be required for merchandise subject to the order entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(1) and 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for LKTLC will be zero; (2) the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters for whom the Department has rescinded the review or for whom a review was not requested for this POR will continue to be the rate assigned in an earlier segment of the proceeding or the PRC-wide rate of 43.32 percent; (3) the cash deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will continue to be 43.32 percent; and (4) the cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

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

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.214.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).

On February 1, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register (67 FR 4945) a notice of “Opportunity To Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) for the period February 1, 2001, through January 31, 2002. On February 28, 2002, the Coalition of Fair Preserved Mushrooms Trade (the “petitioners”) requested an administrative review of the above referenced antidumping duty order for the following companies: China Processed Food Import & Export Company (“China Processed”); Compania Envasadora del Atlantico (“Compania Envasadora”); Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. (“Gerber”); Green Fresh Foods (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd. (“Green Fresh”); Raoping Xingyu Foods Co., Ltd. (“Raoping Xingyu”); Shantou Hongda Industrial General Corporation (“Shantou Hongda”) and Shenxian Dongxing Foods Co., Ltd. (“Shenxian Dongxing”). On March 27, 2002, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order with respect to these companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocations in Part , 67 FR 14696.

On June 11, 2002, the petitioners requested an extension of the deadline to withdraw their requests for review. On June 21, 2002, the Department granted the petitioners' request and extended the deadline until July 9, 2002. On July 9, 2002, the petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review of Compania Envasadora and China Processed. On July 24, 2002, the petitioners submitted a further letter to the Department seeking to withdraw their request for an administrative review of Raoping Xingyu. On July 30, 2002, respondent Raoping Xingyu submitted a letter requesting that the Department reject the petitioners' request with regard to Raoping Xingyu. On August 2, 2002, the Department informed the respondent Raoping Xingyu of the Department's decision (as set forth below).

Pursuant to section 351.213 (d) of the Department's regulations, the Secretary will rescind an administrative review in whole or in part if a party that requested the review withdraws its request within ninety days of publication of the Federal Register notice that initiated the review. Section 351.213(d)(1) further provides that the Secretary may extend this time limit if the Secretary decides that it is reasonable to do so.

Accordingly, we are rescinding in part this review of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China as to Compania Envasadora, China Processed and Raoping Xingyu. This review will continue with respect to Gerber, Green Fresh, Shantou Hongda and Shenxian Dongxing.

This notice is published in accordance with section 751 of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

Under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ), NOAA is responsible for management of the Nation's marine fisheries. In addition, NOAA must comply with the United States' obligations under the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ). NOAA Fisheries collect information via dealer reports to monitor the U.S. catch of tuna in relation to the quota, thereby ensuring that the United States complies with its international obligations to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). Provisions of the domestic regulations are also monitored through this collection of information, such as compliance with closures, fishing seasons, and subquotas by gear type and/or user group. This information provides the catch data necessary to assess the status of tuna resources. Assessments are conducted and presented to ICCAT annually. The data provide, in part, the basis for ICCAT management recommendations that become binding on member nations. In addition, dealer reports provide essential information for domestic management policy and rule-making. This collection also includes imports of Pacific bluefin tuna.

Dealers who buy , sell, or receive for commercial purposes any large medium or giant size class Atlantic bluefin tuna are required to report all transactions to NOAA Fisheries via daily and biweekly reporting forms. These forms collect certain information for each Atlantic bluefin tuna that is sold at landing. Dealers who purchase any other types or sizes of Atlantic tunas, or Pacific coast dealers who export or import bluefin tuna, are required to submit biweekly reports only. Dealers must affix a tag to the tail of each bluefin tuna, record these tag numbers to the label of any packages of tuna parts to be transported for domestic use or export. Anglers who catch giant or large-medium size class Atlantic bluefin tuna must also submit daily reports.

OMB Number : 0648-0239.

Form Number : NOAA 88-144.

Type of Review : Regular submission.

Affected Public : Business or other for-profit organizations(tuna dealers), individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents : 541.

Estimated Time Per Response : 2 minutes for daily reports; 15.5 minutes for biweekly Atlantic bluefin tuna reports; 43 minutes for the Pacific biweekly report; and 1 minute for tagging and recording the tag number of bluefin tuna.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours : 1,468.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public : $1,096.

Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is still 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.

Proposed Schedule and Agenda: Panel To Assess the Capabilities for Domestic Response to Terrorist Attacks Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction will meet from 11 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on September 12, 2002 and from 8:30 a.m. until 2 p.m. on September 13, 2002. Time will be allocated for public comments by individuals or organizations at the end of the meeting on September 13.

Public comment presentations will be limited to two minutes each and must be provided in writing prior to the meeting. Mail written presentations and requests to register to attend the open public session to: Nancy Rizor, RAND, 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050. Public seating for this meeting is limited, and is available on a first-come, first-served basis.

The meeting is open to the public; however, because of space limitations, allocation of seating will be made on a first-come, first served basis. Persons desiring to attend the meeting should call Ms. Diane Reid at 703-805-5133.

On December 11, 2000 (65 FR 77376), EPA announced a 90-day comment period during which the public could submit comments identifying deficiencies they perceived to exist in State and local agency operating permits programs required by title V of the Act. The 90-day comment period ended on March 12, 2001.

The December 11, 2000 notice solicited comment from the public regarding either deficiencies in the elements of the approved program, such as deficiencies in the States' approved regulations, or deficiencies in how a permitting authority was implementing its program. The Agency indicated that it would consider information received from the public and determine whether it agreed or disagreed with the purported deficiencies and would then publish notices of those findings. Where the Agency agreed that a claimed shortcoming constituted a deficiency, it indicated it would issue a notice of deficiency. Where the Agency disagreed as to the existence of a deficiency, it indicated it would respond to the citizen comments by December 1, 2001, for comments on programs granted interim approval as of December 11, 2000. For programs granted full approval as of December 11, 2000, EPA indicated it would respond to citizen comments by April 1, 2002.

In accordance with the procedures set forth in the December 11, 2000, notice and outlined above, EPA has issued notices of deficiency for several State permitting authorities in connection with the citizen comment letters submitted pursuant to the December 11, 2000, notice. Notices of deficiency have been published in the Federal Register for the following permitting authorities:

Also in accordance with the December 11, 2000, notice, EPA has issued Agency response letters to citizen comments which explain EPA's reasoning in those instances where the Agency disagrees that particular alleged problems constitute deficiencies within the meaning of part 70. The EPA hereby notifies the public that EPA letters responding to citizen allegations concerning Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, and Ohio are available at the following web address: ( http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/permits/response/ ). In previously published notices (67 FR 6709, January 13, 2002 and 67 FR 16374, April 5, 2002), EPA alerted the public to this same web site as the location for all previously signed EPA response letters. The EPA also notes that when it signs additional EPA response letters in the future, it will publish additional notices of availability to identify the location of its web site containing those letters.

The EPA notes further that the terms “deficiency” and “notice of deficiency” are terms of art under the operating permits regulations in part 70. Thus, as explained in our letters responding to citizen comments, in some instances where EPA declined to issue a notice of deficiency, it was because the Agency disagreed that there was a problem with the State program or its implementation that requires correction. In other instances, however, EPA agreed in whole or in part with commenters that a program was not being properly implemented but nevertheless did not issue a notice of deficiency. Rather, EPA determined that the alleged deficiency had been corrected because the State had made a firm commitment to correct program implementation shortcomings where that could be accomplished on a timely basis by the State administratively without additional rulemaking or legislation.

Pursuant to section 502(b) of the Act, EPA has promulgated regulations establishing the minimum requirements for State and local air agency operating permits programs. We promulgated these regulations on July 21, 1992 (57 FR 32250), in part 70 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations. Section 502(d) of the Act requires each State to develop and submit to EPA an operating permits program meeting the requirements of the part 70 regulations and requires us to approve or disapprove the submitted program. In some cases, States have delegated authority to local city, county, or district air pollution control agencies to administer operating permits programs in their jurisdictions. These operating permits programs must meet the same requirements as the State programs. In accordance with section 502(g) of the Act and 40 CFR 70.4(d), for 99 State and local operating permits programs, we granted “interim” rather than full approval because the programs substantially met, but did not fully meet, the provisions of part 70. For interim approved programs, we identified in the notice of interim approval those program deficiencies that would have to be corrected before we could grant the program full approval. As of December 11, 2000, some of those 99 programs had since been granted full approval and the remainder still had interim approval status.

After a State or local permitting program is granted full or interim approval, EPA has oversight of the program to insure that the program is implemented correctly and is not changed in an unacceptable manner. Section 70.4(i) of the part 70 regulations requires permitting authorities to keep us apprised of any proposed program modifications and also to submit any program modifications to us for approval. Section 70.10(b) requires any approved operating permits program to be implemented “ * * * in accordance with the requirements of this part and of any agreement between the State and the Administrator concerning operation of the program.”

Furthermore, 40 CFR 70.4(i) and 70.10(b) provide authority for us to require permitting authorities to correct program or implementation deficiencies. As explained previously, EPA has exercised these authorities by in some instances issuing notices of deficiency and in other instances issuing letters explaining why we do not agree that deficiencies exist.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review of EPA's letters responding to the citizen letters on the Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, and Ohio operating permits programs may be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of August 20, 2002.

Throughout this document wherever “we”, “us”, or “our” are used we mean EPA.

This action is simply an announcement of a finding that we have already made. We sent a letter to the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division on May 16, 2002, stating that the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the submitted Aspen PM 10 maintenance plan are adequate. This finding has also been announced on our conformity website at http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/conform/adequacy.htm.

Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. Our conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.

The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle emission budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Please note that an adequacy review is separate from our completeness review, and it also should not be used to prejudge our ultimate approval of the SIP. Even if we find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved, and vice versa.

We've described our process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in a memo entitled, “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999 Conformity Court Decision,” dated May 14, 1999. We followed this guidance in making our adequacy determination.

To address water resource problems more effectively, water resource managers at all levels have been adopting a more comprehensive approach—one that recognizes that the health of aquatic resources is affected by what happens on the land that drains in to a water body. A watershed can be large or small. It can encompass the entire Mississippi River basin or a small stream in western Georgia. The “watershed approach” addresses natural resource issues that cross geographic, jurisdictional and political boundaries. This approach recognizes needs for water supply, water quality, flood control, navigation, hydropower generation, fisheries, biodiversity, habitat preservation and recreation—and it recognizes that these needs often compete. It provides for establishing local priorities in the context of national goals, coordination of public and private actions, encouragement of partnerships to affect change, and enlists the support and knowledge base of the public at the local level.

Over the years, many communities around the country have joined forces to protect their watersheds, often using innovative and novel approaches that are geared toward solving the problems that make sense for their locality. In recent years, governments, non-profit organizations, businesses, and citizens have employed watershed-based approaches to refocus their efforts to protect and restore the nation's waters. These refocused efforts have brought positive results and attainment of State/Tribal water quality standards in some areas.

On January 25, 2002, EPA announced that it would request $21 million in its fiscal year 2003 budget for a new Watershed Initiative. Subject to the availability of appropriations, EPA will employ a competitive grant process to select up to 20 watersheds in which to award grants under this program. These grants will fund eligible activities in support of comprehensive watershed-based approaches to protecting and restoring water resources.

The Watershed Initiative will build upon the Agency's holistic watershed approach to water quality management. The Initiative will encourage coalition-based strategies for attaining water quality standards and improving water resource protection and restoration on a watershed level. EPA hopes the Initiative will encourage practical and efficient models that can be adapted to local circumstances across the country. The goal of this Initiative is to advance the successes of partnerships and coalitions that have undertaken the necessary watershed evaluations and assessments and have a technically sound watershed plan ready to carry out. EPA believes the Watershed Initiative will help encourage the kind of pro-active, incentive-based protection and restoration measures that will ultimately yield cleaner water.

Since January, EPA has been working with an array of people to gather ideas and suggestions on how to design the new Watershed Initiative. During the last few months, EPA has been interacting ( via conferences, meetings, listening sessions, and speaking engagements) with States, Tribes, congressional staff, and a host of local government and community groups to: (1) Introduce the Initiative, (2) gain insight into potential challenges, and (3) solicit views on how to design the proposed program. An EPA work group was formed and consists of representatives from other offices within EPA as well as watershed experts from each of the Agency's Regional Offices. EPA held public listening sessions in Washington, DC, and published a notice and request for comments in the Federal Register (67 FR 36172; May 23, 2002). Sixty-eight people attended one of the four listening sessions and over 105 responded to the Federal Register notice. The Agency considered all of the suggestions and viewpoints in formulating the Watershed Initiative outlined in this notice.

The Agency received comments from a wide variety of interested parties, such as state agencies, county and local authorities, non-profit organizations, academia, other federal agencies, and private citizens. One letter, received from 20 commenters, expressed opposition to the Initiative in general because of the concern that the Initiative would detract from EPA's core regulatory programs. To the contrary, the Watershed Initiative is intended to support any watershed with a far-reaching, comprehensive plan, which could include a regulatory requirement, such as, EPA-approved Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).

The majority of the respondents were supportive of the Initiative and in agreement with EPA's general approach and suggested criteria. As a result of the comments received, the selection criteria were amended. The concept of a watershed being a “high value” resource was eliminated, and greater weight will be given to those nominations that focus on environmental results and show broad stakeholder involvement.

Of all the questions posed, commenters were most divided on whether the Governors and Tribal Leaders should submit the nominations to EPA, or whether the individual watershed organizations should be able to submit their nominations directly to EPA. EPA elected to have the Governors and Tribal Leaders make the nominations. The Agency feels strongly that in order for the Initiative to be successful, the States and Tribes must be committed to the targeted watersheds and play an active role in the Initiative.

Subject to the availability of appropriations, $21 million will be available in FY 2003 for the Watershed Initiative. EPA expects to use the majority of the money for grants to the selected watersheds. EPA anticipates that typical grant awards for the selected watersheds will range from $300,000 to $1,300,000, depending on the amount requested and the overall size and need of the project. About five percent of the total appropriation will go toward enhancing national tools, training, and technical assistance that will help local partnerships be more effective at improving watershed health, so that watersheds which are nominated but not selected, and other watersheds, will also benefit from the Initiative. The total number and amount of the awards will depend on the amount of funds made available.

EPA expects to announce selections early in 2003 and complete the grant award process, including grant work plan negotiations through the appropriate EPA Regional Office, by May 2003. Grants awarded will be one-time awards and grant recipients should use the funds within 2-3 years. Subsequent funding would involve a new call for watershed nominations and is predicated on continued appropriations. Therefore, any proposal for work beyond the initial funding period would need to be submitted through the competitive process and will not receive preferential consideration based on the applicant's previous award.

EPA will select watersheds through a national competition and will fund projects consisting of eligible activities within each plan (see section IV.C for a description of the activities that are eligible for funding under this grant program). The size or scale of the watershed is based on the range and geographic location(s) of the problem or threat, and the projects to be undertaken to address them. Therefore, the “watershed plan,” in this context may be a subset of a larger and more extensive formal watershed plan. Each watershed nomination must contain only one plan, yet a plan may include a single project or multiple projects within the watershed. Preference will be given to inter-jurisdictional watershed plans, that is, those that involve multiple states and/or tribes. Watershed plans that transcend international borders may also be considered provided that the appropriate water agency in the adjacent country is a partner or otherwise supports the project. Watersheds and watershed plans will be selected based on the quality of the nominations received and adherence to the selection criteria. Funding decisions will be made based on the eligibility of the project or projects within the selected watershed plan. A full grant application will be required only for the selected watersheds (see section III).

Watersheds must be nominated by Governors or Tribal Leaders. Each Governor or Tribal Leader will prepare or solicit proposed watershed plans from eligible entities in a manner most appropriate to their state or tribe and nominate the most meritorious to EPA.

Governors or Tribal Leaders are invited to nominate two state or tribal watersheds each. There is, however, no limit on the number of inter-state or joint state and tribal watersheds that can be nominated. For inter-state or joint state and tribal watershed plans, any of the involved Governors/Tribal Leaders may submit the nomination. Such watershed nominations must have the endorsement of all affected state or tribal governmental entities before submittal to EPA.

Governors and Tribal Leaders are to submit their watershed nominations to EPA (see section V for the specific details). All nominations will be screened by EPA staff prior to review to determine if they are eligible, complete, and in accordance with instructions laid out in this notice. Once received by EPA, the nominations will undergo two levels of review—one at the regional level and one at the national level. Each of the Agency's Regional Offices will convene a Review and Evaluation Panel that will assess how well the overall watershed plan meets the program criteria described below. Based on the panel review and recommendation, each Regional Administrator will then forward his/her region's top four candidates to EPA's Office of Water at Headquarters. The Office of Water will convene a Technical Advisory Panel at the national level consisting of representatives from the Agency's Program and Regional Offices, as well as members of other federal agencies, to review the technical merit of the watershed plan and eligible projects and rank the watershed nominations sent forward by the EPA Regional Offices. In addition to the prescribed criteria, factors such as geographic diversity, project diversity, watershed size, urban/rural mix, and cost will be considered in ranking nominations for consideration by the Administrator. The Administrator will select the watersheds and the watershed plans to be funded.

EPA is requiring applicants to demonstrate a minimum non-federal match of 25% of the total cost of the project or projects. The Agency considers this matching contribution as evidence of community support and commitment, and an opportunity to increase the overall scope of the proposed project. In addition to cash, the match can come from in-kind goods and services such as the use of volunteers and their donated time, equipment, expertise, etc., consistent with the regulation governing match requirements (40 CFR 31.24 or 40 CFR 30.23). Other federal funds may be used to meet the match requirement for this grant program if authorized by the statute governing the award of the other federal funds. EPA encourages applicants to leverage as much investment as possible, and those entities that exceed the minimum requirement may be preferred in the selection process (see section II.E).

Tribes and tribal watershed groups may be exempt from this match requirement if they are constrained to such an extent that fulfilling the match requirement would impose undue hardship. EPA acknowledges the limited means of many tribes and the difficulty they may have in obtaining non-federal matching contributions.

In addition to a one-page cover letter signed by the Governor or Tribal Leader, the narrative portion of a single nomination should be no more than ten double-spaced pages long, using a 12-point font. The submission should be printed on one side only of an 8 1/2 ′x11″ page and not bound. Each submission must include all of the required elements listed below. A nomination containing a narrative that exceeds 10 pages will not be considered. Project budgets, maps, letters of support, and match certifications may be appended and will not count toward the 10-page limit.

In general, nominees should provide a description of what efforts have been done thus far to carry out their watershed plan, and how the infusion of additional funds can result in a synergistic effect and results beyond the existing level of investment. In preparing nomination materials, nominees are to keep in mind the criteria by which their overall watershed plan will be judged as distinct from the individual projects that will be eligible for funding under the grant. Within these required elements, nominees should address completely and to the best of their ability the evaluation criteria outlined below in section II.E.

1. Narrative Description. Each nomination must contain the following components as part of the 10-page narrative portion.

An assessment of the natural resource and environmental conditions, and an identification of problem sources and areas for treatment are required. These include:

(1) A description of the watershed's biological, physical, and, if relevant social and/or cultural characteristics.

(2) An identification of problems or threats facing the watershed.

(3) A comprehensive description of the watershed plan. This should include: (i) Short- and long-term watershed goals, (ii) identification and prioritization of the projects necessary to address the problems or threats facing the watershed; (iii) delineation of which projects that are part of the plan but are not eligible for funding; and (iv) person, or entity, who will be responsible for implementing the watershed plan.

A description of the projects expected to be undertaken using the EPA grant are required. Included in this section should be:

(1) A description of the relationship of the projects to the watershed plan and goals.

(2) A detailed description of the proposed projects for EPA funding including: (i) A description of the components and goals of the projects, (ii) a schedule for implementing the projects; (iii) the project's itemized estimated budget including any leveraging commitment; and (iv) environmental milestones for determining whether the goals of the watershed projects are being realized.

(3) A monitoring and evaluation component including performance measures and quarterly progress goals, as well as a description of how the ultimate success of the projects and watershed plan will be measured. The progress and performance of the projects and watershed plan must be measurable by technically sound practices.

(4) A description of how the projects complement or are consistent with other EPA, federal, and/or state programs or mandates.

(5) Person, or entity, who will be responsible for coordinating the proposed projects.

A description of the management, staff, supporters, and stakeholders for both the watershed plan and the proposed projects is required, including:

(1) Identification, qualifications, and past experience of the plan's leader, staff, and other active public and private partners who currently participate or are expected to participate in implementation of the watershed plan, along with a description of their specific roles and responsibilities.

(2) Identification, qualifications, and past experience of the project's leader, staff, and other active public and private partners who currently participate or are expected to participate in implementation of the proposed projects, along with a description of their specific roles and responsibilities.

(3) A description of the sources and nature of any technical expertise needed and/or obtained to carry out the projects.

(4) A description or listing of other stakeholders who may play an indirect role in the specific project or overall watershed plan.

Because the selected watersheds are intended to serve as models for other communities and community projects, the following are required:

(1) A strategy for transferring the knowledge gained from this effort to other areas.

(2) A description of an information and outreach component that will be used to enhance public understanding of the watershed and encourage participation in the local project or projects, and future activities regarding implementing the goals of the watershed plan.

2. Other Requirements. To substantiate the information contained in the narrative portion of the submission, proof and/or documentation to verify partnerships and matching funds is required and may be submitted as appendices. Items that must accompany the narrative description include:

(a) One-page cover letter signed by the Governor or Tribal Leader.

(b) Budgets reflecting a detailed breakdown of cost by category for each project.

(c) Signed letter(s) from active partners indicating their commitment to implementing the watershed plan or for specific proposed projects.

(d) Signed letter(s) from entities committing to provide matching funds, either cash or in-kind, and the amount of equivalent value of the commitment toward the projects.

(e) For inter-state or joint nominations, signed letter(s) expressing the support of the other participating governmental entities.

(f) Maps (optional).

Watersheds will be nominated and selected based on the submitted watershed plan. Watershed nominations will be scored for each of the following four criteria for a possible total score of 50. Watershed plans that are inter-jurisdictional ( i.e., multi-state or state/tribe) will be awarded five points, and nominations that exceed the minimum match requirement will receive five points. Please note that the evaluation criteria focus on the overall watershed plan and not the proposed projects.

1. Focus on Results (20 total points). Successful nominees will have demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of the watershed ecology, presented a sound approach for combating threats or impairments to the water system, and identified a primed plan that is likely to achieve tangible, defensible environmental results in a relatively short time period. Reviewers could consider any number of components for this criterion, but will focus on the following:

(a) Watershed plan feasibility and readiness to proceed (10 points). Points will be awarded based on the overall feasibility of the plan from both a biological and engineering perspective. Reviewers also will look at the readiness of the plan and those plans that can be implemented quickly will receive more points. Plans will be evaluated on the technical merit and adequacy of each project. In sum, higher scores will be given to those nominees that have demonstrated a knowledge and understanding of priority water resource problems within the watershed; have substantially completed the assessment and planning phase of the plan; and are ready to begin.

(b) Demonstrated ability (5 points). Plans will be scored based on the qualifications and management capability of the nominee. Reviewers will assess the past experience of project leader(s) and/or partners in designing, implementing, and effectively managing and coordinating activities. Communities or organizations that have no prior experience and have developed their first watershed plan will be evaluated on the basis of their plan and their potential to effectively manage and oversee all phases of the proposed plan and demonstrated working relationship with their partners.

(c) Accountability (5 points). A nomination will be scored based on how well it is supported by a clearly articulated set of performance and progress measures, as well as a description of how these measures will be monitored. Reviewers will evaluate the plan in relation to its likelihood to achieve measurable, defensible environmental results in a relatively short time period, including attaining performance expectations, reaching project goals, and producing objective environmental results.

2. Broad Support (10 points). Watershed plans that incorporate a wide variety of state and local participation will be favored. The score for this criterion will be based on the level to which a nominee can demonstrate strong and diverse stakeholder stewardship and support. Reviewers will look for documented effective working relationships among state and local authorities, along with evidence of broad-based community involvement.

3. Innovation (5 points). Reviewers will be looking for progressive and forward-thinking plans when evaluating the nominations. Because the selected watersheds are expected to serve as models, watershed plans that undertake unique, innovative, or novel approaches to environmental problem-solving will be scored higher. Watershed plans that address regulatory challenges or provide for market-based incentives are two examples.

4. Compatibility with other Federal or State Programs (5 points). Reviewers will evaluate the extent to which the watershed plan and the proposed projects are linked to other existing state or federal programs. Points will be awarded to those watershed plans and proposed projects that integrate the common goals and complement the ongoing efforts occurring at the federal, state, or local level.

Only the selected watersheds need to proceed through the grant application process. Once selected to receive a grant, the successful nominee will have 60 days to complete the formal grant application process ( i.e., Application for Federal Assistance, Standard Form 424 et al ). The standard EPA grants application package must be filed according to Agency guidelines. Detailed information and assistance, including an application kit, required forms, and a check list, can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ogd/AppKit/ . Successful nominees may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets prior to the final approval of the award. The exact amount of funds to be awarded, the final scope of activities, the duration of the projects, and specific role of the EPA Regional project coordinator will be determined in pre-award negotiations between the nominee and EPA.

Although the selections will be announced at the national level, Watershed Initiative grants will be awarded and managed by the respective EPA Regional Offices. The designated EPA Regional Contact listed in section VI will be available to provide additional guidance in preparing the application, filling out the necessary forms, and answering any questions. In anticipation of this process, all applicants may want to explore this website for useful and pertinent information prior to preparing and submitting their nomination materials.

EPA expects to award most, if not all, of these grants under the authority of section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This section authorizes the Agency to award grants to conduct and promote the coordination and acceleration of activities such as demonstrations, training, education, experiments, investigations, surveys, studies, and research relating to the causes, effect, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution. While the Agency plans to rely primarily on section 104 for authority to award these grants, grant projects, if eligible, could possibly be funded under the CWA authorities found in section 121 (Wet Weather Watershed Pilot Projects) or section 320 (National Estuary Program). Regulations pertaining to EPA grants are in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 30, 31 and 35.

Under section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act, the following entities are eligible to receive grants: state and tribal water pollution control agencies, interstate or inter-tribal agencies, other public or non-profit private agencies, institutions, organizations, and individuals. The term “State” is defined to include the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

All activities must directly support the watershed plan submitted. Grants awarded under section 104(b)(3) for this Initiative may only be used to conduct and promote the coordination and acceleration of activities such as demonstrations, training, education, experiments, investigations, surveys, studies, and research relating to the causes, effect, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution. These activities, while not defined in the statute, advance the state of knowledge, gather information, or transfer information. For instance, “demonstrations” are generally projects that demonstrate new or experimental technologies, methods, or approaches and the results of the project will be disseminated so that others can benefit from the knowledge gained. The innovative compilation of individual projects to create a comprehensive approach to a watershed clean-up or protection effort could constitute a demonstration project under this authority. For example, if a watershed establishes a ten-year goal for its waters and establishes an innovative collaboration of projects and measurement tools to achieve and judge its success, replication of this approach in varying geographic locations or in a diversity of circumstances ( i.e, rural vs. urban) could be considered a demonstration under section 104(b)(3). Research projects may include the application of established practices when they contribute to learning about an environmental concept or problem.

Other activities are eligible for funding if the grants are awarded under section 121 (Wet Weather Pilot Projects) or section 320 (National Estuary Program) of the CWA. Candidates wishing to be considered for Watershed Initiative funding under section 121 or section 320 are urged to consult the Agency prior to initiating the nomination process because the requirements for those grants are different from those discussed in this notice.

Project monitoring and reporting requirements can be found in 40 CFR 30.50-30.54 and 40 CFR 31.40-30.45. In general, grantees are responsible for managing the day-to-day operations and supported activities of the grant to assure compliance with applicable federal requirements, and for ensuring that established milestones and performance goals are being achieved. Performance reports and financial reports must be submitted quarterly and are due 30 days after the reporting period. The final report is due 90 days after the grant has expired. Grant managers should consult, and work closely with, their regional contact person throughout the award period.

If the project involves the collection of environmental data, certain quality assurance and/or quality control (QA/QC) and peer review requirements may be applicable. Applicants should allow sufficient time and resources for this process in their proposed projects. Environmental data are any measurements or information that describe environmental processes, location, or condition; ecological or health effects and consequences; or the performance of environmental technology. Environmental data also include information collected directly from measurements, produced from models, and obtained from other sources such as data bases or published literature.

Regulations pertaining to QA/QC requirements can be found in 40 CFR 30.54 and 31.45. Additional guidance can be found at http://www.epa.gov/quality/qa_docs.html#noeparqt or by calling the Agency's Office of Environmental Information at 202-564-6830.

EPA invites each Governor and Tribal Leader to submit two nominations for Watershed Initiative grants. Please send the electronic version of the nomination to initiative.watershed@epa.gov. No confidential business information should be sent via e-mail and only nomination materials are to be sent to this e-mail box. If unusual or extraordinary circumstances prevent electronic submission of the nomination, please contact the appropriate Regional contact person listed below to discuss alternate arrangements.

EPA requests that 2 paper copies of the full nomination package also be sent to EPA. Submissions submitted by mail should be sent to: Robert Wayland, Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds; Mail Code 4501T; USEPA; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Submissions delivered by courier should be sent to: Robert Wayland, Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds; USEPA; Rm. 7130; 1301 Constitution Avenue; NW, Washington, DC 20004. Mark all submissions: ATTN: EPA Watershed Initiative.

Please direct all questions to the Regional contact person and not to the watershed initiative e-mail box. Designated Agency Contacts for each Region are listed in section VI below. All nominations must be postmarked and received electronically by EPA by the November 21, 2002 deadline. Any nomination received after the deadline will not be considered. Please note that the US Government continues to experience security-related delays in US Postal Service deliveries, so the Agency encourages courier service.

The CCL serves as the primary source of priority contaminants for research and regulatory evaluations for the Agency's drinking water program. The list is comprised of both chemical and microbial contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems, and may have adverse health effects, and which at the time of publication are not subject to any proposed or promulgated National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs). EPA has formed a CCL Classification Process Work Group of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) to help the Agency in developing a new risk based priority setting process based upon the recommendations made by the National Research Council (NRC) in its 2001 report.

The work group is comprised of recognized technical experts representing an array of backgrounds and perspectives who are as impartial and objective as possible. The purpose of the meeting is to provide advice to the NDWAC as it develops recommendations for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the classification process EPA ought to use to develop its list of candidate contaminants. The work group is charged with discussing, evaluating, and providing advice on methodologies, activities, and analysis needed to implement the National Research Council's recommendations on an expanded approach for the CCL listing process. This may include advice on developing and identifying: (1) Overall implementation strategy, (2) classification attributes and criteria, (3) pilot projects to validate new classification approaches, (4) risk communication issues, and (5) additional issues not addressed in the NRC Report.

The first meeting of the work group will be held on September 18-19, 2002, and is open to the public for observation purposes only. Statements from the public will be taken at the close of the meeting. EPA is not soliciting written comments and is not planning to formally respond to comments. The first meeting will focus on the: (1) Review of NRC recommendations for a risk based priority ranking process for CCL contaminants, (2) development of an overall implementation strategy, (3) identification of technical expertise needed to support the process, (4) formation of technical subgroups, if deemed necessary, and (5) identification and discussion of other relevant issues.

As part of the 2002 appropriations process, Congress directed EPA to “begin immediately to review the Agency's affordability criteria and how small system variance and exemption programs should be implemented for arsenic” (Conference Report 107-272, page 175). Congress further directed the Agency to prepare a report, which EPA submitted, “on its review of the affordability criteria and the administrative actions undertaken or planned to be undertaken by the Agency, as well as potential funding mechanisms for small community compliance and other legislative actions, which, if taken by the Congress, would best achieve appropriate extensions of time for small communities while also guaranteeing maximum compliance.” (Conference Report 107-272, page 175).

In evaluating treatment technologies for small systems, EPA currently uses an affordability threshold of 2.5% of median household income. EPA's national-level affordability criteria consist of two major components: an expenditure baseline and an affordability threshold. The expenditure baseline (derived from annual median household water bills) is subtracted from the affordability threshold (a share of median household income that EPA believes to be a reasonable upper limit for these water bills) to determine the expenditure margin (the maximum increase in household water bills that can be imposed by treatment and still be considered affordable). EPA compares the cost of treatment technologies against the available expenditure margin to determine if an affordable compliance technology can be identified. If EPA cannot identify an affordable compliance technology, then it attempts to identify a variance technology. Findings must be made at both the Federal and State level that compliance technologies are not affordable for small systems before a variance can be granted.

EPA is asking the NDWAC for advice on its national-level affordability criteria and the methodology used to establish these criteria. Taking into consideration the structure of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the limitations of readily available data and information sources, EPA is seeking the Council's opinion of the national level affordability criteria, methodology for deriving the criteria, and approach to applying those criteria to NPDWRs.

As part of the Council's review of EPA's national-level affordability criteria, the Agency is seeking input on (1) the Agency's overall approach, (2) alternatives, if any, to the use of median household income as a metric, (3) alternatives, if any, to 2.5% as a metric, (4) alternatives, if any, to calculating the expenditure baseline, (5) the usefulness of a separate criteria for ground and surface water systems, (6) including an evaluation of the potential availability of financial assistance, and (7) the need for making affordability determinations on a regional basis. Other issue areas may also be discussed. The meeting is open to the public; statements from the public will be taken at the close of the meeting. EPA is not soliciting written comments and is not planning to formally respond to comments.

On July 9, 2002, CEQ published notice in the Federal Register requesting public comment on current NEPA implementing practices and procedures in the following areas: technology, information management, and information security; federal and intergovernmental collaboration; programmatic and tiered analyses; and adaptive management and monitoring and evaluation plans. In addition, it was announced that the NEPA Task Force would look at other NEPA implementation issues such as the level of detail included in agencies' procedures and documentation for promulgating categorical exclusions, the utility and structure of format for environmental assessment documents, and implementation practices that would benefit other agencies.

A number of interest groups and individuals have requested that CEQ extend the public comment period. The Council believes that by extending the comment period a better collection of best practices can be assembled and greater in-depth responses will result to the questions posed in the Federal Register notice of July 9, 2002 (67 FR 45510-45512). Therefore, the comment period is being extended by 30 days.

Public comments are requested by September 23, 2002.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0962.

Title: Redesignation of the 18 GHz Frequency Band, Blanket Licensing of Satellite Earth Stations in the Ka-band, and the Allocation of Additional Spectrum for Broadcast Satellite-Service Use.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 500 respondents; 538 responses.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1-4 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement, third party disclosure requirement, on occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 553 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The Commission has adopted rules that redesignate portions of the 17.7-20.2 GHz band, among the various currently allocated services in order to make more efficient use of the spectrum and to better accommodate the operational needs of licensees. The Commission proposed licensing of Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) systems that require an amendment to the reporting requirements to include milestone certifications.

OMB Control No.: 3060-1014.

Title: Ku-band NGSO FSS.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 6 respondents; 28 responses.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1-4 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion, one-time, and annual reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 84 hours.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $87,395.

Needs and Uses: The Commission sought and received emergency clearance of this information collection on 6/10/02. The Commission is now initiating a 60-day comment period to extend this collection with no change for the regular, three-year approval.

On April 26, 2002, the Commission adopted and released IB Docket No. 01-96, FCC 02-123. Applicants to provide NGSO FSS in the Ku-Band will be required to amend their pending applications to conform to frequency sharing methods adopted in the rulemaking. They must also submit milestone certifications, applications for blanket authorizations for multiple numbers of technically identical user earth stations, and annual reports on the status of their space station construction and launch.

The information collected during the Commission's authorization process for U.S.-licensed space station operations will be used by Commission staff in carrying out the agency's duties concerning satellite communications, as required by sections 301, 308, 309 and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 301, 308, 309, and 310.

OMB Control No. : 3060-0540.

Title: Tariff Filing Requirements for Nondominant Common Carriers.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 2,000.

Estimated Time Per Response: 10.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 21,000 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $1,260,000.

Needs and Uses: The information collected pursuant to the nondominant tariff filing rules is used to comply with Section 203 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which requires that carriers file schedules indicating the rates, terms, and conditions of their service offerings. The information collected pursuant to the tariff filing requirements is used by the Commission to determine whether the rates, terms, and conditions of service offered are just and reasonable as the Act requires. These tariff filing requirements enable the Commission and the public to ensure that the service offerings of communications common carriers comply with the requirements of the Act. If the information were not filed, the Commission would not be able to carry out its responsibilities as required by the Act.

The Commission is publishing this notice to seek an extension of OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests for requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3), 5 CFR 1320(3), 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing paperwork clearance for the regulations noted herein.

The FTC invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

If a comment contains nonpublic information, it must be filed in paper form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “confidential.” Comments that do not contain any nonpublic information may instead be filed in electronic form (in ASCII format, WordPerfect, or Microsoft Word) as part of or as an attachment to e-mail message directed to the following e-mail box: apparelpprwork@ftc.gov. Such comments will be considered by the Commission and will be available for inspection and copying at its principal office in accordance with section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR section 4.9(b)(6)(ii).

Staff's burden estimates for the four rules in question are based on data from the Bureau of the Census, U.S. Customs and International Trade Commission, the Department of Labor, and data or other input from industry sources. The relevant information collection requirements within these rules and corresponding burden estimates follow.

The Fur Act prohibits misbranding and false advertising of fur products. The Fur Act Regulations, 16 CFR 301, establish disclosure requirements that assist consumers in making informed purchasing decisions, and recordkeeping requirements that assist the Commission in enforcing these regulations. The Regulations also provide a procedure for exemption from certain disclosure provisions under the Act.

Estimated annual hours burden: 177,000 hours, rounded to the nearest thousand (62,400 hours for recordkeeping + 114,450 hours for disclosure).

Recordkeeping: The Regulations require that retailers, manufacturers and processors, and importers keep certain records in addition to those they may keep in the ordinary course of business. Staff estimates that 1,500 retailers incur an average recordkeeping burden of about 13 hours per year (19,500 hours total); 225 manufacturers and fur processors combined incur an average recordkeeping burden of about 52 hours per year (11,700 total); and 1,200 importers of furs and fur products incur an average recordkeeping burden of 26 hours per year (31,200 hours total). The combined recordkeeping burden for the industry is approximately 62,400 hours annually.

Disclosure: Staff estimates that 1,710 respondents (210 manufacturers + 1,500 retail sellers of fur garments) each require an average of 20 hours per year to determine label content (34,200 hours total), and an average of five hours per year to draft and order labels (8,550 hours total). Staff estimates that manually attaching a label to an estimated 1,620,000 fur garments requires approximately two minutes per garment for a total of 54,000 hours annually. Thus, the total burden for labeling garments is 96,750 hours per year.

Staff estimates that the incremental burden associated with the Regulations' invoice disclosure requirement, beyond the time that would be devoted to preparing invoices in its absence, is approximately 30 seconds per invoice. 1 The invoice disclosure requirement applies to fur garments, which are generally sold individually, and fur pelts, which are generally sold in groups of at least 50, on average. Assuming invoices are prepared for sales of 1,620,000 garments and 160,000 groups (an estimated 8 million pelts ÷ 50) each of imported and domestic pelts, the invoice disclosure requirement entails an estimated total burden of 16,167 hours.

Staff estimates that the Regulations' advertising disclosure requirements impose an average burden of one hour per year for each of the approximately 1,500 domestic fur retailers, or a total of 1,500 hours.

Thus, staff estimates the total disclosure burden to be approximately 114,450 hours (96,750 hours for labeling + 16,167 hours for invoices + 1,500 hours for advertising).

Estimated annual cost burden: $2,303,000, rounded to the nearest thousand (solely relating to labor costs).

Staff believes that there are no current start-up costs or other capital costs associated with the Regulations. Because the labeling of fur products has been in integral part of the manufacturing process for decades, manufacturers have in place the capital equipment necessary to comply with the Regulations' labeling requirements. Industry sources indicate that much of the information required by the Fur Act and its implementing Regulations would be included on the product label even absent the regulations. Similarly, invoicing, recordkeeping, and advertising disclosures are tasks performed in the ordinary course of business so that covered firms would incur no additional capital or other non-labor costs as a result of the Act or the Regulations.

The Wool Act prohibits misbranding of wool products. The Wool Act Regulations, 16 CFR 300, establish disclosure requirements that assist consumers in making informed purchasing decisions and recordkeeping requirements that assist the Commission in enforcing the Regulations.

Estimated annual hours burden: 556,000 hours, rounded to the nearest thousand (125,000 recordkeeping hours + 430,556 disclosure hours).

Recordkeeping: Staff estimates that approximately 5,000 wool firms are subject to the Regulations' recordkeeping requirements. Based on an average annual burden of 25 hours per firm, the total recordkeeping burden is 125,000 hours.

Disclosure: Approximately 10,000 wool firms, producing or importing about 500,000,000 wool products annually, are subject to the Regulations' disclosure requirements. Staff estimates the burden of determining label content to be 20 hours per year per respondent, or a total of 200,000 hours, and the burden of drafting and ordering labels to be 5 hours per respondent per year, or a total of 50,000 hours. Staff believes that the process of attaching labels is now fully automated and integrated into other production steps for about 35 percent of all affected products. For the remaining 325,000,000 items (65 percent of 500,000,000), the process is semi-automated and requires an average of approximately two seconds per item, for a total of 180,556 hours per year. Thus, the total estimated annul burden for all respondents is 430,556 hours. Staff believes that any additional burden associated with advertising disclosure requirements would be minimal (less than 10,000 hours) and can be subsumed within the burden estimates set forth above.

Estimated annual cost burden: $6,817,000, rounded to the nearest thousand (solely relating to labor costs).

Staff believes that there are no current start-up costs or other capital costs associated with the Regulations. Because the labeling of wool products has been an integral part of the manufacturing process for decades, manufacturers have in place the capital equipment necessary to comply with the Regulations. Based on knowledge of the industry, staff believes that much of the information required by the Wool Act and its implementing regulations would be included on the product label even absent their requirements. Similarly, recordkeeping and advertising disclosures are tasks performed in the ordinary course of business so that covered firms would incur no additional capital or other non-labor costs as a result of the Regulations.

The Textile Act prohibits misbranding and false advertising of textile fiber products. The Textile Act Regulations, 16 CFR 303, establish disclosure requirements that assist consumers in making informed purchasing decisions, and recordkeeping requirements that assist the Commission in enforcing the regulations. The Regulations also contain a petition procedure for requesting the establishment of generic names for textile fibers.

Estimated annual hours burden: Approximately 7,547,000 hours, rounded to the nearest thousand (537,500 recordkeeping hours +7,009,722 disclosure hours).

Recordkeeping: Staff estimates that approximately 21,500 textile firms are subject to the Textile Regulations' recordkeeping requirements. Based on an average burden of 25 hours per firm, the total recordkeeping burden is 537,500 hours.

Disclosure: Approximately 31,500 textile firms, producing or importing about 17.2 billion textile fiber products annually, are subject to the Regulations' disclosure requirements. 4 Staff estimates the burden of determining label content to be 20 hours per year per respondent, or a total of 630,000 hours and the burden of drafting and ordering labels to be 5 hours per respondent per year, or a total of 157,500 hours. Staff believes that the process of attaching labels is now fully automated and integrated into other production steps for about 35 percent of all affected products. For the remaining 11.2 billion items (65 percent of 17.2 billion), the process is semi-automated and requires an average of approximately two seconds per item, for a total of 6,222,222 hours per year. Thus, the total estimated annual burden for all respondents is 7,009,722 hours. Staff believes that any additional burden associated with advertising disclosure requirements or the filing of generic fiber name petitions would be minimal (less than 10,000 hours) and can be subsumed within the burden estimates set forth above.

Estimated annual cost burden: $40,302,000, rounded to the nearest thousand (solely relating to labor costs).

Staff believes that there are no current start-up costs or other capital costs associated with the Regulations. Because the labeling of textile products has been an integral part of the manufacturing process for decades, manufacturers have in place the capital equipment necessary to comply with the Regulations' labeling requirements. Industry sources indicate that much of the information required by the Textile Act and its implementing rules would be included on the product label even absent their requirements. Similarly, recordkeeping, invoicing, and advertising disclosures are tasks performed in the ordinary course of business so that covered firms would incur no additional capital or other non-labor costs as a result of the Regulations.

The Care Labeling Rule, 16 CFR Part 423, requires manufacturers and importers to attach a permanent care label to all covered textile clothing in order to assist consumers in making purchase decisions and in determining what method to use to clean their apparel. Also, manufacturers and importers of piece goods used to make textile clothing must provide the same care information on the end of each bolt or roll of fabric.

Estimated annual hours burden: 6,054,000 hours, rounded to the nearest thousand (solely relating to disclosure. 6 )

Staff estimates that approximately 16,500 manufacturers or importers of textile apparel, producing about 15.2 billion textile garments annually, are subject to the Rule's disclosure requirements. The burden of developing proper care instructions may vary greatly among firms, primarily based on the number of different lines of textile garments introduced per year that require new or revised care instructions. Staff estimates the burden of determining care instructions to be 43 hours each year per respondent, for a cumulative total of 709,500 hours. Staff further estimates that the burden of drafting and ordering labels is 2 hours each year per respondent, for a total of 33,000 hours. Staff believes that the process of attaching labels is fully automated and integrated into other production steps for about 35 percent of the approximately 14.7 billion garments that are required to have care instructions on permanent labels. 7 For the remaining 9.56 billion items (65 percent of 14.7 billion), the process is semi-automated and requires an average of approximately two seconds per item, for a total of 5,311,100 hours per year. Thus, the total estimated annual burden for all respondents is 6,053,600 hours.

Estimated annual cost burden: $30,552,000, rounded to the nearest thousand (solely relating to labor costs).

Staff believes that there are no current start-up costs or other capital costs associated with the Rule. Because the labeling of textile products has been an integral part of the manufacturing process for decades, manufacturers have in place the capital equipment necessary to comply with the Rule's labeling requirements. Based on knowledge of the industry, staff believes that much of the information required by the Rule would be included on the product label even absent those requirements.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3), 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing paperwork clearance for the regulations noted herein.

The FTC invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

If a comment contains nonpublic information, it must be filed in paper form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “confidential.” Comments that do not contain any nonpublic information may instead be filed in electronic form (in ASCII format, WordPerfect, or Microsoft Word) as part of or as an attachment to e-mail messages directed to the following e-mail box: RegsBEMZpprwork@ftc.gov. Such comments will be considered by the Commission and will be available for inspection and copying at its principal office in accordance with Section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's rules of practice, 16 CFR section 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

The four rules covered by this notice are:

(1) Regulations promulgated under The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq. (“ECOA”) (“Regulation B”) (Control Number: 3084-0087);

(2) Regulations promulgated under The Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. (“EFTA”) (“Regulation E”) (Control Number: 3084-0085);

(3) Regulations promulgated under The Consumer Leasing Act, 15 U.S.C. 1697 et seq. (“CLA”) (“Regulation M”) (Control Number: 3084-0086);

(4) Regulations promulgated under The Truth-In-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. (“TILA”) (“Regulation Z”) (Control Number: 3084-0088);

Each of these four rules impose certain PRA recordkeeping and disclosure requirements associated with providing credit or with other financial transactions. All of these rules require covered entities to keep certain records. Staff believes that these entities would likely retain these records in the normal course of business even absent the recordkeeping requirement in the rules. 1 There is, however, some burden associated with ensuring that covered entities do not prematurely dispose of relevant records during the period of time required by the applicable rule.

Disclosure requirements involve both set-up and monitoring costs as well as certain transaction-specific costs. “Set-up” burden, incurred by new entrants only, includes identifying the applicable disclosure requirements, determining compliance obligations, and designing and developing compliance systems and procedures. “Monitoring” burden, incurred by all covered entities, includes reviewing revisions to regulatory requirements, revising compliance systems and procedures as necessary, and monitoring the ongoing operation of systems and procedures to ensure continued compliance. “Transaction-related” burden refers to the effort associated with providing the various required disclosures in individual transactions. While this burden varies with the number of transactions, the figures shown for transaction-related burden in the tables that follow are estimated averages.

The actual range of compliance burden experienced by covered entities, and reflected in those averages, varies widely. Depending on the extent to which covered entities have developed automated systems and procedures for providing the required disclosures, and the efficacy of those systems and procedures, some entities may have little or no such burden, while others incur a higher burden. 2

Calculating the burden associated with the four regulations' disclosure requirements is very difficult because of the highly diverse group of affected entities. The “respondents” included in the following burden calculations consist of credit and lease advertisers, creditors, financial institutions, service providers, certain government agencies and others involved in delivering electronic fund transfers of government benefits, and lessors. The burden estimates represent staff's best assessment, based on its knowledge and expertise relating to the financial services industry. To derive these estimates, staff considered the wide variations in covered entities: (1) Size and location; (2) credit or lease products offered, extended, or advertised, and their particular terms; (3) types of electronic fund transfers (EFTs) used; (4) types and occurrences of adverse actions; (5) types of appraisal reports utilized; and (6) automation with regard to compliance operations.

In some instances, where covered entities may make certain required disclosures in the ordinary course of business, the Regulation imposes no PRA burden. In addition, some entities have developed highly automated means of providing the required disclosures, while others rely on methods requiring more manual effort.

The estimated PRA burden associated with these rules, attributable to the Commission, is less today than in the past. Staff believes that as automation and expanded quality control become more pervasive in the financial services industry, entities are able to comply more efficiently.

The cost estimates shown below relate solely to labor costs. The applicable PRA requirements impose minimal capital or other non-labor costs, as affected entities generally have the necessary equipment for other business purposes. Similarly, staff estimates that compliance with these rules entails minimal printing and copying costs beyond that associated with documenting financial transactions in the ordinary course of business. The burden estimates shown below include the time necessary to train staff to be in compliance with the regulations.

The following paragraphs discuss each of these rules, their particular FRA requirements, and staff's best estimates of the related hour and cost burdens.

The ECOA prohibits discrimination in the extension of credit. Regulation B, 12 CFR 202, promulgated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, establishes both recordkeeping and disclosure requirements to assist consumers in understanding their rights under the ECOA and to assist in detecting unlawful discrimination. The FTC enforces the ECOA as to all creditors except those that are subject to the regulatory authority of another federal agency (such as federally chartered or insured depository institutions).

Estimated annual hours burden: 2,500,000 hours, rounded to the nearest thousand (1,150,000 recordkeeping hours − 1,409,499 disclosure hours).

Recordkeeping: FTC staff estimates that Regulation B's general recordkeeping requirements affect 1,000,000 credit firms subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, at an average annual burden of one hour per firm, for a total of 1,000,000 hours. Staff also estimates that the requirement that creditors monitor information about race/national original, sex, age, and marital status imposes a maximum burden of one minute each  3 for approximately nine million credit applications (based on industry data regarding the approximate number of mortgage purchase and refinance originations), for a total of 150,000 hours. The total estimated recordkeeping burden is 1,150,000 hours.

Disclosure: Regulation B requires that creditors ( i.e., entities that regularly participate in the decision whether to extend credit under Regulation B) provide notices whenever they take adverse action. The Regulation also requires entities that extend various types of mortgage credit to provide a copy of the appraisal report to applicants and to notify them of their right to a copy of the report.

Regulation B applies to retailers, mortgage lenders, mortgage brokers, finance companies, Internet businesses, and others. Below is staff's best estimate of burden applicable to this highly broad spectrum of covered entities.

Estimated annual cost burden: $46,418,000, rounded to the nearest thousand.

Staff calculated labor costs by applying appropriate hourly cost figures to the burden hours described above. The hourly rates used below ($50 for managerial or professional time, $20 for skilled technical time, and $10 for clerical time) are averages.

Recordkeeping: Staff estimates that the general recordkeeping responsibility of one hour per creditor would involve approximately 90 percent clerical time and 10 percent skilled technical time. Keeping records of race/national origin, sex, age, and maritial status requires an estimated one minute of skilled technical time. As shown below, the total recordkeeping cost is $14,000,000.

Disclosure: For each notice or information item listed, staff estimates that the burden hours consist of 10 percent managerial time and 90 percent skilled technical time. As shown below, the total disclosure cost is $32,418,500.

The EFTA requires accurate disclosure of the costs, terms, and rights relating to electronic fund transfer (EFT) services to consumers. Regulation E, 12 CFR 205, promulgated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, establishes both recordkeeping and disclosure requirements applicable to entities providing EFT services to consumers. The FTC enforces the EFTA as to all entities providing EFT services except those that are subject to the regulatory authority of another federal agency (such as federally chartered or insured depository institutions).

Estimated annual hours burden: 3,580,000 hours (500,000 recordkeeping hours + approximately 3,080,000 disclosure hours).

Recordkeeping: Staff estimates that Regulation E's recordkeeping requirements affect 500,000 firms offering EFT services to consumers and subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, at an average burden of one hour per firm, for a total of 500,000 hours.

Disclosure: Regulation E applies to financial institutions (including certain retailers and electronic commerce entities), service providers, various federal and state agencies offering electronic fund transfers (EFTs), and others. Below is staff's best estimate of burden applicable to this highly broad spectrum of covered entities.

Estimate annual cost burden: $76,240,000, rounded to the nearest thousand.

Staff calculated labor costs by applying appropriate hourly cost figures to the burden hours described above. The hourly rates used below ($50 for managerial or professional time, $20 for skilled technical time, and $10 for clerical time) are averages.

Recordkeeping: For the 500,000 recordkeeping hours, staff estimates that 10 percent of the burden hours require skilled technical time and 90 percent require clerical time. As shown below, the total recordkeeping cost is $5,500,000.

Disclosure: For each notice or information item listed, staff estimates that 10 percent of the burden hours require managerial time and 90 percent require skilled technical time. As shown below, the total disclosure cost is $70,740,000.

The CLA requires accurate disclosure of the costs and terms of leases to consumers. Regulations M, 12 CFR 213, promulgated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, establishes disclosure requirements that assist consumers in comparison shopping and in understanding the terms of leases and recordkeeping requirements that assist enforcement of the CLA. The FTC enforces the CLA as to all lessors and advertisers except those that are subject to the regulatory authority of another federal agency (such as federally chartered or insured depository institutions).

Estimated annual hours burden: 279,000 hours, rounded to the nearest thousand (150,000 recordkeeping hours + 129,167 disclosure hours).

Recordkeeping: Staff estimates that Regulation M's recordkeeping requirements affect approximately 150,000 firms leasing products to consumers and subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, at an average annual burden of one hour per firm, for a total of 150,000 hours.

Disclosure: Regulation M applies to automobile lessors (such as auto dealers, independent leasing companies, and manufacturers' captive finance companies), computer lessors (such as computer dealers and other retailers), furniture lessors, various electronic commerce lessors, and diverse types of lease advertisers, and others. Below is staff's best estimate of burden applicable to his highly broad spectrum of covered entities.

Estimated annual cost burden: $4,621,000, rounded to the nearest thousand.

Staff calculated labor costs by applying appropriate hourly cost figures to the burden hours described above. The hourly rates used below ($50 for managerial or professional time, $20 for skilled technical time, and $10 for clerical time) are averages.

Recordkeeping: For the 150,000 recordkeeping hours, staff estimates that 10 percent of the burden hours require skilled technical time and 90 percent require clerical time. As shown below, the total recordkeeping costs is $1,650,000.

Disclosure: For each notice or information item listed, staff estimates that 10 percent of the burden hours require managerial time and 90 percent require skill technical time. As shown below, the total disclosure cost is $2,970,850.

Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 3.25(f) of the Commission's rules of practice, 16 CFR 3.25(f), notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for August 14, 2002), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/08/index.htm. A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.

Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. Comments filed in paper form should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. If a comment contains nonpublic information, it must be filed in paper form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “confidential.” Comments that do not contain any nonpublic information may instead be filed in electronic form (in ASCII format, WordPerfect, or Microsoft Word) as part of or as an attachment to email messages directed to the following email box: consentagreement@ftc.gov. Such comments will be considered by the Commission and will be available for inspection and copying at its principal office in accordance with § 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's rules of practice, 16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii).

The Federal Trade Commission has accepted for public comment an Agreement Containing Consent Order with MSC.Software Corporation (“MSC”) to resolve matters charged in an Administrative Complaint issued by the Commission on October 9, 2001. The Agreement has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments from interested members of the public. The Agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by MSC that the law has been violated as alleged in the Complaint or that the facts alleged in the Complaint, other than jurisdictional facts, are true.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent MSC.Software Corporation (“MSC”) unlawfully acquired Universal Analytics, Inc. (“UAI”) and Computerized Structural Analysis and Research Corporation (“CSAR”) in 1999 in violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act and section 5 of the FTC Act. The Complaint alleged that the acquisitions may substantially lessen competition or lead to a monopoly in the market for advanced versions of Nastran, a public domain engineering simulation software program. Neither acquisition had been reportable under the Hart-Scott-Rodino reporting thresholds, 15 U.S.C. 18a.

MSC is the largest supplier of computer-aided engineering simulation software in the world. In 2001, its annual worldwide revenue was $236 million. MSC has an estimated 1350 employees located around the world. MSC has grown substantially through acquisitions, having acquired six other engineering software vendors or resellers since 1998. MSC is a publicly-traded company.

The Complaint alleged that MSC, UAI, and CSAR had long been vigorous competitors, each offering an advanced version of Nastran to customers in the aerospace, automotive and other industries. These competing versions of advanced Nastran all derived from a program originally developed by NASA and placed into the public domain. The common origin of these three advanced Nastran versions made switching between them relatively easy. For these reasons, UAI Nastran and CSAR Nastran were close substitutes for MSC.Nastran. Non-Nastran solvers, however, were more distant substitutes. The Complaint alleged that competition among the three advanced Nastran suppliers helped to hold down prices and to promote product innovation.

The Complaint further alleged that MSC was the dominant supplier of advanced versions of Nastran, with an estimated 90 percent of worldwide Nastran revenue. Prior to MSC's acquisitions, UAI and CSAR were the only other firms offering advanced versions of Nastran. They held substantially smaller market shares. Each had about five percent of worldwide advanced Nastran revenues.

The Complaint alleged that the acquisitions were anticompetitive because they increased the level of concentration in already highly concentrated markets. The Complaint further charged that the acquisitions eliminated competition on price and product development and enhancements, created or enhanced MSC's power to raise prices above a competitive level or to withhold or delay product development and enhancements, and prevented the increased competition that MSC expected if other suppliers of engineering software were to acquire UAI and CSAR. Even if other solvers offering advanced analysis capabilities were included in the market, the markets remain highly concentrated and the acquisitions anticompetitive. The Complaint also alleged that MSC's acquisitions were unlawful in separate markets that exist for specific industries or customer categories. According to the Complaint, the appropriate geographic market in which to analyze MSC's acquisitions is the world, although a U.S. market may also exist.

The Complaint also alleged that MSC's acquisitions constitute unlawful monopolization and an attempt to monopolize in violation of section 5 of the FTC Act. It further alleged that MSC's dominant market share prior to and after the acquisitions satisfied the showing required for monopoly power and dangerous probability of success. Moreover, the Complaint alleged that MSC acted willfully and with the specific intent to obtain and maintain a monopoly in the market for advanced versions of advanced Nastran when it made the acquisitions.

The Complaint further charged that entry is not likely, nor, if it did occur, would it likely be timely or sufficient to prevent the anticompetitive effects of the acquisitions.

The proposed Order would provide relief for the alleged anticompetitive effects of the acquisitions principally by means of a divestiture intended to restore competition. In addition, the proposed Order contains further provisions intended to facilitate the restoration of competition.

Divestiture. The principal relief under the proposed Order is to require the Respondent to divest, within 150 days after entry of the Order and up to two acquirers to be approved by the Commission, perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licenses to the key intellectual property needed by a new competitor to compete in the sale and licensing of advanced Nastran software. ¶ II.A. The licensed intellectual property rights would consist of the version of MSC.Nastran that is most current as of the date that the Consent Agreement is accepted for public comment by the Commission, as well as all the intellectual property rights acquired by MSC in the two challenged acquisitions. ¶ I.L.1

The licenses would permit the acquirer (or acquirers) to use the licensed rights to sell advanced Nastran software, sublicense others without restriction, and prepare derivative works so as to further develop and enhance the software without further remuneration to MSC once the divestiture is completed. the licenses granted would be non-exclusive, meaning that MSC would continue to retain full rights itself to the licensed intellectual property. ¶ II.A. The basic approach reflected in the settlement, therefore, is to replicate in the hands of the acquirer(s) the crucial intellectual property held by MSC in the aftermath of the challenged acquisitions.

The Order language providing for divestiture “up to two” acquirers tracks the language of the Notice of Contemplated Relief accompanying the Complaint. It reflects MSC's removal of two independent competitors from the marketplace through the challenged acquisitions. The language is intended to leave open to the Commission the option of requiring that two competitors be re-established.

Purpose. Paragraph II.C. of the proposed Order contains a recitation of the Commission's purpose in ordering the divestiture. That provision recites that the purpose of the divestiture is to remedy the lessening of competition alleged in the complaint by establishing one or more viable and effective competitors to MSC engaged in the sale, distribution and licensing of advanced Nastran software for use by customers, including customer sin the aerospace and automotive industries, and with the ability to engage in further development and enhancement of advanced Nastran software. It states that, in determining whether the licensing of more than one acquirer may be required, or whether to approve the grant of a license to a particular prospective acquirer, the Commission will consider, among other things, the likely future capability of the prospective acquirer or acquirers to provide effective price and innovation competition to MSC. It also recites that the Commission will consider as well, among other things, any provisions for the hiring by the acquirer(s) of personnel knowledgeable concerning the design, development, maintenance, customer support, sales and marketing of the licensed rights.

The Software To Be Licensed. The intellectual property to be licensed includes all rights relating to the version of MSC.Nastran that is most current as of the date the consent agreement is accepted by the Commission for public comment. ¶ I.L.1.a. Diverstiture of rights to MSC's current version of MSC Nastran is a necessary remedial measure to facilitate the re-establishment of the competition that MSC allegedly eliminated with its two acquisitions. Such divestiture addresses the switching of former UAI and CSAR customers to MSC's own version of advanced Nastran, including former UAI and CSAR customers who may have adapted their prior procedures and customer-written software routines to the MSC version. In addition, such divestiture addresses the fact that MSC has incorporated new features in its releases of MSC.Nastran, including features taken from the CSAR and UAI versions acquired in 1999, and has not carried on any further development of the UAI and CSAR versions of Nastran following the acquisitions. Divestiture of the acquired assets alone would not restore the competitive conditions that existed before the acquisitions (the status quo ante ), because the 3-year old UAI and CSAR codes are no longer as commercially viable as they were when MSC acquired them. Licensing of the current version of MSC.Nastran is required to give the acquirer or acquirers what UAI and CSAR formerly had: An up-to-date product upon which to base sales and future development efforts.

In addition to the current version of MSC.Nastran, MSC is also required to license to the acquirer(s) all of the intellectual property acquired in the UAI and CSAR acquisitions. ¶ I.L.1.b. and -.c. This relief is integral to the fundamental approach reflected in the settlement, which is to replicate in the hands of the acquirer(s) the intellectual property held by MSC in the aftermath of the challenged acquisitions. Licensing all the UAI and CSAR computer codes (in addition to MSC.Nastran) is justified to permit an acquirer(s) to offer all the computer codes formerly available from UAI and CSAR, including the ability to select aspects of the UAI Nastran and CSAR Nastran codes for possible inclusion in its future advanced Nastran product that have not been incorporated in MSC.Nastran since the acquisitions.

The Order details a broad range of intellectual property rights to be licensed to the acquirer(s). See ¶ I.L.2. In addition to the licensed intellectual property and physical or electronic copies embodying the intellectual property, MSC is also required to divest copies of other materials useful to an acquirer in establishing itself as a competitor to MSC. These include all of the customer files acquired by MSC as a result of the challenged acquisitions, as well as all marking information, sales training materials, and current (as of the divestiture date) customer lists, customer contact information, and customer support log database contents relating to customers who use MSC.Nastran in the United States. ¶ I.E.2. The latter information should be of particular use by an acquirer that may wish to differentiate itself from MSC by its responsiveness to customer needs. In the past, both UAI and CSAR used such tactics to compete against MSC.

Post-Divestiture Rights. In addition to the licensed rights describe above, the Order provides for further rights by the acquirer(s) in the post-divestiture period:

For twelve months after the divestiture date, the acquirer has the right to obtain from MSC ongoing support with respect to MSC.Nastran, in the form of personnel, information, technical assistance, advice and training. This includes reasonable consultation with knowledgeable employees of MSC to ensure that the acquirer's personnel can maintain, develop and support the Licensed Rights in a manner comparable to MSC. This continuing support does not extend to the licensed UAI and CSAR intellectual property, and will be provided at MSC's direct cost. ¶ I.K.4. This continuing support obligation complements the hiring opportunities afforded to the acquirer under other provisions of the Order discussed below.

For not less than three years after the divestiture date, the acquirer has the right to use the trademarks or trade names of the licensed software for the purpose of identifying the acquirer as a licensee from MSC. The acquirer does not otherwise obtain any rights of any kind to the name “MSC” or “MSC.Nastran” or related logos and trademarks of MSC. ¶ I.K.4.

Hiring of MSC Personnel. In order to ensure the ability of the acquirer to provide effective competition, the Order contains procedures to facilitate the acquirer's hiring of valuable MSC personnel. ¶ V. In the aftermath of the acquisitions, MSC was essentially the only employer of computer programmers with thorough knowledge of the proprietary versions of advanced Nastran. The future success of the acquirer in providing ongoing innovation competition in developing advanced Nastran may depend to a significant degree on its hiring of personnel (particularly programmers and customer support engineers) with knowledge of this large and complex body of computer code.

Customer Contracts. Prior to the acquisitions, most of MSC's advanced Nastran customer purchased the software on an annual lease basis—that is, for one-year terms with annual payments and in quantities determined according to annual needs. In the aftermath of the acquisitions, and especially in the 2001-2002 period, many customers converted annual leases for advanced Nastran to “paid-up” licenses—that is, licenses to use the software for an extended term, generally 25 years, for a larger advance payment and continuing maintenance fees during the contract term. This conversion may disadvantage future advanced Nastran competitors who may no longer have access to these customers at competitive prices.

To address the effect of these conversions on the acquirer's ability to attract a customer base, the proposed Order provides that, for a period of one year after the divestiture date, any customer who was converted from an annual lease to a paid-up license for MSC.Nastran in the period since the acquisitions has the right to terminate or rescind its license in whole or in part in order to deal with the acquirer. If a customer chooses to do so, MSC is required to refund or return a pro rata portion of the consideration paid in advance for its paid-up MSC.Nastran license. ¶ VII.A. The Order also provides that MSC is to provide affected customers with written notice of such rights within fourteen days following the divestiture date. ¶ VII.B.

The formula for such refunds bases the pro-rata allocation on the lesser of four years or the contract term. ¶ VII.A. This refund formula should provide substantial incentive for affected customers to consider switching to the acquirer in whole or in part. Under this formula, customers who converted to a paid-up license since mid-year 2001 and who determine to switch to the acquirer at mid-year 2003 will be entitled to a refund of one-half or more of their advance payment for the paid-up MSC.Nastran license.

Although these provisions authorize refund payments by MSC to some customers, they are neither a penalty nor disgorgement. Their purpose is not to punish MSC or deprive it of ill-gotten gains. Rather, the provisions are in furtherance of the principal divestiture relief provided under the Order. They are intended to remove any penalty or disincentive on customers who had no alternative to MSC's terms after 1999, but who might now consider doing business with the acquirer of the divested assets. Indeed, no payment will be due from MSC to a customer unless and until the customer chooses to do business with the acquirer.

Post Divestiture Conduct. The Order includes provisions intended to prevent MSC from disadvantaging the acquirer in its post-divestiture dealings with customers or suppliers.

Advanced Nastran software is used in conjunction with other complementary software. Complementary software includes programs known as “pre- and post-processors” or “meshers” that are used to process input to or output from advanced Nastran and make it useful with other computer data, such as designs produced by CAD software. Complementary software of this sort is produced by various suppliers and by MSC itself. The Order requires MSC, for three years after the divestiture date, to maintain the interoperability of the current and any future versions of MSC's complementary software (including but not limited to its product MSC.Patran) with the licensed software (¶ VIII.A); and prohibits MSC from influencing a supplier of complementary software or services to refuse to deal with the acquirer or stop supporting interoperability with any of the licensed software (¶ VIII.B.).

During the same three-year period, MSC is required to maintain all current input and output file formats for MSC.Nastran. This is to ensure that users of MSC.Nastran would not be impeded or penalized in their use of models, files, or complementary software if they switched to the version of advanced Nastran offered by the acquirer. ¶ VII.C. The Order also requires that MSC not refuse to deal with any customer or prospective customer for the reason, in whole or in part, that such customer or prospective customer deals with the acquirer. ¶ VIII.D. The latter provision is intended to prevent MSC from inhibiting the pre-acquisition practice of many customers to maintain simultaneous licenses for more than one source of advanced Nastran software.

Prior Notice of Future Acquisitions. For a period of ten years, the Order requires MSC to provide prior notice of future acquisitions of any entity engaged in the development or sales of any version of Nastran. ¶IX. This provision is warranted under existing Commission policy because of the risk that MSC may in the future carry out anticompetitive acquisitions that otherwise would not come to the attention of the Commission because the transactions are likely to fall below the Hart-Scott-Rodino reporting thresholds. See Statement of FTC Policy Concerning Prior Approval and Prior Notice Provisions (June 21, 1995.

Monitor, Trustee and Reporting. The proposed Order contains standard monitor and trustee provisions. The Monitor provisions, set out in Paragraph III, authorize appointment of a person to oversee MSC's compliance with the terms of the Order. Such a monitor is warranted in light of the technical nature of the products at issue and the potential complexity of some compliance issues, including employee hiring and customer refunds. The trustee provisions, set out in Paragraph IV, contemplate appointment of a trustee to complete the required divestiture if MSC does not do so within the 150 days specified in the Order. Under these provisions, the Commission will appoint a trustee who will undertake to accomplish the required divestiture at no minimum price. The trustee will have one year to complete the divestiture. Finally, the proposed Order contains provisions for MSC to file regular reports concerning its compliance with the Order terms. ¶X.

The Proposed Order has been placed on the public record for 30 days in order to receive comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the Agreement and comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the Agreement or make final the Order contained in the Agreement.

By accepting the Proposed Order subject to final approval, the Commission anticipates that the competitive issues described in the Complaint will be resolved. The purpose of this analysis is to invite and facilitate public comment concerning the Proposed Order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the Agreement and Proposed Order or to modify their terms in any way.

The notice of availability is as follows:

Reply to the Attention of: Mr. Ernest Hall, Office of Portfolio Management, WPT, General Services Administration, NCR, 7th & D Streets, SW., Washington, DC 20407. (202) 401-2354. E-mail: ernest.hall@hsa.gov.

The General Services Administration (GSA) is publishing a Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Proposed Master Development Plan for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The Final EA will be available for public review at the following locations:

The GSA, acting as development manager for Federal facilities, proposed to adopt a Master Development Plan for the U.S. CPSC National Laboratory in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The plan includes a proposal to construct a Sample Storage Facility on the southeast quadrant of the site and to renovate and expand existing facilities. The proposed action would consist of constructing an 18,000 square foot Sample Storage Facility on the southeast quadrant of the site, and upgrading Buildings A, B, and C to meet CPSC specifications, including adding a connector between Buildings B and C. Interior renovations are required for Buildings E, F, G, and H to bring all aspects of the buildings up to current code requirements. Two additional small burn room areas will be added to the west end of Building G. The proposed action would also include relocating existing water lines, sewer lines, and electrical ducts.

When compared to the other build alternatives in the Final EA, the proposed action would result in the least amount of changes to the site, is the least costly to implement, and best meets CPSC's long-range needs. The proposed action will incorporate measures such as enhanced landscaping and a stormwater detention area to mitigate any permanent aesthetic or stormwater impacts of the proposed development and expansions/renovations.

Pursuant to the provision of GSA Order ADM 1095.1F, the PBS NEPA Desk Guide, and the regulations issued by the Council of Environmental Quality, (40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508), this is to advise you of our finding, based on the Final Environmental Assessment (EA), that the action described above is considered a major Federal action not significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

The environmental impacts of constructing and operating the proposed facilities were considered in the Final EA pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Final EA, which is available for review at the locations listed on page 1, is incorporated by reference in the FONSI. Constructing and operating the proposed project will not have a significant adverse affect on the human environment.

The EA documents the master planning process undertaken for the future use of the site. The direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the three build alternatives and the no action alternative were analyzed in accordance with the NEPA, and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA. The Final EA analyzes the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts that could result from the three build alternatives and the no action alternative.

Regardless of which build alternative is selected, all alternatives would involve temporary construction disturbances to the ambient air and noise environment, soils, and stormwater runoff from the site. However, Alternative 2 would involve substantially greater disruption affecting the entire site over a longer period of time. Alternative 3 would involve reducing the existing landscaping. Under the preferred alternative, improvements would affect less than 1/4 of the existing site and will incorporate measures such as enhanced landscaping and a stormwater detention area to mitigate any permanent aesthetic or stormwater effects of the proposed CPSC development and renovations. To mitigate potential impacts, GSA will implement the measures that are discussed in the Environmental Assessment.

This Finding of No Significant Impact will become final thirty (30) days after publication in the Federal Register provided that no information leading to a contrary finding is received or comes to light during the 30-day public review period.

Healthy People 2010 is a decade-long national initiative based on science, data and policy which aims to improve health, and includes federal and state government and many other diverse stakeholders, and reflects the complexity of the health structure in the United States. There are 28 health topics including tobacco.

The tobacco objectives are broken down into four areas: prevalence; cessation and treatment, secondhand smoke, and social and environmental change. The tobacco objective progress review should document barriers and strategies to achieving the objectives, as well as implementation efforts underway to reach the specific population targets. The comment period and public meeting are intended to give interested persons, including public health and medical professionals, state and local officials, farmers, retailers, manufacturers, and others an opportunity to comment. On November 18, 2002, the Healthy People 2010 Tobacco Workgroup will be receiving comments on progress towards reaching the Healthy People 2010 tobacco objectives. Oral comments are especially requested to cover one or more of the following areas: Adult and youth prevalence, cessation and treatment, secondhand smoke, and disparities. To accommodate all the participants who wish to speak, comments will be limited to three minutes. Written comments are also encouraged from the public on progress towards the Healthy People 2010 tobacco objectives progress. This is an opportunity to provide comments on barriers as well as strategies to reach the tobacco objectives.

The Workgroup is especially seeking information on the Healthy People areas: Adult/youth prevalence, cessation and treatment, secondhand smoke, and disparities.

Background documents on the Healthy People 2010 are available at http://www.health.gov/healthypeople. Background information on tobacco is available at www.cdc.gov/tobacco.

Submitted comments will be posted on the Internet at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco.

The Department regulates the design, construction, and safety of manufactured housing pursuant to its authority under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5401, et seq. (“the Act”). The Act was amended by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (Title VI, Pub. L. 106-569, 114 Stat. 2944, approved December 27, 2000), in part to provide for the establishment of a consensus committee for manufactured housing. The consensus committee is charged with providing recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revise, and interpret manufactured housing construction and safety standards and procedural and enforcement regulations, and with submitting to the Secretary proposed model installation standards. The Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner oversees HUD's manufactured housing program.

The responsibilities and authorities of the Secretary to make appointments and designations with respect to the consensus committee is being delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

Accordingly, the Secretary delegates authority as follows:

1. The authority under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401, et seq. , as amended by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (Title VI, Pub. L. 106-569, 114 Stat. 2944, approved December 27, 2000)) and the implementing regulations to make any necessary or discretionary appointments relating to the consensus committee for manufactured housing is hereby delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

2. The authority under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., and the General Services Administration implementing regulations at 41 CFR part 102-3 to make any necessary or discretionary appointments relating to the consensus committee for manufactured housing is hereby delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

On July 29, 2002, HUD published its RESPA proposed rule on “Simplifying and Improving the Process of Obtaining Mortgages to Reduce Settlement Costs to Consumers.” ( See 68 FR 49134.) In the rule, HUD advised that an Initial Economic Analysis had been prepared for the rule and that the Initial Economic Analysis is available for public inspection during business hours in the Office of the Rules Docket Clerk, Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410-0500. The Economic Analysis remains available for public inspection at this location, but for the convenience of the public, HUD has also placed the Initial Economic Analysis on its Web site at www.hud.gov.

In this notice, HUD also advises that the e-mail address for Lauren Wittenberg, HUD Desk Officer at OMB, contained an error (see 67 FR 49159, first column). The correct email address for Ms. Wittenberg is lauren_wittenberg@omb.eop.gov.

The public is invited to comment on the following application(s) for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. ). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications should be submitted to the Director (address above).

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus dorcas ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus dorcas ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus dorcas ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The applicant requests a permit to import two captive-born female jaguars ( Panthera onca ) as a two-year breeding loan from the Asunción Zoo in Paraguay for the purpose of enhancement of the propagation of the species.

The applicant requests renewal of their permit which authorizes interstate and foreign commerce, export, and cull of excess animals for the following species: swamp deer ( Cervus duvauceli ), Eld's deer ( Cervus eldi ) and red lechwe ( Kobus leche ) from their captive-raised herd for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species in the wild. This notification covers activities conducted by the applicant for a period of three years. Permittee must apply for renewal annually.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has information collection approval from OMB through March 31, 2004, OMB Control Number 1018-0093. Federal Agencies may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number.

The following applicants have requested renewal of scientific research and enhancement of survival permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

Applicant: Mark C. Belk, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, TE-060645.

The applicant requests a permit to take June sucker ( Chasmistes liorus ) in conjunction with recovery activities throughout the species' range for the purpose of enhancing its survival and recovery.

Applicant: Mark C. Reed, Sedgwick County Zoo, Wichita, Kansas, TE-060667.

The applicant requests a permit to possess Wyoming toads ( Bufo baxteri ) for public display in conjunction with recovery activities for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival and recovery.

Applicant: Mark J. Bellini, Earthtouch Environmental Consulting, Provo, Utah, TE-060668.

The applicant requests a permit to survey for Southwestern willow flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii extimus ) in conjunction with recovery activities throughout the species' range for the purpose of enhancing its survival and recovery.

Applicant: Charlotte Ann Popperling, Hutchinson Zoo, Hutchinson, Kansas, TE-051824.

The applicant requests a permit to possess black-footed ferrets ( Mustela nigripes ) for public display in conjunction with recovery activities for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival and recovery.

The public is invited to comment on the following application(s) for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. ). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications should be submitted to the Director (address above).

Applicant : Randy Miller's Predators in Action, Inc., Big Bear City, CA, PRT-815482, 835802, and 012984.

The applicant requests a permit to export, re-export, and re-import tigers ( Panthera tigris ) to/from worldwide locations to enhance the survival of the species through conservation education. This notification covers activities conducted by the applicant over a three-year period.

Applicant : Kevin M. Siembida, Columbiana, OH, PRT-060420.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus dorcas ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

Applicant : Michael Bruce Allen, Vidalia, GA, PRT-060451.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus dorcas ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

Applicant : James W. Cabela, Sidney, NE, PRT-060463.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus dorcas ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

Applicant : Texas A&M University at Galveston, Galveston, TX, PRT-060260.

The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples collected from live wild Kemp's ridley sea turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii ), as well as infertile and/or non-viable eggs, egg shells, and dead hatchlings for the purpose of scientific research. This notification covers activities conducted by the applicant over a five-year period.

Applicant : Hollywood Animals and Animal Rental Unlimited, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, PRT-060474.

The applicant requests a permit to export, re-export, and re-import African leopards ( Panthera pardus ) to/from worldwide locations to enhance the survival of the species through conservation education. This notification covers activities conducted by the applicant over a three year period.

Applicant : Hollywood Animals and Animal Rental Unlimited, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, PRT-814588.

The applicant requests the re-issuance and amendment of their permit to re-export and re-import tigers ( Panthera tigris ) to/from worldwide locations to enhance the survival of the species through conservation education. This notification covers activities conducted by the applicant over a three year period.

Applicant : Hollywood Animals and Animal Rental Unlimited, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, PRT-060470, 060471, 060472, and 060473.

The applicant requests a permit to re-export and re-import African leopards ( Panthera pardus ) to/from worldwide locations to enhance the survival of the species through conservation education. These animals were previously authorized under PRT-814588. This notification covers activities conducted by the applicant over a three year period.

Applicant : Zoological Society of San Diego, San Diego, CA, PRT-060416.

The applicant requests a permit to re-export one live male giant panda ( Ailuropoda melanoleuca ) owned by the Government of China, originally imported as part of their research program in 1997, back to China. This re-export is part of the approved loan program for the benefit of the survival of the species and will allow continuation and completion of the research projects.

Applicant : Zoological Society of San Diego, San Diego, CA, PRT-053884.

The applicant requests a permit to import one live male giant panda ( Ailuropoda melanoleuca ) owned by the Government of China. This import is part of the loan program for the benefit of the survival of the species approved in 1997 and will allow continuation and completion of the research projects.

Applicant : Saint Louis Zoological Park, Saint Louis, MO, PRT-059390.

The applicant requests a permit to import three captive-bred cheetah ( Acinonyx jubatus ), from the Wassenaar Wildlife Breeding Center, Wassenaar, The Netherlands, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species through captive propagation.

The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with marine mammals. The applications were submitted to satisfy requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) and the regulations governing marine mammals (50 CFR part 18). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of the complete applications or requests for a public hearing on these applications should be submitted to the Director (address above). Anyone requesting a hearing should give specific reasons why a hearing would be appropriate. The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Director.

Applicant : Lawrence P. Rudolph, Greensburg, PA, PRT-058229.

The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) sport hunted from the Norwegian Bay polar bear population in Canada for personal use.

Applicant : Thomas J. Pallansch, Elk River, MN, PRT-060217.

The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) sport hunted from the Norwegian Bay polar bear population in Canada for personal use.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has information collection approval from OMB through March 31, 2004, OMB Control Number 1018-0093. Federal Agencies may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number.

On January 11, 2002, a notice was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 1494), that an application had been filed with the Fish and Wildlife Service by Trevor Davis for a permit (PRT-051276) to import one polar bear taken from the Norwegian Bay population, Canada, for personal use.

Notice is hereby given that on March 13, 2002, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permit subject to certain conditions set forth therein.

On January 22, 2002, a notice was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 2900), that an application had been filed with the Fish and Wildlife Service by Ken Morrill for a permit (PRT-051613) to import one polar bear taken from the Lancaster Sound population, Canada, for personal use.

Notice is hereby given that on April 2, 2002, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permit subject to certain conditions set forth therein.

On February 8, 2002, a notice was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 6048), that an application had been filed with the Fish and Wildlife Service by Ralph Schaller for a permit (PRT-052375) to import one polar bear taken from the Western Hudson Bay population, Canada, for personal use.

Notice is hereby given that on March 18, 2002, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permit subject to certain conditions set forth therein.

On March 7, 2002, a notice was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 10430), that an application had been filed with the Fish and Wildlife Service by Wayne W. Webber for a permit (PRT-052890) to import one polar bear taken from the Western Hudson Bay population, Canada, for personal use.

Notice is hereby given that on April 30, 2002, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permit subject to certain conditions set forth therein.

On April 25, 2002, a notice was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 20544), that an application had been filed with the Fish and Wildlife Service by Richard Hawkins for a permit (PRT-055367) to import one polar bear taken from the Lancaster Sound population, Canada, for personal use.

Notice is hereby given that on June 12, 2002, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permit subject to certain conditions set forth therein.

On April 25, 2002, a notice was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 20544), that an application had been filed with the Fish and Wildlife Service by Jerry P. Mariska for a permit (PRT-055368) to import one polar bear taken from the Lancaster Sound population, Canada, for personal use.

Notice is hereby given that on June 12, 2002, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permit subject to certain conditions set forth therein.

On April 25, 2002, a notice was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 20544), that an application had been filed with the Fish and Wildlife Service by Richard B. Sapa for a permit (PRT-055302) to import one polar bear taken from the Southern Beaufort Sea population, Canada, for personal use.

Notice is hereby given that on June 19, 2002, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permit subject to certain conditions set forth therein.

On May 7, 2002, a notice was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 30720), that an application had been filed with the Fish and Wildlife Service by Thomas P. Bruner for a permit (PRT-055566) to import one polar bear taken from the Lancaster Sound population, Canada, for personal use.

Notice is hereby given that on June 28, 2002, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permit subject to certain conditions set forth therein.

On May 30, 2002, a notice was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 37853), that an application had been filed with the Fish and Wildlife Service by John F. Baker for a permit (PRT-056495) to import one polar bear taken from the Southern Beaufort Sea population, Canada, for personal use.

Notice is hereby given that on July 10, 2002, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permit subject to certain conditions set forth therein.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, hereinafter referred to as CITES or the Convention, is an international treaty designed to control and regulate international trade in certain animal and plant species that are now or potentially may be threatened with extinction if their trade is not controlled. These species are listed in Appendices to CITES, copies of which are available from the Division of Management Authority or the Division of Scientific Authority at the above addresses, from our World Wide Website at http://international.fws.gov/cites/cites.html, or from the official CITES Secretariat Website at http://www.cites.org/eng/append/index.shtml. Currently, 158 countries, including the United States, are Parties to CITES. CITES calls for biennial meetings of the Conference of the Parties, which review its implementation, make provisions enabling the CITES Secretariat in Switzerland to carry out its functions, consider amendments to the list of species in Appendices I and II, consider reports presented by the Secretariat, and make recommendations for the improved effectiveness of CITES. Any country that is a Party to CITES may propose and vote on amendments to Appendices I and II, resolutions, decisions, and agenda items for consideration by the Conference of the Parties.

This is our fifth in a series of Federal Register notices that provide you with an opportunity to participate in the development of the United States' negotiating positions for COP12. We published our first such Federal Register notice on June 12, 2001 (66 FR 31686), and with it we requested information and recommendations on potential species amendments for the United States to consider proposing at COP12. Information on that Federal Register notice, and on species amendment proposals, is available from the Division of Scientific Authority at the above address. We published our second such Federal Register notice on July 25, 2001 (66 FR 38739), and with it we requested information and recommendations on potential resolutions, decisions, and agenda items for the United States to submit for consideration at COP12. You may obtain information on that Federal Register notice, and on proposed resolutions, proposed decisions, and agenda items, from the Division of Management Authority at the above address. We published our third such Federal Register notice on March 27, 2002 (67 FR 14728), and with it we announced a public meeting to discuss potential species amendment proposals, proposed resolutions, proposed decisions, and agenda items that the United States is considering submitting for consideration at COP12. With that notice, we also provided information on how non-governmental organizations based in the United States can attend COP12 as observers. You may obtain information on that Federal Register notice from the Division of Management Authority at the above address. We published our fourth such Federal Register notice on April 18, 2002 (67 FR 19207), and with it we listed potential proposed resolutions, proposed decisions, agenda items, and proposed amendments to the CITES Appendices that the United States was considering submitting for consideration at COP12, and invited your comments on these potential proposals. You may obtain information on that Federal Register notice from the Division of Management Authority (for information pertaining to proposed resolutions, proposed decisions, and agenda items) or the Division of Scientific Authority (for information pertaining to proposed amendments to the Appendices) at the above addresses. On June 6, 2002, the United States submitted to the CITES Secretariat, for consideration at COP12, its proposed resolutions, proposed decisions, agenda items, and proposed amendments to the CITES Appendices. These documents are available from our World Wide Website at: http://international.fws.gov/cop12/ussubmission.html. You may locate our regulations governing this public process in 50 CFR 23.31-23.39.

COP12 is scheduled to be held in Santiago, Chile, November 3-15, 2002.

We announce that we will hold a public meeting to discuss with you the tentative U.S. negotiating positions on proposed resolutions, proposed decisions, agenda items, and proposed amendments to the CITES Appendices submitted by other countries and the CITES Secretariat for consideration at COP12. The public meeting will be held on September 10, 2002, from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. in Sidney Yates Auditorium of the Department of the Interior at 18th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC. You can obtain directions to the building by contacting the Division of Management Authority (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above). Sidney Yates Auditorium is accessible to the handicapped. Persons planning to attend the meeting who require interpretation for the hearing impaired should notify the Division of Management Authority as soon as possible. All persons planning to attend the meeting will be required to present photo identification when entering the building.

We are planning to soon publish a Federal Register notice announcing the provisional agenda for COP12 and informing you about tentative U.S. negotiating positions on proposals to amend the Appendices, proposed resolutions, proposed decisions, and other agenda items before the Parties for consideration at COP12.

Author: The primary author of this notice is Mark Albert, Division of Management Authority; under the authority of the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

The applicant wishes to establish a cooperative breeding program for Abyssinian lovebird ( Agapornis taranta ). The applicant wishes to be an active participant in this program along with nine other individuals. Bird Clubs of America has agreed to assume oversight responsibility of this program if it is approved.

Documents and other information submitted with this application are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.

The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in North East Oregon.

At the two meetings, topics we plan to discuss include:

All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided below.