Section 315 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1445a) allows the Secretary of Commerce to establish one or more advisory councils to provide advice to the Secretary regarding the designation and management of national marine sanctuaries. Councils are individually chartered for each sanctuary to meet the needs of that sanctuary. Once a council has been chartered, the Sanctuary Manager starts a process to recruit members for that Council by providing notice to the public and asking interested parties to apply for the available seats.

An application form and guidelines for a narrative submission must be submitted to the Sanctuary Manager. Submissions may be made electronically.

OMB Number :0648-0397.

Form Number : None.

Type of Review : Regular submission.

Affected Public : Individuals or households, business or other for-profit organizations, and not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents : 75.

Estimated Time Per Response : 1 hour.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours : 75.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public : $0.

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

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

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

Permission may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have no more than a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth.

NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. The MMPA defines “harassment” as:

Pursuant to section 101(a)(5)(D), NMFS issued an IHA to NBVC on September 26, 2001, for the harassment of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to the demolition and removal of 12 buildings and associated infrastructures located at the entrance of Mugu Lagoon in Point Mugu, CA during a 1-year period (66 FR 50416, October 1, 2001). On April 10, 2002, NMFS received a letter from NBVC requesting that the IHA be re-issued for an additional year to allow the completion of building demolition and removal activities at Mugu Lagoon. These activities are summarized below.

The demolition site encompasses a total area of approximately 8 acres (3.2 hectares (ha)) at the entrance of Mugu Lagoon in Point Mugu, CA. This proposed authorization is almost identical to that proposed in the October 3, 2001 (66 FR 50416) notice. The single difference is that the current proposal is only for completion of phase two of the demolition activities. Phase one activities, involving cleanup and removal of contaminated building materials, sand, and soil were completed in 2001 and a satisfactory marine mammal monitoring report covering this phase of the work was submitted to NMFS on December 21, 2001.

The second phase of the project, which is scheduled to begin upon completion of the harbor seal pupping season around August 1, 2002, will be the demolition and removal of the remaining structures using standard construction procedures and equipment. No explosives will be used during the project and demolition crews will work only during daylight periods. NBVC has requested a new authorization to ensure that all phase two activities are in compliance with the MMPA in case work is not completed within the 1-year time period of the authorization ending September 26, 2002. Specific construction equipment to be used during phase two will include: a 973 loader; a 450 Hitachi excavator; a 320 loader; a Case 621 loader; a 710 4-wheel-drive backhoe; a 545D skip loader; a 1000-gallon water truck; a dump truck; and a Bobcat loader. A more detailed description of the work proposed for 2002 is contained in the application (The Environmental Company and LGL Ltd., 2001) which is available upon request (see ADDRESSES ).

On July 30, 2002 (67 FR 49289), NMFS published a notice of receipt and a 30-day public comment period was provided on the application and proposed authorization. A recommendation to issue the requested authorization was received from the Marine Mammal Commission. No other comments were received.

Mugu Lagoon is one of the largest salt marshes in southern California, encompassing approximately 350 acres (142 ha) of water and tidal flats. The beaches around the Mugu Lagoon entrance are used year-round by harbor seals ( Phoca vitulina ) for resting, molting, and breeding. The Navy reported a peak count of 361 adults in the Mugu Lagoon on June 6, 2000 (The Environmental Company and LGL Ltd., 2001). Two other pinniped species are known to occur infrequently in the area of the proposed activity during certain times of the year: northern elephant seals ( Mirounga angustirostris ) and California sea lions ( Zalophus californianus ). When present, these latter species haul out at the mouth of the lagoon and on Family Beach, located south of the demolition project area on the ocean side. Descriptions of the biology and local distribution of these species can be found in the application as well as other sources such as Hanan (1996), Stewart and Yochem (1994, 1984), Forney et al. (2000), Koski et al. (1998), Barlow et al. (1993), Stewart and DeLong (1995), and Lowry et al. (1992). Please refer to those documents for information on these species.

On Tuesday morning, August 8, 2000, oil tar balls and oil mats were observed on beaches in the area of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Within the next few days, approximately 20 miles of high-use recreational beaches, from North Miami Beach northward to near Pompano Beach (primarily Broward County beaches), were oiled; some were closed for cleaning. The origin of the oil is unknown. The United States Coast Guard, the lead response agency for the incident, classified the spill as medium, and the trustees have estimated the amount of oil stranded on the shoreline to be approximately 15,000 gallons.

Natural resources or their services impacted as a result of the incident include threatened and endangered sea turtles and their habitats, marine surface waters and their biota including fish, birds, and recreational use of beaches. Response actions removed the majority of the shoreline oil within a few days of oiling. These response actions did not prevent natural resource impacts from occurring nor did these actions restore or rehabilitate natural resource and service injuries that resulted from the incident.

Natural resource trusteeship authority is designated according to section 1006(b) of OPA, Executive Order 12777, October 22, 1991 (56 FR 54757), and Subpart G of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CFR part 300. Federal trustees are designated by the President, and state trustees by the Governor. Acting on behalf of the public as trustees for the living and non-living resources in the coastal and marine environments of Florida, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, are responsible for assessing injuries to trust resources resulting from oil spill incidents, and for developing and implementing a plan for the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent of injured natural resources and their services.

Pursuant to section 1002(a) of OPA, each party responsible for a vessel or facility from which oil is discharged, or which poses a substantial threat of a discharge of oil, into or upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines, is liable for natural resource damages from incidents that involve such actual or threatened discharges of oil. The measure of damages to natural resources is the cost of restoring, rehabilitating, replacing or acquiring the equivalent of the injured natural resources, compensation for the diminution in value of those natural resources pending restoration, and the reasonable costs of assessing such damages. All recoveries for the first two elements are to be spent implementing a restoration plan developed by the trustees. In this case, there is not an identified responsible party to pay damages. When there is not a responsible party, the Federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is available to pay claims for the costs of assessing natural resource damages and for developing and implementing restoration plans.

The trustees quantified injury to sea turtles, fish and invertebrates, seabirds, and recreational beaches for inclusion in a claim for restoration costs. The trustees determined that their selected alternative to address injuries and losses of sea turtles is a combination of active primary restoration (to return sea turtle resources and services to baseline) and compensatory restoration (to compensate for interim losses pending recovery to baseline). The primary restoration consists of augmenting lighting ordinance enforcement activities that will return sea turtles to baseline by preventing mortality of turtle hatchlings due to disorientation. The selected compensatory restoration also augments lighting ordinance enforcement, which will provide additional turtle hatchlings to compensate for the interim turtle losses. The compensatory component of the enforcement project will be of sufficient scale to provide compensatory ecological services approximately equivalent to those that will be lost from the injured turtles pending recovery to baseline.

No primary restoration actions are necessary for the fish and invertebrate, and seabird injuries. However, the trustees have selected projects as compensation for an acute kill of fish, invertebrates, and seabirds. The trustees will create mangrove habitat in order to provide the fish and invertebrate biomass that was lost.

To replace the birds that were killed, the trustees will save birds from future injury. The trustees will install signs at a fishing pier that warn anglers from cutting their lines and that demonstrate how to free birds from fishing lines and hooks, which will prevent entanglement and provide seabird rescue in the event of entanglement.

The impacted recreational beaches were returned to baseline conditions through incident response actions, however there was a period of lost use during the response phase. The selected compensatory restoration projects are to plant sea oats to build dunes, construct dune walkovers, provide handicapped carts, and provide shade areas that together will maintain beaches for future use, provide access to the beach, and improve the quality of the beach experience.

Congress enacted the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, Pub. L. No. 106-229, 114 Stat. 464 (2000), to facilitate the use of electronic records and signatures in interstate and foreign commerce and to remove uncertainty about the validity of contracts entered into electronically. Section 101 requires, among other things, that electronic signatures, contracts, and records be given legal effect, validity, and enforceability. Sections 103(a) and (b) of the Act provide that the requirements of section 101 shall not apply to contracts and records governed by statutes and regulations regarding: probate and domestic law matters; state commercial law; consumer law covering utility services, real property purchases, and insurance benefits; product recall notices; and hazardous materials documents.

The statutory language providing for an exception to section 101 of ESIGN for product recall notices is found in section 103(b) of the Act:

* * * *

(b) Additional Exceptions.— The provisions of section 101 shall not apply to—

* * * *

(2) any notice of—

* * * *

(D) recall of a product, or material failure of a product, that risks endangering health or safety. . .

* * * *

The statutory language requiring the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information to submit a report to Congress on the results of the evaluation of the section 103 exceptions to the ESIGN act is found in section 103(c)(1) of the Act as set forth below.

(1) Evaluation required.— The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, shall review the operation of the exceptions in subsections (a) and (b) to evaluate, over a period of 3 years, whether such exceptions continue to be necessary for the protection of consumers. Within 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary shall submit a report to Congress on the results of such evaluation.

A recall is the voluntary or compulsory removal of a product, including food, from the stream of commerce because the product violates state or federal regulations regarding the product, or because the use of the product poses a risk to health or safety. Recall notices are typically issued by government agencies, and by manufacturers, retailers, and distributors of products and foods using a variety of media under the guidance and direction of federal and state regulatory and consumer protection agencies. The Department of Agriculture (USDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Highway Safety Transportation Administration (NHSTA), and U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) have regulations and guidelines that companies follow to recall various manufactured products, foods, drugs, and cosmetics. 2 Numerous recall notices are issued by manufacturers each year under the guidance and instruction of federal and state agencies; the Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that the CPSC oversees approximately 300 recalls yearly.

Current federal regulations and policies allow companies to use a variety of methods to transmit recall notices. Companies, manufacturers, distributors, retailers or recall firms may disseminate recall information to the consumer by, among other things, letter, signs and posters at points of purchase, press releases and public announcements, including video news releases and website notices. The method used to notify consumers and the extent of a recall varies in each case depending upon a variety of factors, including the severity of the risk to health, life, and safety associated with the use of the product and the level of product distribution. For example, recalls classified as Class I involve a reasonable probability that the use of the product is likely to cause serious, adverse health consequences or death. A manufacturer of a widely-distributed product that is subject to a Class I recall may be required to issue direct notice in the form of written letters, to issue press releases, and point of purchase posters in order to contact consumers, retail and wholesale distributors, and users of the product. See USDA, FSIS Directive 8080.1, Rev. 3, sections VI(D) and VI(E); CPSC Recall Handbook, and CPSC Fax-on-Demand Document no. 8002, at 11-12, 15. For a product that presents a less serious risk of injury, for example, a product where the risk of serious injury or illness is not likely, but is possible, a lesser degree of notice may be required. An agency may request a manufacturer of a product that presents a lesser degree of hazard but a hazard, nonetheless, to join in a press release, provide point of purchase posters, post information on a company world wide web site and to issue a notice to distributors, dealers and sellers of the product. See e.g., CPSC Recall Handbook and CPSC Fax-on-Demand Document no. 8002, at 11-12, 15; U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTS Safety Recall Compendium, at 10, 12. In cases involving foods or products that pose extreme health or safety risks to the public, federal and state agencies, as well as companies, issue press releases to inform the public of the dangers associated with the use of the food or product that is the subject of the recall. See e.g., USDA, FSIS Directive 8080.1, Rev. 3, section IX, “Public Notification” at 3. More recently, some federal agencies have instituted procedures that provide for recalling companies and firms to send electronic mail notices to consumers and postings on the company's world wide website announcing the recall of a product. See e.g., CPSC Recall Handbook at 15.

The ESIGN Act directs the Assistant Secretary of Communications and Information to conduct an evaluation of the exceptions set out in section 103 of the Act to determine whether the product recall notices exception continues to be necessary for the protection of consumers, and to submit a report to Congress on the results of the evaluation no later than June 30, 2003. The Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information is the chief administrator of NTIA. As the President's principal advisor on telecommunications policies pertaining to the Nation's economic and technological advancement, NTIA is the executive branch agency responsible for developing and articulating domestic and international telecommunications policy.

The ESIGN section 103 evaluation of the product recall notices exception is intended to evaluate the current status of federal and state regulations and practices that direct or allow companies to issue product recall notices and the manner in which the notices are provided to consumers, in preparation for a report to Congress on whether the exception of product recall notices remains necessary to protect consumers. This evaluation is not a review or analysis of federal and state regulations and rules relating to product recall notices for the purpose of recommending changes to those regulations but to advise Congress of the current state of law, practice, and procedure regarding this issue. 3 Comments filed in response to this Notice should not be considered to have a connection with or impact on specific ongoing federal and state procedures or rulemaking proceedings concerning product recall notices.

NTIA requests that all interested parties submit written comment on any issue of fact, law, or policy that may assist in the evaluation required by section 103(c). We invite comment from parties that may be affected by the elimination of the product recall notices exception, including consumer advocacy groups and organizations, federal agencies, and companies and industry associations. The comments submitted will assist NTIA in evaluating the narrower issues associated with consumer issues and the substantive law related to product recalls. The following issues are intended to provide guidance as to the specific areas to be examined as a part of the evaluation. Commenters are invited to discuss any relevant issue, regardless of whether it is identified below.

1. Describe federal and state regulations and rules that prescribe procedures for companies, distributors, retailers, and third party recall companies to follow when recalling a product.

2. Discuss whether federal and state regulations or laws that prescribe content, format, and timing of notices allow for electronic formats, including facsimile, electronic mail, and web site postings.

3. Discuss what effect, if any, the removal of the product recall notices exception would have on the ability of federal and state agencies to perform their mission.

4. What effect, if any, would the removal of the product recall notices exception have on companies and consumers?

5. Describe any issues encountered by companies that currently provide recall notices by electronic means. Discuss the methods companies use to transmit recall information to consumers and state whether there is a receipt verification process that has proven to be reliable.

6. Discuss issues, if any, that consumers have regarding receiving notice of product recalls through electronic means, including but not limited to, receipt and delivery, technological compatibility, privacy, and security.

7. State whether the consumer protections of ESIGN section 101(c) would be sufficient to protect consumers if the product recall notices exception is eliminated.

8. Discuss any benefits for consumers, companies or both that may result if product recall notices are sent by electronic means.

9. Discuss any other issues (such as state privacy or consumer protection laws) that may be affected if product recall notices are included under the requirements of section 101 of the ESIGN Act.

Please provide copies of studies, reports, opinions, research or other empirical data referenced in the responses.

This action which changes the membership of the Board supersedes the previously published Federal Register Notice, August 31, 2001.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) title; (3) summary of the collection; (4) description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) reporting and/or recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: Application for Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program and Historically Black Graduate Institutions Program.

Frequency: Phase I Annually, Phase II every five years.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 117.

Burden Hours: 889.

Abstract: The information is required of institutions of higher education designated as Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Qualified Graduate Programs as stipulated in Title III, Part B of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. This information collection will be used for the evaluation process to determine whether proposed activities are consistent with the legislation and to determine dollar share of congressional appropriation.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2089. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments “ to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivan.reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the e-mail address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joseph Schubart at the e-mail address Joe.Schubart@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: New.

Title : Annual Performance Report Forms for the FIPSE US-Brazil Higher Education Consortia Program.

Frequency : Annually.

Affected Public : Not-for-profit institutions; State, local or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden :

 Responses: 20.

 Burden Hours: 400.

Abstract : FIPSE's US-Brazil Higher Education Consortia Program awards grants to U.S. institutions participating in bilateral institutional cooperation and student exchange programs in the United States and Brazil. The enclosed protocols for the first years and second year annual reports are necessary to ensure that the information and data to be collected will result in a balanced and effective assessment of the student exchanges and curricular developments of the US-Brazil Education Consortia Program.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 1941. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO.RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joseph Schubart at his e-mail address Joe.Schubart@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: Early Childhood Longitudinal Study: Birth Cohort/24 Month Followup.

Frequency: One-time.

Affected Public: Individuals or households; Businesses or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 31,364.

 Burden Hours: 23,114.

Abstract : The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) is a nationally representative longitudinal study of children born in the year 2001. The 24 month followup represents the second round of data collection for members of this cohort. Children are assessed using state of the art assessment tools, parents are interviewed as well as child care providers. Together with the Kindergarten component of this early childhood studies program, the survey informs the research and general community about children's health, early learning, development and education experiences. The focus of this survey is on characteristics of children and their families that influence children's first experiences with the demands of formal schools as well as early health care and in- and out-of-home experiences.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2092. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO.RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Kathy Axt at her internet address Kathy.Axt@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

In addition to soliciting comments during the public meetings, we invite the public to submit written comments on the reauthorization of the Act. We are particularly interested in comments that address the issues and questions described under Key Issues for Public Comment elsewhere in this notice.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about the reauthorization by contacting Gerri Anderson, Conference Manager, 1010 Wayne Avenue, Suite 300, Silver Spring, MD, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

The Act authorizes Federal support to States to provide adult education and literacy services, including adult basic education, adult secondary education, English literacy, and family literacy programs of instruction. For fiscal year (FY) 2002, Congress appropriated $505 million for these grants to States. Since FY 2000, Congress also has appropriated additional funds for grants to States for integrated English literacy and civics education services to immigrants and other limited English proficient populations. For FY 2002, $70 million was appropriated for this purpose.

Under these programs States distribute funds to local providers through a competitive process. Eligible providers include: local educational agencies, community-based organizations, volunteer literacy organizations, correctional education agencies, institutions of higher education, libraries, public housing authorities, and other public or private nonprofit agencies.

The statutory authorization for this program expires on September 30, 2003. In order to contribute in a timely manner to congressional reauthorization discussions, we are beginning a review of this program. To ensure public participation in our review and decision-making, we invite public comment on these issues.

You may obtain an electronic copy of the Act on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/CTE/legis.html .

Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the Act in an alternative format ( e.g. , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact number listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Comments are encouraged on the following priority issues.

1. Narrowing the Achievement Gap. The 1992 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAALS) indicated that approximately 90 million adults were reading at levels that were insufficient to allow them to participate fully in the economy and obtain new skills necessary for success. In 2002, an updated version of NAALS will be conducted, which will likely indicate that tens of millions of Americans continue to live with low literacy. Yet programs funded under the Act currently serve only about 2.7 million individuals each year. This disparity between available resources and need is likely to persist for the foreseeable future.

• How can we improve the targeting of Federal resources on effective programs that will produce the greatest return on the Federal investment?

• What are the features of effective adult education and literacy programs that should be given higher priority for Federal resources?

• How can we improve the performance of adult education programs, increasing their success only in not increasing the number of completers but also in generating more rapid knowledge and skill gains?

• How can we improve the array of services available to support adult learners who are currently not accessing learning through the present system?

• Can non-traditional service providers be better integrated into a multi-faceted delivery system? What changes would promote the delivery of high-quality, accountable services by community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, and businesses?

• How should our national program funds be targeted to help States close the achievement gap?

2. Increasing Accountability for Student Performance. The Act established a State accountability system that holds States and other grant recipients accountable for meeting annual, agreed-upon levels of performance on a set of “core indicators” specified in the statute. Do these core indicators measure student performance and demonstrate the impact of the Federal investment well? How could data be reported differently to enhance their meaning to the public, to students, and to policymakers?

3. Coordination with Federal Employment and Training Programs. Title I of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) created a one-stop delivery system that links multiple Federal education and training programs in order to make these services more accessible to the public, to reduce duplication of services, and to facilitate coordinated planning across programs. Adult education and literacy programs supported by the Act are “mandatory partners” that are required to participate in the one-stop delivery system. They are also represented on local workforce investment boards that govern the one-stop system in local areas.

• Have the one-stop delivery system's goals of improving public access to adult education services, improving academic achievement, reducing duplication, and facilitating coordination been achieved in local areas? What changes are needed to promote the further attainment of these goals? How have memoranda of understanding [MOUs] among the delivery system's partners worked to benefit adult education participants?

• States negotiate annual levels of performance for WIA Title I employment programs for a set of “core indicators” that one similar to those established under the Act. Placement in employment, for example, is measured for both WIA Title I and the Act. Should these indicators be measured consistently across these programs and others, using the same population and other definitions? If so, how should this common employment measure be constructed and what definitions should be used? Are there other indicators ( e.g. , educational attainment) for which there should also be common measurement approaches and definitions?

• Have WIA incentive grants helped States look at ways to promote student achievement across programs and help close the achievement gap?

You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister.

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

The Act authorizes Federal support to improve secondary and postsecondary vocational and technical education programs. The Act includes seven programs, with more than $1.3 billion in funding for Fiscal Year 2002. The funded programs are: the Vocational and Technical Education State Grants; Tech-Prep Education State Grants; National Activities, including a national research center; the Native American Vocational and Technical Education program; the Tribally-Controlled Postsecondary Vocational and Technical Institutions program; America's Career Resource Network grants to States; and the Tech-Prep Demonstration program.

The statutory authorization for these programs expires on September 30, 2004. In order to contribute in a timely manner to congressional reauthorization discussions, we are beginning a review of these programs, as well as related issues, including secondary school reform. To ensure public participation in our review and decision-making, we invite public comment on these issues.

Comments are encouraged on the following priority issues.

Since the release of A Nation At Risk in 1983, little if any, improvement has been made in the performance of our nation's high school students. By all accounts, improvements have not been substantial enough so that every student is prepared for a successful future. In fact, data show that by the end of the 1980s, progress stopped cold and, through the 1990s, achievement gaps have remained stable or widened. A number of trends indicate that we may still be a “nation at risk” of not preparing our students for their future.

Scores by 12th graders on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) remain disturbingly low. As of 1998, only 40 percent of 12th graders were able to read at or above a proficient level and just 22 percent were able to write at or above a proficient level. Only 16 percent of 12th grade students in 2000 scored at or above a proficient level in math and 18 percent scored at or above a proficient level in science. Despite a substantial decrease in achievement gaps between 1970 and 1999, white students still consistently outperform peers of other racial and ethnic backgrounds in every subject area. In fact, by 1999, on average, 17- year-old African-American and Hispanic students had skills in English, mathematics, and science skills comparable to those of 13-year-old White students. Achievement gaps also exist among students who pursue different programs of study. As of 1994, vocational concentrators lagged behind other students in English, math, and science achievement.

On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the most sweeping reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) since it was enacted in 1965. Its provisions include increased accountability for States, school districts, and schools; greater choice for parents and students, particularly those attending low-performing schools; more flexibility for States and local educational agencies in the use of Federal education dollars; and a stronger emphasis on reading, especially for our youngest children.

Although No Child Left Behind applies to both elementary and secondary students, it places primary and much-needed emphasis on the 28 million public school students enrolled in kindergarten through 8th grade. Follow-up action that builds on No Child Left Behind may be needed to improve the achievement of the nation's high school students.

• Is there a need for additional or separate Federal action to address the achievement gap among secondary school students?

• Is there a need for additional or separate Federal action to address the achievement gap among non-baccalaureate postsecondary students?

• How should Federal support for vocational and technical education programs be aligned with Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and other elementary and secondary education programs?

• The current array of Federal programs that impact high schools and their students, may or may not represent a coherent Federal high school policy.

• What policies and programmatic elements would an effective, coherent Federal strategy to promote high school transformation include?

• How would existing vocational and technical education be modified to support this Federal strategy?

• Nearly one-third of college freshman take remedial math courses, and over one-quarter take remedial English. In some states, estimates of students requiring college remediation are nearly 50 percent. What can be done to assure that every student is prepared for postsecondary education, without the need for remediation?

The Federal investment in vocational and technical education comprises about seven percent of the total amount spent nationally on vocational and technical education.

• How can these limited resources be targeted to maximize the return on the Federal investment?

• What are the features of effective secondary vocational and technical education programs that should be given higher priority for Federal resources?

• What are the features of effective postsecondary vocational and technical education programs that should be given higher priority for Federal resources?

• How should our national program funds be targeted to help close the achievement gap between high and low performing students, including factors that are based on gender, ethnicity, economic status and disability?

The Act established a State accountability system that holds States accountable for meeting annual, agreed-upon levels of performance on a set of “core indicators” specified in the statute. Each State has discretion to determine how it will measure each of the indicators.

• While the Act's accountability system has heightened attention on student achievement, completion, and other outcomes, some contend that the system is needlessly complex and does not generate straightforward, easily understandable information about student, program, and State performance. How can this accountability system be simplified and improved?

• The law uses a single set of indicators to measure the effectiveness of both secondary and postsecondary programs. However, some of the indicators, such as attainment of State-establish academic proficiencies, are not readily applicable to postsecondary education. What indicators are most appropriate and useful for measuring the effectiveness of postsecondary vocational and technical education programs? To what types of students should they apply? For example, should non-credit students be included in the accountability system?

Title I of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) created a one-stop delivery system that links multiple Federal education and training programs in order to make these services more accessible to the public, to reduce duplication of services, and to facilitate coordinated planning across programs. Postsecondary vocational and technical education programs supported by the Act are “mandatory partners” that are required to participate in the one-stop delivery system. They are also represented on local workforce investment boards that govern the one-stop system in local areas.

• Have the one-stop delivery system's goals of improving public access to postsecondary vocational and technical education, reducing duplication, and facilitating coordination been achieved in local areas? What changes are needed to promote the further attainment of these goals? How have memoranda of understanding [MOUs] worked to benefit the postsecondary vocational and technical education participant?

• States negotiate annual levels of performance for WIA Title I employment programs for a set of “core indicators” that are similar to that established under the Act. Placement in employment, for example, is measured for both WIA Title I and the Act. Should these indicators be measured consistently across these programs and others, using the same population and other definitions? How should this common employment measure be constructed and what definitions should be used? Are there other indicators [ e.g. , educational attainment] for which there should also be common measurement approaches and definitions?

• Have WIA incentive grants helped States look at ways to promote student achievement across programs and help close the achievement gap?

You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister .

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

X-ray and neutron scattering are powerful tools used to investigate the fundamental properties of materials. BES is the major supporter of x-ray and neutron science in the United States and has pioneered the development of virtually all of the instruments and techniques used at these facilities for research in materials sciences, surface science, condensed matter physics, atomic and molecular physics, chemical dynamics, x-ray microscopy, tomography, femtosecond phenomena, interfacial/environmental, and geophysics studies. Within the physical sciences, BES remains the dominant federal supporter of beamline development and instrument fabrication providing as much as 85% of the federal support for these activities. Major instruments at the synchrotron light sources and the neutron sources have a lifetime of 7-10 years after which the instruments may undergo major upgrades or be retired. Thus, after a facility is fully instrumented, about 10-15% of the instruments must be upgraded or replaced each year to keep the facility at the forefront of science.

The National User Facilities supported by the Office of Basic Energy Sciences are the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) (currently under construction), National Synchrotron Light Source (NSLS), High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR), Intense Pulsed Neutron Source (IPNS), Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory (SSRL), Advanced Light Source (ALS), Advanced Photon Source (APS), and Los Alamos Neutron Scattering Center (LANSCE). These facilities have the capabilities of extreme flux, or brightness, to make certain experiments possible, which couldn't be done otherwise. The Department's intention for this program is to support fundamental research, which will include the upgrade and/or development of new instrumentation for general user beamlines at the Department's National User Facilities. The ability to conduct innovative fundamental research should be emphasized in each application. Grant applications are encouraged from the fields of solid-state physics, materials chemistry, metals and ceramics, chemical sciences, geosciences, and environmental sciences for energy-relevant research which make use of the DOE-supported user facilities. Instrumentation appropriate for consideration would include, but not be limited to, the following: beamline optics and transport guides, monochromators of much greater resolution, more efficient detectors to reduce the background noise, sample environments that afford control of temperature, pressure and magnetic field, electronics and data processing equipment to enable investigators to carry out new or more difficult experiments and/or more experiments in the same amount of time.

It is anticipated that approximately $7,292,000 will be available for awards during FY 2003 to support instrument upgrades, instrument replacements, and new instrumentation at the x-ray and neutron scattering facilities, contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds. These funds will be competed among both academic and laboratory institutions, and the resulting instruments and beamlines will be made available to the entire U.S. scientific research community. Multiyear beamline and instrument development in such areas as materials sciences, surface science, condensed matter physics, atomic and molecular physics, polymers and soft materials, nanostructured materials, x-ray microscopy, tomography, femtosecond phenomena, interfacial studies, and imaging results will be considered. The number of awards and the range of funding will depend on the number of applications received and selected for award.

Applicants are encouraged to collaborate with industry and to incorporate cost sharing and consortia wherever feasible. The extent of the collaboration and cost sharing will be factors, along with the principal criterion of the scientific merit of the application, in the selection process by the Department.

Applications will be subjected to scientific merit review (peer review) and will be evaluated against the following criteria listed in descending order of importance as codified at 10 CFR 605.10(d):

1. Scientific and/or technical merit of the project;

2. Appropriateness of the proposed method or approach;

3. Competency of applicant's personnel and adequacy of proposed resources;

4. Reasonableness and appropriateness of the proposed budget.

The evaluation will include program policy factors, such as the relevance of the proposed research to the terms of the announcement and agency's programmatic needs. External peer reviewers will be selected with regard to their scientific expertise and the absence of conflict-of-interest issues. Non-federal reviewers may be used, and submission of an application constitutes agreement that this is acceptable to the investigator(s) and the submitting institution.

General information about the development and submission of applications, eligibility, limitations, evaluation and selection processes, and other policies and procedures are contained in the Application Guide for the Office of Science Financial Assistance Program and 10 CFR part 605. Electronic access to the latest version of SC's Application Guide is possible via the Internet at the following Web address: http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/grants/grants.html. DOE is under no obligation to pay for any costs associated with the preparation or submission of applications.

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

1. EIA-28, “Financial Reporting System.”

2. Energy Information Administration.

3. OMB Number 1905-0149.

4. Three-year approval requested.

5. Mandatory.

6. The Financial Reporting System, Form EIA-28 collects data used to analyze the energy industry's competitive environment as well as energy industry resource development, supply distribution, and profitability issues. Survey results from major energy producers are published annually and are used by both public and private analysts.

7. Business or other for-profit.

8. 13,470 hours ( 30 respondents x 1 response per year x 449 hours per response).

For decades, the U.S. and Mexico have collaborated on efforts to protect the environment and health of border communities. The most recent binational effort was the Border XXI Program, which was initiated in 1996 with a five-year plan for addressing the most challenging environmental and environmentally-related health problems in the region. The formal foundation for these binational efforts is the La Paz Agreement ( http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/2002/efpaz.htm ) signed by Presidents De la Madrid and Reagan in 1983. The agreement is implemented through multi-year binational programs such as Border XXI and the new Border 2012 program.

Although most of the Border XXI projects were implemented at the local level, its organizational structure emphasized border-wide coordination and planning. Nine border-wide workgroups—each focused on a particular environmental program, such as air quality or hazardous waste management—coordinated the efforts of various federal, state, tribal and local governmental activities in the border area. The new Border 2012 Program builds upon the successes achieved under Border XXI while also establishing a regionally-focused border plan to facilitate environmental priority setting and planning at the regional and local levels.

The proposed Border 2012 emphasizes a bottom-up approach, anticipating that local decision-making, priority-setting and project implementation will best address environmental issues in the border region. Border 2012 will emphasize concrete measurable results, public participation, transparency, and timely access to environmental information.

The Border 2012 Program proposes some key changes from Border XXI including: (1) New mission statement; (2) integration of pollution prevention and environmental information into the activities of all coordinating bodies; and (3) new organizational structure that focuses on regional workgroups to facilitate regional- and local-level planning and priority setting.

The major features of the Border 2012 program are the following: the coordinating bodies, goals and measurable objectives, and reporting results to the public.

Border 2012 is organized around coordinating bodies. These coordinating bodies include the following: the National Coordinators, four Regional (geographically-focused) Workgroups, three Border-wide Workgroups, and Policy Forums.

Consistent with the requirements of the La Paz Agreement, the National Coordinators will monitor and manage implementation of the Border 2012 Program and ensure cooperation and communication among all coordinating bodies.

Providing the foundation of the Border 2012 Program, four multi-media, regionally-focused workgroups will support the efforts of local Task Forces and coordinate activities at the regional and local level. The proposed Regional Workgroups are the following: California—Baja California, Arizona—Sonora, New Mexico—Texas—Chihuahua, and Texas—Coahuila—Nuevo León—Tamaulipas. Each Regional Workgroup will be co-chaired by one state and one federal representative from each country.

Border-wide Workgroups will concentrate on issues that are multi-regional (identified as a priority by two or more Regional Workgroups) and primarily federal in nature (requiring direct, high-level, and sustained leadership by federal program partners in the United States and Mexico). Three Border-wide Workgroups will have federal U.S. and Mexican co-chairs for the following issues: environmental health, emergency preparedness and response, and cooperative enforcement and compliance.

Policy Forums will have a media-specific focus and will concentrate on broad policy issues that require an on-going dialogue between the two countries. Three Policy Forums will be established to address policy issues and provide technical assistance to the Regional and Border-wide Workgroups in the following areas: air, water, hazardous waste, solid waste, and toxic substances.

The Regional Workgroups, Border-wide Workgroups, and the Policy Forums will be broad-based and will include representation from local communities from both sides of the border, including non-governmental or community-based organizations; academic institutions; local, state, and tribal representatives; and binational organizations (such as the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission or the North American Development Bank) with expertise in the given workgroup's subject area.

Except for the National Coordinators, the coordinating bodies may create Task Forces to address specific community-identified concerns and implement site-specific projects. Task Forces will be led by a “team leader” from each country and may be from any sector of government (including tribal governments), the private sector, academia, or from non-governmental organizations.

Border 2012 establishes the following five border-wide environmental goals for the U.S.-Mexico border region: reduce water contamination, reduce air pollution; reduce land contamination; reduce exposure to pesticides, particularly children's exposure; and reduce exposure to chemicals as a result of accidental chemical releases and/or deliberate acts of terrorism.

For each of the above goals, measurable objectives have been proposed. In all, there are fifteen measurable objectives. These objectives are in the areas of:

• Homes connected to potable water, wastewater collection and treatment systems;

• Surface and groundwater water quality;

• Ambient air quality standards;

• Human risk from air toxics;

• Voluntary compliance in maquiladoras;

• Hazardous and solid waste capacity in the border region;

• Hazardous waste violations at ports of entry;

• Tire piles;

• Brownfields;

• Pesticide exposure;

• Contingency planning; and

• Binational emergency planning.

Every two years the coordinating bodies will publish an implementation report that describes the status of current and proposed activities under the Border 2012 program. In addition, comprehensive mid-term and final progress reports that describe progress on meeting the goals and objectives of the program, including environmental indicators, will be published in 2006 and 2012 respectively.

EPA, SEMARNAT, and the U.S. and Mexican border states are seeking input from border stakeholders and other interested parties about the proposed Border 2012 program. We invite public comments related to all aspects of the proposed Border 2012 plan, and, in particular, we are interested in comments related to the following topics:

• Once established, each Regional Workgroup will develop specific plans and projects for that Region. What are the most important environmental issues for each region? Some examples of important environmental issues are included in the draft document.

• Will the new structure, especially the introduction of Regional Workgroups and Task Forces, help focus on the key environmental issues in each region? Are there improvements that could be made to the proposed structure that would improve decision-making?

• Will the Border 2012 plan provide adequate input from border stakeholders to state and federal decision-makers? Are there ways to improve the workgroup process to insure that stakeholders' concerns are heard?

A number of opportunities for the public to comment on the draft document are provided as follows:

Individuals can submit comments directly by filling out the public comment form at: http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/

A number of public meetings will be held in October and November in the following cities: Deming, New Mexico; Las Cruces, New Mexico; Alpine, Texas; Imperial County, California Yuma/San Luis, Arizona; Sells, Arizona; Douglas, Arizona. In addition, bi-national meetings will be held in San Diego, California/Tijuana, Baja California; Nogales, Arizona/Nogales,Sonora; El Paso, Texas/Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua; Del Rio, Texas/Ciudad Acuña, Coahuila; Laredo, Texas/Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas; Brownsville, Texas/Matamoros,Tamaulipas. For meeting locations and times, please check the EPA U.S.-Mexico Border website or contact the EPA Border Offices. Public comment will be accepted at these meetings.

C. Interested parties can also mail or fax comments to the EPA Border Offices at the addresses and fax numbers listed above.

The Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy will be hosting an on-line dialogue on the BECCNet Listserve during the comment period for interested parties to exchange ideas about the draft plan. The purpose of this dialogue is not to submit public comment, but rather to provide a forum for discussion of the draft document. To participate in or to monitor this dialogue, one must subscribe to the BECCNet Listserve. The instructions for subscribing to the BECCNet can be found on the Udall Center Web site at: http://udallcenter.arizona.edu/listservs/beccnet.html

EPA will continue to honor its unique trust relationship with U.S. Indian tribes and enforce its “Policy for the Administration of Environmental Program on Indian Reservations” within the Border 2012 U.S.-Mexico program. EPA recognizes that U.S. tribal governments are sovereign and are the primary parties for setting standards, making environmental policy decisions, and managing environmental programs on Indian reservations.

Within the Border 2012 Program, EPA will comply with Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” and work with tribes when formulating and implementing policies or taking other actions that have a substantial direct effect on any Indian tribe.

EPA is working with U.S. border tribes to develop mechanisms to ensure full participation of U.S. border tribes in the Border 2012 Program.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0219.

Title: Section 90.49(a)(2)(xi), Communications Standby Facilities “Special Eligibility Showing”.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of existing collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 200.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.75 hours.

Total Annual Burden: 150 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR section 90.49(a)(2)(xi) requires each communications common carrier that operates communications circuits that normally carry essential communications is eligible to apply for standby radio facility authorization only for transmissions during periods when normal circuits are inoperable due to special circumstances. The initial application for authorization must include a statement describing the desired radio communications facilities, the proposed operating method, a description of the normal messages, and an explanation of how their disruption will endanger life or public property.

OMB Control: 3060-0251.

Title: Section 74.833, Temporary Authorizations.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 6.

Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 12 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR section 74.833 requires that requests for special temporary authorization be made by informal applications for low power auxiliary station operations, which cannot be conducted in accordance with section 74.24 of the FCC's rules, and for operations of a temporary nature. Section 74.24 states that classes of broadcast auxiliary stations may be operated on a short-term basis under the authority conveyed by a part 73 licensee without prior authorization from the FCC, subject to certain conditions. The FCC staff will use these data to insure that the temporary operation of a low power auxiliary station does not cause interference to other existing stations and to assure compliance with current FCC rules and regulations.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0435.

Title: Section 80.361 Frequencies for Narrow-Band Direct-Printing (NB-DP) and Data Transmissions.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of existing collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; and Individuals or households.

Number of Respondents: 2.

Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

Total Annual Burden: 4 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Needs and Uses: Under 47 CFR section 80.361, public coast station applicants must submit a “showing of need” to obtain new or additional narrow-band direct-printing (NB-DP) frequencies. Applicants for new or additional NB-DP frequencies must also show the service schedule for each currently licensed or proposed series of NB-DP frequencies. The need for additional frequencies is based on showing a minimum 40% usage of existing NB-DP frequencies. The FCC uses this information to determine whether to grant a public coast station's application for a NB-DP frequency and if these frequencies are being hoarded or under utilitzed.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0543.

Title: Section 21.913, Signal Booster Stations.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 250.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 to 2.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 125.

Total Annual Cost: $90,000.

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR section 21.913(e) requires each applicant for an MDS signal booster station to obtain written permission from the licensee of each MDS, ITFS, and OFS station whose signal is retransmitted. Section 21.913(g) permits an MDS or ITFS licensee to install and commence operation of low power signal booster stations without a formal application, but the licensees must submit a certification within 48 hours of installation of the booster station to demonstrate compliance with the various components of sections 21.913(g). The written consent statements under section 21.913(e) are attached to the FCC Form 304 to verify that the applicant has permission to retransmit the signal of other licensees' stations, and under section 21.913(g) to note that the applicant has compiled with guidelines of the certification process and that the booster will not cause harmful interference.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0663.

Title: Section 21.934, Assignment or Transfer of Control of BTA Authorization.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 50.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 50 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR Section 21.934 requires a Basic Trading Area (BTA) authorization holder to file a statement that its authorization was obtained through competitive bidding, when seeking approval for a transfer of control or assignment of the authorization within three years of receiving the authorization through competitive bidding procedures. Along with this statement, the applicant must also file copies of documents containing information on the amount of consideration. The FCC staff use this information to determine whether there has been unjust enrichment to the person selling the station.

The Record of Decision is as follows:

In FR Doc. 02-23193, appearing on page 57827 in the Federal Register of Thursday, September 12, 2002, the following correction is made:

1. On page 57827, in the second column, in the last paragraph, beginning on line 7, the Internet address is corrected to read “ http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/acrylami.html” .

This program announcement consists of four parts:

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) : Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 16 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and reviewing the collection of information. The following information collection is included in the program announcement: OMB Approval No. 0970-0139, ACF UNIFORM PROJECT DESCRIPTION (UPD) attached as Appendix A, which expires 12/30/03. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Since 1994, ORR has provided assistance for social services to meet the needs of newly arriving refugees through a standing announcement. In May 2001, ORR modified that announcement to include services to victims of a severe form of trafficking. However, in February 2002, ORR further modified Category 3 of the existing standing announcement by removing services to victims of a severe form of trafficking in order to proceed with a new and separate announcement specifically aimed at promoting awareness about human trafficking and addressing the service needs of victims of a severe form of trafficking. That notice of modification was published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2002 (67 FR 6048).

On May 24, 2002, ORR published an announcement in the Federal Register (67 FR 36622) to request applications to provide local/community outreach and/or services to victims of a severe form of trafficking. Due to the positive response from that grant announcement, ORR has decided to provide additional funding in Fiscal Year 2003. Though the May 24, 2002 announcement was for multiple categories of funding, this new announcement is only requesting applications to provide local/community outreach and/or services to victims of a severe form of trafficking.

These grants are authorized by three provisions of law: section 107(b)(1)(B) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA)(22 U.S.C. 7105(b)(1)(B)); section 412(c)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)(8 U.S.C. 1522(c)(1)(A)), as amended; and section 106(b) of the TVPA.

Section 107(b)(1)(B) of the TVPA, Public Law 106-386, Division A, 114 Stat. 1464 (2000), provides that “Federal agencies shall expand benefits and services to victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons in the United States, without regard to the immigration status of such victims.” Individuals who are determined to be victims of a severe form of trafficking will be issued a certification letter (for adults) or eligibility letter (for minors under the age of 18) from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In conducting a benefits eligibility determination for a victim of a severe form of trafficking, benefit-granting agencies should accept the HHS certification letter or HHS eligibility letter for minors in lieu of documentation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service and as proof of a status that confers eligibility for benefits.

Section 412(c)(1)(A) of the INA authorizes the Director “to make grants to, and enter into contracts with, public or private nonprofit agencies for projects specifically designed—(i) To assist refugees in obtaining the skills which are necessary for economic self-sufficiency, including projects for job training, employment services, day care, professional refresher training, and other re-certification services; (ii) to provide training in English where necessary (regardless of whether the refugees are employed or receiving cash or other assistance); and (iii) to provide where specific needs have been shown and recognized by the Director, health (including mental health) services, social services, educational and other services.”

Section 106(b) of the TVPA provides: “The President, acting through the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of State, shall establish and carry out programs to increase public awareness, particularly among potential victims of trafficking, of the dangers of trafficking and the protections that are available for victims of trafficking.

In FY 2003, ORR expects to award an estimated $1.25 million in funds to carry out the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. ORR expects to make approximately three to five grants under this grant announcement—Local/Community Outreach and/or Services for Victims of a Severe Form of Trafficking—ranging from $50,000 to $250,000 for a total of up to $1,250,000; renewable on a yearly basis for up to three years, subject to the availability of funds.

The Director reserves the right to award less or more than the funds described in this announcement. In the absence of worthy applications, the Director may decide not to make an award if deemed in the best interest of the government. The ORR Director reserves the right to award grants after taking into consideration the geographic distribution of services among the major cities and areas throughout the United States where victims are most likely to be found and/or are in need of assistance. Funding availability for future years is at the Director's discretion.

Public and private nonprofit organizations, including faith-based organizations and state, local, and tribal governments, are eligible to apply for any of these grants (see section 412(c) of the INA). For profit entities are eligible to apply for local/community outreach grants only (see section 106(b) of the TVPA), although HHS funds may not be paid as profit to any recipient even if the recipient is a commercial organization (45 CFR 74.81). ORR expects that applicants will coordinate with other local organizations in considering projects and proposing services.

Any private nonprofit organization submitting an application must submit proof of its status in its application at the time of submission. The nonprofit agency can accomplish this by providing a copy of the applicant's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code or by providing a copy of the currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate or by providing a copy of the articles of incorporation bearing the seal of the State in which the corporation or association is domiciled.

Applicants are not required to match or cost share in the application.

This announcement is inviting applications for project periods of up to three years. Awards, on a competitive basis, will be for a one-year budget period although project periods may be up to three years. Applications for continuation grants funded under these awards, beyond the one-year budget period but within the three-year project period, will be entertained in subsequent years on a noncompetitive basis, subject to availability of funds, satisfactory progress of the grantee and a determination that continued funding would be in the best interest of the Government.

The purpose of Local/Community Outreach and/or Services for Victims of a Severe Form of Trafficking is multifaceted. It combines the need to increase local/community awareness about the burgeoning problem of human trafficking with the need to provide resources that will address the needs of individuals determined by HHS to be victims of a severe form of trafficking. Applications may choose to concentrate exclusively on one of these two areas, or focus more comprehensively on a combination of activities that incorporates both.

The purpose of this area of the announcement is to provide state and local law enforcement, public and private service providers, non-governmental organizations, immigrant and refugee communities, and individual community members with opportunities to learn about the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA). The TVPA has presented an unprecedented opportunity to address the previously hidden problem of human trafficking. However, knowledge of the TVPA is limited among service professionals, law enforcement agencies, and the general public. Knowledge of benefits available to victims is similarly limited, especially among groups that do not normally access benefits or have connections with benefit-providing agencies and organizations.

Educational opportunities need to be extended to these groups to allow them to learn about the existence of human trafficking within the United States and to recognize trafficking, particularly in their local communities. Integral in these outreach activities should be familiarity with the legal definition of “severe forms of trafficking in persons” as described in the TVPA. Subsequently, a clear understanding should be established of the criteria necessary to qualify as a victim of a severe form of trafficking for benefits and services purposes.

Once trafficking victims have been identified, organizations must be empowered to provide victims with additional information and resources to access services available to them. Law enforcement agencies that have contact with immigrant or refugee populations must also be educated to look below the surface of people's circumstances in such areas as prostitution and immigrant labor. Service providers need to learn about the varied backgrounds from where the victims come and, most importantly, the unique issues that trafficking victims will present following their emancipation.

Organizations must establish that within their geographic locality/area there is a reasonable expectation that victims of a severe form of trafficking may be identified. Effective applications will also identify and aim to raise awareness about victim service needs that should be enhanced or increased based on the level of community awareness (or lack thereof) that exists regarding trafficking in a particular geographic locality/area.

ORR is interested in providing resources for organizations to cover the costs of reaching out to community-based organizations so that victims are identified where they have the best chance for receiving assistance. In turn, communities where outreach and educational opportunities are being extended may experience an increase in the numbers of victims being identified and requesting services.

Through Services to Victims of a Severe Form of Trafficking, ORR seeks to provide resources that will address the needs of individuals determined to be victims of a severe form of trafficking. Victims must be the recipients of a certification or eligibility letter from HHS in order to gain access to this assistance. We believe that enhanced case management, education, and culturally and linguistically appropriate linkages and coordination with other service providers contribute to the overall well-being of trafficking victims. Victims may also require initial assistance accessing refugee and/or mainstream services for which they are eligible. The services funded should enhance the likelihood that victims of a severe form of trafficking receive needed support as they work with the criminal justice system to assist in the investigation and prosecution of trafficking crimes.

An applicant should provide anecdotal evidence that there have been victims of a severe form of trafficking within their community and/or a reasonable assumption that there may be additional unidentified victims in that community.

This grant program is intended to support services that address the special conditions of victims of a severe form of trafficking. ORR's expectation is that victims of trafficking will most likely, after a brief period of time, access mainstream services. Therefore, grantees should view these resources as a temporary solution.

According to post award requirements, grantees are expected to file periodic program reports. In the last two Program Performance Reports, grantees will discuss the transition of services indicating whether the services are now supported by the State, other public or private resources, or are no longer needed. These reports must also provide supporting information on the impact of the services provided to the target population.

Allowable activities for local/community outreach include hosting community forums (including coordination and facilitation of outreach events) to raise general awareness about the problem of trafficking in their local community. In addition, applicants should emphasize the development of advertising and marketing anti-trafficking materials that reflect the broad scope of the various forms of trafficking (including debt bondage, peonage, forced labor and forced prostitution) and that are linguistically and culturally accessible, appropriate, and sensitive.

Applications focusing on Local/Community Outreach should indicate approximate timelines for development, dissemination, and review of actions presented to measure the effectiveness of the communication.

Allowable activities for Services to Victims of a Severe Form of Trafficking are restricted solely to individuals who are the recipients of a certification (for adults) or eligibility letter (for minors) from HHS. Some of the services needed for victims of a severe form of trafficking might include:

• Special medical care that is not otherwise available to the individual;

• Assistance with temporary transportation needs;

• Temporary housing;

• Temporary housing for young adults with limited experience living in families;

• Independent living skills and cultural orientation;

• Access to appropriate educational programs;

• Legal assistance/referrals and administrative costs (excluding T-visa application fees and/or attorney fees).

• Case management, to include information and referral to needed services in the community, either funded refugee services or mainstream services as appropriate;

• Special mental health services, such as trauma counseling, and

• Other services needed to bridge the time between the certification or eligibility date indicated directly on the Department's letter, and the receipt of public benefits and support services.

Applicants focusing on Services to Victims of a Severe Form of Trafficking should indicate how they will ensure that services are appropriate and accessible both linguistically and culturally.

Funds will not be awarded to applicants for the purpose of engaging in activities of a distinctly political nature, activities designed exclusively to promote the preservation of a specific cultural heritage, or activities with an international objective ( i.e. , activities related to events in the refugees' country of origin). No funds will be used to provide direct services or benefits to trafficking victims who have not been certified by HHS and are therefore not yet eligible to receive direct benefits and/or services. HHS Trafficking funds may not be used by any agency or organization to support activities relating to or supporting the legalization of prostitution.

1. Objectives and Need —Local/Community Outreach—The applicant demonstrates a clear understanding of the population to be served. The conditions in proposed communities are clearly described, including the reasonable expectation of identifying trafficking victims within the community. The need for additional information leading to enhanced acknowledgment of trafficking is documented. The applicant provides anecdotal evidence that there are enough people and/or organizations that would benefit from this type of outreach/educational opportunity. Services for Victims of a Severe Form of Trafficking—The applicant demonstrates a clear understanding of the population to be served. The number of projected victims of trafficking to be served is reasonable in light of the organization's capacity. The application proposes to address a program of services for victims of trafficking. (25 points)

2. Results or Benefits Expected —The applicant clearly describes the results and benefits to be achieved. The application clearly describes how the specific target population will benefit from proposed services, e.g. , enhanced case management, special medical care, referrals and follow-up with culturally and linguistically appropriate mainstream providers. Results or benefits are described also in terms of the opportunities provided for victims, benefit-providing agencies, and law enforcement. The application describes how the impact of the funds will be measured on key indicators associated with the purpose of the project. Proposed outcomes are measurable and achievable within the grant project period, and the proposed monitoring and information collection is adequately planned. (25 points)

3. Approach —The strategy and plan, including a description of each proposed geographic area/community and an assessment of appropriateness of activities, are likely to achieve proposed results. The proposed activities and timeframes are reasonable and feasible. The plan describes in detail how the proposed activities will be accomplished as well as the potential for the project to generate additional interest in outreach to victim populations and coordination with other services. The application includes a clear and comprehensive description of the geographic area/communities to be served and how it/they will be impacted by this project. Assurance is provided that proposed services will be delivered in a manner that is linguistically and culturally appropriate to the target population. The applicant has described the planning and/or consultation efforts undertaken. Where coalition partners are proposed, the applicant describes each partner agency's respective role and financial responsibilities and describes how the coalition will enhance the accomplishment of the project goals. Evidence of commitment of coalition partners in implementing the activities is demonstrated, i.e. , by Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) among participants. Assurance is provided that proposed services will be delivered in a manner that is linguistically and culturally appropriate to the target population. (25 points)

4. Organizational Profiles —The administrative and management features of the project, including a plan for fiscal and programmatic management of each activity and planning activities, are described in detail with proposed start-up times, ongoing timelines, major milestones or benchmarks, a component/project organization chart, management of affiliates, and a staffing chart of affiliate network. The qualifications of project staff, both applicant and affiliate agencies, as well as any volunteers, are documented. The applicant has provided a copy of its most recent audit report. (10 points)

5. Budget and Budget Justification —The budget and narrative justification are reasonable, clearly presented, and cost-effective in relation to the proposed activities and anticipated results. The applicant clearly indicates how awarded funds will complement other community outreach efforts and/or social services to achieve the objectives. Planning for continuation of services beyond the project period is realistic. (15 points)

This program is covered under Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” and 45 CFR Part 100, “Intergovernmental Review of Department of Health and Human Services Programs and Activities.” Under the Order, States may design their own processes for reviewing and commenting on proposed federal assistance under covered programs.

• All States and Territories except Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, and Palau have elected to participate in the Executive Order process. Applicants from these twenty-seven jurisdictions need take no action regarding E.O. 12372. Applicants for projects to be administered by Federally-recognized Indian Tribes are also exempt from the requirements of E.O. 12372. Applicants should contact their Single-Points-of-Contact (SPOC) as soon as possible to alert them of the prospective applications and receive any necessary instructions. Applicants from participating jurisdictions must submit any required material to the SPOCs as soon as possible so that the program office can obtain and review SPOC comments as part of the award process. The applicant must submit all required materials, if any, to the SPOC and indicate the date of this submittal (the date of contact) on the Standard Form 424, item 16a.

Under 45 CFR 100.8(a)(2), a SPOC has 60 days from the application deadline to comment on proposed new or competing continuation awards.

SPOCs are encouraged to eliminate the submission of routine endorsements as official recommendations.

Additionally, SPOCs are requested to clearly differentiate between mere advisory comments and those official State process recommendations which may trigger the “accommodate or explain” rule.

When comments are submitted directly to ACF, they should be addressed to: Grants Management Officer, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Refugee Resettlement, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., 4th floor, Washington DC 20447.

A list of the Single Points of Contact for each participating State and Territory can be found on the Web at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/index.html.

Each application submitted under this program announcement will undergo a pre-review to determine that (1) the application was received by the closing date of November 1, 2002, and submitted in accordance with the instructions in this announcement; and (2) the applicant is eligible for funding.

Applications which pass the initial ACF screening will be evaluated and rated by an independent review panel on the basis of evaluation criteria specified in Part I. The evaluation criteria were designed to assess the quality of a proposed project and to determine the likelihood of its success. The evaluation criteria are closely related and are considered as a whole in judging the overall quality of an application. Points are awarded only to applications that are responsive to the evaluation criteria within the context of this program announcement.

In order to be considered for a grant under this program announcement, an application must be submitted on the forms supplied and in the manner prescribed by ACF. Selected elements of the ACF Uniform Project Description (UPD) relevant to this program announcement are attached as Appendix A.

Applicants requesting financial assistance under this announcement must file the Standard Form (SF) 424, Application for Federal Assistance; SF 424A, Budget Information—Non-construction Programs; SF 424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs. The forms may be reproduced for use in submitting applications. Application materials including forms and instructions are also available from the Contact named in the preamble of this announcement.

An application with an original signature and two clearly identified copies are required. Applicants must clearly indicate on the SF 424 the grant announcement number under which the application is submitted.

The closing date for receipt of applications is (4:30 p.m. Eastern Time Zone) November 1, 2002. Please note that all applications must be received (as opposed to postmarked) in ACF by this date or they will be considered late. Delays caused by express mailing companies are not the responsibility of ACF and negatively affected applications will be considered late. Mailed and hand-carried applications received after the 4:30 p.m. (Eastern Time Zone) deadline on the closing date will be classified as late.

Mailed applications shall be considered as meeting an announced deadline if they are either received on or before the deadline time and date at the: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Grants Management, Division of Discretionary Grants, Attention: Grants Management Officer, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20447. Applicants are responsible for mailing applications well in advance to ensure that applications are received on or before the deadline time and date.

Applications hand-carried by applicants, applicant couriers, overnight/express mail couriers, or by other representatives on behalf of the applicant shall be considered as meeting an announced deadline if they are received on or before the deadline date, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., EST, at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Grants Management, Division of Discretionary Grants, Attention: Grants Management Officer, 4th Floor, Aerospace Building, 901 D Street, SW., Washington, DC 20447 between Monday and Friday (excluding federal holidays). The address must appear on the envelope/package containing the application with the note “Attention: Grants Management Officer.” (Applicants are cautioned that express/overnight mail services do not always deliver as agreed. Delays caused by express mailing companies are not the responsibility of ACF and negatively affected applications will be considered late.)

ACF cannot accommodate transmission of applications by fax or through other electronic media. Therefore, applications transmitted to ACF electronically will not be accepted regardless of date or time of submission and time of receipt.

The federal government has experienced periodic delays in mail delivery through the U.S. Postal Service since fall 2001. In some instances, mail has been delayed up to or over four months. To ensure that ACF receives your application by the (4:30 p.m. Eastern Time Zone) November 1, 2002 deadline, you may wish to send your application via an express mailing service. Also, please send an electronic notification that you have sent an application to Jay Womack at jwomack@acf.hhs.gov and Neil Kromash at nkromash@acf.hhs.gov.

Late applications : Applications that do not meet the criteria above are considered late applications. ACF shall notify each late applicant that its application will not be considered in the current competition.

Extension of deadlines : ACF may extend application deadlines when circumstances such as acts of God ( e.g. floods, hurricanes, etc.) occur, or when there are widespread disruptions of mail service. Determinations to extend or waive deadline requirements rest with the Chief Grants Management Officer.

For Further Information on Application Deadlines Contact : Grants Management Officer, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Grants Management, Division of Discretionary Grants, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20447, Telephone: (202) 401-4577.

Applicants must sign and return the disclosure form, if applicable, with their applications. Applicants requesting financial assistance for non-construction projects must file the Standard Form 424B, “Assurances: Non-Construction Programs.” Applicants must sign and return the Standard Form 424B with their applications.

Applicants must provide a signed certification regarding lobbying with their applications, when applying for an award in excess of $100,000. Applicants who have used non-federal funds for lobbying activities in connection with receiving assistance under this announcement shall complete a disclosure form to report lobbying.

Applicants must make the appropriate certification of their compliance with the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988. By signing and submitting the application, the applicant is providing the certification and need not mail back the certification with the application.

Applicants must make the appropriate certification that they are not presently debarred, suspended or otherwise ineligible for an award. By signing and submitting the application, the applicant is providing the certification and need not mail back the certification with the applications.

The project description provides a major means by which an application is evaluated and ranked to compete with other applications for available assistance. The project description should be concise and complete and should address the activity for which federal funds are being requested. Supporting documents should be included where they can present information clearly and succinctly. Applicants are encouraged to provide information on their organizational structure, staff, related experience, and other information considered relevant. Awarding offices use this and other information to determine whether the applicant has the capability and resources necessary to carry out the proposed project. It is important, therefore, that this information be included in the application. However, in the narrative the applicant must distinguish between resources directly related to the proposed project from those that will not be used in support of the specific project for which funds are requested. Please refer to the UPD sections in the appendix.

Each application narrative should not exceed 20 pages in a 12-pitch font. Attachments and appendices should not exceed 25 pages and should be used only to provide supporting documentation such as administration charts, position descriptions, resumes, and letters of intent or partnership agreements. A table of contents and an executive summary should be included but will not count in the page limitations. Each page should be numbered sequentially, including the attachments and appendices. This limitation of 20 pages should be considered as a maximum, and not necessarily a goal. Application forms are not to be counted in the page limit.

Please do not include books or videotapes as they are not easily reproduced and are, therefore, inaccessible to the reviewers.

Applicable DHHS regulations can be found in 45 CFR Part 74 or 92.

Program income from activities funded under this program may be retained by the recipient and added to the funds committed to the project, and used to further program objectives.

Grantees are required to file the Financial Status Report (SF-269) semi-annually and the Program Performance Reports quarterly, along with the Schedule C of the ORR Quarterly Performance Report.

Funds awarded must be accounted for, and reported under, the distinct grant number ascribed. Although ORR does not expect the proposed projects to include evaluation activities, it does expect grantees to maintain adequate records to track and report on project outcomes and expenditures. The official receipt point for all reports and correspondence is the Grants Management Officer, Administration for Children and Families/Office of Grants Management, Division of Discretionary Grants, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20447, Telephone: (202) 401-4577. An original and one copy of each report shall be submitted within 30 days of the end of each reporting period directly to the Office of Grants Management.

A Final Financial and Program Report shall be due 90 days after the project expiration date or termination of federal budget support.

Under the Secretary of the Interior's authority contained in Sec. 21(a) of the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1566, 1572; 30 U.S.C. 1020) we are expanding the boundaries of the Salt Wells Known Geothermal Resources Area by 6,576.56 acres to include:

Background .—On September 6, 2002, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party response to its notice of institution (67 FR 38333, June 3, 2002) was adequate and the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review. 1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.

Staff report .—A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the review will be placed in the nonpublic record on October 3, 2002, and made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for this review. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission's rules.

Written submissions .—As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission's rules, interested parties that are parties to the review and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution, 2 and any party other than an interested party to the review may file written comments with the Secretary on what determination the Commission should reach in the review. Comments are due on or before October 8, 2002, and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year review nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the review by October 8, 2002. However, should Commerce extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its review, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce's final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce's results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules.

The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means. In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as follows:

It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors will be requested to sign a visitor's register.

Appearing in the listing below are the individual authorities established under Schedule C between August 01, 2002 and August 31, 2002. Future notices will be published on the fourth Tuesday of each month, or as soon as possible thereafter. A consolidated listing of all authorities as of June 30 is published each year.

Special Assistant to the Staff Director, Office of the Staff Director. Effective August 2, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Commissioner. Effective

August 2, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Staff Director, United States Commission on Civil Rights. Effective August 8, 2002.

Administrative Assistant to the Chairman. Effective August 19, 2002.

Staff Assistant (Legal) to the Chairman. Effective August 15, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Chairman. Effective August 16, 2002.

Deputy Press Secretary to the Deputy Chief of Staff. Effective August 12, 2002.

Staff Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff. Effective August 14, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective August 27, 2002.

Water Resources Project Specialist to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Army (Legislation). Effective August 15, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective August 5, 2002.

Director of Scheduling to the Chief of Staff. Effective August 15, 2002.

Senior Analyst to the Director, Bureau of Census. Effective August 22, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Director, Advocacy Center. Effective August 22, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Assistant to the Secretary and Director, Office of Policy and Strategic Planning. Effective August 27, 2002.

Defense Fellow to the Special Assistant to the Secretary for White House Liaison. Effective August 7, 2002.

Deputy White House Liaison to the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for White House Liaison. Effective August 7, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation. Effective August 29, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff of Operations. Effective August 5, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. Effective August 6, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. Effective August 6, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. Effective August 8, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Deputy Director, English Language Acquisition. Effective August 14, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Secretary, Department of Education. Effective August 15, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs. Effective August 15, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement. Effective August 16, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs. Effective August 22, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Director, White House Initiative on Hispanic Education. Effective August 22, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Educational Technology. Effective August 22, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Educational Technology. Effective August 28, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations. Effective August 29, 2002.

Senior Policy Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health. Effective August 13, 2002.

Senior Policy Advisor to the Secretary of Energy. Effective August 20, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Director for Global Health Affairs. Effective August 16, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Executive Secretary. Effective August 28, 2002.

Intergovernmental Relations Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations. Effective August 2, 2002.

Advance Coordinator to the Director, Executive Scheduling. Effective August 7, 2002.

Staff Assistant to the Assistant to the Secretary and White House Liaison. Effective August 13, 2002.

Staff Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. Effective August 14, 2002. Special Projects Coordinator to the Regional Administrator (Southeast/Caribbean). Effective August 14, 2002.

Staff Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Affairs. Effective August 15, 2002.

Staff Assistant to the Assistant to the Secretary and White House Liaison. Effective August 21, 2002.

Staff Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations. Effective August 22, 2002.

Director, Center for Faith Based and Community Initiatives to the Assistant Secretary for Administration. Effective August 26, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective August 13, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management. Effective August 29, 2002.

Special Assistant and Counselor to the Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and Budget. Effective August 30, 2002.

Public Affairs Specialist to the Director, Office of Public Affairs. Effective August 7, 2002.

Secretary (Office Automation) to the United States Attorney, Western District of Louisiana. Effective August 14, 2002.

Public Affairs Specialist to the United States Attorney, Western District of New York. Effective August 22, 2002.

Senior Legislative Officer to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective August 5, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Secretary of Labor. Effective August 7, 2002.

Staff Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Office of Labor Management Standards. Effective August 14, 2002.

Chief of Staff to the Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health. Effective August 21, 2002.

Staff Assistant to the Secretary of Labor. Effective August 22, 2002.

Staff Assistant to the Executive Secretary. Effective August 22, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Public Liaison. Effective August 26, 2002.

Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Public Liaison to the Deputy Under Secretary for International Affairs. Effective August 27, 2002.

Staff Assistant to the Director, Office of the 21st Century Workforce. Effective August 27, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Chief Financial Officer. Effective August 28, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Director of Scheduling and Advance. Effective August 28, 2002.

Research Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective August 28, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. Effective August 28, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management. Effective August 29, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary, Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration. Effective August 29, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Secretary of Labor. Effective August 30, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Resource Management. Effective August 6, 2002.

Staff Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of State. Effective August 15, 2002.

Senior Advisor to the Commissioner, International Joint Commission. Effective August 28, 2002.

Associate Director for Governmental Affairs to the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. Effective August 1, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Administrator, Maritime Administration. Effective August 6, 2002.

Associate Director to the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. Effective August 28, 2002.

Counsel to the Chairman. Effective August 5, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Board Director. Effective August 5, 2002.

Counsel to the Chairman. Effective August 12, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Board Director. Effective August 29, 2002.

Congressional Relations Officer to the Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective August 5, 2002.

Congressional Relations Officer to the Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective August 26, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Regional Administrator, New England Region. Effective August 26, 2002.

Special Assistant to the Chairman. Effective August 14, 2002.

Confidential Assistant to the Board Member. Effective August 28, 2002.

Policy Analyst to the Director, Office of Personnel Management. Effective August 14, 2002.

Deputy Associate Administrator to the Associate Administrator for Communications and Public Liaison. Effective August 12, 2002.

The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 450 5th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0102 (tel. 202-942-8090).

1. Each Fund is a management investment company registered under the Act. PI is an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) and is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of The Prudential Insurance Company of America (“Prudential”). PI serves as investment adviser to each Fund. PI has appointed one or more investment subadvisers (“Sub-Advisers”) to manage certain of the Funds (“Sub-Advised Portfolios”). The Sub-Advised Portfolios that are managed by more than one Sub-Adviser are referred to herein as “Multi-Managed Portfolios”. Each Sub-Adviser is registered under the Advisers Act or is exempt from registration. Each Sub-Adviser is responsible for making independent investment and brokerage allocation decisions for its discrete segment (“Portion”) of a Multi-Managed Portfolio or its Sub-Advised Portfolio based on its own research and credit evaluations. Each Sub-Adviser is paid a fee, based on a percentage of the value of assets under the Sub-Adviser's management, by PI out of the proceeds of the management fee received by PI from the Fund. PIM and Jennison, both of which are indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Prudential, directly advise Portions of Multi-Managed Portfolios and Sub-Advised Portfolios. PI may also directly advise a Portion of a Multi-Managed Portfolio.

2. Applicants request relief to permit: (a) A broker-dealer that serves as a Sub-Adviser or is an affiliated person of a Sub-Adviser (the broker-dealer, an “Affiliated Broker-Dealer;” the Sub-Adviser, an “Affiliated Sub-Adviser”) to engage in principal transactions with a Portion of a Multi-Managed Portfolio that is advised by another Sub-Adviser that is not an affiliated person of the Affiliated Broker-Dealer or Affiliated Sub-Adviser (the Portion, an “Unaffiliated Portion”; the other Sub-Adviser, an “Unaffiliated Sub-Adviser”); (b) Affiliated Broker-Dealers to provide brokerage services to an Unaffiliated Portion of the Multi-Managed Portfolios, and the Unaffiliated Portion to use such brokerage services, without complying with rule 17e-1(b) and (d) under the Act; (c) Unaffiliated Portions of the Multi-Managed Portfolios to purchase securities during the existence of an underwriting syndicate, a principal underwriter of which is an Affiliated Sub-Adviser or a person of which an Affiliated Sub-Adviser is an affiliated person (“Affiliated Underwriter”); (d) a Portion advised by an Affiliated Sub-Adviser (“Affiliated Portion”) to purchase securities during the existence of an underwriting syndicate, a principal underwriter of which is an Affiliated Underwriter, in accordance with the conditions of rule 10f-3, except that paragraph (b)(7) of the rule would not require the aggregation of purchases by the Affiliated Portion with purchases by an Unaffiliated Portion; and (e) the Unaffiliated Portions of the Multi-Managed Portfolios to purchase securities issued by an Affiliated Sub-Adviser, or an affiliated person of an Affiliated Sub-Adviser, engaged in securities-related activities (“Securities Affiliate”), subject to the limits in rule 12d3-1 under the Act. 1

Notice of these meetings is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2.

National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC). The agenda includes the following:

(1) Executive Director's report.

(2) Chairman's session.

(3) Recreational Boating Safety Regulatory Review II Subcommittee report.

(4) Boats and Associated Equipment Subcommittee report.

(5) Aftermarket Marine Equipment Subcommittee report.

(6) Prevention Through People Subcommittee report.

(7) Recreational Boating Safety Program report.

(8) Coast Guard Auxiliary report.

(9) Canadian Coast Guard report.

(10) National Association of State Boating Law Administrators Report.

(11) Presentation on the promulgation and monitoring of DSC—VHF emergency radio service.

(12) Wallop Breaux reauthorization update.

(13) Vessel Identification System (VIS) update.

(14) NOAA's activities in regard to navigation charts and recreational boaters.

(15) Aids to Navigation Issues That Affect Recreational Boaters.

(16) Interpretation on Barge Lighting—relationship between the recreational boaters and commercial vessel operators.

(17) Impact of proposed Department of Homeland Security on the Recreational Boating Safety Program.

Recreational Boating Safety Regulatory Review II Subcommittee. The agenda includes the following:

(1) Review recreational boating safety regulations concerning requirements for manufacturers and importers of recreational vessels to prevent drownings (33 CFR part 183, subparts B, C, D, F, G, H, and L).

(2) Present recommendations to the Council as to whether the current recreational boating safety regulations need to be changed or removed based on a review of need, technical accuracy, cost/benefit, problems and alternatives.

Boats and Associated Equipment Subcommittee. The agenda includes the following: Discuss current regulatory projects, grants, contracts and new issues impacting boats and associated equipment.

Aftermarket Marine Equipment Subcommittee. The agenda includes the following: Discuss current regulatory projects, grants, contracts and new issues impacting aftermarket marine equipment.

Prevention Through People Subcommittee. The agenda includes the following: Discuss current regulatory projects, grants, contracts and new issues impacting prevention through people.

All meetings are open to the public. Please note that the meetings may close early if all business is finished. At the Chairs' discretion, members of the public may make oral presentations during the meetings. If you would like to make an oral presentation at a meeting, please notify the Executive Director no later than October 15, 2002. Written material for distribution at a meeting should reach the Coast Guard no later than October 7, 2002. If you would like a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee or subcommittee in advance of a meeting, please submit 25 copies to the Executive Director no later than October 7, 2002.

For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact the Executive Director as soon as possible.

Notice of these meetings is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2.

National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee. The agenda includes the following:

(1) Report on issues concerning the International Maritime Organization and the International Organization for Standardization.

(2) Report from Liftboat Subcommittee.

(3) Report from Offshore Security Subcommittee.

(4) Report from Task Force on development and implementation of the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) Convention for offshore supply vessels (OSVs).

(5) Progress report from the Subcommittee on Pipeline-Free Anchorages.

(6) Revision of 33 CFR subchapter N.

(7) Status report on Coast Guard/Minerals Management Service Inspection of Fixed Facilities.

(8) MMS/USCG discussion on guarding of temporary deck openings.

Liftboat Subcommittee. The agenda includes the following:

(1) Review and discuss previous work.

(2)Work on outline of Draft Report.

Both meetings are open to the public. Please note that the meetings may close early if all business is finished. At the Chair's discretion, members of the public may make oral presentations during the meetings. If you would like to make an oral presentation at a meeting, please notify the Executive Director no later than October 24, 2002. Written material for distribution at a meeting should reach the Coast Guard no later than October 24, 2002. If you would like a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee or subcommittee in advance of the meeting, please submit 25 copies to the Executive Director ( see ADDRESSES ) no later than October 24, 2002.

For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meetings, telephone the Executive Director at 202 267-0214 as soon as possible.

The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose, and impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Bradford Regional Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Public Law 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).

On August 19, 2002, the FAA determined that the application to impose, and impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by Bradford Regional Airport Authority was substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of Part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than November 14, 2002.

The following is a brief overview of the application.

PFC Application No.: 02-02-C-00-BFD.

Level of the proposed PFC: $4.50.

Proposed charge effective date: May 1, 2003.

Proposed charge expiration date: December 31, 2009.

Total estimated PFC revenue: $414,738.00.

Brief description of proposed project(s):

Class or classes of air carriers which the public agency has requested not be required to collect PFCs: Air Taxi/Commercial Operators filing FAA Form 1800-31.

Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and the FAA regional airports office located at: Eastern Region, Airports Division, AEA-610, 1 Aviation Plaza, Jamaica, New York, 11443.

In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Bradford Regional Airport Authority.

The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application (#02-04-U-00-DRO) to use PFC revenue at Durango-La Plata County Airport, under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 40117 and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).

On September 16, 2002, the FAA determined that the application to use the revenue from a PFC, submitted by the Durango-La Plata County Airport, Durango, Colorado, was substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of Part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than December 17, 2002.

The following is a brief overview of the application.

Level of the proposed PFC: $3.00.

Proposed charge effective date: September 1, 2001.

Proposed charge expiration date: June 1, 2004.

Total requested for approval: $973,140.00.

Brief description of proposed project: Rehabilitate Runway 2/20; Install distance remaining signs.

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

Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA Regional Airports Office located at: Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Airports Division, ANM-600, 1601 Lind Avenue S.W., Suite 315, Renton, WA 98055-4056.

In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Durango-La Plata County Airport.

Title: Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS).

OMB Control Number: 2125-0028 (Expiration Date: February 28, 2003).

Background: The HPMS data that is collected is used for management decisions that affect transportation, including estimates of the Nation's future highway needs and assessments of highway system performance. The information is used by the FHWA to develop and implement legislation and by State and Federal transportation officials to adequately plan, design, and administer effective, safe, and efficient transportation systems. This data is essential to the FHWA and Congress in evaluating the effectiveness of the Federal-aid highway program. The HPMS also provides miles, lane-miles and travel components of the Federal-Aid Highway Fund apportionment formulae. The data that is required by the HPMS is continually reassessed and streamlined by the FHWA.

Respondents: State governments of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the four territories (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, and Virgin Islands).

Estimated Average Burden Per Response: The estimated average burden per response for the annual collection and processing of the HPMS data is 1,440 hours for the States, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and 20 hours for each of the four territories.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: The estimated total annual burden for all respondents is 74,960 hours.

You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of estimated burdens; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that burdens could be minimized, including use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL): http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and help. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem and suitable communications software from the Government Printing Office Electronic Bulletin Board Service at telephone number 202-512-1661. Internet users may reach the Federal Register 's Home Page at http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's database at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Title: A Guide to Reporting Highway Statistics.

OMB Control Number: 2125-0032 (Expiration Date: March 31, 2003).

Background: A Guide to Reporting Highway Statistics provides for the collection of information by describing policies and procedures for assembling statistical data from the existing files of State agencies. The data includes motor-vehicle registration and fees, motor-fuel use and taxation, driver licensing, and highway taxation and finance. Federal, State, and local governments use the data for transportation policy discussions and decisions. Motor-fuel data are used in attributing receipts to the Highway Trust Fund and subsequently in the apportionment formulas that are used to distribute Federal-Aid Highway Funds. The data are published annually in the FHWA's Highway Statistics and Our Nation's Highways. Information from Highway Statistics is used in the joint FHWA and Federal Transit Administration required biennial report to Congress, The Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance Report to Congress, which contrasts present status to future investment needs.

Respondents: State and local governments of the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the four territories (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, and Virgin Islands).

Estimated Average Burden Per Response: The estimated average reporting burden per response for the annual collection of the data is 825.6 hours for the States and the District of Columbia; and 20 hours for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and each of the four territories.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: The estimated total annual burden for all respondents is 42,206 hours.

You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of estimated burdens; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that burdens could be minimized, including use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL): http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and help. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem and suitable communications software from the Government Printing Office Electronic Bulletin Board Service at telephone number 202-512-1661. Internet users may reach the Federal Register's Home Page at http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's database at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Prior to October 26, 2001, the date of enactment of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 (the “USA Patriot Act”), Pub. L. 107-56, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) was a component of the Departmental Offices of the Department of the Treasury. Section 361 of the USA Patriot Act created a new Section 310 in Subchapter I of Chapter 3 of Title 31, United States Code, which established FinCEN as a Treasury bureau.

This document revises eight Treasury-wide notices to reflect FinCEN's new status as a new bureau of the Department.

In addition, the Bureau of the Public Debt has moved its Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act function to its location in Parkersburg, West Virginia. Treasury .004-Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Request Records is being revised to reflect this change in the location of the system and system manager.

Because the described alterations are not considered significant, the reporting requirements of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 do not apply. The proposed alterations to the Treasury systems of records are set forth below.

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

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

Title: Women Veterans Ambulatory Care Use: Patterns, Barriers, and Influences, VA Form 10-21063(NR).

OMB Control Number: 2900—New.

Type of Review: New collection.

Abstract: The purpose of the study is to gain an understanding of VA women veterans' use of health care from the perspective of women. The data collected will: (1) Provide patterns of VA and non-VA ambulatory care use by women veterans, and contrast them to those of male veterans; (2) identify barriers and influences on VA ambulatory care use, including those related to women's military experience, veteran identity, and perceptions about the availability and quality of VA women's health care; (3) identify factors associated with gender gaps in VA ambulatory care use and; (4) apply these findings to develop interventions and policies to improve access of women veterans to VA ambulatory care.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Estimated Annual Burden: 683 hours.

Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent: 20 minutes.

Frequency of Response: One time.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,050.

38 U.S.C. 8161 et seq., specifically provides that the Secretary may enter into an enhanced-use lease, if he determines that: at least part of the property under the lease will be used to provide appropriate space for an activity contributing to the mission of the Department; the lease will not be inconsistent with and will not adversely affect the mission of the Department; and the lease will enhance the property or result in improved services to veterans. This project meets these requirements.